Not in my name

Sand

Looks like the difference between "overwhelming public opinion" and even semi accurate measures of public opinion is further underlined.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1087545,00.html

If anything support for the coalitions efforts in Iraq seems to be increasing among UK citizens, not decreasing as the anti-war marchers will no doubt attempt to lead the wider world to believe. Same for the welcome George Bush will receive. The majority appear to welcome his visit, and those who view the USA negatively seem to be a distinct minority. No doubt though the people who show up at the protests will take up all the column inches. The same for the editorials.... "overwhelming public opinion" seems to mean "me and my friends think...." more and more these days.

Oh well.

P.S. will all those arguing that Blair shouldnt have gone to war becuase of the massive anti war protests - wholly antidemocratic - now agree that he was right to go to war because of the way public opinion now agrees with the war?

secret_squirrel

hmmmm very interesting way they had of phrasing their poll.

From Guardian
The survey shows that public opinion in Britain is overwhelmingly pro-American with 62% of voters believing that the US is "generally speaking a force for good, not evil, in the world". It explodes the conventional political wisdom at Westminster that Mr Bush's visit will prove damaging to Tony Blair. Only 15% of British voters agree with the idea that America is the "evil empire" in the world.

Given the choice of those 2 (maybe there were more?) Most ppl would choose the former even if they didnt necessarily agree with it entirely.
Now if the latter had been something along the lines of is "Dubya misguided and/or a Looney Tune" then the poll might have worked out differently.
More british people would tend to look upon the US favourably than not methinks.

monument

Originally posted by Sand
Looks like the difference between "overwhelming public opinion" and even semi accurate measures of public opinion is further underlined.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1087545,00.html

If anything support for the coalitions efforts in Iraq seems to be increasing among UK citizens, not decreasing as the anti-war marchers will no doubt attempt to lead the wider world to believe. Same for the welcome George Bush will receive. The majority appear to welcome his visit, and those who view the USA negatively seem to be a distinct minority. No doubt though the people who show up at the protests will take up all the column inches. The same for the editorials.... "overwhelming public opinion" seems to mean "me and my friends think...." more and more these days.

Oh well.

P.S. will all those arguing that Blair shouldnt have gone to war becuase of the massive anti war protests - wholly antidemocratic - now agree that he was right to go to war because of the way public opinion now agrees with the war?

This only proves the age old belief that the majority of the public can and do change their view on things very easily. You have to keep in mind of things like how the majority of the public were not behind those who made Ireland into an independent state until it happened.

There’s a sadder side to it also, the only reports of death or injury is coming from the US lead side – nobody other then them are getting killed? – Well that’s what the public are seeing. The US restarted bombing from the air – by right it should have been the top story on most news papers/channels/sites/programs.

It’s well known that more the one owner/part owner of some newspapers and stations effect their editorial views – and one of the owners views are very much so pro war.

mike65

True enough but NOT The Guardian which apart from one or two "licensed" desenters was anti the war.

Mike.

secret_squirrel

thats why I was surprised at the way the guardian had phrased thier poll......

Redleslie

"Good" and "Evil". Gimme a break.

The 60 letters to Bush in The Guardian are far more interesting. I like 12 year old Mickey's one ("You have no idea what you are doing. You're killing loads of people, and that is not excluding your own nation too. ") and the Baghdad Blogger's. Frederick Forsythe's is absolutely terrible (he doesn't seem to realise that Ceaucescu stayed in Buck Pal and was given an honorary knighthood) as is Harold Pinter's. Richard Dawkins seems fairly angry.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1087591,00.html

monument

Originally posted by mike65
True enough but NOT The Guardian which apart from one or two "licensed" desenters was anti the war.

Mike.

Yes, I know the Guardian is anti war. It also has independent editorial, and it is owned by a trust - the way media outlets should be.

I wonder how many copies are sold per day/week in Ireland?

shotamoose

Originally posted by Sand
Looks like the difference between "overwhelming public opinion" and even semi accurate measures of public opinion is further underlined.

As is the distinction between a genuine regard for either public opinion or democracy, and a opportunistic, self-serving one, like yours.

From August 2002 right up to the beginning of the war in March 2003 (with a very brief interruption in October), more people in UK polls were against the prospective war in Iraq than were for it, sometimes by margins much bigger than the one in the poll you mention (link). I don't recall hearing you championing public opinion then. But as soon as a poll appears showing a majority approving of the war ... Hey, democracy in action! Power to the people! Like I said, totally self-serving.

I suppose it fits in with your belief that leaders should lie to the public as much as they feel like as long as it's for whatever they (the leaders) feel is 'the greater good'. As in this case, it's nice when a (slim) majority of the public seems to approve afterwards, but it's actually irrelevant since what's done is done.

P.S. will all those arguing that Blair shouldnt have gone to war becuase of the massive anti war protests - wholly antidemocratic - now agree that he was right to go to war because of the way public opinion now agrees with the war? [/B]

How were the anti war protests antidemocratic? As I've pointed out, they reflected the view of the majority at the time. Are you saying that the majority should shut up and simply believe their leaders when they say "don't worry, most of you might agree this was a good idea at some undefined point in the future"?

Again, I can't help but pick up that you've really got no taste for democracy at all. But I suppose you are a George Bush fan, after all.

Sand

From August 2002 right up to the beginning of the war in March 2003 (with a very brief interruption in October), more people in UK polls were against the prospective war in Iraq than were for it, sometimes by margins much bigger than the one in the poll you mention (link). I don't recall hearing you championing public opinion then. But as soon as a poll appears showing a majority approving of the war ... Hey, democracy in action! Power to the people! Like I said, totally self-serving.

No, I believe the war to have served a greater good, whether a majority of Britons agree or not is not a requisite of my beliefs - yet I had to listen to claims that"overwhelming public opinion" was against the war, that Blair and co were dictators etc etc and ignoring the wishes of their people, that in attempting to create a democratic Iraq they were ignoring democracy in their own countries. All well and good.

But now the tide has changed - no doubt opposition to the war is now only a matter of principal and well hear less and less about the way the elected leaders ran roughshod over the "overwhelming public opinion". Self serving? Yeah, it is.

I suppose it fits in with your belief that leaders should lie to the public as much as they feel like as long as it's for whatever they (the leaders) feel is 'the greater good'. As in this case, it's nice when a (slim) majority of the public seems to approve afterwards, but it's actually irrelevant since what's done is done.

Actually its a demonstration of how fickle public opinion is....attempting to base a policy around the latest opinion poll or which way the editorials or angry young students are marching is crazy - and yet that was how policy should be formed according to many angry young students. Blair and Bush will be judged as being successful or not successful in their respective elections, like every single government and administration before them.

How were the anti war protests antidemocratic?

You misunderstand - I was repeating the oft held view that to not go along with them was anti-democratic when in fact they were always a minority, and that support for them was shallow and short term. Not that protests in and of themselves are anti-democratic, though they are often manipulated to present a false image of the majoritys views - witness the protests over Bush when the majority do not share their vitrol for Bush, yet the opposite is implied by the media in their treatment of the protests.

Again, I can't help but pick up that you've really got no taste for democracy at all. But I suppose you are a George Bush fan, after all.

Im about as much a George Bush fan as you are a fan of the old Stalinist nostalgists who are running the anti-war movement you agree with.

Oh thats right, youre not responsible for who shares your views on any particular issue whereas I am.

shotamoose

Originally posted by Sand
But now the tide has changed - no doubt opposition to the war is now only a matter of principal and well hear less and less about the way the elected leaders ran roughshod over the "overwhelming public opinion". Self serving? Yeah, it is.

I've no problem repeating till the cows come home that - as the graph I linked to clearly shows - Blair did go against majority public opinion in the run-up to the war. That's just being consistent. Incidentally, this cross-Europe poll (from this BBC story) shows that almost 70% of Britons opposed 'military intervention without fresh UN support', which is exactly what happened - an 'overwhelming majority' indeed.



The point is Sand, that you obviously don't care about public opinion and you seem to be slagging off anti-war people because they do.

You misunderstand - I was repeating the oft held view that to not go along with them was anti-democratic when in fact they were always a minority

No. They. Weren't. Look at the graph I linked to again.

witness the protests over Bush when the majority do not share their vitrol for Bush, yet the opposite is implied by the media in their treatment of the protests.

I've yet to see any media outlet imply that the majority of people in the UK support protests against Bush in London, for two obvious reasons - public opinion has changed, as anyone can see from the polls, and the size of the protests will be smaller. So I can only assume that you're offended that the media are covering these protests at all. So when it suits you, majority rule should mean majority tyranny?

Im about as much a George Bush fan as you are a fan of the old Stalinist nostalgists who are running the anti-war movement you agree with.

Oh thats right, youre not responsible for who shares your views on any particular issue whereas I am.

Nice try. I'm pretty sure I've never expressed any fondness for Stalinism on these boards - quite the opposite - but you're in such constant agreement with just about everything George says and does that I just assumed ... oh well, apologies if you feel slighted.

DadaKopf

Richard Dawkins seems fairly angry.

Wow, Dawkins is so cool! He's so cool he was on Terry Christian's late night chat show last night!

Talkin' bout God and stuff.

Hmm? Oh, yeah, war's bad. Not in my name.

Went to see Alexander Cockburn speak in Trinity tonight. He figures the US's split in opinion on the war is tosh. The pro-war people versus those who wanted to go through the UN (only to a very minor extent totally pacifist). In the media at least. Point was: the UN is really just America, so the argument is just a diversion from the real argument.

JUS' SAYIN'!

Hobbes

· ICM interviewed a random sample of 1,002 adults aged 18 and over by telephone between November 14-16, 2003. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults.

What exactly does that mean?

A recent poll I saw over 60% do not like or want bush in the UK.

Also I wonder how many of the 100,000 war protesters were in that poll of 1,000 people?

Originally posted by Hobbes

Also I wonder how many of the 100,000 war protesters were in that poll of 1,000 people?

Well that would be irrelevant, as you get a representative sample of the population first and then you interview them.
It's not a case of asking people to give their views first and then say "ok you can be in the opinion poll because you have the right opinion"

mm

SkepticOne

Originally posted by Hobbes
What exactly does that mean?

A recent poll I saw over 60% do not like or want bush in the UK.

Also I wonder how many of the 100,000 war protesters were in that poll of 1,000 people?

Polling agencies usually don't have the resources to get a representative sample from around the country so therefore they weight the results according to the known distribution of various factors in population as a whole in order to remove biases in the polled sample.

Hobbes

Originally posted by SkepticOne
Polling agencies usually don't have the resources to get a representative sample from around the country so therefore they weight the results according to the known distribution of various factors in population as a whole in order to remove biases in the polled sample.

So in other words they make stuff up?

The quantity polled is extremly low to actually form a proper opinion.

ixoy

The best way to get polls in your favour isn't to try and rig the pollers - it's to bias the question, as was done here.

For example, I generally believe the U.S. is a pretty decent country, so I'd be more leaning towards the "Yes" vote in the question. However, in the context of the invasion of Iraq and - broadly - Bush's foreign policies of late, I'd be a definite "No". But the question didn't ask me that and so a distorted answer appears. So I still believe it doesn't reflect people's opinion of Iraq where even his own citizens now, in a slim majority, question the validity of the current US occupation.

shotamoose

Isn't it that they do a random sample, compare that sample in terms of age and gender with the population as a whole, and adjust the findings accordingly?

Because with a small random sample of 1,002 (or whatever), you could for example end up with 55% men to 45% women, whereas the real national distribution is more even. This could lead to a misleading result - especially in topics such as the Iraq war where there were pronounced gender differences - if results are not adjusted.

Seems reasonable to me.

sceptre

Originally posted by shotamoose
Isn't it that they do a random sample, compare that sample in terms of age and gender with the population as a whole, and adjust the findings accordingly?

Pretty much

SkepticOne

Originally posted by ixoy
The best way to get polls in your favour isn't to try and rig the pollers - it's to bias the question, as was done here.

For example, I generally believe the U.S. is a pretty decent country, so I'd be more leaning towards the "Yes" vote in the question. However, in the context of the invasion of Iraq and - broadly - Bush's foreign policies of late, I'd be a definite "No". But the question didn't ask me that and so a distorted answer appears. So I still believe it doesn't reflect people's opinion of Iraq where even his own citizens now, in a slim majority, question the validity of the current US occupation.

Yes, but I would not conclude that the poll is biased as such. The problem is when people draw invalid conclusions from the results. For example as you point out, concluding that because most people don't regard the US as evil, that therefore they were in favour of the Iraq war. The two issues are only loosely connected. All the polls tell you is the result of asking a specific question.

Wook

people, people haven't you heard 'we should just move on' .....

Sand

I've no problem repeating till the cows come home that - as the graph I linked to clearly shows - Blair did go against majority public opinion in the run-up to the war. That's just being consistent.

But now the polls are going against the view - hence the protestors are the anti-democratic forces by that reasoning, whereas Blair has been shown to correct in hindsight - a statesman leading his people rather than simply following them. Will you just as happily embrace that view and promote it? I doubt it.

The point is Sand, that you obviously don't care about public opinion and you seem to be slagging off anti-war people because they do.

My beliefs arent dependant on which way the latest public opinion poll is swinging - if the polls showed a 99% wholly against the war and hateful of its instigators Id still believe the liberation to be a good thing.

Ill just enjoy the contortions of people trying to say why Blair was so wrong to go against the polls prior to the war, and yet the protestors now *arent* wrong to go against the polls .... and theyve an equivalent obligation to those polls - feck all to my mind but it was the position of the anti-war protestors that polls such as you mentioned were a strong argument against the war and Blairs part in it, that Blair should go with the poll findings and not go ahead with the war.

Now that the tide has turned Ill enjoy the justifications for why the protest movement doesnt have to fall into line with the opinion found by polling, or why the polls dont imply that Blair was wholly justified in going ahead with the war.

Ill also enjoy people trying to say why going with the latest poll isnt mob rule, or where we draw the line on this new form of democracy...should we have reality tv style phone voting to decide on the budget, or should we have trial by media with a quick vote at the end to decide if the rapist should be merely horsewhipped or castrated and killed? Ah, but thats not what you meant when you said I didnt care about the forces of democracy inherent in poll findings- you meant that they should go along with the polls, when they suit you, but not when they dont. Sure thing, I can see why youd like that system.

But why not stick with the established form.....every 4-7 years we elect representitives to run the government so we can get on with our lives, if they do a bad job we sack them, if they do a good job we keep them on, and they do their best to anticipate what well think of their actions when it comes to the next election.

It aint perfect but it sure beats the hell out of mob rule and trial by media.

I've yet to see any media outlet imply that the majority of people in the UK support protests against Bush in London, for two obvious reasons - public opinion has changed, as anyone can see from the polls, and the size of the protests will be smaller. So I can only assume that you're offended that the media are covering these protests at all. So when it suits you, majority rule should mean majority tyranny?

Not even one....Okay heres one that makes it sound like everyone in Britain bar blair and his closest friends spit when they hear Bushes name.....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/antiwar/story/0,12809,1087320,00.html

Why does Blair have to defend the visit when the majority have no ill feelings towards the visitor? Why are all the anti-war types given so many column inches when the facts you mention regarding the majority having no problem with his visit arent even mentioned - apparently so as to rob the piece of any context or balance?

Nice try. I'm pretty sure I've never expressed any fondness for Stalinism on these boards - quite the opposite - but you're in such constant agreement with just about everything George says and does that I just assumed ... oh well, apologies if you feel slighted.

LOL - No its delightful that you imply that because I agree with Bushes policy of intervening against the likes of Saddam that I agree with all his policies, that I am in fact in favour of Bush rather than the particular policy, and when I show you how silly that is by using you and one particular view you share with the protest organisers as an example, you act all offended. Thats just priceless:)

This despite us having a thread about protectionism and free trade and its benefits for developing nations - With myself being in favour of free trade, how does this sit with Bushes protectionism? Or my views on religion? Bush views it as central to his life and his politics whereas I would probably combust if I entered a Church and I strongly believe in a division between Church and State, or his decision to expand the nuclear armoury of the US when I view it as more than enough to wipe out life as it is? Or his respect for Kyoto and the enviroment in general which is at odds with my own views?

Ah but yes, I agree that the powerful nations of the world should act against tyrants like Saddam so hence I agree with everything Bush says and does. Youre either with us or against us, right Shot? You and Bush might have more in common than you think:)

gurramok

ITV's teletext poll(p347) of 5,000 people asking the question - 'Is Bush welcome here'

so far indicates that 57% oppose the Bush visit to the UK.

So which poll do you believe ?

Sand, Blair did not get elected at the last election on the basis of waging war against another country, it was not in Labours manifesto, not even mentioned in pre-election promises.

Originally posted by gurramok
ITV's teletext poll(p347) of 5,000 people asking the question - 'Is Bush welcome here'

so far indicates that 57% oppose the Bush visit to the UK.

So which poll do you believe ?

I wouldn't believe that one anyhow, it operates the same way as the pop Idol phone polls you can ring in a vote as often as you want;)

mm

klong

another poll i saw today was on sky- people with sky digital could vote on a similar question and last i saw, the results were 60% IN FAVOUR of the visit, 40% AGAINST.

but, as has been said already, it can't really count as you can vote as often as you like

No as far as I'm aware , you can only vote once on Sky digitals Sky news polls-unless you go to another digibox, which is less likely than using your phone to vote often in a phone poll.
But I'm open to correction on that.

mm

klong

fair enough, dont have a digibox myself so i cant really be quoting with authority on the workings of the red button!

reading this thread, im in agreement when i see that the anti-war protestors get a huge amount of coverage. Got blanket coverage on sky today. one thought which struck me when seeing the images of the bombings in istanbul and news of the protest march was...what are the protestors views/opinions on the bombings in turkey? wouldnt the bombings and so on have continued had the invasions of afghanistan and iraq not taken place, and on a much greater scale?

hmm?

monument

Originally posted by Sand
My beliefs arent dependant on which way the latest public opinion poll is swinging - if the polls showed a 99% wholly against the war and hateful of its instigators Id still believe the liberation to be a good thing.

A good thing for whom? The US or UK? Or maybe for the so-called liberated countries? Who is now better off?

Originally posted by monument
A good thing for whom? The US or UK? Or maybe for the so-called liberated countries? Who is now better off?

I think he is referring to maybe thousands of political opponents of Sadam who perhaps wouldn't have had the luxury of protesting against him prior to the war in the same way as the London protesters did today.

And probably also to those that Sadam and his two awfull sons and their squads of followers brutalised and killed for decades.

mm

shotamoose

Originally posted by Sand
But now the polls are going against the view - hence the protestors are the anti-democratic forces by that reasoning, whereas Blair has been shown to correct in hindsight - a statesman leading his people rather than simply following them. Will you just as happily embrace that view and promote it? I doubt it.

I wonder if you've ever paid the slightest bit of attention to what the anti-war side have said. The weight of public oppposition was just a part of the case against Blair's decision to go to war - it was also wrong in principle. Public opinion was not the determinant but an important factor. Please go on and search through my old posts if you feel this is in any way inconsistent, otherwise stop making these spurious claims I can only think you know to be wrong.

How people feel after the event can logically have no bearing on the arguments surrounding the lead-up to the event, since nobody knew how people would feel after the event - and nobody knows how they will feel in six months time. Bush could guess that if he nuked Iran tomorrow people would feel quite sanguine about it in ten years, but that wouldn't make it right, and it wouldn't lessen the force of public opinion against the policy now if word got out.

During the run-up to March, the majority of the public opposed the prospective war. Yet I didn't see anti-war campaigners saying that pro-war people should be somehow prevented from expressing their view, or denouncing them as 'anti-democratic'. Anti-war people did not assume that being in the majority somehow gave them the right to silence opponents. Again, that would be not majority rule, but majority tyranny, no matter how small and tenuous the majority.

Not even one....Okay heres one that makes it sound like everyone in Britain bar blair and his closest friends spit when they hear Bushes name.....

No it doesn't. I notice you couldn't actually produce a quote from that story to support your view that the media are saying that the majority support the war. Why? Because it doesn't, not even close. If you think that's an example of your beloved media conspiracy you're a fantasist. So plese, go on, have another go.

Why does Blair have to defend the visit when the majority have no ill feelings towards the visitor?

Firstly, you have no basis for saying that the majority have no ill-feelings towards the visitor. The results of this one poll said that 43% - last time I checked, that wasn't a majority - 'welcome the visit', which is itself not the same thing as 'have no problems with George Bush'.

So let's brush that statement aside.

Still, why should Blair have to defend the visit? Because there are obviously legitimate questions to be asked about it. Why is he helping to celebrate the Presidency of someone who has helped derail the Kyoto treaty, has done his best to undermine multilateralism in every arena from the UN to the WTO, who continues to illegally detain hundreds of people in Guantanamo Bay, and who has pushed through illegal economic reforms as the occupying power in Iraq?

These are proper questions which anybody with a care for freedom and liberality (such as yourself, apparently) should want to see answered. That's why Blair has to defend it.

By your logic, if the majority (in a newspaper poll) approved of the state visit of Ceausescu in 1978 (and maybe they did) there was no question to answer. I'm sure Nicolai would have loved that attitude. The majority probably don't care about the political prisoners and victims of human rights violations that Amnesty International campaigns for - should they lose their right to ask questions? Should the government not have to answer? Accountability is a fundamental principle of democracy, though of course I'm forgetting that for you governments should just be allowed lie their way out of trouble.

LOL - No its delightful that you imply that because I agree with Bushes policy of intervening against the likes of Saddam that I agree with all his policies, that I am in fact in favour of Bush rather than the particular policy, and when I show you how silly that is by using you and one particular view you share with the protest organisers as an example, you act all offended. Thats just priceless:)

I think I know who you'd vote for in a Bush vs Any Democrat contest. In a two-horse race, as the US presidential contest always is, the choice unfortunately is 'with us or against us'. Still, consider the heinous slur cheerfully withdrawn.

hence I agree with everything Bush says and does

Never said that, as you know. Jeez Sand, for someone with such a keen sense of fairness, you do a lot of misquoting.

monument

Originally posted by Man
I think he is referring to maybe thousands of political opponents of Sadam who perhaps wouldn't have had the luxury of protesting against him prior to the war in the same way as the London protesters did today.

And probably also to those that Sadam and his two awfull sons and their squads of followers brutalised and killed for decades.

mm

Then how many are being killed now?

Originally posted by monument
Then how many are being killed now?

A lot of Iraqi's by Iraqi's aswell as Iraqi's by non Iraqi's not necessarilly by the coalition.

Your dislike of Coalition activities is somewhat justified in some circumstances, but having a defacto preference for the return of Sadam's brutal regime is not good in my honest opinion given their history and they were doing it to their own people and still are guerilla style.

mm