BS: UK Anti Bush Protests

Subject: BS: UK Anti Bush Protests
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Nov 03 - 04:59 PM

Interesting to hear Will Self on BBCTV,harangue anti Bush protesters.
He reckons they are wasting their time,and should be trying to de-select Blairite paliamentary candidates.I think I agree with him ...

Subject: RE: BS: UK Anti Bush Protests
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Nov 03 - 05:12 PM

trying to de-select Blairite paliamentary candidates will also be a waste of time. Sad but true.

Subject: RE: BS: UK Anti Bush Protests
From: Gareth
Date: 14 Nov 03 - 06:59 PM

Which confirms what I have been saying for some time - An element of the "Anti-War" protestors are more concerned with regime change in the UK than freedom or justice in Iraq.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: UK Anti Bush Protests
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Nov 03 - 07:06 PM

President (yeah right) Bush coming to UK One thread on this rather than two might be better?

Subject: RE: BS: UK Anti Bush Protests
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Nov 03 - 07:16 PM

Gareth...The decision to invade Iraq has been taken.It is clear now to everyone, regardless of their politics, that the action was ill concieved,given the mess we now have to extricate ourselves from.
Perhaps regime change in the Labour party would stop similar blunders in the future.Although I must admit I'm a bit doubtful,being a devout realist....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: UK Anti Bush Protests
From: Gareth
Date: 14 Nov 03 - 07:35 PM

akenaton

Ill concieved maybe - Moral yes !

Interestingly here in Caerphilly we are well into our round of selections, by local ward members for our council candidates next June.

There have been some intersting casualties on existing councillors, those who were most vocal against the Iraq "invasion/liberation" have gone down in flames. Deselected by the rank and file. And NO!, I can speak as a CLP official (Unpaid) - HQ in Cardiff was told to keep clear, and they did.

After all we had had enuf of thier attempts to deal with Ron Davies.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: UK Anti Bush Protests
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Nov 03 - 07:42 PM

Gareth... Im not really a political animal, so I ask in ignorance, what sort of people compose the "rank and file" these days.
When I was a young man, most of the LP officials were radicals...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: UK Anti Bush Protests
From: Gareth
Date: 15 Nov 03 - 08:01 AM

Ake - To misquote Kipling "Ordinary folks, a bit like you and me"

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: UK Anti Bush Protests
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Nov 03 - 08:42 AM

"Ill conceived maybe - Moral yes!"

"It's worse than a crime - it's a mistake..." Nobody seem quite sure who first said that - either Fouché or Talleyrand - some cynical Frenchman anyway.

Either way, it's very apposite in this context. The key criticism of this all along, for me anyway, has been that it was likely to end up making things even worse, whereas going at it another way offered a real hope of making things better.

Subject: RE: BS: UK Anti Bush Protests
From: GUEST,ro1sin
Date: 15 Nov 03 - 11:25 PM

do all of you realize that every president that was elected in a year ending with a zero was shot and killed in office starting with Lincoln with the exception of Regan, he was shot but surviced

Subject: RE: BS: UK Anti Bush Protests
From: Gareth
Date: 16 Nov 03 - 11:58 AM

ro1sin - The problem here is that Bush Jnr was not elected in 2000, by the people, but by the courts.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: UK Anti Bush Protests
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Nov 03 - 12:22 PM

And if you check with the records it's not true anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: UK Anti Bush Protests
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Nov 03 - 01:11 PM

It's not actually true - it is true that all the ones who were shot were elected in these years, but that's not the same thing. Here is a list with dates.

Subject: RE: BS: UK Anti Bush Protests
From: Hrothgar
Date: 16 Nov 03 - 06:38 PM

Three of them died without being shot. Interesting contrast - Roosevelt, arguably one of their best presidents, and Harding, almost certainly one of their worst. Harrison's only distinction was having the shortest presidency.

Subject: RE: BS: UK Anti Bush Protests
From: harvey andrews
Date: 17 Nov 03 - 05:14 AM

Nice of George to tell our protesters that they're lucky to be living in a country where they can protest. That statement is usually followed by.."Of course, if I had my way....."
It seems our Govt has turned down US requests to fly their fighter jets and helicopters over our capital after closing down the underground system and fencing off most of the city. Oh, and they also requested that they be allowed to shoot to kill anyone they chose to without any comeback and also to be allowed to have a tank gun that can spray a crowd with bullets faster than anything else.

Subject: RE: BS: UK Anti Bush Protests
From: Dave Bryant
Date: 17 Nov 03 - 06:04 AM

Saddam, Bin Laden, Guy Fawkes, Lee Harvey Oswald etc - Where are you when we need you !

Subject: RE: BS: UK Anti Bush Protests
From: Ebbie
Date: 17 Nov 03 - 01:30 PM

I believe we usually say that since McKinley, each president elected in a year ending in '0' died (not "was shot") in office. Reagan survived, so perhaps the chain is broken. With Bush getting into office the way he did, we may never know!

Subject: RE: BS: UK Anti Bush Protests
From: GUEST,Boab
Date: 17 Nov 03 - 02:07 PM

Heard a confused old guy [a"press representative" from London]on CBC news this morning telling the Canadian public that the 100,000 protesters expected on the streets are "a noisy minority", and the "vast majority" of the British public "approve of Mr Bush"!!! Either he's a truly desperate Tory propagandist or he has been having some wild nightmares which he confuses with reality.

Subject: RE: BS: UK Anti Bush Protests
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 17 Nov 03 - 02:10 PM

They most certainly be wasting their time - on both counts.

For those attending it will be something akin to peeing in your pants whilst wearing a dark suit - it will give you a lovely warm feeling for a few minutes, but will not be noticed by anyone.

Subject: RE: BS: UK Anti Bush Protests
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Nov 03 - 04:01 PM

Im afraid that you are correct Terribus,and this goes to show the lie in our "democracy"....When Government can treat a large part of public opinion In this arrogant fashion.
It is clear to almost everyone,that the war and its aftermath have been a blunder and we are now being treated to a lage portion of spin
       Ake..

Subject: RE: BS: UK Anti Bush Protests
From: TIA
Date: 17 Nov 03 - 04:21 PM

It certainly won't be noticed by Bush - who by his own admission does not watch, nor read, the news. In addition, protestors are kept well out of his eye- and earshot. I think he truly believes the world is behind him. People used to joke about Ronald Reagan being detached. People joked about George H.W. Bush being astonished by a supermarket scanner (doesn't get out much does he?). But Little Georgie lives in a fairy land. He'll come home having very much enjoyed his peaceful visit to Merrie Olde...probably get his picture taken with those Mr. Serious guards in big fuzzy hats, maybe bring back a plastic Big Ben.

Subject: RE: BS: UK Anti Bush Protests
From: Amos
Date: 17 Nov 03 - 04:26 PM

See also http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/11/274781.shtml.

A

Subject: RE: BS: UK Anti Bush Protests
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Nov 03 - 06:00 PM

You've tried doing that, Teribus?

Subject: RE: BS: UK Anti Bush Protests
From: Gareth
Date: 17 Nov 03 - 06:55 PM

Kevin, I don'y know if Terribus has, but have you ?

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: UK Anti Bush Protests
From: Deda
Date: 18 Nov 03 - 12:39 AM

Well, I'm grateful to all the folks who are turning out to let the world know what an ass he is perceived to be by the rest of the world. If I had the money I'd hope over to join the crowd. No one in his administration cares but still, I appreciate the protests from over here.

Subject: RE: BS: UK Anti Bush Protests
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Nov 03 - 06:26 AM

Here's Steve Bell's cartoon summary of the event in today's Guardian.

Subject: RE: BS: UK Anti Bush Protests
From: Wolfgang
Date: 18 Nov 03 - 06:47 AM

Thanks for that link to 'majority of Labout voters backs Bush visit'.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: UK Anti Bush Protests
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 18 Nov 03 - 10:57 AM

I'll second Wolgang's thanks Kevin - that link makes interesting reading.

Subject: RE: BS: UK Anti Bush Protests
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Nov 03 - 11:35 AM

Interesting - but not quite as straightforward as that headline suggests - "...majority backs Bush visit" it says, but that's not actually true. The figures further down indicate that "43% - say they welcome George Bush's arrival in Britain than the 36% who say they would prefer he did not come." And that is made up of 51% of men and only 35% of women.

Forty three per cent is not a majority.

Subject: RE: BS: UK Anti Bush Protests
From: Wolfgang
Date: 18 Nov 03 - 12:08 PM

McGrath, as well as anybody else you know that the word 'majority' has at least two meanings, absolute and relative majority. The article makes completely clear in the context that 'relative majority' was meant. Understood in that sense the headline is true. Headlines are not a good spot for the small print.

Wolfgang (suppressing the very strong temptation to use the word 'ironic' to describe you making this link)

Subject: RE: BS: UK Anti Bush Protests
From: Wolfgang
Date: 18 Nov 03 - 12:15 PM

And, by the way, my line 'majority of Labout voters backs Bush visit' (in which did with purpose change the headline of the Guardian) is correct in both senses of the word, for not only a relative but even an absolute majority of Labour voters...

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: UK Anti Bush Protests
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Nov 03 - 01:14 PM

What you refer to as a "relative majority" is correctly called a "plurality". To use the term "majority" where what is being talked about is in fact a minority is not in my view an acceptable use of language.

"Majority backs Bush's visit" means that most people back it - but in fact accordingly to that poll, most people did not say they welcomed the visit.

As you say, it's quite true that a majority of people who said they intend to vote Labour said they back the visit. Of course that would exclude many who voted Labour last time, but don't feel like voting that way next time, precisely because they disagree over the Iraq war and so forth. But my quote was taken from the Guardian headline, not from Wolfgang's post.

Subject: RE: BS: UK Anti Bush Protests
From: Wolfgang
Date: 18 Nov 03 - 02:27 PM

"Different dictionaries", McGrath.
In my dictionary, plurality is the wrong word in this context and '(relative) majority' is the correct expression.

Plurality refers to the choice with most votes in a situation with more than two choices. For instance in elections. In these cases, the majority may not prefer the candidate with most votes.

In situations with two choices and a third option of 'don't respond/ don't care' the expression to be used is 'relative majority'.

'Relative majority' here is the majority of those who care or have an opinion or want to tell their opinion.

The difference in usage is whether a majority has explicitely stated another choice, then 'plurality' would be correct, or whether in what basically is a two-choices situation with the possibility of 'undecided' vote the majority of those who are not undecided favour one possibility, then 'relative majority' is the correct expression.

But completely aside from which words to use, we do not differ on the basic facts and as I said I'm glad you have brought them to our attention.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: UK Anti Bush Protests
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Nov 03 - 04:07 PM

I still feel unconfortable using "majority" in this kind of sense, more especially without even a "relative" added. And that isn't actually because of the way the figures worked out. I'd object to it if it had come out the other way. Honestly.

In this case 21% of people declined to express an opinion.   But what if it had been 90%? If that had happened I suspect that Wolfgang would agree that, even if virtually all the 10% had said "Yes" (or virtually all had said "No"), it would be a distortion of the result if anyone were to say that this was the view of "the majority". So what is the magic figure between 90% and 21%?   I don't think there is one. I think the only responsible thing is to take a little more time and trouble and be more precise.

People reading the Guardian story could read down a couple of paragraphs and see the actual figures - but, for most people, the way it's reached them has been through the TV news - and it's seemed to me that every news bulletin which has referred to this poll has just gone with the headline, and failed to clarify the results. We've been repeatedly told that the poll shows that most people welcome Bush's visit - and that just is not a true summary of the result.

Subject: RE: BS: UK Anti Bush Protests
From: DougR
Date: 18 Nov 03 - 06:23 PM

Now you British folks be nice to our president, okay?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: UK Anti Bush Protests
From: Gareth
Date: 18 Nov 03 - 07:17 PM

Kevin - When yer in a hole - Stop digging !

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: UK Anti Bush Protests
From: Peace
Date: 18 Nov 03 - 11:26 PM

Send him to Canada. We want to be nice to him, too.

Subject: RE: BS: UK Anti Bush Protests
From: Wolfgang
Date: 19 Nov 03 - 05:09 AM

If a considerable number of people was undecided or did not state an opinion it should be mentioned. What is 'considerable'? As a rule of thumb, in a two-choice situation, when more people are undecided than the least preferred of the two options it is worth mentioning.

Since the link above does not go now to where it did yesterday those who are interested in the polls we discuss go here.

Isn't it interesting that the highest percentage wishing Bush did not come is among those above 65?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: UK Anti Bush Protests
From: ard mhacha
Date: 19 Nov 03 - 08:16 AM

The majority of the British population read the Sun newspaper, and the majority of the German population voted for Hitler.

This sound logic means, that there was always more idiots out than in. Ard Mhacha.

Subject: RE: BS: UK Anti Bush Protests
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Nov 03 - 08:47 AM

I prefer my rule of thumb Wolfgang - it's only a majority if it's 50 per cent plus one. That's what it's always meant so far as I'm concerned. Nobody would describe a government which had fewer that half the seats in a parliament as a majority government, even if it it had far more seats than any of the other parties.

"Isn't it interesting that the highest percentage wishing Bush did not come is among those above 65?"

I agree. And it's not what a lot of people would have predicted. It rather undermines the assumption you often get that caring about these things is just a matter of young people going along with a fashion, "they'll grow out of it"...

Subject: RE: BS: UK Anti Bush Protests
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Nov 03 - 06:54 PM

Come come Mcgrath..The figures that Wolfgang Quotes are quite a blow for the left.   I would have expected this poll ,especially in the Guardian, to have shown a large majority against Bush's visit.
Your wriggling does you no credit.
As Iv said before,we on the left must stop glossing over our weaknesses. We only make ourseves look foolish....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: UK Anti Bush Protests
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Nov 03 - 07:05 PM

Not guilty of wriggling this time.

As I said above, I'd have made the same objection if the figures had been the other way round and they'd had headlines about 43% as being "a majority", interpreted by the media as meaning "most".

Subject: RE: BS: UK Anti Bush Protests
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Nov 03 - 07:26 PM

Yes McGrath. But surely ,like me, you would have expected a large majority against the visit.
The world seems to have moved on ,or back, since the heady days of Feb 15......Nothing as fickle as public opinion it seems.
This is probably the reason that "real" democracy is unworkable ,under our present system...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: UK Anti Bush Protests
From: Amos
Date: 19 Nov 03 - 08:09 PM

NPR reported this evening that 6 per cent of Britons considered Bush a world leader.

A

Subject: RE: BS: UK Anti Bush Protests
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Nov 03 - 08:39 PM

Actually Bush came across as a confident speaker on British TV.
He seemed sincere and gave an un compromising message to the world that America was determined to stamp on any country ,or organisation that they deemed a threat to their security and freedom.
Im sure this stance will have won round large numbers of "wobbly" Brits. Im sure glad I dont bother with politics any more..Ake

Subject: RE: BS: UK Anti Bush Protests
From: DougR
Date: 19 Nov 03 - 09:29 PM

Interesting. When "THE GUARDIAN" promotes the left-wing party line, it's a wonderful, not to be disputed publication. When it reports something not acceptable to the hard line left-wingers, it's reporting is suspect.

Amos: NPR? What would one expect?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: UK Anti Bush Protests
From: Amos
Date: 19 Nov 03 - 09:46 PM

DougR:

I'd expect them to have a reasonable source for the statistic. The Guardian, well, I'd give it a grain of salt sometimes. In any case, attacking the medium is not the point. Do you argue, then that the ROTUS is highly esteemed in the UK? Does the fact that NPR published a datum make it unbelievable to your worried mind?

A

Subject: RE: BS: UK Anti Bush Protests
From: DougR
Date: 20 Nov 03 - 12:33 AM

Amos, I don't have a "worried mind." I think Tommy Duncan, vocalist with the Bob Wills Texas' Playboys, lies claim to that. As to ROTUS, I haven't the foggiest.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: UK Anti Bush Protests
From: LadyJean
Date: 20 Nov 03 - 12:37 AM

At least the Britons can call the S.O.B. an S.O.B. We his countrymen and women are banished to free speech zones, out of his view.

Another U.S. president said, "If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen."

They called him give 'em hell Harry. I don't think anyone will ever call Bush give 'em hell George. Of course they could call him, give 'em BS Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: UK Anti Bush Protests
From: GUEST,Boab
Date: 20 Nov 03 - 03:08 AM

Nay, Ard Mharcha! The Sun may be the biggest seller in the UK of the crappy tabloids [page three bums and tits are hard to ignore when you're young and undersupplied], but the "majority of the Brits" most surely do NOT read it. Most of those who buy it, I would guess, bounce from the tits page to the sports section. Another example of how published statistics, though accurate in themselves, can mislead.