|
|
Post by Pacifico on Aug 17, 2023 6:31:53 GMT
Well the reason that poll results are scoffed at is their record surely?
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Aug 17, 2023 6:43:29 GMT
I keep on explaining it to you, but you appear not to be listening. If BOTH (or all) parties side against a significant bulk of public opinion, the public do not get a choice on the matter through an election - ergo, the electoral success of the policy cannot be caused by public opinion because the alternative choice was not there. I cited immigration of an example of this tactic being used. I think this is simple enough - you are likely engaging in avoidance The significant bulk of public opinion? Who decides that? On here any mention of poll results is scoffed at. Those polls say: 75% of UK citizens believe in man made climate change and want net zero 55% of UK citizens think we should re-join the EU. 65% of UK citizens think we should increase income tax. 66% of UK citizens think we should renationalise the power companies. I would say a significant number of people want all these things. This is total non sequitur My point is, If people are presented with a choice then they have made a choice, not so much if they haven't. For some reason you are tying yourself in knots to avoid the obvious. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2023 7:19:45 GMT
The significant bulk of public opinion? Who decides that? On here any mention of poll results is scoffed at. Those polls say: 75% of UK citizens believe in man made climate change and want net zero 55% of UK citizens think we should re-join the EU. 65% of UK citizens think we should increase income tax. 66% of UK citizens think we should renationalise the power companies. A significant number of people want all these things This is total non sequitur If people are presented with a choice then they have made a choice, not so much if they haven't. For some reason you are tying yourself in knots to avoid the obvious. Sure, but would they actually vote for them? The polls in question are meaningless, since they only address a tiny fraction of the population and are usually worded and chained to get the 'correct' response. Would the people all vote to make themselves poorer, which Zanygame is clearly suggesting? I very much doubt it, which is why democracy is now seen, by a growing many, as a problem.
A democracy works to the benefit of a majority. This is generally a bad thing for the elitist narcissists who benefit from minority group sponsorship and division.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Aug 17, 2023 7:27:30 GMT
A significant number of people want all these things This is total non sequitur If people are presented with a choice then they have made a choice, not so much if they haven't. For some reason you are tying yourself in knots to avoid the obvious. Sure, but would they actually vote for them? The polls in question are meaningless, since they only address a tiny fraction of the population and are usually worded and chained to get the 'correct' response. Indeed - it's worth bearing in mind that a poll figure on its own is practically zero information about sentiment. However, repeated and varied polls all showing similar things is enough to show that some large, but inaccurately quantified, number of people feel a particular way |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Aug 17, 2023 8:07:34 GMT
A significant number of people want all these things This is total non sequitur If people are presented with a choice then they have made a choice, not so much if they haven't. For some reason you are tying yourself in knots to avoid the obvious. Sure, but would they actually vote for them? The polls in question are meaningless, since they only address a tiny fraction of the population and are usually worded and chained to get the 'correct' response. Would the people all vote to make themselves poorer, which Zanygame is clearly suggesting? I very much doubt it, which is why democracy is now seen, by a growing many, as a problem.
A democracy works to the benefit of a majority. This is generally a bad thing for the elitist narcissists who benefit from minority group sponsorship and division. A lot of people tell pollsters that they want higher taxes but when it comes to voting for them at the polling station that enthusiasm suddenly disappears - as the LibDems found out.. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Aug 17, 2023 20:47:45 GMT
The significant bulk of public opinion? Who decides that? On here any mention of poll results is scoffed at. Those polls say: 75% of UK citizens believe in man made climate change and want net zero 55% of UK citizens think we should re-join the EU. 65% of UK citizens think we should increase income tax. 66% of UK citizens think we should renationalise the power companies. I would say a significant number of people want all these things. This is total non sequitur My point is, If people are presented with a choice then they have made a choice, not so much if they haven't. For some reason you are tying yourself in knots to avoid the obvious. Do you ever come into contact with reality? How often are people presented with a choice by government? Elections come with a choice something like this. Party 1. We will give you new sofas and a fitted kitchen and boil your children Party 2. We will burn your parents and give you a nice chalet on the coast. Your choice. Some choice.  The idea that people voted Boris for Brexit was ridiculous when the other choice was Corbyn. That you try you simplify that down to "choice" is beyond naïve |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Aug 17, 2023 20:56:51 GMT
I would say a significant number of people want all these things. This is total non sequitur My point is, If people are presented with a choice then they have made a choice, not so much if they haven't. For some reason you are tying yourself in knots to avoid the obvious. The idea that people voted Boris for Brexit was ridiculous when the other choice was Corbyn. Oh i see what's bothering you now lol I think typically parties split rafts of policies so that it splits the population in two Party 1 offering the popular converse of party 2. (there are reasons this happens naturally) In this case, there is a good argument to say that people get to prioritise and therefore choose. For example, the four bad policies of party 1 outweigh the one policy of theirs you like - ergo you vote for party 2 and get mostly what you want. The exception is when both parties line up against a popular choice. In that case, there is no good argument that there is any real level of choice available. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Aug 17, 2023 21:20:25 GMT
The idea that people voted Boris for Brexit was ridiculous when the other choice was Corbyn. Oh i see what's bothering you now lol I think typically parties split rafts of policies so that it splits the population in two Party 1 offering the popular converse of party 2. (there are reasons this happens naturally) In this case, there is a good argument to say that people get to prioritise and therefore choose. For example, the four bad policies of party 1 outweigh the one policy of theirs you like - ergo you vote for party 2 and get mostly what you want. The exception is when both parties line up against a popular choice. In that case, there is no good argument that there is any real level of choice available. Yes that's the reality. What I object to is people ignoring that prioritising people have to make and pretending that it means they support everything the elected government did. When both parties line up against a popular choice, you perhaps need to look inward and ask if it really is that popular. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Aug 17, 2023 21:29:13 GMT
Oh i see what's bothering you now lol I think typically parties split rafts of policies so that it splits the population in two Party 1 offering the popular converse of party 2. (there are reasons this happens naturally) In this case, there is a good argument to say that people get to prioritise and therefore choose. For example, the four bad policies of party 1 outweigh the one policy of theirs you like - ergo you vote for party 2 and get mostly what you want. The exception is when both parties line up against a popular choice. In that case, there is no good argument that there is any real level of choice available. Yes that's the reality. What I object to is people ignoring that prioritising people have to make and pretending that it means they support everything the elected government did. When both parties line up against a popular choice, you perhaps need to look inward and ask if it really is that popular. Eh? - Both parties were lined up against leaving the EU. Yet once the public got a say here we are 7 years later.. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Aug 17, 2023 21:56:23 GMT
Yes that's the reality. What I object to is people ignoring that prioritising people have to make and pretending that it means they support everything the elected government did. When both parties line up against a popular choice, you perhaps need to look inward and ask if it really is that popular. Eh? - Both parties were lined up against leaving the EU. Yet once the public got a say here we are 7 years later.. An exception to the rule. And how little that happens. And the public have changed their minds but will never get another vote. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Aug 17, 2023 22:20:05 GMT
Oh i see what's bothering you now lol I think typically parties split rafts of policies so that it splits the population in two Party 1 offering the popular converse of party 2. (there are reasons this happens naturally) In this case, there is a good argument to say that people get to prioritise and therefore choose. For example, the four bad policies of party 1 outweigh the one policy of theirs you like - ergo you vote for party 2 and get mostly what you want. The exception is when both parties line up against a popular choice. In that case, there is no good argument that there is any real level of choice available. When both parties line up against a popular choice, you perhaps need to look inward and ask if it really is that popular. umm. If both parties line up against a popular choice, then there is no doubt at all that the choice is popular. It's part of the premise. |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Aug 18, 2023 6:39:11 GMT
In England and wales national grid plc So this is all going to remain private - is it private now? thats a good question National Grid plc tries to pretend it is owned by the network companies. It is in fact one of the largest investor owned companies in the FTSE 100, and has significant assets in America and a rather rich CEO In any other country this would be called a scam |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Aug 18, 2023 6:43:59 GMT
When both parties line up against a popular choice, you perhaps need to look inward and ask if it really is that popular. umm. If both parties line up against a popular choice, then there is no doubt at all that the choice is popular. It's part of the premise. Well yes...back to reality. Orac wrote: How did the British public end up with (choose) that unsavoury compromise? They did so because the other bargain offered looked even worse. Zany wrote: Are you really suggesting the public was offered a choice? Orac wrote: Yes. The British public had a choice between a nationalised provider that might be used to overturn elections and a private-ish approach that would reliably provide electricity. None of your theorising makes your claim true. |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Aug 18, 2023 6:45:20 GMT
The whole mess is caused by successive administrations short termism without regard to our energy security,that and allowing essential utilities to be foreign owned.
And as with other things we are a laughing stock. With regards to energy security and foreign ownership - the last time we had widespread power cuts was when the system was owned and controlled by the UK State. That is not to say that ownership doesn't matter, but it is not the magic bullet than some believe. Yes i remember the three day week very well. I remember for example the minimal interest rate mortgages banks offered their employers. I remember the jobs everyone had. I remember in particular the standard of living those jobs provided, and the degree to which the state was prevented from invading the personal life of UK citizens. All in all i think not for the first time i’d much prefer to have been my father, nazi V1 and V2 attacks on his father’s work notwithstanding. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Aug 18, 2023 7:01:24 GMT
With regards to energy security and foreign ownership - the last time we had widespread power cuts was when the system was owned and controlled by the UK State. That is not to say that ownership doesn't matter, but it is not the magic bullet than some believe. Yes i remember the three day week very well. I remember for example the minimal interest rate mortgages banks offered their employers. I remember the jobs everyone had. I remember in particular the standard of living those jobs provided, and the degree to which the state was prevented from invading the personal life of UK citizens. All in all i think not for the first time i’d much prefer to have been my father, nazi V1 and V2 attacks on his father’s work notwithstanding. Oh I agree that life was better in the 60's, 70's and 80's - but the joys of nationalised industries were not one of the major benefits.. |
|
