|
Spangly A posted:yeah it's definitely a legitimate political system that cares this much about appearance and not a sham that needs so, so much fire People judge others on appearance in all walks of life not just politics. It's a fact of life since forever.
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 20:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 02:23 |
|
|
Spangly A posted:he caused the european debt crisis and threatened to break his parliament if they didn't force his massive social cuts through, he's not "centre left" at all
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 20:59
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:I think perhaps you've got Steinmeier confused with someone else - he wasn't involved in the european debt crisis in any meaningful sense, and has never been Chancellor. Are you thinking of Schroeder? It was schroeders plan, Steinmeier was the guy who pulled the green/social dem support for it together. Whipping for Schroeder pretty much excludes you being left wing. I did confuse the tantrum part with Schroeder, yes. Steinmeier's been a key ally and advisor though (hence the mistake)
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 21:01
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:he caused the european debt crisis and threatened to break his parliament if they didn't force his massive social cuts through, he's not "centre left" at all I was wondering what the Guardian considers "centre left".
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 21:02
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I was wondering what the Guardian considers "centre left". Tony Blair, probably
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 21:05
|
|
|
It's amazing and sad but every time I ask "hey this politician sounds like he might be slightly good, is that true?" the answer is always "no, it's not true, he's poo poo" because all politicians are poo poo. I mean, I already know that, but I'm kinda grasping at straws here you know.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 21:05
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:People do judge each other on appearance, though - one of Ed Miliband's big problems was that people saw him as a goofy-looking nerd who wouldn't be a credible prime minister. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 21:05
|
|
|
Pochoclo posted:It's amazing and sad but every time I ask "hey this politician sounds like he might be slightly good, is that true?" the answer is always "no, it's not true, he's poo poo" because all politicians are poo poo. I mean, I already know that, but I'm kinda grasping at straws here you know. his foreign policy is good and he gets some slack for my confusing the whip and the chancellor, I still don't think anyone even close to agenda 2010 is left wing
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 21:07
|
|
|
Pochoclo posted:It's amazing and sad but every time I ask "hey this politician sounds like he might be slightly good, is that true?" the answer is always "no, it's not true, he's poo poo" because all politicians are poo poo. I mean, I already know that, but I'm kinda grasping at straws here you know.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 21:16
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:Steinmeier's pretty inoffensive as SPD guys go. However, his appointment as president isn't particularly big news because the president of Germany is mostly just a figurehead whose main job is to appear at state events and hobnob with foreign dignitaries. The real power rests with (in decreasing order) the government/chancellor, the bundestag, and the federal states. he's already been federal PM, I'm not actually sure what powers the executive technically has in Germany but I imagine LD's right and that he's not big news
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 21:19
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:People do judge each other on appearance, though - one of Ed Miliband's big problems was that people saw him as a goofy-looking nerd who wouldn't be a credible prime minister. If you're scoping people out for a political leadership position and for whatever reason, everyone you ask says that there's something about one person's appearance or self-presentation that makes it hard to take them seriously, that's important and useful information even if it's unfair and unreasonable that the person in question is being judged in that way. And what do you propose political parties do about this information? Are you suggesting people should be barred from running for high office purely on the basis of appearance? Does that change if you replace 'looks like a nerd' with 'is black' or 'is a woman'? Because those attributes would definitely be unpopular with focus groups in certain parts of the country, and would have been highly unpopular in the past.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 21:20
|
|
|
I think the answer for women at least is "minimise association with negative stereotypes". At least that's supposedly what Clinton was advised. Then again, she did lose. Probably not beacuse of this though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 21:24
|
|
|
Private Speech posted:I think the answer for women at least is "minimise association with negative stereotypes". At least that's supposedly what Clinton was advised. My answer would be to stop collecting terrible opinions and then either using them to make important decisions or publishing them as if they have significance. Rebecca Long-Bailey will now have an advantage over Angela Rayner in getting nominations for the position of leader, in part because one person somewhere thinks she looks too 'charity shop'. Not because many people think it, or even that she polls badly. Because one person thinks it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 21:32
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Ok well that's definitely an example of something - though I think if you were to be honest you'd admit you used google rather than your own memory to retrieve it. I'll admit this anecdote wasn't on the tip of my tongue but I could remember well enough there were numerous such situations over the time. Maybe you're right that nobody considered a Scottish Labour Speaker causing a fuss over the Conservative Leader of the Opposition's wording over his criticism over the Labour Prime Minister's internal party woes of the time as partisan. Nowhere near as partisan as a Conservative Speaker making a stand over a controversial foreign leader visiting under a Conservative Prime Minister. That's quite obvious I suppose. jabby posted:My answer would be to stop collecting terrible opinions and then either using them to make important decisions or publishing them as if they have significance. Indeed. We like to get a thousand+ people to answer a yes/no question and weight it carefully demographically to get a reasonably accurate estimate of public opinion. But lets by all means make sweeping judgements on complex motivations and opinions based on half a dozen people in an unscientific group discussion. Lord of the Llamas fucked around with this message at 21:36 on Feb 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 21:33
|
|
|
Malcolm XML posted:He also eats a Tory seat The Commons clerks deliberately balance the deputy speakerships between the government and the opposition so as not to give any advantage to either the government or the opposition.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 21:35
|
|
|
Focus groups is just qualitative polling though. Like I get why it sucks, but it's probably representative to a degree. In an ideal world opinions of others about your appearance wouldn't matter, but we very much dont live in one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 21:35
|
|
|
jabby posted:My answer would be to stop collecting terrible opinions and then either using them to make important decisions or publishing them as if they have significance. What are the acceptable type of opinions you'd rather see collected?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 21:36
|
|
|
TinTower posted:The Commons clerks deliberately balance the deputy speakerships between the government and the opposition so as not to give any advantage to either the government or the opposition. This is confusing me now because I thought the Tories tried to get rid of Bercow immediately prior to the last election in anticipation of a narrower result than what happened, when his seat might prove valuable in the final count - but that can't have been the case?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 21:37
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:What are the acceptable type of opinions you'd rather see collected? none at all, and no democracy. None at all is in fact the correct response to "whose opinions matter".
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 21:39
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:What are the acceptable type of opinions you'd rather see collected? I'd be perfectly happy to discount anything based entirely on the appearance or demographic of the candidate being 'road tested'. Policy and personality is fine. You didn't answer my question either, what do you consider the acceptable way to criticise the appearance of a female MP?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 21:39
|
|
|
Private Speech posted:Focus groups is just qualitative polling though. It's much easier to assess the quality of a normal poll by a frequent pollster than it is to assess the results of a (select selecting, selectively reported) focus group. I mean, loving hell, how much time have you read about ex-Labour UKIP supporters? According to the latest YouGov poll that accounts for ~4%~ of 2015 Labour voters. Focus groups are deliberately unscientific (in their conduct, or reporting, it doesn't matter) because the people who buy them aren't interested in finding out facts, but pushing a certain agenda.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 21:45
|
|
|
jabby posted:You didn't answer my question either, what do you consider the acceptable way to criticise the appearance of a female MP?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 21:46
|
|
|
jabby posted:What do you consider the acceptable way to criticise the appearance of a female MP? As a person collecting the views of the voting public in order to assist your client gain an understanding of said public's views, I would think there is no bar for acceptability. If I commissioned some research and the dudes removed anything they thought I might not like, I'd want my money back. Isn't this how Saddam fell? Letting that data out though seems rubbish and in fact actively unhelpful.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 21:52
|
|
|
Lord of the Llamas posted:It's much easier to assess the quality of a normal poll by a frequent pollster than it is to assess the results of a (select selecting, selectively reported) focus group. It's not unscientific in principle, like any polling you can choose an unrepresentative sample, and you do have to work harder to interpret the data, but qualitative polling is widely used in social sciences of all sorts. Private Speech fucked around with this message at 22:17 on Feb 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 21:54
|
|
|
Prince John posted:Agree with this 100%. It sucks, but better to find out in a focus group than on the campaign trail before a general election. You've got to work with the public you've got. You drop trident on them because it's what they deserve
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 21:54
|
|
|
Pochoclo posted:It's amazing and sad but every time I ask "hey this politician sounds like he might be slightly good, is that true?" the answer is always "no, it's not true, he's poo poo" because all politicians are poo poo. I mean, I already know that, but I'm kinda grasping at straws here you know. "Politics is showbusiness for ugly
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 21:54
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/owenjbennett/status/830860851108335619 So this happened.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 22:02
|
|
|
jabby posted:https://twitter.com/owenjbennett/status/830860851108335619 I want to join the Islamic Socialist party. The Islamic Wobbly Typeface Socialist Party.. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 22:13 on Feb 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 22:10
|
|
|
jabby posted:And what do you propose political parties do about this information? Are you suggesting people should be barred from running for high office purely on the basis of appearance? Does that change if you replace 'looks like a nerd' with 'is black' or 'is a woman'? Because those attributes would definitely be unpopular with focus groups in certain parts of the country, and would have been highly unpopular in the past. To address something you said later on in the thread... jabby posted:Rebecca Long-Bailey will now have an advantage over Angela Rayner in getting nominations for the position of leader, in part because one person somewhere thinks she looks too 'charity shop'. Not because many people think it, or even that she polls badly. Because one person thinks it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 22:18
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:To address something you said later on in the thread... If you get people in a group and one person says something assertively while laughing a bit, you'll probably find other people agreeing with it. Small groups are not a good model for society at large.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 22:23
|
|
|
My only criticism of Rayner is that she tried to pull the "university of life" card without any sense of irony. Speaking of which, have a lovely Facebook meme 
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 22:25
|
|
|
What if all those things are true for me but I turned out irrevocably broken?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 22:26
|
|
|
TinTower posted:My only criticism of Rayner is that she tried to pull the "university of life" card without any sense of irony. Ah, the early 90's. Make Britain Radical Again. *does a sweet skateboard move*
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 22:26
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:If you get people in a group and one person says something assertively while laughing a bit, you'll probably find other people agreeing with it. Yeah it's not a great way to go about reporting the results, you're supposed to be looking at the reasoning behind it more than the replies themselves. But that wouldn't make for as good of a leak presumably. e: http://www.nature.com/bdj/journal/v204/n6/full/bdj.2008.192.html this is a good (free) article from the British Dentistry Journal about the fundamentals behind qualitative research methods, including focus groups. In particular: quote:Be prepared for views that may be unpalatably critical of a topic which may be important to you Private Speech fucked around with this message at 22:40 on Feb 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 22:27
|
|
|
If you watched Baywatch followed by gladiators and blind date then how did you not die of brain death? Everyone likes poo poo TV now and then but you don't inject poo poo directly into your eyeballs for 90+ minutes without severe side effects. Like the kind that make you post bad memes on facebook decades later.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 22:29
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:No, I'm not suggesting anyone should be barred from doing anything on the basis of their appearance. I don't run a political organisation, but if I did, what I'd do with that kind of information would depend very strongly on the context - a problem with someone's presentation could be trivially fixable by telling them to get a haircut and buy some new clothes, something more fundamental that you'd just have to accept, or anywhere in between. Are you suggesting that multiple people, unknown to each other, spontaneously used the phrase 'a bit charity-shop looking'? Saying the responses were negative is one thing, although without any context of how large or diverse the group was or a more specific definition of 'negative' I'd argue it has little value, but cherry-picking specific phrases to use as somehow representative of the whole population is clearly wrong.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 22:30
|
|
|
Verizian posted:If you watched Baywatch followed by gladiators and blind date then how did you not die of brain death? Everyone likes poo poo TV now and then but you don't inject poo poo directly into your eyeballs for 90+ minutes without severe side effects. Like the kind that make you post bad memes on facebook decades later. Well at least there was Gladiators as a breather from the poo poo TV. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 22:34
|
|
|
TinTower posted:My only criticism of Rayner is that she tried to pull the "university of life" card without any sense of irony. I always said Channel 5 was the beginning of the end times
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 22:36
|
|
|
kustomkarkommando posted:I always said Channel 5 was the beginning of the end times they put dirty movies on every Friday at 11pm, taking over the void that Channel 4 filled with The Word until it was cancelled
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 22:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 02:23 |
|
|
TinTower posted:My only criticism of Rayner is that she tried to pull the "university of life" card without any sense of irony. The 90s? Ah, such sweet memories. My family plunging into abject poverty thanks to neo-liberalism, each night's dinner being either tea and crackers or potatoes in some form, yeah, those were fun times. Also there were definitely computers and arcades, what the gently caress is this rear end in a top hat even on.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 22:44
|
|