"BAC" wrote in message
t...

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"BAC" wrote in message
...

snip

It really is time you accepted the realities of the situation.

LOL - I do accept the realities of the situation. Referendums in the
regions
concerned would show what those realities were, beyond dispute.



Wistfully thinking that you might have a valid point is not a
valid
form of arguing.


Assuming an inconvenient point to be invalid isn't a valid form of
rebuttal.

You have an invalid point in thinking that opinions in this country
are, as a rule, tested by conducting referenda.

Franz

Franz Heymann wrote:


"bigboard" wrote in message
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...28/nhunt28.xml

That is not a reference to hunting. You seem to be a little confused.
If you had a point you would not have given a useless reference, but
you would have made your point directly.

So the headline of the article is "Britain evenly split on foxhunting" and
you say it is not a reference to hunting? Sorry, but you appear to have
lost the plot.


says more like a fifty fifty split.

How much more like a fifty-fifty split, and what is their source?

RTFA.


Anyone who just uses opinion polls to make their point is
immediately on
shaky ground.

Businesses pay pollsters vast sums of money and base their business
decisions on the results.
Secondly, my point was that the 3 major pollsters all said (to put it
briefly) that there is a 2 to 1 majority in favour of a ban on
hunting. That was an entirely correct point which I made. That was
indeed the outcome of the polls I mentioned.

Like I said, I couldn't care one way or the other, so I'm not
going to get in to a protracted argument on this.

You have tried very hard, but you have been unable to make any
progress in your argument.


Because you are either thick or being deliberately obtuse, as ever. I'll
waste no more time on you.


If polls disagree so fundamentally, I think the only conclusion you
can draw
is that they are flawed. He who pays the piper...

The three polls whose results I quoted all agree with each other to
within the statistical uncertainties involved in the sampling process.
All three are compatible with the statement that in the regions where
the polls were conducted, there are approximately twice as many people
opposed to hunting as those in favour of hunting.


Franz, Franz, Franz. Those three polls were selected by *you* to support
*your* argument. Of course they back up your argument! Jesus H. Christ,
mumble, mutter, care-in-the-community, etc, etc.

Franz



--
"I'm fed up to the ears with old men dreaming up wars for young men to
die in."
-- George McGovern

In article , BAC
writes


The relatively simple expedient of organising referenda in the hunting
regions would have settled the issue beyond any doubt at all, and, hopefully
would have lead to wider acceptance of the results, and a swifter return to
normality.

An interesting solution. First you have to decide who is in a hunting
region and who is not. Then what about those 'townies' who have moved
out to the country? Should they have a vote? Carry the logic a bit
further and perhaps only those who are directly affected, ie those who
hunt, should have a vote.
--
Kay
"Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river"

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"BAC" wrote in message
snip

I haven't said they were wrong, I said the only way to test the
validity of
the various interpretations of their results would have been via a
universal
poll of opinion.

That was a wrong thing to say. You might spend some time studying
probability theory and statistics before sticking out your neck in
this way.

Oooh, miaow :-) Your faith in the accuracy of political opinion polls is
touching. I must have imagined Major's 'soap box' election victory. And my
neck does not feel particularly exposed by stating I regard predictions
which are not tested against actual results as somewhat suspect, especially
predictions made in the absence of a prospect of actually being able to cast
a vote.


By the way, I am not aware of anty of these "various ways" of
interpreting their results.

I'm not surprised you are not aware of any way of interpreting results other
than in the way you consider appropriate. If you are remotely interested in
the differing spins which can be put on analysis of polls, and reservations
concerning the methodology employed, you might take a look at the
Countryside Alliances analyses, tables and graphs of polls. Then look at
LACS and others' observations on, mainly, the same polls.

There is only one way of interpreting
their results in such a way that they are all compatible, namely that
in the areas where the polls were conducted, there were approximately
twice as many people in favour of a bam as those in favour of hunting.

Depends on the polls selected. For example, in February 2000, Burns
commissioned MORI to test opinion in the rural areas of West Cumbria, Devon,
Somerset, Leicester and Powys. It seems only 25% of all respondents favoured
a ban on hunting. There are people who interpret that in 'only one way',
that the majority of what they call 'real' rural folk do not favour a ban
and they are being railroaded and oppressed by the urban majority. My point
(although I don't expect you to accept it) is that there are sufficient
competing statistical samples out there to afford anyone with a particular
viewpoint to make his case. An official referendum would be conclusive.


I look forward to hearing a few of these "various ways" of
interpreting the results as you claim there are.

I'm glad to hear you have an open mind.


I wouldn't bet my shirt or anything else on disputing the
findings of market research teams,

You are beginning to show the onset of some elements of widsom.

An undeserved compliment, from your viewpoint, since I did not mean that I
accepted they never made mistakes, I'm sure they do. Rather, that unless I
had investigated the matter myself, I wouldn't feel confident to bet either
way.


but I am unhappy with the notion that
market research renders a more democratic approach superfluous.

Nobody said that it does.

That was the inference I drew from your remarks - that people should accept
the ban was what the population wanted, on the back of the results of some
opinion polls.

The democratic approach, as practiced in
England, elected a parliament and this has resulted in a number of
parliamentary decisions with overwhelming majorities that hunting
foxes with dogs should be banned.


Regrettably, there is no English Parliament. There is an UK Parliament,
which consists of two Houses, one elected and one appointed, and, if you add
up the votes cast for and against a total ban in both houses, you'll find
there was actually a majority in Parliament (all of it) against a ban.

So, what better way to silence the protests of the pro hunters, that they
have been 'stitched up' by a scarcely representative Commons majority, and
that rural people are being oppressed, than to settle the matter by that
most democratic of options, a popular vote?

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"BAC" wrote in message
t...

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"BAC" wrote in message
...

snip

It really is time you accepted the realities of the situation.

LOL - I do accept the realities of the situation. Referendums in the
regions
concerned would show what those realities were, beyond dispute.



Wistfully thinking that you might have a valid point is not a
valid
form of arguing.


Assuming an inconvenient point to be invalid isn't a valid form of
rebuttal.

You have an invalid point in thinking that opinions in this country
are, as a rule, tested by conducting referenda.


If I were to think that opinions in this country are, as a rule, tested by
conducting referenda, I would be sadly mistaken. But I don't think that, and
have not said it, either. Some opinions, or preferences, or choices between
options are tested in the UK by conducting referenda. For example remaining
in the EEC, as it was called, whether to have mayors in some towns,
devolution in London, Scotland, Wales, and, recently, the North-East.
Referenda on devolution in other regions were proposed (but now abandoned,
it seems) and we have been awaiting a referendum on the Euro and now the
European Constitution. So, local, regional and national referenda on single
issue matters are part of the UK's democratic decision making process. I
don't think that's inaccurate or invalid, do you?

Now you may disagree with my suggestion that it would have been appropriate
to use the referendum mechanism to settle the hunting question, but your
disagreement, with respect, does not render the proposition invalid.

"Kay" wrote in message
...
In article , BAC
writes


The relatively simple expedient of organising referenda in the hunting
regions would have settled the issue beyond any doubt at all, and,
hopefully
would have lead to wider acceptance of the results, and a swifter return
to
normality.

An interesting solution. First you have to decide who is in a hunting
region and who is not. Then what about those 'townies' who have moved
out to the country? Should they have a vote? Carry the logic a bit
further and perhaps only those who are directly affected, ie those who
hunt, should have a vote.

First, to define a hunting region, it shouldn't be too difficult to identify
parishes where people hunt with dogs for hares, mink, deer or foxes. Then,
(all) the people on the electoral roll for those parishes get a ballot
paper, with a choice between the three options. Simple, really.

"BAC" wrote in message
...

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"BAC" wrote in message
...
prune

I don't know whether or not the polls were flawed, only a
referendum
would
settle that.

That would be your problem..............
I, in turn, don't know how one would skew a poll to show quite as
convincing majority in favour of a ban without making it glaringly
obvious that one has skewed the results. That I find hard to
swallow,
since the polls were conducted by the usual, respected polling
organisations, which would not wish to have their reputations
destroyed.


First, I don't regard having an open mind on the accuracy of opinion
polls
as a problem. Nor do I believe that giving all concerned in a
contentious
and potentially inflammatory single issue matter an opportunity to
vote on
it is a problem.

The matter is inflammarory only because the losers are not prepared to
accept that they are in a minority of 1 to 2 in all the regions where
polls were conducted.. Giving them a lesson or two in civics might
not come amiss

The reality of the situation, in my view, is that, regardless of
opinion
poll indications, we have the real problem of a considerable body of
people
seeming to believe that they have been 'railroaded' into a ban by
MPs whose
personal views on the matter do not reflect the wishes of the
communities
concerned.

But they do. They do. All the polls indicate that that the pro-hunt
fraternity
is in a minority of 1 to 2.
Please avccept this fact once and for all so as to make it unnecessary
for me to have to say it yet again.

They resent the situation, and unpleasantness is occurring and
may be expected to continue and to fester unless resolved.

Yes. I am under no illusions about the lack of understanding of the
situation by the more barbaric sections of the population.

The relatively simple expedient of organising referenda in the
hunting
regions would have settled the issue beyond any doubt at all,

Why don't you suggest we go all the way and conduct a referendum, only
within the hunting organisations?

The matter has already been settled beyond all doubt by the usual
process of democracy in this country.

and, hopefully
would have lead to wider acceptance of the results,

I have less faith than you in the good nature of barbarians.

and a swifter return to
normality.

I suggest it is common sense, not wishful thinking, to learn from
events and
to try to think of a better way.

The present way in which democracy is exercised in this country is as
good a way as you will find anywhere.

Franz

"BAC" wrote in message
...

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"BAC" wrote in message
...

[snip]

I do believe putting the matter to a popular vote would have
been
wise.

Any wiser than putting the annual budget proposals to a popular
vote?


Like companies do, you mean?

No. I don't mean like companies.

No, I don't think it would be as wise to put UK
plc's annual budget proposals to a popular vote, because of the
sheer
impracticability arising from the volume of decisions which would be
required, and the complexity of the considerations would be
double-dutch to
most of us (although, to be fair, it probably is to most MPs, too,
good job
they don't get a free vote on it!).

So your style of democracy would only work for such issues as you
choose to apply it to?

Putting the highly contentious single issue 'hunting' proposals to a
popular
vote might have headed off the constitutional wrangles we can expect
to see
now, and also the civil unpleasantness which seems likely to rumble
on -
that's why I think it would have been wise, and practical, too.

You are boring me stiff. Please have the last word.

Franz

"bigboard" wrote in message
...
Franz Heymann wrote:


"bigboard" wrote in message

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...28/nhunt28.xml

That is not a reference to hunting. You seem to be a little
confused.
If you had a point you would not have given a useless reference,
but
you would have made your point directly.

So the headline of the article is "Britain evenly split on
foxhunting" and
you say it is not a reference to hunting? Sorry, but you appear to
have
lost the plot.

My mistake. I apologise. Yes. I grant you that the YouGov poll
reported in The Telegraph showed a smaller majority against fox
hunting. There was nevertheless still a majority.

[snip]

Franz

Franz Heymann wrote:
"bigboard" wrote in message
...
Franz Heymann wrote:


"bigboard" wrote in message


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...28/nhunt28.xml

That is not a reference to hunting. You seem to be a little
confused. If you had a point you would not have given a useless
reference, but you would have made your point directly.

So the headline of the article is "Britain evenly split on
foxhunting" and you say it is not a reference to hunting? Sorry,
but
you appear to have lost the plot.

My mistake. I apologise. Yes. I grant you that the YouGov poll
reported in The Telegraph showed a smaller majority against fox
hunting. There was nevertheless still a majority.

Worth noting that (unless -- as is quite possible -- I have
misunderstood) YouGov is a company in the Telegraph group. I think it
was Bigboard who believed that polls reflected the views of those who
paid for them.

I don't know the dates of the major independent surveys, but the
Telegraph/YouGov poll was published in 2002.

The article pointed out an enormous drop in the anti camp compared
with a previous poll: since this was so large a change as to suggest
a possible anomaly, I wondered about the precise form of the
questions asked. I noticed that the figure given was referred to as
the percentage who "wanted to see hunting criminalised". Now a good
survey will ask the same question in different ways; I wondered if
this survey had done that, and if so what the figures were for the
other forms of the question. The British public is pretty
good-natured, and the "criminalised" question could well have
elicited very different responses from the answers to questions
worded in ways which didn't put into the heads of the respondents the
idea of treating fox-hunters the same way as gangland murderers,
drug-dealers, and City fraudsters. Since the Telegraph, for its own
reasons, didn't give me this information, I can only speculate. But
if there was an anomaly, this might be a good place to start looking
for it.

Mike.

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"BAC" wrote in message
...

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"BAC" wrote in message
...
prune

I don't know whether or not the polls were flawed, only a
referendum
would
settle that.

That would be your problem..............
I, in turn, don't know how one would skew a poll to show quite as
convincing majority in favour of a ban without making it glaringly
obvious that one has skewed the results. That I find hard to
swallow,
since the polls were conducted by the usual, respected polling
organisations, which would not wish to have their reputations
destroyed.


First, I don't regard having an open mind on the accuracy of opinion
polls
as a problem. Nor do I believe that giving all concerned in a
contentious
and potentially inflammatory single issue matter an opportunity to
vote on
it is a problem.

The matter is inflammarory only because the losers are not prepared to
accept that they are in a minority of 1 to 2 in all the regions where
polls were conducted..

That's not the only reason the matter is inflammatory, but their belief that
popular opinion within their regions supports them seems an important
factor. Hence my belief that the best way to settle that question would be
to hold referenda in those regions.

Giving them a lesson or two in civics might
not come amiss

Giving them a chance to vote on it wouldn't, either.


The reality of the situation, in my view, is that, regardless of
opinion
poll indications, we have the real problem of a considerable body of
people
seeming to believe that they have been 'railroaded' into a ban by
MPs whose
personal views on the matter do not reflect the wishes of the
communities
concerned.

But they do. They do. All the polls indicate that that the pro-hunt
fraternity
is in a minority of 1 to 2.
Please avccept this fact once and for all so as to make it unnecessary
for me to have to say it yet again.

You may say it as often as you like, it doesn't alter the fact that the
hunting fraternity does not accept it as fact, which is why IMO it would
have been preferable to settle that issue by referendum.


They resent the situation, and unpleasantness is occurring and
may be expected to continue and to fester unless resolved.

Yes. I am under no illusions about the lack of understanding of the
situation by the more barbaric sections of the population.

The relatively simple expedient of organising referenda in the
hunting
regions would have settled the issue beyond any doubt at all,

Why don't you suggest we go all the way and conduct a referendum, only
within the hunting organisations?

Because that would not provide a true indication of the wishes of the
electorate in the locations where hunting is carried out, obviously.


The matter has already been settled beyond all doubt by the usual
process of democracy in this country.

Hardly usual.


and, hopefully
would have lead to wider acceptance of the results,

I have less faith than you in the good nature of barbarians.

That's fair enough - but if you were to gove them a chance, you would be
able to test whether or not your suspicions were justified.


and a swifter return to
normality.

I suggest it is common sense, not wishful thinking, to learn from
events and
to try to think of a better way.

The present way in which democracy is exercised in this country is as
good a way as you will find anywhere.


That doesn't mean it is perfect, or incapable of improvement, which,
presumably, is why we have been experimenting with or considering all postal
ballots, devolution, proportional representation, referenda, etc.

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"BAC" wrote in message
...

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"BAC" wrote in message
...

[snip]

I do believe putting the matter to a popular vote would have
been
wise.

Any wiser than putting the annual budget proposals to a popular
vote?


Like companies do, you mean?

No. I don't mean like companies.

No, I don't think it would be as wise to put UK
plc's annual budget proposals to a popular vote, because of the
sheer
impracticability arising from the volume of decisions which would be
required, and the complexity of the considerations would be
double-dutch to
most of us (although, to be fair, it probably is to most MPs, too,
good job
they don't get a free vote on it!).

So your style of democracy would only work for such issues as you
choose to apply it to?

Obviously, different measures are appropriate to different situations and
problems. Which is why we have a range of democratic measures available, all
used when considered suitable. I don't know what style of democracy you
favour, but if it is the UK version, one of those measures is the
referendum.


Putting the highly contentious single issue 'hunting' proposals to a
popular
vote might have headed off the constitutional wrangles we can expect
to see
now, and also the civil unpleasantness which seems likely to rumble
on -
that's why I think it would have been wise, and practical, too.

You are boring me stiff. Please have the last word.


Not terminally stiff, I hope, old chap. Kind of you to offer the last word,
I suggest we simply agree to disagree and leave it at that.

Martin wrote:

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 16:58:05 +0000, bigboard
wrote:


Franz, Franz, Franz. Those three polls were selected by *you* to support
*your* argument. Of course they back up your argument! Jesus H. Christ,
mumble, mutter, care-in-the-community, etc, etc.

Troll Troll Troll ?

Me or Franz?

--
Fortune's Fictitious Country Song Title of the Week:
"How Can I Miss You if You Won't Go Away?"

Mike Lyle wrote:


Worth noting that (unless -- as is quite possible -- I have
misunderstood) YouGov is a company in the Telegraph group. I think it
was Bigboard who believed that polls reflected the views of those who
paid for them.


Absolutely. I'm not defending the findings of the poll I quoted. I don't
defend any opinion polls!

I don't know the dates of the major independent surveys, but the
Telegraph/YouGov poll was published in 2002.

The article pointed out an enormous drop in the anti camp compared
with a previous poll: since this was so large a change as to suggest
a possible anomaly, I wondered about the precise form of the
questions asked. I noticed that the figure given was referred to as
the percentage who "wanted to see hunting criminalised". Now a good
survey will ask the same question in different ways; I wondered if
this survey had done that, and if so what the figures were for the
other forms of the question. The British public is pretty
good-natured, and the "criminalised" question could well have
elicited very different responses from the answers to questions
worded in ways which didn't put into the heads of the respondents the
idea of treating fox-hunters the same way as gangland murderers,
drug-dealers, and City fraudsters. Since the Telegraph, for its own
reasons, didn't give me this information, I can only speculate. But
if there was an anomaly, this might be a good place to start looking
for it.

Mike.



--
Excellent day for putting Slinkies on an escalator.

On 11/24/04 3:56 AM, in article , "Franz
Heymann" wrote:


"Gary" wrote in message
...
On 11/24/04 1:17 AM, in article
, "Franz
Heymann" wrote:


"Sacha" wrote in message
k...

[snip]

All along the Labour party has presented
this as a concern for animal welfare. Now they admit it isn't.
To
me,
that's very simple.

Please give a reference to a statement by the Labour Party which
suports your opinion on the matter. If you fail, I will inform
you
that the Conservative Party has said that it will reintroduce
hanging
for murder.

Franz


Gardening! This newsgroup, as I was once told, is about gardening.
Should
you all want to discuss foxes and political stuff please go to the
appropriate site. This is a gardening newsgroup. Have you not read
the Faqs?
Gary

Gary, do you not yet realise that it is winter?
Gardeners do need a bit of a rest this time of the year.
{:-))

Franz

Franz
Fort Langley, BC
Canada
....ah, yes, winter...Franz, thanks for reminding me.
Gary
Fort Langley
BC
PS: A little snow here today...swiss chard is still producing...mulched them
with leaves...still have leeks in ground. Not sure what to do with them?
Leave in or take out? I think I will leave them in and see what happens.
Another experiment!