Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Quantifying the great cultural divide: those wanting blunt lea
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Quantifying the great cultural divide: those wanting blunt leaders versus those who think you shouldn’t cause offence
There’s some new polling just out by YouGov for the latest Prospect Magazine which appears to identify and quantify a divide amongst voters based on a series of questions that I don’t recall being asked in this form before.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
All these questions are bullshit. Is the person prevaricating to avoid giving offence? Or recognising the world is a complex place?
(Sorry, couldn't resist)
It’s possible to be blunt and plain spoken without being a “bull in a china shop”
Performance enhancing drugs... for curling. I've now heard everything.
Some of our politicians manage neither.
Having said that, I think the number of those who are liable to be swayed by demagoguery is probably larger than that of those who are convinced merely by politeness.
Quite surprised demagoguery’s a word, actually,
Upon the just and unjust fella,
But mostly upon the just, because
The unjust stealeth the just’s umbrella.
Like others, I feel this is a false choice. It is possible to be clear without being an oaf.
Suspect it there was a £5 charge for offence rather than it being free, we would see a lot less of it.
Basically it was pretty obvious to investors who had the money and resources to do a proper analysis of Carillion's accounts from 2015 onwards that the company was heading towards the precipice. A simplistic reading of the accounts, however, painted a very different picture, a picture that the directors largely got away with trying to maintain even after liquidation when giving evidence to MPs.
What we will find is that the way that the accountants and auditors of the company reported matters was compliant with the incredibly complicated reporting standards which resulted in the accounts giving something less than a true and fair view of the company's position and prospects. These standards, which have developed to prevent misrepresentation, have themselves become a source of misunderstanding and deception for those who do not have the expertise to read carefully between the lines.
So in public life generally we see acceptable parameters of what can and cannot be said controlling what people can say to the point where many feel that simple and obvious truths cannot be said or addressed resulting in the underlying problems not being addressed.
(Which rules out most prayers, when you think about it.)
And also on the unjust fella;
But chiefly on the just, because
The unjust hath the just’s umbrella.”
Charles Bowen
Not fond of that line. It puts everything on offensiveness, making it a sensitivity/honesty pair of poles. Still, it allows those who want to compare the desire to leave the EU to Trump, which may have been the intention in the first place.
I'm not fond of outspokenness and think people, especially politicians, should pick their words carefully. However, the capacity to offend rather than have one's vocabulary be dictated by the terminally oversensitive has never been more important. These things aren't mutually exclusive.
They're across the board, sometimes loud, sometimes not so much.
But to pretend they're *all* only on the other side is full on 100 % jalepeno special sauce.
I want a political leader who doesn't consider any subject off-limits, and does speak their mind, but does so reasonably, politely and respectfully.
It can be called being economical with the facts, and when facts are missing, it means being selective with evidence. Often twisting evidence to give erroneous 'facts'.
I watched the 'Cheddar man' documentary last night and found it both enlightening and annoying. The earliest complete skeleton found in the UK showed that this man, 10,000 years old, had dark skin and blue eyes and came across the land-bridge from Europe. An unusual combination if typical of the UK population at the time. A sample of one, remember, but some other parts of Europe had similar genes at the time. It could have been very enlightening, but the media need a story.
Fascinating because dark skin is an advantage in high UV areas - bright sunshine or snowy regions, but a disadvantage in cloudy conditions. I believe blue/green eyes are a default but melanin aids vision in brighter light. Does this suggest that skin colour is slower to adapt to weather conditions?
Who cares? The media is the message.
*stifles a titter*
Anyone saying "all" is just setting themselves up for a fall.
The real Trump question is perhaps more, "Do you prefer politicians who attack opponents bluntly, or politicians who put their case but don't attack others?" But that's loaded too. Really hard to get a balanced question.
I'll get my coat...
After years of relatively 'PC' candidates and leaders e.g. Cameron, Clegg, Ed Miliband, May, Obama and Romney and Merkel it seems voters are willing to push for more plainspeaking leaders again, hence Trump, Sanders, Boris, Mogg and Corbyn have all been on the rise and even in Italy it looks like the ultimate 'Bull in a China shop' Berlusconi could return as kingmaker albeit not as PM from which he is barred and the big loser will be the relatively mild mannered Matteo Renzi the former PM and leader of the incumbent Democratic Party
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2018/02/a-surprise-video-why-you-shouldnt-take.html
I will see you later.
As in 'we never negotiate with terrorists, Mr Adams!'
Edit; FFS strikes again!
That's fine. I support the right of people in a free society to hold different views. Even if they're tasteless, heretical views that clearly indicate such people are bedfellows of Satan.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lXwT7mxmf8
Edited extra bit
In general I reckon most of us are more comfortable with plain speech if we basically agree with it, although I always disliked Scargill even when I broadly supported the strikes. But there's been quite a bit of polling showing many Trump supporters uncomfortable with the tone and frequency of the ouytspoken tweets. It's possible to overdo it, even for fans.
“Bedford is a shithole,”
https://briefingsforbrexit.com/the-ethics-of-a-second-brexit-referendum-equality-trust-honesty/
And Alonso's price is down (for the title) to 17 on Betfair. It was 29 a week or so ago, lay value now is 19. Not sure why the change has happened, frankly, as testing hasn't begun and the car hasn't even been unveiled yet.
The new SPD leader, I think, has backed the coalition deal. We find out the result on 4 March, which I think is also the date of the Italian election.
Edited extra bit: and here's the Red Bull:
https://twitter.com/RachelBrookesTV/status/965513526784733184
Even where it has a potential gem - such as the riverside park to the east - it does not take advantage. And as for the decaying pyramid (apparently a swimming pool or somesuch) - whoever designed and commissioned it should be put atop a spike in front of it as a warning to future urban planners.
I don't know which party traditionally runs the town, but whichever it has, has let the population down. And I'm unsure how it can be fixed without wholesale demolition.
Which is a shame, as there are some very picturesque villages to the west and north.
Unless you're talking about Chesterton.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dazzle_camouflage