Not The Politics Thread.

[What the Fuchs?]

6 hours ago, What the Fuchs? said:

Every time you post polls like this it just highlights how the majority of the population are liberal and progressive, and that conservatives are in the minority (when you take all parties including the SNP into account). Shows how desperately we need Proportional Representation tbh, then we might get governments that actually represent a majority of the country.

@I am Rod Hull I don’t think the need to reform our electoral system is funny at all mate, in 2019 it took:

• 864,743 to elect the lone Green MP
• 642,303 votes for zero Brexit Party MPs
• 334,122 to elect each Liberal Democrat
• 50,817 to elect each Labour MP
• 38,300 votes to elect each Conservative MP
• 38,316 to elect each Plaid Cymru MP
• 25,882 to elect each SNP MP

This will all become worse as well after 2024 gerrymandering...sorry ‘boundary changes’. 45% of votes are wasted, going unrepresented - no wonder turnouts are poor and political apathy is always high, people know their vote doesn’t matter.

Not only is the current electoral system undemocratic and unrepresentative, it is also anachronistic (unsurprising since universal suffrage was only gained less than 100 years ago). It’s essentially geared towards a two party system but as you know there are many different parties - this forces people to engage in tactical voting, or in some cases voting for the least bad option instead of who they really want to vote for. They only party which benefits from this system is the Conservatives, as the progressive vote is split among a number of different parties. This is why they will not fix the electoral system for the democratic benefit of the population, despite their ironic and hypocritical slogan of ‘taking back control’.
 

First Past The Post also creates an ‘elective dictatorship’ whereby a party can gain a minority of the vote which gives them an obscene majority to act in whatever way they choose, beyond any meaningful scrutiny or checks and balances. This is dangerous in the best of times as it can lead to groupthink, hubris (as in the case of Thatcher’s Poll Tax), corruption and abuse of power (the latter two of which have been displayed by the current government). In a more proportional system not only is a more constructive, collaborative government created in a spirit of compromise that is less likely to create an elective dictatorship and greater represents the electorate, but if the electorate don’t like what any governing party has done, they can more easily and decisively punish them at the polls, because the vote is proportionate to seats.

 

Similarly in a proportionate electoral system, parties will be encouraged to emphasise their differences, as people are more freely available to vote for parties that they directly identify with. People will not feel they have to vote for their usual party if they do not agree with the direction of that party: for instance Blairites in the Labour Party under Corbyn could have been successfully represented by a more centrist party, and liberal or Europhile Tories in recent years could have been represented by a party more suited to their beliefs.

 

There’s a long way to go before we can truthfully call ourselves a modern democracy, and I’m not even gonna go into the unelected House of Lords, the unelected and unaccountable Head of State and cash for honours system, and press monopolies for now - the first and easiest thing we should do is ask ourselves is the current electoral system really fair, and what can we do to improve it for all of our benefit. Johnson should put his money (not ours though 😁) where his mouth is, and give the British people control over their own destiny.

 

p.s It’s currently 3am and I know I have insomnia 😂

[Alf Bentley]

7 hours ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Ah yes, that rings a bell. Perhaps rang hers as well 

 

Are you telling me that John Major rang Satan's doorbell and Edwina Currie responded? 

 

Anita Ward's hit "Ring my bell" has had a whole new meaning since all these US Christian fundamentalists on social media started warning young women that Satan's doorbell should not be rung.

Back in 1979, as an innocent 16-17-year-old from an all-boys school, I remember attending a disco at the girls' school and feeling depressed at all the impossibly sophisticated 17-year-old girls, beyond reach, shimmying to that song.

I wasn't invited to ring any bells that evening. 

 

 

 

[Alf Bentley]

7 hours ago, WigstonWanderer said:

This all seems reminiscent of what happened under John Major in the nineties, though as far as I remember, at least it didn’t seem to involve the PM.

 

It is reminiscent of that.The big difference is that under Major all the sleaze allegations came on top of the Black Wednesday devaluation crisis, which shredded the Tory reputation for economic competence.

Whereas currently the Tories continue to ride high in the polls due to the successful vaccination programme, prospect of lockdown ending etc.

 

I'm completely unsurprised that the sleaze allegations are having little impact on the polls, as most folk pay little attention to politics that doesn't directly affect them - and assume that most politicians are dodgy or self-seeking to varying degrees.

Also, many people who like Johnson do so despite being well aware that he's a self-serving, morally corrupt rogue....that's outweighed by thoughts that "he gets things done" or simply that he's more of a "real person" or more entertaining than most politicians, "most of whom are dodgy", anyway....

 

Barring something proven and outrageous, even by Johnson's standards, I reckon the sleaze allegations will only start having an impact is if other important stuff starts going wrong.

As with Major, if say the post-Covid economy crashes, lots of jobs are lost, there are major Brexit disasters or public services are slashed to balance the budget.....then all the sleaze stuff will be layered on top, doing damage.

If everything in the garden is rosy on important real-life stuff, I'm afraid it'll be water off a duck's back for the Tories. Hopefully Labour is playing a long game focusing on this - and will present some visionary ideas of its own as Covid fades.

 

Btw. Anyone else think the outrage at his comments about "bodies piled high" is a bit fabricated? Assuming he said it (and I do assume so - there seem to be several witnesses), he seems to have said it in a moment of anger/frustration on the fringes of a govt meeting. He's not a nice man and it's not a nice thing to say and would be outrageous if it were policy or said publicly, but as an expression of anger/frustration? How many of us have some time said "I'll kill you/him!" and not meant it literally? 

There's plenty of charges to lay at Johnson's door. He's truly unfit to be PM, in my view (first in my lifetime).....but I find such outrage a bit fake and sanctimonious. 

[Voll Blau]

9 hours ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

It's pointing out that maybe, just maybe, it's not as important to everyday folk as it is to those who are more deeply ingrained in the political process.

And nothing has been proved yet. Maybe it will be, maybe it won't.

The issue of redecorating a flat is not, in and of itself, an issue that should or would particularly alarm voters - and I accept that's the case if all people can ever be bothered to do is read headlines and think "big deal, so what". But the deeper issues and principles that lie behind this whole saga should alarm everyone because our national dignity's at stake if we have someone like that running the show. You don't have to be "deeply ingrained in the political process" to care about this, you just have to be paying attention - and we'll be in a huge rut as a country if people stop doing that, whoever happens to be in Downing Street.

 

It's a bit surprising that a journalist would be happy to shrug an issue like this off on the grounds that it doesn't affect their everyday life.

 

 

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Voll Blau said:

The issue of redecorating a flat is not, in and of itself, an issue that should or would particularly alarm voters - and I accept that's the case if all people can ever be bothered to do is read headlines and think "big deal, so what". But the deeper issues and principles that lie behind this whole saga should alarm everyone because our national dignity's at stake if we have someone like that running the show. You don't have to be "deeply ingrained in the political process" to care about this, you just have to be paying attention - and we'll be in a huge rut as a country if people stop doing that, whoever happens to be in Downing Street.

 

It's a bit surprising that a journalist would be happy to shrug an issue like this off on the grounds that it doesn't affect their everyday life.

 

 

I think that would depend on the journalist and their particular feelings on the matter tbh. There's very little reporting that might be called totally impartial on political issues.

 

 

[Voll Blau]

16 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I think that would depend on the journalist and their particular feelings on the matter tbh. There's very little reporting that might be called totally impartial on political issues.

 

 

I'd argue this isn't a political issue, it's an issue of alleged corruption in public office.

 

Guess the problem is the person involved is the leader of a political party which means, as you say, people will see it as a partisan issue when it isn't.

[leicsmac]

51 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

I'd argue this isn't a political issue, it's an issue of alleged corruption in public office.

 

Guess the problem is the person involved is the leader of a political party which means, as you say, people will see it as a partisan issue when it isn't.

Precisely.

 

Such things, like a lot of scientific matters that have somehow become politicised despite being bloody obvious, really shouldn't be a matter of partisanship but they are.

[UpTheLeagueFox]

2 hours ago, Voll Blau said:

It's a bit surprising that a journalist would be happy to shrug an issue like this off on the grounds that it doesn't affect their everyday life.

There are plenty of things across the world which trouble me but equally I try not to let those things affect my everyday life too much.

I don't consider that an unusual stance to take.

[leicsmac]

17 minutes ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

There are plenty of things across the world which trouble me but equally I try not to let those things affect my everyday life too much.

I don't consider that an unusual stance to take.

I agree it isn't an unusual stance, but pardon the personal question...why do you think that way?

 

Feel free to not answer, but I'm genuinely interested.

[Voll Blau]

Now here's a poll and a half...

 

 

[Finnaldo]

2 hours ago, Voll Blau said:

Now here's a poll and a half...

 

 

Aren’t German Greens a bit more to the right compared to their British counterparts? Like Lib Dems with a particularly environmentalist twist? 

[Corky]

Anyone up for pranking Boris later?

[UpTheLeagueFox]

5 hours ago, leicsmac said:

I agree it isn't an unusual stance, but pardon the personal question...why do you think that way?

Feel free to not answer, but I'm genuinely interested.

Everyone has things going on in their lives which take priority - domestic issues, work etc - and I choose to mainly focus on controlling what I can control.

Lots of other stuff in the world becomes a lot of white noise, not that I don't care, just that I try and prioritise what occupies my thoughts.

I try and have positive thoughts because that helps my mental well being and allows me to remain as chilled out and calm as possible.

[Tuna]

 

[Leicester_Loyal]

17 minutes ago, Tuna said:

 

Geoff will be hiding behind the settee after this. 
 

Hopefully this will encourage the Tories to open up as planned. 

[UpTheLeagueFox]

2 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

Geoff will be hiding behind the settee after this. 

LABOUR SURGE!

[leicsmac]

8 hours ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

Everyone has things going on in their lives which take priority - domestic issues, work etc - and I choose to mainly focus on controlling what I can control.

Lots of other stuff in the world becomes a lot of white noise, not that I don't care, just that I try and prioritise what occupies my thoughts.

I try and have positive thoughts because that helps my mental well being and allows me to remain as chilled out and calm as possible.

Thank you for the response.

 

I can understand why folks choose to compartmentalise like that - one can only have so many spoons, after all and self-care is important. For me, however, I think I'm always going to prioritise the "other stuff" as well as what's going on in my own life, because firstly I know that some of it will end up rebounding on me and mine anyway if it isn't addressed, and secondly...well, because that's the way I think, same as you have yours.

[Facecloth]

On 29/04/2021 at 19:11, UpTheLeagueFox said:

The press and media has been full of alleged Tory sleaze for a week or two.

Let's see how much difference it makes to the electorate.

Oh...........

 

 

I didn't know this until today, do you know who founded YouGov? Nadhim Zahawi, and he still has a stake in it. I wonder why a tory founded, tory owned pollster might want to show the tories with a healthy lead. I think in future we should avoid YouGov and look a less biased polls when you feel the need to share your poll fetish.

Edited 1 May 2021 by Facecloth

[Chocolate Teapot]

Thought voters didn't care about sleeve? Swear someone alleged that....

[Facecloth]

1 minute ago, Chocolate Teapot said:

Thought voters didn't care about sleeve? Swear someone alleged that....

Do voters only wear vests?

[UpTheLeagueFox]

3 hours ago, Facecloth said:

I didn't know this until today, do you know who founded YouGov? Nadhim Zahawi, and he still has a stake in it. I wonder why a tory founded, tory owned pollster might want to show the tories with a healthy lead.

I think in future we should avoid YouGov and look a less biased polls when you feel the need to share your poll fetish.

In their last poll before the 2019 General Election, and with a huge sample size of over 100,000 (it's usually 2 or 3 thousand), You Gov predicted Conservatives on 43% and Labour on 34%

They marginally understated the Tories and by 2% overstated on Labour.

In the two previous polls before that, they marginally understated both and the one before those was pretty much bang on the money for the GE result.

That kind of ruins your point about a Tory bias.

And that near to a GE, wouldn't you think that it would better to show it was a close run thing to avoid apathy from Tory voters to get them out to the polling stations?

 

Oh and in the past couple of months, three other pollsters - Survation, Opinium and Redfield & Wilton - have all shown the Conservatives with a double digit lead at some point. Other pollsters have also had the Cons with big leads in the past month - Number Cruncher Politics 9%, SavantaComRes 9%, Deltapoll 9%, Kantar 8%, DeltaPoll 8%. They're not all Tory-owned are they, Facecloth?

 

A couple of recent polls have shown an improvement for Sir Kieth's mob. Labour only 1% behind according to Survation and Focaldata this week so it seems some of the bad headlines for the Govt are finally having an impact. Although it's 5% with Opinium and 9% with Number Cruncher Politics in the past week. (Neither I believe are Tory-owned/founded.)

[Facecloth]

2 hours ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

In their last poll before the 2019 General Election, and with a huge sample size of over 100,000 (it's usually 2 or 3 thousand), You Gov predicted Conservatives on 43% and Labour on 34%

They marginally understated the Tories and by 2% overstated on Labour.

In the two previous polls before that, they marginally understated both and the one before those was pretty much bang on the money for the GE result.

That kind of ruins your point about a Tory bias.

And that near to a GE, wouldn't you think that it would better to show it was a close run thing to avoid apathy from Tory voters to get them out to the polling stations?

 

Oh and in the past couple of months, three other pollsters - Survation, Opinium and Redfield & Wilton - have all shown the Conservatives with a double digit lead at some point. Other pollsters have also had the Cons with big leads in the past month - Number Cruncher Politics 9%, SavantaComRes 9%, Deltapoll 9%, Kantar 8%, DeltaPoll 8%. They're not all Tory-owned are they, Facecloth?

 

A couple of recent polls have shown an improvement for Sir Kieth's mob. Labour only 1% behind according to Survation and Focaldata this week so it seems some of the bad headlines for the Govt are finally having an impact. Although it's 5% with Opinium and 9% with Number Cruncher Politics in the past week. (Neither I believe are Tory-owned/founded.)

Sorry meant to say why would a Tory party in the middle of a sleaze controversy want to show they have a big lead.

 

Sorry for making you do all that research though, I thought all this was inconsequential to anyway and wasn't a huge part of your life. Seems you spent a lot of time collecting data on something you don't really care about 

[Strokes]

2 hours ago, Facecloth said:

Sorry meant to say why would a Tory party in the middle of a sleaze controversy want to show they have a big lead.

 

Sorry for making you do all that research though, I thought all this was inconsequential to anyway and wasn't a huge part of your life. Seems you spent a lot of time collecting data on something you don't really care about 

It’s nice that by posting polls it appears to have created a discussion point, so far away from an election. Clearly they do add value to a thread. I look forward to further updates @UpTheLeagueFox

Edited 2 May 2021 by Strokes

[Facecloth]

1 minute ago, Strokes said:

It’s nice that by posting polls it appears to have created a discussion point, so far away from an election. Clearly they do add value to a thread. I look forward to further updates @UpTheLeagueFox

They do now we know they are from a a biased source.

 

I also noticed Geoff using the stupid Keith joke again which he still can't explain, but we'll leave that there shall we.

[Strokes]

1 minute ago, Facecloth said:

They do now we know they are from a a biased source.

 

I also noticed Geoff using the stupid Keith joke again which he still can't explain, but we'll leave that there shall we.

Was Keith banned then? I don’t recall the memo.

I’m pretty sure Jeff adds polls from different sources, not just Yougov. Also Yougov’s accuracy has been quite good for a number of years, it might not be wise to accuse them of deliberately manipulating figures based on nothing but who their founder is. Do you have any more evidence?