A significant majority of British adults support the UK government’s ban on imported goods from illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, a YouGov survey has revealed.
More than half – 52% – of 4,506 people polled approved of the ban, giving credence to an assumption Miliband made in his statement: “I do not believe that the British people want us supporting the occupation by accepting products from settlements in our shops and supermarkets,” he had ventured.
A breakdown showed 33% “completely” approved of the crackdown on illegal Israeli goods appearing on UK supermarket shelves, and a further 19% “somewhat” approved.
10% of adults polled indicated they “completely” disapproved with the move, while 7% “somewhat” disapproved with the legislation, forecast to be in place within six to nine months.
Around a third of respondents – 31% – said they did not know how they felt.
It’s an overwhelming majority of people with an opinion, suggesting that if there was a referendum on the matter, where only the people who cared enough to show up and vote would count, it would be 75% in favour, which is an overwhelming majority. This 52% is not the same as the Brexit referendum’s 52%.
That was a flippant remark - I know it’s not the same. I still wouldn’t call it anything like an overwhelming majority. Excluding undecideds when there are so many is dishonest.
When deciding policy, political parties only care about the people who will vote based on that policy, or could be induced to vote based on that policy. Undecided voters might as well not exist (when they stay undecided). The normal definition of majority in politics is with undecideds excluded, and they’re typically only excluded by people dishonestly trying to downplay their opponents’ support. In local elections, people who are eligible to vote but stay home typically outnumber people who do vote, but council seats are still given to people who win a majority, even though it’s a tiny slice of the people eligible to vote who voted for them.
It’s fine if you’re just learning that this is the normal definition in political contexts just now, but you’re going to get into a lot of arguments if you use different definitions of words to the ones the people you’re communicating with are.
You’ve started talking about political parties deciding policy, which is one way of looking at news, but not the way I’m thinking about it. I am, after all, not a politician or advising any of them :)
It’s pretty obviously a political article and is explicitly making the case that Ed Milliband was right to make the policy change he did last week, so that’s the frame of reference the article’s expecting to be read from, and that means using the definitions of words that fit that frame of reference.
Yes, and as I’ve said, it’s only appearing misleading because you’re using a different definition of majority than the one the article was expecting you to use. If you were using the correct definition for a political context that a typical novaramedia reader would know they were using, it couldn’t be misleading as under that definition, the article is entirely correct.
Seemed to me that men are slightly more in favour of the ban than women and that age was only a factor in those that disapproved. It’s probably not significant anyhow.
52% is what Novara media calls an “overwhelming majority”? And I thought they opposed Brexit!
Not surprising to see a high proportion of undecideds, but good that most people with an opinion are in favour.
It’s an overwhelming majority of people with an opinion, suggesting that if there was a referendum on the matter, where only the people who cared enough to show up and vote would count, it would be 75% in favour, which is an overwhelming majority. This 52% is not the same as the Brexit referendum’s 52%.
That was a flippant remark - I know it’s not the same. I still wouldn’t call it anything like an overwhelming majority. Excluding undecideds when there are so many is dishonest.
When deciding policy, political parties only care about the people who will vote based on that policy, or could be induced to vote based on that policy. Undecided voters might as well not exist (when they stay undecided). The normal definition of majority in politics is with undecideds excluded, and they’re typically only excluded by people dishonestly trying to downplay their opponents’ support. In local elections, people who are eligible to vote but stay home typically outnumber people who do vote, but council seats are still given to people who win a majority, even though it’s a tiny slice of the people eligible to vote who voted for them.
It’s fine if you’re just learning that this is the normal definition in political contexts just now, but you’re going to get into a lot of arguments if you use different definitions of words to the ones the people you’re communicating with are.
You’ve started talking about political parties deciding policy, which is one way of looking at news, but not the way I’m thinking about it. I am, after all, not a politician or advising any of them :)
It’s pretty obviously a political article and is explicitly making the case that Ed Milliband was right to make the policy change he did last week, so that’s the frame of reference the article’s expecting to be read from, and that means using the definitions of words that fit that frame of reference.
Do you understand why I think it’s misleading?
Yes, and as I’ve said, it’s only appearing misleading because you’re using a different definition of majority than the one the article was expecting you to use. If you were using the correct definition for a political context that a typical novaramedia reader would know they were using, it couldn’t be misleading as under that definition, the article is entirely correct.
Those breakdowns seem to be pretty much to reflect the general divisions in UK society (certainly since 2016).
Do you know the age breakdowns?
I only know what’s in the article, and it doesn’t seem to link to the poll itself.
I looked it up - https://yougov.com/en-gb/daily-results/20260909-8d692-1
Seemed to me that men are slightly more in favour of the ban than women and that age was only a factor in those that disapproved. It’s probably not significant anyhow.