Poll: General election voting intentions poll

[Crpwned]

A handful here are totally fine with repressing points of views, so it needs to work both ways, and not one of them have said it wasn't cool either.

It's not about repressing the points of view, it's about a majority of people disagreeing with the point of view and voicing that in one way or another which then drowns out the original speaker. If the speakers views are being so badly 'oppressed' then maybe they need to look at the points they're trying to make if peole disagree that strongly about them (effectively 'showing them the door' as XKCD stated)

Also do we need to state if something is cool/not cool everytime we comment on something in fear of you deciding we think it's 'cool' to mouth off through megaphones or similar? I'll make a note to do so.

 

[Mr Jack]

Tbf, it depends what people are talking about - whether it's UK laws or law which applies in the UK... they are two different things.

Reading their report, the bigger problem is that they're making Apples-to-Oranges comparisons. That proportion is, essentially, based on comparing the number of Acts of Parliament to the number of EU regulations but EU regulations are tiny, little, things: mere iotas of regulation.

 

[robgmun]

Business for Britain? A group set-up to push an anti-EU business agenda? They're your reliable source? Come on.

What about Institute of Directors and BIS/OECD study 2006 which each say 45%? Which is a far cry from what the liberals and Tories are saying.

 

[robgmun]

It's not about repressing the points of view, it's about a majority of people disagreeing with the point of view and voicing that in one way or another which then drowns out the original speaker. If the speakers views are being so badly 'oppressed' then maybe they need to look at the points they're trying to make if peole disagree that strongly about them (effectively 'showing them the door' as XKCD stated)

Also do we need to state if something is cool/not cool everytime we comment on something in fear of you deciding we think it's 'cool' to mouth off through megaphones or similar? I'll make a note to do so.

Disagreeing with someone and challenging them on their point of view is absolutely correct, it worked wonderfully with Nick Griffin and the BNP, give them rope to hang themselves with.

But anti-kippers saw the same thing didn't happen with Nigel Farage so they have resorted to preventing them from actually speaking at all, see then they blocked Nigel Farage from a walk about, or in that BBC documentary where as soon as one took stage they were blaring on their megaphones. This crosses the line in my opinion and shows how afraid they are of allowing them to speak.....this is repressing a point of view. And where are they when the Islamic hate preachers are peddling their sick filth? This shows what a shower of ***** they are of being selective of their targets.

 

[Mr Jack]

What about Institute of Directors and BIS/OECD study 2006 which each say 45%? Which is a far cry from what the liberals and Tories are saying.

I think all these numbers are based on apples-to-oranges comparisons and so essentially meaningless. The EU is primarily a regulatory body, and EU regulations are tiny little decisions on minutiae for the most part while the acts they're being compared against are rather more serious matters.

But I have no doubt that a lot of regulation is decided in Europe, I'm not sure why I should think this is a bad thing? It is, pretty much, what a single market means.

Why should I be concerned by, for example, regulation 128/2014 entering the name 'Gofio Canario' into the list of geographically protected names; or regulation 121/2014 which, on the recommendation of the EFSA, permits the addition of L-selenomethionine to animal feed as a nutritional supplement; or regulation 111/2014 which assigns CN number 8528 51 00 to a particular type of LCD monitor.

(Incidentally, those are the first three regulations I clicked on, they weren't chosen to make a point)

 

[Dolph]

It's not about repressing the points of view, it's about a majority of people disagreeing with the point of view and voicing that in one way or another which then drowns out the original speaker. If the speakers views are being so badly 'oppressed' then maybe they need to look at the points they're trying to make if peole disagree that strongly about them (effectively 'showing them the door' as XKCD stated)

Also do we need to state if something is cool/not cool everytime we comment on something in fear of you deciding we think it's 'cool' to mouth off through megaphones or similar? I'll make a note to do so.

There is a difference between making an objection about a position, and trying to prevent a position being heard.

I can make a decision about a position when given the information, positive and negative. I will strongly object if, rather than presenting an objection, you just prevent me from hearing the opposite case.

 

[robgmun]

^

Thanks Dolph, i'm not sure how this is so difficult to understand, i suspect it's because they are being selective about who this is effecting, they didn't answer my Theoretical question and are actively avoid it because they don't want to show how hypocritical they're being

 

[Mr Jack]

There was an interesting nugget from the polls published over the weekend (emphasis mine):

YouGov asked whether people would consider voting for each of the main GB parties and their awareness of their policies. Of the two main parties, 40% would consider voting Conservative, 42% Labour – a slightly bigger pool for Labour but only just. The pool of potential voters for the other three substantial parties is pretty similar – 23% for the Lib Dems, 26% for UKIP, 25% for the Greens.

Asked about how aware of are of each party’s policies, 63% say they know a lot or a fair amount about Tory policies, compared to 59% for Labour, 45% for UKIP and 37% for the Lib Dems, 27% the Greens. Note how more people think they know about UKIP policies than those of the Lib Dems – a sign of how the Lib Dems have struggled to get a clear message out from within coalition.​

I think it's pretty striking that there are now less potential voters for the Lib Dems than either UKIP or the Greens, but what it really shows is how far UKIP are from any realistic chance of being the party of government. It's also striking that neither Labour nor the Tories has a potential pool of voters that constitutes a majority.

 

[Caged]

^

Thanks Dolph, i'm not sure how this is so difficult to understand, i suspect it's because they are being selective about who this is effecting, they didn't answer my Theoretical question and are actively avoid it because they don't want to show how hypocritical they're being

It's because you've tried to make it a free speech issue. I agree that shouting over someone is a dick move, but I don't believe it has harmed that persons right to free speech.

 

[robgmun]

It's because you've tried to make it a free speech issue. I agree that shouting over someone is a dick move, but I don't believe it has harmed that persons right to free speech.

I shout over you so you can't speak, what is that then?

 

[D.P.]

I shout over you so you can't speak, what is that then?

Not an intervention of free speech.

The right to free speech does not mean you have the right to force people to listen to you or the right to stop others shouting louder.

Stopping others shout over you would be preventing free speech though.

 

[Monkeynut]

There was an interesting nugget from the polls published over the weekend (emphasis mine):

YouGov asked whether people would consider voting for each of the main GB parties and their awareness of their policies. Of the two main parties, 40% would consider voting Conservative, 42% Labour – a slightly bigger pool for Labour but only just. The pool of potential voters for the other three substantial parties is pretty similar – 23% for the Lib Dems, 26% for UKIP, 25% for the Greens.

​

I guess it shows that people are more open to alternatives now, but simply being open to them doesn't mean they will change their voting preferences - a lot of people still see ukip and the greens as single issue parties.​

 

[Caged]

I shout over you so you can't speak, what is that then?

Explained several times by many different people, but somehow instead of taking that on board you've decided that people aren't responding to you because it's inconvenient, or however your head works.

 

[joeyjojo]

But I have no doubt that a lot of regulation is decided in Europe, I'm not sure why I should think this is a bad thing? It is, pretty much, what a single market means.

You're by far the most sensible poster in this thread Mr Jack.

Even if that pie chart is accurate (and we should expect the methodology was chosen to amplify the EU segment at the expense of the UK segment, I skimmed the methodology in the source paper and it seems there are many ways to count the different laws and regulations) we mustn't confuse the number of regulations with the impact of regulations. In fact, one of the very first points made in the paper is that it's impossible to quantify the relative impact of EU vs UK legislation, so they resort to numbers as a proxy. It's a very poor proxy if you ask me. But it does achieve their objective of providing a figure to support the preconceived notion that the EU is a red tape machine.

 

[elmarko]

I'm not so sure, I do in part think that shouting over another & not allowing them to voice an opinion is an infringement on free speech.

We all have the right to speak.
We all have the right to ignore those who are speaking.

Deliberately & intentionally going out of your way to another persons event - shouting over them to prevent them expressing doesn't fit into either of these two 'rights of speech' we have.

While we don't have the right to be heard, we do have the right to speak to people who wish to listen.

Just because the existing victims of this are those I disagree with politically, it's not hard to imagine it the other way around. For example, if a business started hiring professional protest/speech saboteurs I'd be against that.

 

[Dolph]

I'm not so sure, I do in part think that shouting over another & not allowing them to voice an opinion is an infringement on free speech.

We all have the right to speak.
We all have the right to ignore those who are speaking.

Deliberately & intentionally going out of your way to another persons event - shouting over them to prevent them expressing doesn't fit into either of these two 'rights of speech' we have.

While we don't have the right to be heard, we do have the right to speak to people who wish to listen.

Just because the existing victims of this are those I disagree with politically, it's not hard to imagine it the other way around. For example, if a business started hiring professional protest/speech saboteurs I'd be against that.

Very well said.

 

[joeyjojo]

While we don't have the right to be heard, we do have the right to speak to people who wish to listen.

That's not a right. If a speaker is getting disrupted during a talk the problem is with the organisers of and security at the event. If it becomes a recurring problem there are plenty of other outlets for campaigning, like print, TV, interviews, radio, books, etc. etc.

Again, "free speech" is not freedom to be heard! It means you have the right to hold opinions without "interference" (e.g. being arrested, beaten, etc.).

 

[Dolph]

That's not a right. If a speaker is getting disrupted during a talk the problem is with the organisers of and security at the event. If it becomes a recurring problem there are plenty of other outlets for campaigning, like print, TV, interviews, radio, books, etc. etc.

Again, "free speech" is not freedom to be heard! It means you have the right to hold opinions without "interference" (e.g. being arrested, beaten, etc.).

What if the security at the event is the police? Freedom of speech, like all other rights, is not absolute. The cut off usually comes when one individual exercising their rights starts to infringe on another's ability to exercise their own rights.

Preventing people from communicating is infringing their right to free speech, so there is certainly a balance there to be found. Note this does not include speaking against people, or forming an opinion based on someone's speech, all of which are perfectly legitimate.

Is it OK for a group of people to stand in front of an anti racism speaker and just scream through megaphones every time they start to speak? No content, no opposing arguement, just literally screaming so the opposition cannot be heard? I certainly so not think this is acceptable.

 

[Freakbro]

So Farage is now backing away from a migration cap...when oh, just such a short time ago they were touting a 50,000 limit.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31722779

Seems a doublespeak way of saying, we can't promise to limit immigration because either

a) We won't be able to control it like we said we could

or

b) We actually need the immigration

 

[LordSplodge]

So Farage is now backing away from a migration cap...when oh, just such a short time ago they were touting a 50,000 limit.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31722779

Seems a doublespeak way of saying, we can't promise to limit immigration because either

a) We won't be able to control it like we said we could

or

b) We actually need the immigration

The foundations of the UKIP house of cards are starting to look a little unstable.