British 2015 general election poll

[Ad Nihilo]

The realities of politics becomes very meaningful when you consider the fact that it includes the patters of international politics, law and trade.

Which are matters reserved to Government and not MPs. So you are back to a handful of well informed MPs.

A handful of informed MPs in government have executive portfolios in these areas. Which is not the same as having all power.

In any case, my argument is that this is a better system than having referenda on these issues because "the mass" have a pretty good track record of making dumb collective decisions.

As the implications of our departure from the EU are at present, a complete counter-factual, so are politicians.

Incorrect. These things can, to a certain extent be modelled. They don't know (in the strict sense), but they sure have a better idea than Dave the Bricklayer from Swansea.

all MPs have an immediate incentive and every available means to inform themselves with regards the economic issues.

As does anyone.

And do they actually take the time to inform themselves of the economic issues, properly, at the macro level?

Even the most silly backbencher can put up a reasonable showing in a Question Time.

Its amazing what intense briefing by the Civil Service or Party political advisors can accomplish. a showing on question time is just that, a showing. It's lines and arguments that have been prepared and polished and tested by many, many other people.

Yup. A lot of brain power has gone into those arguments and tag lines. Unlike in the brain farts often produced by the average member of the public.

They experience local issues and individual circumstances. From which you cannot draw any inference to the macro-economy.

the macro-economy is hardly the only issue. but even if it was, if it fails to relate to individual and local circumstances what is the point of it?

Parallel arguments can be made about every single issue. A voter will only be directly acquainted with his own individual circumstances. Then only valid evidence base for policy-making is macro statistics.

And there is a relationship between local and macro circumstances. What is not the case is that you can say anything about the macro from one data point of local, individual experience. But if you get the macro dynamics right, that will imply a positive effect on most people's individual circumstances. That is why, for the sake of everyone, you cannot make policy on the basis of the anecdotal personal experience and ill informed opinions of the average voter.

[Ad Nihilo]

1. Well It depends what you mean by "man of the people". If by that you mean the ability to understand the minds, motivations and problems of voters, then yes I think that plays a large part. For instance someone who knows what its like to grow up in social housing or has an understanding of the people who do will be able to deal with this issue better than someone who just understands stats and data. Obviously understanding those things are very important too but I think better candidates can and should do both. I don't think having a pint, liking football or watching X factor is important in politicians - understanding issues on a more personal level is to a great extent.

I'm not disagreeing with you that having both will help a politician.

All I keep arguing is that a politician thinking that he has "the ability to understand the minds, motivations and problems of voters" raises the risk that he will not ask, or do the necessary empirical research, to make sure.

And you can be a "man of the people" like Farage, and not give a flying fuck about what it's like for people who live in social housing.

As far as I can see, "being a man of the people" (ill defined as the concept is), can help a politician, but it is neither necessary nor sufficient to be a good representative. That is what I am saying.

2. Then inform people. I think the best way to get people informed is to actually engage them with politics and politicians. If someone knows all the facts, stats ETC AND isn't an awkward shuffling political droid then this helps engage people in politics. Idiots may sway the vote but that doesn't have to be the case - personable politicians who understand people is a good way forward.

Easier said than done. And what do you do about the people (and there are plenty of these) who do not want to be informed. Like my mother, for example. She humours me and listens to my rants on politics, but clearly he eyes glaze out and stare into the void every time I start speaking. And then she'll say something inane about who looks better as a Prime Minister.

And in all fairness, she does work too much. I reckon she deserves the down-time of not having to think about this shit non-stop.

3. I never said that politicians should be purely representative of what people think and not use their judgement. They add value because of their expertise and judgement. This isn't mutually exclusive with representing what the people who elected you think.

It is mutually exclusive / inconsistent if what people think is in their interest and what is actually in their interest are the exact opposite thing. Case in point: membership of the EU.

Also if all you have to be good at is anyalysiging facts and data then having "politicians" as we understand them is pointless anyway. Hand over the reigns to civil servants and researchers.

Well this is mostly how it's done already. The politicians are there to absorb the backlash from us when we, the public, got it wrong.

4. I don't think elitism and democracy are mutually exclusive. However I would argue that delivering what voters want against evidence can enhance the well being of voters. Say an elderly couple want fewer immigrants because it's changed the character of the are they've lived in for 50 years. Immigrants are net contributours to the economy, help improve services by filling staffing gaps ETC HOWEVER not to the extent where this couple notice any meaningfull difference in their lives. Is immigration still in the interets of that couple or other people in the community who have the same convictions? Yeah its an extreme example but is the logic unsound?

They are not mutually exclusive in principle. It is not a logical / necessary truth that they are inconsistent.

And your example is kinda besides the point. You have defined the interests of your elderly couple in your example to coincide with their prejudices. So that does not really refute anything I've said.

My argument works on the basis of what is in the interest of Britain overall / in aggregate, and the fact that there are enough people who seem intent on voting against their direct long-term interest, in order for the country to do a really dumb thing.

[The UK in Exile]

The realities of politics becomes very meaningful when you consider the fact that it includes the patters of international politics, law and trade.

Which are matters reserved to Government and not MPs. So you are back to a handful of well informed MPs.

A handful of informed MPs in government have executive portfolios in these areas. Which is not the same as having all power.

In any case, my argument is that this is a better system than having referenda on these issues because "the mass" have a pretty good track record of making dumb collective decisions.

As the implications of our departure from the EU are at present, a complete counter-factual, so are politicians.

Incorrect. These things can, to a certain extent be modelled. They don't know (in the strict sense), but they sure have a better idea than Dave the Bricklayer from Swansea.

As does anyone.

And do they actually take the time to inform themselves of the economic issues, properly, at the macro level?

Its amazing what intense briefing by the Civil Service or Party political advisors can accomplish. a showing on question time is just that, a showing. It's lines and arguments that have been prepared and polished and tested by many, many other people.

Yup. A lot of brain power has gone into those arguments and tag lines. Unlike in the brain farts often produced by the average member of the public.

the macro-economy is hardly the only issue. but even if it was, if it fails to relate to individual and local circumstances what is the point of it?

Parallel arguments can be made about every single issue. A voter will only be directly acquainted with his own individual circumstances. Then only valid evidence base for policy-making is macro statistics.

And there is a relationship between local and macro circumstances. What is not the case is that you can say anything about the macro from one data point of local, individual experience. But if you get the macro dynamics right, that will imply a positive effect on most people's individual circumstances. That is why, for the sake of everyone, you cannot make policy on the basis of the anecdotal personal experience and ill informed opinions of the average voter.

A handful of informed MPs in government have executive portfolios in these areas. Which is not the same as having all power.

Of course, they are answerable to MPs. the majority of which, will be no better informed than the average member of public.

And do they actually take the time to inform themselves of the economic issues, properly, at the macro level?

No. So errr, how are they different from politicians again?

Yup. A lot of brain power has gone into those arguments and tag lines.

Not from elected politicans though. They've directed them to be prepared based on their understanding of what the electorate desires to see enacted.

Then only valid evidence base for policy-making is macro statistics.

Its frankly un-informative, and obviously uninformative, on the issues the electorate face. For example even if it answered the question of how much we should cut (and it doesn't) it doesn't provide any help in weighing say, health against welfare, or aid versus defence.

A voter will only be directly acquainted with his own individual circumstances.

and the average MP will be focused on those individual circumstances to. after-all, its a large part of the job.

Then only valid evidence base for policy-making is macro statistics.

It might point to the existence of a problem, it tells you almost nothing about what to do about the problem.

[Salandriagado]

well i'll vote for both of em then just to make sure

It's possible to have 2 votes if you live away from home and have a proxy voter.

Not true. You can register in both constituencies, but for any particular general election, you may only vote in one constituency. You are, however, permitted to vote in both sets of local elections (basically any election that isn't a general or European election).

[Salandriagado]

I did one of those citizenship tests out of curiosity.

I found mistakes in the questions.

"The Middle Ages or the medieval period was a time of almost constant war" - Answer (apparently): True

That's the most obvious one I spotted on page 2; I have no appetite to look through 46 more pages, but it seems fairly apparent that this bullshit test needs to just piss off and die in a corner.

The words 'Britain', 'British Isles' or 'British' are used in this test to refer to everyone in
(Choose any 4 answers)
England
The Isle of Man
Scotland
Wales
Channel Islands
Northern Ireland
Republic of Ireland

Britain and "British Isles" are not the same thing.

Lent begins on _____
Good Friday
Ash Wednesday
Good Friday
St Valentine's Day

Really, they couldn't even think of three wrong answers?

People usually have roast ______ for Christmas Dinner
Turkey
Lamb
Chicken
Beef

It's been at least three years since I had turkey.

In England, judges developed 'common law' by a process of tradition and precedence that is, following previous decisions
True
False

That's not even a sentence.

The period after the Norman Conquest up until about 1485 is called
(Choose any 2 answers)
The Age of Discovery
The Middle Ages
The Medieval period
The Renaissance
Late Antiquity

That start date is 600 years late.

Everyone in the UK with a TV, computer or other medium which can be used for watching TV must have a ______
television licence
copyright licence
driving licence
personal licence

None of them - you only need a TV licence if you're actually using it to watch live TV. This question is repeated, in different but equally wrong wording, elsewhere.

The Speaker is chosen by other MPs in a secret ballot
True
False


How is the Speaker elected?
The Archbishop of Canterbury chooses him/her
The Queen chooses him/her
The PM chooses him/her
by fellow MPs

Literally adjacent questions


What is the minimum age to drive a car or motorcycle in the UK?
16
17
18
21

In the UK, you must be at least ______ years old to drive a car or motor cycle
16
17
18
21

A tad unimaginative there - they're literally two questions apart - numerous other repeat questions throughout.

At the beginning of the Middle Ages, Ireland was an independent country
Yes, this is true
No, Ireland was part of the United Kingdom

Neither - it was composted of at least five distinct major countries. Six hundred years later, at their (wrong) date for the start of the middle ages, this was less wrong - there were at least people calling themselves High King of Ireland then.

Who used a system of land ownership known as feudalism?
The Anglo-Saxons
The Normans
The Romans
The Vikings

Well, at least there's a wrong answer. The Normans is the only "correct" answer, in case anyone was wondering.

The United Nations (UN) is an international organisation with more than ______ countries as members
90
130
160
190

This one doesn't, though.

Other ones most people wouldn't know from the first few pages:

Page 1: 1,4,11,20,21,22
Page 2: 1,10,15
Page 3: 9,17,19
Page 4: 3 (repeat question), 9,16,20
Page 5: 24
Page 6: 3
Page 7: 3,20,24
Page 8: 12,13

[Ad Nihilo]

Of course, they are answerable to MPs. the majority of which, will be no better informed than the average member of public.

No. So errr, how are they different from politicians again?

Not from elected politicans though. They've directed them to be prepared based on their understanding of what the electorate desires to see enacted.

Okay so it's now become pointless debating about this.

I'm saying: MPs are on average better informed to make political and economic decisions, for all the reasons I've enumerated.

You're saying: No they are not. Because they are not.

I guess in absence of direct tests and surveys you're going to stick to your position, regardless of the indirect indicators.

Then only valid evidence base for policy-making is macro statistics.

Its frankly un-informative, and obviously uninformative, on the issues the electorate face. For example even if it answered the question of how much we should cut (and it doesn't) it doesn't provide any help in weighing say, health against welfare, or aid versus defence.

A voter will only be directly acquainted with his own individual circumstances.

and the average MP will be focused on those individual circumstances to. after-all, its a large part of the job.

Then only valid evidence base for policy-making is macro statistics.

It might point to the existence of a problem, it tells you almost nothing about what to do about the problem.

This is just tiresome now. We have a body of hypotheses about what effects policy changes will have on social issues at societal level, we do research in this area all the time, we carry out pilot schemes and regional experiments and we have an ample reservoir of historical evidence to draw upon as well. Evidence based policy is something which, although not perfect, works often enough and produces better results than say, the hunches of a guy in a pub. That just happens to be demonstrable fact. If you don't like it then you can go and vote for the guy in the pub in protest. But don't pretend that this is somehow an intelligent or reasonable approach.

[Imperializt Russia]

"The Middle Ages or the medieval period was a time of almost constant war" - Answer (apparently): True

That's the most obvious one I spotted on page 2; I have no appetite to look through 46 more pages, but it seems fairly apparent that this bullshit test needs to just piss off and die in a corner.

-snip-

You realise that's the full list of possible questions that may appear right, and that no-one taking the citizenship test will have to answer all 1100+ questions, right?
I don't complain that the DVLA Theory Test questions are "repeated" with slight changes in my Highway Code Test Book - they don't put the same question twice on the Theory Test.

[The UK in Exile]

Of course, they are answerable to MPs. the majority of which, will be no better informed than the average member of public.

No. So errr, how are they different from politicians again?

Not from elected politicans though. They've directed them to be prepared based on their understanding of what the electorate desires to see enacted.

Okay so it's now become pointless debating about this.

I'm saying: MPs are on average better informed to make political and economic decisions, for all the reasons I've enumerated.

You're saying: No they are not. Because they are not.

I guess in absence of direct tests and surveys you're going to stick to your position, regardless of the indirect indicators.

Its frankly un-informative, and obviously uninformative, on the issues the electorate face. For example even if it answered the question of how much we should cut (and it doesn't) it doesn't provide any help in weighing say, health against welfare, or aid versus defence.



and the average MP will be focused on those individual circumstances to. after-all, its a large part of the job.



It might point to the existence of a problem, it tells you almost nothing about what to do about the problem.

This is just tiresome now. We have a body of hypotheses about what effects policy changes will have on social issues at societal level, we do research in this area all the time, we carry out pilot schemes and regional experiments and we have an ample reservoir of historical evidence to draw upon as well. Evidence based policy is something which, although not perfect, works often enough and produces better results than say, the hunches of a guy in a pub. That just happens to be demonstrable fact. If you don't like it then you can go and vote for the guy in the pub in protest. But don't pretend that this is somehow an intelligent or reasonable approach.

I'm saying: MPs are on average better informed to make political and economic decisions, for all the reasons I've enumerated.

I'm disagreeing, because they aren't so much reasons as innaccurate generalizations.

This is just tiresome now. We have a body of hypotheses about what effects policy changes will have on social issues at societal level, we do research in this area all the time, we carry out pilot schemes and regional experiments and we have an ample reservoir of historical evidence to draw upon as well.

We? You're a government minister now?

[Ad Nihilo]

I'm disagreeing, because they aren't so much reasons as innaccurate generalizations.

They are necessarily generalisations in virtue of the fact that I am talking about the average MP vs the average voter. Of course they are generalisations.

As for inaccurate: I'm going to infer from your spelling that you are not very closely acquainted with either British MPs or or the British public. Or at least that you are less acquainted with both sets of people than I am. (But just to be clear, if you are inferring what MPs are like from what US Representatives are, don't. The two are a completely different kettle gigs)

We? You're a government minister now?

We as a society. Evidence-based policy is something that happens throughout public administration, from Parliament down to your town council or school.

Also we in Western societies. In some countries and in some areas within countries more than in others, but this is how it's done.

[Salandriagado]

-snip-

You realise that's the full list of possible questions that may appear right, and that no-one taking the citizenship test will have to answer all 1100+ questions, right?
I don't complain that the DVLA Theory Test questions are "repeated" with slight changes in my Highway Code Test Book - they don't put the same question twice on the Theory Test.

I know - I just noted the repeats where they'd repeated questions with errors in them, rather than posting both versions.

[The UK in Exile]

I'm disagreeing, because they aren't so much reasons as innaccurate generalizations.

I'm going to infer from your spelling that you are not very closely acquainted with either British MPs or or the British public. Or at least that you are less acquainted with both sets of people than I am. (But just to be clear, if you are inferring what MPs are like from what US Representatives are, don't. The two are a completely different kettle gigs)

And like so many of your assumptions, here's another innaccurate one.

[Ad Nihilo]

I'm going to infer from your spelling that you are not very closely acquainted with either British MPs or or the British public. Or at least that you are less acquainted with both sets of people than I am. (But just to be clear, if you are inferring what MPs are like from what US Representatives are, don't. The two are a completely different kettle gigs)

And like so many of your assumptions, here's another innaccurate one.

So what's with the American spelling? (incidentally, also "inaccurate")

[The UK in Exile]

And like so many of your assumptions, here's another innaccurate one.

So what's with the American spelling? (incidentally, also "inaccurate")

what about it?

[Alyakia]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... uotes.html

somehow i doubt you'll be getting that young female demographic

[The UK in Exile]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/11561044/Ukips-youth-wing-in-quotes.html

somehow i doubt you'll be getting that young female demographic

"People say Ukip would take Britain back to the 1950s, but there were lots of good things about the 1950s," says Charlie Amos, aged 15.

[Olivaero]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/11561044/Ukips-youth-wing-in-quotes.html

somehow i doubt you'll be getting that young female demographic

I just cringed so hard my face imploded

[Ad Nihilo]

So what's with the American spelling? (incidentally, also "inaccurate")

what about it?

You are using American spelling. And your user name is "The UK in Exile". I assumed you do not live in the UK, and are not very well acquainted with either of the demographics we were discussing: MPs and the general public.

Secondly, you kept spelling it "innacurate". It only has one 'n'.

[The UK in Exile]

what about it?

You are using American spelling. And your user name is "The UK in Exile". I assumed you do not live in the UK, and are not very well acquainted with either of the demographics we were discussing: MPs and the general public.

Secondly, you kept spelling it "innacurate". It only has one 'n'.

and when you assume, what happens?

[Ad Nihilo]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/11561044/Ukips-youth-wing-in-quotes.html

somehow i doubt you'll be getting that young female demographic

"People say Ukip would take Britain back to the 1950s, but there were lots of good things about the 1950s," says Charlie Amos, aged 15.

Yeah, like a crumbling empire, anti-gay legislation, food rationing, retarded foreign interventions (e.g. Suez)... The 1950s were not a good time. They were great in America, and we've internalised American culture to such an extent that we can't even seem to be able to tell the difference. In Britain the 1950s were shit.

One wonders if UKIP also propose take GDP back to 1950s. Not intentionally, obviously. But still.

[Ad Nihilo]

You are using American spelling. And your user name is "The UK in Exile". I assumed you do not live in the UK, and are not very well acquainted with either of the demographics we were discussing: MPs and the general public.

Secondly, you kept spelling it "innacurate". It only has one 'n'.

and when you assume, what happens?

I'm merely developing hypotheses to try and explain to myself your resistance to observable facts.

[Vyvland]

what about it?

You are using American spelling. And your user name is "The UK in Exile". I assumed you do not live in the UK, and are not very well acquainted with either of the demographics we were discussing: MPs and the general public.

Secondly, you kept spelling it "innacurate". It only has one 'n'.

'-ize' is - for the moment at least - an accepted British English spelling, used by the OED.

[The UK in Exile]

and when you assume, what happens?

I'm merely developing hypotheses to try and explain to myself your resistance to observable facts.

you make an ass out of U and me.

see? Bcause thats how its spelled.

Now since, your name is Ad Nihilo, shall I assume your argument has come from nothing, or has come to nothing?

[Ad Nihilo]

You are using American spelling. And your user name is "The UK in Exile". I assumed you do not live in the UK, and are not very well acquainted with either of the demographics we were discussing: MPs and the general public.

Secondly, you kept spelling it "innacurate". It only has one 'n'.

'-ize' is - for the moment at least - an accepted British English spelling, used by the OED.

I didn't suggest it was inappropriate to use it. But given usage patterns, I took it that the 'z' spelling indicated that the guy/girl lived outside of the UK.

[Alyakia]

'-ize' is - for the moment at least - an accepted British English spelling, used by the OED.

I didn't suggest it was inappropriate to use it. But given usage patterns, I took it that the 'z' spelling indicated that the guy/girl lived outside of the UK.

not really we've been americanized to the point where it's really common, as stated. personally i swap between s and z depending on my mood and whatever seems more correct to me at any given time. i probably shouldn't do that, but hey, i should probably be using capital letters as well and look how that's going.

[Ad Nihilo]

I'm merely developing hypotheses to try and explain to myself your resistance to observable facts.

you make an ass out of U and me.

see? Bcause thats how its spelled.

Yeah, I never really got why people get so pleased about themselves when they get to dish out that expression, regardless of whether it makes any sense or not in the context. And you seem to accept that you've been made an 'ass' out of as well?

It's not half as 'clever' as it sounds.

Now since, your name is Ad Nihilo, shall I assume your argument has come from nothing, or has come to nothing?

"Since"? How does the 'conclusion' of my argument follow from my name? Which, as you may note, was chosen in 2007.