5 ms·

> Funny that they don't mention what "certain, commonplace views" people "stay silent" about. That might put a different spin on things. The article actually m

> Funny that they don't mention what "certain, commonplace views" people "stay silent" about. That might put a different spin on things. The article actually mentions at least two examples, so I don't think there's as much room for spin with this as you might think. One is Conservative voters, who have been vilified by the hard left since the 1970s, not least because of a sense of betrayal with the erosion of parts of the historic Labour voter base as people from working-class backgrounds moved to white-collar professions and abandoned trade unionism, and this has been particularly apparent in the arts. There is a "Shy Tory" phenomenon that has continued to confound pollsters. Another is people who voted for the UK to leave the EU in the 2016 referendum. Leave voters were regularly presented as ignorant and racist by major media sources from the lead up to the referendum until the final death of the Remain/Change UK insurgency after the 2019 General Election, with variations on Little Englander as well as different flavours of False Consciousness. I think your reference to a "full 'viewpoint diversity'" is invoking a concept that isn't found within the article; instead, the article addresses > views that diverge from majority public opinion and it is saying that these are more likely to be voiced, and to be tolerated without fear of termination or marginalization when they are from people on the Progressive/Labour side of the political spectrum. I don't think the scope of this discussion was intended to extend to people who "want to kill black people" (as they did in your cartoon); instead it encompasses the type of issues that people have been talking about in the UK over the last few years, which include enacting the result of the 2016 referendum, as well as those pertaining to taxation, immigration, education, healthcare and defence.

pmyteh 5y ago
For what it's worth, the 'shy Tory' effect isn't really a thing, at least in British opinion polling. Maybe in the 1992 General Election, when it was coined, not since. Polling errors go both ways, most polling misses turn out to be a result of turnout modeling problems or (occasionally) unrepresentative samples, and voters have no problem at all telling pollsters they're going to vote for the Tories, UKIP, or anyone else. Take the present prime minister. I don't think it's particularly controversial to say that he's repeatedly proven himself to be a fairly brazen liar. Voters don't actually like liars. They do, nevertheless, like Johnson (and quite a bit more than they like Starmer). And they're not shy about saying so.
- brippalcharrid 5y ago
  I gather that it was still an active phenomenon as of the GE in 2015 [0][1], and in 2016 there was a significant underestimation of the Leave vote [2]. I'm not really sure how the last part is supposed to relate to this issue in particular, other than being a general swipe at BoJo. [0] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32751993 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32751993 [1] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/08/election-2015-how-shy-tories-confounded-polls-cameron-victory https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/08/election-20... [2] https://www.centreonconstitutionalchange.ac.uk/opinions/brexit-reflections-how-polls-got-it-wrong-again https://www.centreonconstitutionalchange.ac.uk/opinions/brex...
  - pmyteh 5y ago
    There was a fairly large polling miss in 2015, yes - and the traditional in-depth postmortem by the British Polling Council[0]. Nevertheless, the conclusion from the inquiry was that the shy Tory effect "...is unlikely to have been a contributory factor in the polling miss." (p.42). Or from your link 0: "I do not mean to dismiss the "shy Tory" argument out of hand, but I find it far less plausible in 2015 than in 1992". In short, the polls are normally a bit wrong, and sometimes more than a bit. And occasionally that changes the expected result (as in 2015) rather than just the magnitude of an expected victory. And over the last 30 years or so those misses have on average been larger against the Conservatives than against Labour. But the conclusion, on analysis, is that the misses have generally been caused by structural problems with the polling, not respondents lying because they're shy. This shouldn't surprise us too much: trying to produce a valid poll with less than 100% response rates requires assumptions, and increasingly more heroic ones as the numbers fall and distributions of those still answering change. I'm mildly in awe of my colleagues for getting as close as they do, given how difficult the problems are. And (with the exception of a few partisan hacks) the polling industry and polling academia in Britain is remarkably straightforward about exposing their errors in public and issuing 'mea culpa's where appropriate. The last part was intended to relate because the notion of a 'shy Tory' is that a voter has deeply-held but perceived socially embarrassing views that they are shy about revealing to a pollster. Persistent dishonesty is disliked, by voters of all parties, and seen to be socially unacceptable - so we would expect social desirability bias to apply to polling for Johnson. But, in fact, voters are happy to rate him as both dishonest and their preferred choice for Prime Minister. Which suggests in a straightforward (though admittedly non-rigorous) way that they're unlikely to be hiding voting for his party. [0]: http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/3789/1/Report_final_revised.pdf http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/3789/1/Report_final_revised.pdf
KaiserPro 5y ago
> One is Conservative voters, who have been vilified by the hard left since the 1970s, not least because of a sense of betrayal with the erosion of parts of the historic Labour voter base as people from working-class backgrounds moved to white-collar professions and abandoned trade unionism, and this has been particularly apparent in the arts. There is a "Shy Tory" phenomenon that has continued to confound pollsters. not to be a nit picking noo noo, but both wings of each party mock and vilify the other party. (just have a look at the various twitter streams for your local labour/green/tory/libdem party.) its what they've always done. The labour party hasn't been about trade unionism since at least 1995. The problem you are asserting as effectively a freedom of speech issue isn't that, its tribalism. The brexit debate is a good example of this. The country is split 50/50 (+-10%) between remain/brexit. It is therefore impossible to present an average view. This is because its such a polarising issue. Made worse by the fact that we can see so much froth in real time about each tiny plot point. We are used to now seeing the most extreme arguments about each trivial thing (the BBC won't show you THIS. or the MSM are so biased towards x) we are simply not used to coming to a consensus anymore. We have lost (or never had) the ability to listen to the "other" side and find common ground. In all debates we seem to be shouting loudly at the "other" side, so that we can get a reaction from our own.
- brippalcharrid 5y ago
  Just on the subject of trade unions, Labour would cease to exist without them, as their (millions of) members' subscriptions contribute to its funding, and since Corbyn they have had a significantly larger role in the NEC than in the Blair/Brown years. Now that he has left there is all sorts bitter in-fighting, and the prospect that the radical factions could break away (or stay and cause Starmer an unending stream of headaches). https://labourlist.org/2020/11/labour-left-furious-at-plan-to-block-corbyn-ally-from-becoming-nec-chair/ https://labourlist.org/2020/11/labour-left-furious-at-plan-t... https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/momentum-crisis-labour-party https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/momentum-crisis-...
  - KaiserPro 5y ago
    Sorry, yes, you are correct. My assertion was about not being about unionism was too strong. Its far more complex and nuanced, as you rightly point out. The ramifications of Corbyn stirring up the latent 80s unionism have yet to be fully felt.
wpietri 5y ago
"Conservative" isn't a view. It's a movement allegiance. So I don't think that qualifies. I feel the same applies more loosely to Brexit. What's interesting in both case is that both movements absolutely contain rich seams of racism. So if the actual view people are afraid to voice is racism either intent or action, then I would submit that it is in fact good that they are not voicing it. I also strongly doubt that many are afraid to voice a view that the correct tax rate for high income earners are 3 points higher or lower. But what decades of history teaches is that since overt racism is no longer acceptable, quite a lot of other issues are used as covers for racism. See Lee Atwater's quote here, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy#Evolution_(1970s_and_1980s) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy#Evolution_(1... So I stand by my view that we must look at the specific opinions people are scared to voice and see to what extent they relate to oppressing groups who were previously forced to keep quiet. My bet here is that a lot of what "Conservative voters" happen to be afraid to speak about is the conservation parts of the past that they are rightly ashamed to be honest about wanting to keep.
- brippalcharrid 5y ago
  > "Conservative" isn't a view. It's a movement allegiance. So I don't think that qualifies. I feel the same applies more loosely to Brexit. People tended to vote for these things because they believed that the policies of the Conservative Party in the 2019 election or the Leave option in the referendum would be the best expression of their values. They were also rejecting the alternatives, such as a centrally-planned economic model including wealth taxes and the nationalisation of companies and utilities or European federalism and supranationalism, because these policies opposed their views. And they were certainly criticized for this decision with the reasoning being that it was the result of them having the wrong sort of views. > What's interesting in both case is that both movements absolutely contain rich seams of racism. Where did racism come from, all of a sudden? That's a very broad smear, and I'd challenge you to provide evidence. > So if the actual view people are afraid to voice is racism either intent or action, then I would submit that it is in fact good that they are not voicing it. Again, I'm not sure why specifically you're bringing racism into Brexit or the 2019 GE, but you're welcome to substantiate that. > I also strongly doubt that many are afraid to voice a view that the correct tax rate for high income earners are 3 points higher or lower. In many parts of the UK, in various professions and walks of life it's just not worth the hassle of letting it be known that you vote Conservative or that you voted Leave. The unions all support Labour, and there is no point in particular in making your life harder by exposing your political alignment if you're working in a blue-collar role in the public sector. > But what decades of history teaches is that since overt racism is no longer acceptable, quite a lot of other issues are used as covers for racism. See Lee Atwater's quote here, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy#Evolution_(1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy#Evolution_(1... It's hard to tell how much personal bias is involved when allegations of dog-whistling are made, but I'm not sufficiently familiar with Reagan to be able to make an assessment in this case. > So I stand by my view that we must look at the specific opinions people are scared to voice and see to what extent they relate to oppressing groups who were previously forced to keep quiet. My bet here is that a lot of what "Conservative voters" happen to be afraid to speak about is the conservation parts of the past that they are rightly ashamed to be honest about wanting to keep. I've already given you two particular examples of opinions that people have been unwilling to broadcast; one is that the UK should have a Conservative government (and not a Labour government under Jeremy Corbyn/John McDonnell) in the 2019 election, and the other is that the UK should leave the EU, and people have been subject to criticism for holding either of those views. The inference in this case that an unwillingness to broadcast the basis or the practical conclusions of one's political ideology would likely be due to a person harboring shameful and unconscionable opinions basically amounts to a form of victim-blaming, and it appears to be ideological rather than based in evidence. I'd encourage you to continue to look into this, if you're interested, because you might end up being surprised.

pmyteh 5y ago

For what it's worth, the 'shy Tory' effect isn't really a thing, at least in British opinion polling. Maybe in the 1992 General Election, when it was coined, not since. Polling errors go both ways, most polling misses turn out to be a result of turnout modeling problems or (occasionally) unrepresentative samples, and voters have no problem at all telling pollsters they're going to vote for the Tories, UKIP, or anyone else. Take the present prime minister. I don't think it's particularly controversial to say that he's repeatedly proven himself to be a fairly brazen liar. Voters don't actually like liars. They do, nevertheless, like Johnson (and quite a bit more than they like Starmer). And they're not shy about saying so.

brippalcharrid 5y ago
I gather that it was still an active phenomenon as of the GE in 2015 [0][1], and in 2016 there was a significant underestimation of the Leave vote [2]. I'm not really sure how the last part is supposed to relate to this issue in particular, other than being a general swipe at BoJo. [0] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32751993 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32751993 [1] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/08/election-2015-how-shy-tories-confounded-polls-cameron-victory https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/08/election-20... [2] https://www.centreonconstitutionalchange.ac.uk/opinions/brexit-reflections-how-polls-got-it-wrong-again https://www.centreonconstitutionalchange.ac.uk/opinions/brex...
- pmyteh 5y ago
  There was a fairly large polling miss in 2015, yes - and the traditional in-depth postmortem by the British Polling Council[0]. Nevertheless, the conclusion from the inquiry was that the shy Tory effect "...is unlikely to have been a contributory factor in the polling miss." (p.42). Or from your link 0: "I do not mean to dismiss the "shy Tory" argument out of hand, but I find it far less plausible in 2015 than in 1992". In short, the polls are normally a bit wrong, and sometimes more than a bit. And occasionally that changes the expected result (as in 2015) rather than just the magnitude of an expected victory. And over the last 30 years or so those misses have on average been larger against the Conservatives than against Labour. But the conclusion, on analysis, is that the misses have generally been caused by structural problems with the polling, not respondents lying because they're shy. This shouldn't surprise us too much: trying to produce a valid poll with less than 100% response rates requires assumptions, and increasingly more heroic ones as the numbers fall and distributions of those still answering change. I'm mildly in awe of my colleagues for getting as close as they do, given how difficult the problems are. And (with the exception of a few partisan hacks) the polling industry and polling academia in Britain is remarkably straightforward about exposing their errors in public and issuing 'mea culpa's where appropriate. The last part was intended to relate because the notion of a 'shy Tory' is that a voter has deeply-held but perceived socially embarrassing views that they are shy about revealing to a pollster. Persistent dishonesty is disliked, by voters of all parties, and seen to be socially unacceptable - so we would expect social desirability bias to apply to polling for Johnson. But, in fact, voters are happy to rate him as both dishonest and their preferred choice for Prime Minister. Which suggests in a straightforward (though admittedly non-rigorous) way that they're unlikely to be hiding voting for his party. [0]: http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/3789/1/Report_final_revised.pdf http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/3789/1/Report_final_revised.pdf

KaiserPro 5y ago

> One is Conservative voters, who have been vilified by the hard left since the 1970s, not least because of a sense of betrayal with the erosion of parts of the historic Labour voter base as people from working-class backgrounds moved to white-collar professions and abandoned trade unionism, and this has been particularly apparent in the arts. There is a "Shy Tory" phenomenon that has continued to confound pollsters. not to be a nit picking noo noo, but both wings of each party mock and vilify the other party. (just have a look at the various twitter streams for your local labour/green/tory/libdem party.) its what they've always done. The labour party hasn't been about trade unionism since at least 1995. The problem you are asserting as effectively a freedom of speech issue isn't that, its tribalism. The brexit debate is a good example of this. The country is split 50/50 (+-10%) between remain/brexit. It is therefore impossible to present an average view. This is because its such a polarising issue. Made worse by the fact that we can see so much froth in real time about each tiny plot point. We are used to now seeing the most extreme arguments about each trivial thing (the BBC won't show you THIS. or the MSM are so biased towards x) we are simply not used to coming to a consensus anymore. We have lost (or never had) the ability to listen to the "other" side and find common ground. In all debates we seem to be shouting loudly at the "other" side, so that we can get a reaction from our own.

brippalcharrid 5y ago
Just on the subject of trade unions, Labour would cease to exist without them, as their (millions of) members' subscriptions contribute to its funding, and since Corbyn they have had a significantly larger role in the NEC than in the Blair/Brown years. Now that he has left there is all sorts bitter in-fighting, and the prospect that the radical factions could break away (or stay and cause Starmer an unending stream of headaches). https://labourlist.org/2020/11/labour-left-furious-at-plan-to-block-corbyn-ally-from-becoming-nec-chair/ https://labourlist.org/2020/11/labour-left-furious-at-plan-t... https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/momentum-crisis-labour-party https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/momentum-crisis-...
- KaiserPro 5y ago
  Sorry, yes, you are correct. My assertion was about not being about unionism was too strong. Its far more complex and nuanced, as you rightly point out. The ramifications of Corbyn stirring up the latent 80s unionism have yet to be fully felt.

wpietri 5y ago

"Conservative" isn't a view. It's a movement allegiance. So I don't think that qualifies. I feel the same applies more loosely to Brexit. What's interesting in both case is that both movements absolutely contain rich seams of racism. So if the actual view people are afraid to voice is racism either intent or action, then I would submit that it is in fact good that they are not voicing it. I also strongly doubt that many are afraid to voice a view that the correct tax rate for high income earners are 3 points higher or lower. But what decades of history teaches is that since overt racism is no longer acceptable, quite a lot of other issues are used as covers for racism. See Lee Atwater's quote here, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy#Evolution_(1970s_and_1980s) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy#Evolution_(1... So I stand by my view that we must look at the specific opinions people are scared to voice and see to what extent they relate to oppressing groups who were previously forced to keep quiet. My bet here is that a lot of what "Conservative voters" happen to be afraid to speak about is the conservation parts of the past that they are rightly ashamed to be honest about wanting to keep.

brippalcharrid 5y ago
> "Conservative" isn't a view. It's a movement allegiance. So I don't think that qualifies. I feel the same applies more loosely to Brexit. People tended to vote for these things because they believed that the policies of the Conservative Party in the 2019 election or the Leave option in the referendum would be the best expression of their values. They were also rejecting the alternatives, such as a centrally-planned economic model including wealth taxes and the nationalisation of companies and utilities or European federalism and supranationalism, because these policies opposed their views. And they were certainly criticized for this decision with the reasoning being that it was the result of them having the wrong sort of views. > What's interesting in both case is that both movements absolutely contain rich seams of racism. Where did racism come from, all of a sudden? That's a very broad smear, and I'd challenge you to provide evidence. > So if the actual view people are afraid to voice is racism either intent or action, then I would submit that it is in fact good that they are not voicing it. Again, I'm not sure why specifically you're bringing racism into Brexit or the 2019 GE, but you're welcome to substantiate that. > I also strongly doubt that many are afraid to voice a view that the correct tax rate for high income earners are 3 points higher or lower. In many parts of the UK, in various professions and walks of life it's just not worth the hassle of letting it be known that you vote Conservative or that you voted Leave. The unions all support Labour, and there is no point in particular in making your life harder by exposing your political alignment if you're working in a blue-collar role in the public sector. > But what decades of history teaches is that since overt racism is no longer acceptable, quite a lot of other issues are used as covers for racism. See Lee Atwater's quote here, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy#Evolution_(1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy#Evolution_(1... It's hard to tell how much personal bias is involved when allegations of dog-whistling are made, but I'm not sufficiently familiar with Reagan to be able to make an assessment in this case. > So I stand by my view that we must look at the specific opinions people are scared to voice and see to what extent they relate to oppressing groups who were previously forced to keep quiet. My bet here is that a lot of what "Conservative voters" happen to be afraid to speak about is the conservation parts of the past that they are rightly ashamed to be honest about wanting to keep. I've already given you two particular examples of opinions that people have been unwilling to broadcast; one is that the UK should have a Conservative government (and not a Labour government under Jeremy Corbyn/John McDonnell) in the 2019 election, and the other is that the UK should leave the EU, and people have been subject to criticism for holding either of those views. The inference in this case that an unwillingness to broadcast the basis or the practical conclusions of one's political ideology would likely be due to a person harboring shameful and unconscionable opinions basically amounts to a form of victim-blaming, and it appears to be ideological rather than based in evidence. I'd encourage you to continue to look into this, if you're interested, because you might end up being surprised.