|
Post by tonygreaves on Apr 12, 2020 18:59:16 GMT
Very interesting. I hope they ask the same (or similarly relevant) questions regularly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2020 14:57:44 GMT
If you call him Sir his favourability drops by 2
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Apr 16, 2020 15:51:11 GMT
Some really crap questions in there. The one about shopping "little and often" just shows that pollsters can confuse about 1 in 3 people by asking a bad question. And asking people to give percentage chances with uneven bands makes for horrible data visualization. There are also good questions about overreactions by local authorities and by the police that they have failed to ask. I also don't think that labelling reasonable doubt in the People's Republic of China's disinformation campaign as a "conspiracy theory" is helpful. They tried to cover the outbreak up, succeeded to some extent in pulling the wool over the WHO's eyes (leading to the U.S. defunding them), and the three whistleblowers have been disappeared. We cannot prove or disprove at this stage whether it escaped from a lab where research was being done on bat coronaviruses (research that had been advertised as going on), and it is reasonable to keep an open mind on just this possibility in the light of the PRC's behaviour. All too often this descends into the straw man argument of trying to demonstrate that its being created, i.e. genetically engineered, in a lab is implausible; but what is actually being discussed is selective breeding, which does plausibly come under research. Given Dr Allington's background in countering far-left hate in the UK, he should know better than to put his name to this sort of nonsense that gives succour to the far-left haters of the Chinese Communist Party.
|
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 15,282
|
Post by Sibboleth on Apr 16, 2020 16:07:22 GMT
If you call him Sir his favourability drops by 2 Not statistically meaningful.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2020 17:00:47 GMT
If you call him Sir his favourability drops by 2 Not statistically meaningful. i think perhaps you're taking this too seriously
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Apr 16, 2020 17:46:13 GMT
Not statistically meaningful. i think perhaps you're taking this too seriously "Don't call me Sir!"
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jun 5, 2020 19:52:54 GMT
Just in from Ipsos MORI. Don't have further details at present Though things look a bit different if presented this way
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2020 21:12:31 GMT
Its almost as if you word questions differently you get different answers
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jun 5, 2020 21:20:40 GMT
They're the same questions and same answers, presented in two different ways.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2020 21:22:53 GMT
My apologies
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jun 5, 2020 21:43:56 GMT
Just in from Ipsos MORI. Don't have further details at present Though things look a bit different if presented this way Despite Sir Keir Starmer being known for his role as DPP years prior to his election as Labour leader in April there are still a lot of "Don't Know" responses regarding him in this survey.
|
|
|
Post by tonygreaves on Jun 8, 2020 21:28:42 GMT
29% of people think Johnson pays attention to detail. 27% think he is an honest person. Quite a lot of people do not pay attention!
|
|
|
Post by manchesterman on Jun 8, 2020 21:54:09 GMT
29% of people think Johnson pays attention to detail. 27% think he is an honest person. Quite a lot of people do not pay attention!
|
|
|
Post by pragmaticidealist on Jun 9, 2020 6:44:58 GMT
27% would be 27% too high for any senior politician, in fairness.
|
|
Merseymike
Independent
Posts: 39,145
Member is Online
|
Post by Merseymike on Jun 9, 2020 9:05:50 GMT
It's interesting how we seem to have both a view that leaders do not matter that much and that they do, very much at the same time. Of course this assumes Johnson will want to run again as party leader. I have my doubts.
|
|
|
Post by matureleft on Jun 9, 2020 9:45:43 GMT
It's interesting how we seem to have both a view that leaders do not matter that much and that they do, very much at the same time. Of course this assumes Johnson will want to run again as party leader. I have my doubts. It’s possible to have a form of both views. It’s true that our constitutional arrangements limit the powers of an individual politician - our bicameral system, the permanent civil service, our judicial oversight, the cabinet and internal party dynamics. However it’s undeniably true that the media and popular focus on one person makes how they look, speak and act important. This apparent contradiction, of course, doesn’t help build faith in politics. People mistakenly expect things from individuals that can only be achieved through a system.
|
|
Merseymike
Independent
Posts: 39,145
Member is Online
|
Post by Merseymike on Jun 9, 2020 9:58:54 GMT
It's interesting how we seem to have both a view that leaders do not matter that much and that they do, very much at the same time. Of course this assumes Johnson will want to run again as party leader. I have my doubts. It’s possible to have a form of both views. It’s true that our constitutional arrangements limit the powers of an individual politician - our bicameral system, the permanent civil service, our judicial oversight, the cabinet and internal party dynamics. However it’s undeniably true that the media and popular focus on one person makes how they look, speak and act important. This apparent contradiction, of course, doesn’t help build faith in politics. People mistakenly expect things from individuals that can only be achieved through a system. Yes, true enough. But as leader figures, presidential approaches, become more dominant, then parties are more likely to appear to be constructed in the image of the leader, as we have seen happen to Labour with Blair, Corbyn and now Starmer. It does rather suggest that commitment to ideas and values are quite shallow, given the seeming ability for them to change very quickly to fit in with the agenda of the leader, and those changes cannot be purely explained away by membership numbers, given that most members are entirely inactive anyway
|
|
|
Post by matureleft on Jun 9, 2020 10:01:49 GMT
It’s possible to have a form of both views. It’s true that our constitutional arrangements limit the powers of an individual politician - our bicameral system, the permanent civil service, our judicial oversight, the cabinet and internal party dynamics. However it’s undeniably true that the media and popular focus on one person makes how they look, speak and act important. This apparent contradiction, of course, doesn’t help build faith in politics. People mistakenly expect things from individuals that can only be achieved through a system. Yes, true enough. But as leader figures, presidential approaches, become more dominant, then parties are more likely to appear to be constructed in the image of the leader, as we have seen happen to Labour with Blair, Corbyn and now Starmer. It does rather suggest that commitment to ideas and values are quite shallow, given the seeming ability for them to change very quickly to fit in with the agenda of the leader, and those changes cannot be purely explained away by membership numbers, given that most members are entirely inactive anyway I'd largely agree. However that only disables (and not in all circumstances) one of the constraints on individual behaviour. The others (and they are substantial) remain.
|
|
|
Post by tonygreaves on Jun 9, 2020 11:13:02 GMT
We have GEs in which the leaders are promoted as the party and people are asked to "Vote for Goblin" or whoever to be PM. TRhen the party that gets in changes their leader. Vote Cameron, get May. Vote May, get Johnson. Vote Johnson, get ??
|
|
pl
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,563
|
Post by pl on Jun 9, 2020 11:18:14 GMT
We have GEs in which the leaders are promoted as the party and people are asked to "Vote for Goblin" or whoever to be PM. TRhen the party that gets in changes their leader. Vote Cameron, get May. Vote May, get Johnson. Vote Johnson, get ?? Hello pot, meet kettle. If the Lib Dems had had their way, in the last parliament there would have been a "Government of National Unity" which would have excluded the Conservatives. So Vote May, get Corbyn or Vote May, get Harman. That is FAR more unacceptable.
|
|