U.K Politics: Revenge of the Truss.

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

19 minutes ago, Raja said:

Bruh, our government came up with a scheme that said 'Please come eat out & get covid'

This was before the vaccines!

I remember that. Quite a few clever so-and-so's were preaching the same thing on this side of the atlantic. 

[mormont]

Wonder what happened to the guy who invented that scheme?

[BigFatCoward]

3 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Victim blaming? Ha. I'd call it pointing out obvious cowards. 1/5 wouldn't admit who they preferred (I'm guessing most of them were for Boris) and a plurality had no opinion. That's not good if your goal is to maintain a healthy democracy. 

You wouldn't know what the question was trying to identify. You might think it was a poll to validify Rishi or BJ (no pollster would try and design a poll to justify Liz), so you would refuse to name any of them. 

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

39 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

You wouldn't know what the question was trying to identify. You might think it was a poll to validify Rishi or BJ (no pollster would try and design a poll to justify Liz), so you would refuse to name any of them. 

It's a bit like asking people their favorite toppings if they were served a giant bowl of shit. 

Whipped cream? Sprinkles? Very nice. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Which Tyler said:

And yet - he did more damage than the other 2 combined (whilst having a lot more time in which to do that harm)

That's just the thing though, he had more time. Truss, given the same amount of time almost assuredly would have been worse just from seer incompetence, and Sunak, if you give him time, will try to do more or less what Truss wanted in a shrouder fashion. 

58 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

You wouldn't know what the question was trying to identify. You might think it was a poll to validify Rishi or BJ (no pollster would try and design a poll to justify Liz), so you would refuse to name any of them. 

At some point we have to put that on the people taking the poll. It's really not a hard question and if a majority can't answer it, what's that saying? 

[polishgenius]

It's saying that all of the options are equally shit and, given no obligation to answer and no ill effects in failing to do so, most people have gone 'fuck you they're all shit'.

I mean, I don't see how answering that way can possibly harm democracy. Most of the people who said so probably won't vote Tory at the next election; many of them presumably didn't last time. What do you want people to do, join the conservative party en-masse (which would fund them) to vote in leadership elections? I genuinely don't understand your premise here.

 

 

 

 

[Which Tyler]

17 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

That's just the thing though, he had more time. Truss, given the same amount of time almost assuredly would have been worse just from seer incompetence, and Sunak, if you give him time, will try to do more or less what Truss wanted in a shrouder fashion. 

Scale for time, and BoJo's decisions killed thousands of times more people than Truss's decisions.

Sunak TBD, but currently well behind the curve on both (unless he was the architect of "Eat out to help out", rather than the mouthpiece). He'd like to catch up though, but maybe not enough to actually do so.

 

I'm still to see how refusing to play that game is actively harming democracy, or deserving of your loathing. You are, of course, free to loathe whoever you like, for whatever reason you like. Just as I am free to say that that's odd.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

On the death count, how do Cameron/Osborne fare on that metric.

[A wilding]

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Because it's easy to pick who you think was the worst and/or least worst even if you'd never vote for any of them. That a majority wouldn't or couldn't answer is a depressing result.

I am with BFC on this.

This poll is not some sort of presidential runoff where refusing to vote is abdicating your democratic responsibility. It is a transparent attempt to generate a fraudulent statistic about how Johnson is still massively popular amongst voters. (See who commissioned it.) Refusing to play their game is a democratically correct move for anyone who is not a supporter of the Tories.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

51 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

I'm still to see how refusing to play that game is actively harming democracy, or deserving of your loathing. You are, of course, free to loathe whoever you like, for whatever reason you like. Just as I am free to say that that's odd.

 

36 minutes ago, A wilding said:

I am with BFC on this.

This poll is not some sort of presidential runoff where refusing to vote is abdicating your democratic responsibility. It is a transparent attempt to generate a fraudulent statistic about how Johnson is still massively popular amongst voters. (See who commissioned it.) Refusing to play their game is a democratically correct move for anyone who is not a supporter of the Tories.

Not sure anyone is playing that deep of a game when the same pollster starts by finding overwhelming support for Labour. I'd have more respect if everyone against the Tories refused to answer. But a plurality said they don't know, which is sad. 

[ants]

I'd have Bojo as clearly the worst because he was the only one who would have had a chance of winning another election. For some reason he was very popular. 

But @Tywin et al., you appear very much on your own thinking that "none of the above" isn't a valid answer. I definitely think its valid. 

[A wilding]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Not sure anyone is playing that deep of a game when the same pollster starts by finding overwhelming support for Labour. I'd have more respect if everyone against the Tories refused to answer. But a plurality said they don't know, which is sad. 

Well perhaps they were not playing a deep game. But the first question was "Who would you vote for tomorrow (with Sunak as party leader)?". Then the second was "who is the best recent Tory leader?" with the expected answer clearly expected to be Johnson. Also I note there was a question further down about how best to manage Brexit, but no questions or options that enabled diehard Remainers to express their views.

And there was, of course, no "refuse to answer" option - I am reasonably confident that if it was even possible to complete the poll without choosing an option, then that would be classified as either "Don't know" or "Prefer not to say".

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

5 minutes ago, ants said:

But @Tywin et al., you appear very much on your own thinking that "none of the above" isn't a valid answer. I definitely think its valid. 

None of the above wasn't an option. 

[Pebble thats Stubby]

16 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

None of the above wasn't an option. 

Hence why people are answering Don't know or prefer not to say.

[The Anti-Targ]

3 hours ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

It's a bit like asking people their favorite toppings if they were served a giant bowl of shit. 

Whipped cream? Sprinkles? Very nice. 

The fact such a poll can exist with 3 named options is the real damning bit.

Having said that, we are likely to have 3PMs within the space of year, though a third one will be because the current govt will have lost an election. So that's a reasonable excuse.

[Spockydog]

Frankly, the question of who was the least useless Tory PM should be left to those who voted for them.

 

[Which Tyler]

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/feb/13/uk-mobile-broadband-firms-bt-ee-vodafone-huge-price-rise-existing-customers

Quote

UK mobile and broadband firms plan huge price rise for existing customers

 

[BigFatCoward]

All 4 acting prizes at the what's on stage awards went to women, no public outcry.  If someone is best, they are best, you can't get all hot and bothered because the split isn't even like the recent hoopla about the Brits 'artist of the year'. 

 

[mormont]

3 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

All 4 acting prizes at the what's on stage awards went to women, no public outcry.  If someone is best, they are best, you can't get all hot and bothered because the split isn't even like the recent hoopla about the Brits 'artist of the year'.

BFC, you can usually think a little beyond the surface on these things. Just because two things look the same doesn't mean they are the same.

Awards are tricky. The winner is often the best of the nominees (not always) but getting nominated is tough and people face lots of obstacles in that regard that are not necessarily to do with the quality of their performance. As a rule, women and minorities tend to face more of those obstacles.

The criticism of the Brits was exactly this. A man was always going to win Best Artist at the Brits, because all the nominees were men. In the WhatsOnStage awards, all the shortlists were mixed. These two things are not the same.

[Heartofice]

But the pAtR1aRChy?!

You can’t have it both ways, if want to remove gender categories for awards you don’t get to just blame it on sexism or whatever when you don’t get the result you want. The moaning around these things is so predictable and one way.