Silent majority - UK centric but open to others

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Wolfstan**

Watching the news last night and reading some of the news websites today, I began to wonder if the silent majority of the country are being missed out.

Everyday there are the usual loud arguments about immigration, Europe and UKIP. Example from the BBC news website:

David Cameron faces a possible rebellion in the Commons as Tory MPs push for a ban on foreign criminals using European human rights law to avoid deportation.

It comes despite ministers unveiling their own last minute amendment to the Immigration Bill to strip terror suspects of UK citizenship.

About 100 Tory MPs want to go further and curb the power of judges to block deportation of foreign criminals who have family links to Britain.

Do they really represent the opinions of their constituents?

These stories get major coverage but are they a true representation of how the country feels?

How often do you hear your work colleagues express and opinion on these subjects? Are they really that a big issue or just being made an issue by MP's with an agenda?

**Baragash**

I thought as a general rule we don't discuss politics at work

Well, that's going a bit far, as a Finance professional we talk about the impact of decisions in that sphere, but generally social politics......no.

**Leigen_Zero**

Wolfstan wrote:

These stories get major coverage but are they a true representation of how the country feels?

Arguments are not won by the side that is technically correct, arguments are won by the side willing to shout loud enough for long enough to make the other side give in just to have some peace and quiet.
Political arguments especially so

**Kilkrazy**

I used to discuss politics at work in my old job.

There is some truth in what Leigen_Zero says.

UKIP has never won a single seat in the House of Commons and have ATM 147 local council seats out of about 5,000 so clearly the party does not have broad public support.

Even so, the Conservatives are running scared of UKIP and bringing in UKIP style policies on immigration to try and stop the more right-wing supporters from defecting.

**Ketara**

There is a genuine sort of 'enough immigrants for now' feeling as far as I can tell. I had some second generation Indian chap down at the local dry cleaners telling me he thought the numbers should be limited, my parents (who are far from racists) think that a certain amount of restrictions are necessary, and even the Polish ladies at work aren't so keen on all the Romanians coming over, as they think they'll be the tipping point that over-saturates the market with cheap labour. There's also the fact that most of the crime gangs around my area are now (believe it or not), run by Romanians according to the local police.

I personally think that immigration has never particularly harmed this country a huge amount. We've always had waves of mass immigration, from the Jews of the East End to the Indian labour force, and people always complain about them. But you tend to find that over time, the country does actually absorb them. The parents rarely acclimatise, but their kids are half-British (they tend to speak both languages and move with ease in both worlds), the grandchildren have a smattering of the grandparents culture, and the great grandchildren are usually practically fully integrated. It just takes time. In areas where ethnicities are particularly concentrate,d it might take them an additional generation, but it always happens.

The main problem I suppose, is that it does inevitably place greater strain on public services. The southwest of Britain is already highly overpopulated, and additional population boost as a result naturally does force rent higher, take up places at schools, and so on. Especially when it happens on the scale of tens of thousands of people. And the native population (i.e., the ones that were here before the latest wave of immigration), are aware of that. Hence, I think you tend to find that even the immigrants that are here already want a cap on things, simply because they know that the more people who show up, the less in the way of resources there is to go around.

**Kilkrazy**

Yes, that is true. I remember seeing some old Sikh gentleman who joined UKIP to complain about immigration, having come to the UK in the 60s and settled here.

There are plusses and minusses to immigration. For example, Britain was going to enter population decline like Japan has, before the Poles starting coming here. Now we can look forwards to a better old age because the population base will be there to support us oldies.

I think that there is a lot of disinformation around immigration for political ends.

**kronk**

At work, I avoid discussions on politics, sex, and payroll.

Nothing good can come from it.

**Ketara**

Kilkrazy wrote:

There are plusses and minusses to immigration. For example, Britain was going to enter population decline like Japan has, before the Poles starting coming here. Now we can look forwards to a better old age because the population base will be there to support us oldies.

Very true. I don't think we ever need fear a population decline simply due to the fact that practically every third world country sees our nation as the logical place to emigrate to for a brighter future.

It's quite funny actually. I asked an african chap why that was once. He gave me a queer look, and then proceeded to lay out, 'Well, communist Russia and China are hardly options. America is too far away over the sea, you can't get there by land travel. There's nowhere else in Africa that gives you any kind of welfare in general, and the locals will always hate you for originating from another tribe. There's work in India and Asia, but the conditions are terrible and they tend to be racist. France and Italy are full of facists, Germany is restrictive of what benefits new immigrants can get, Spain has no work at all. What does that leave? Here you have law, order, peace, a safety net if you fall out of work, a minimum wage, an open lower end jobs market, and a history of accepting immigrants'.

It does make sense when you examine it from that angle.

**Wolfstan**

The thing is it's always a "core" that seen to get noticed, which gets picked up by the press and then made out to be a big issue (whatever the subject).

So 100 Tories don't like Brussels, so what? Should they be allowed to dictate policy (whether they are right or wrong)

Same with UKIP, they have a few MEP's and won seats on councils, that doesn't mean they are representing the whole country (again I have no idea if their opinion is right or wrong)

**Steve steveson**

I think this it appropriate here:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/british-public-wrong-about-nearly-everything-survey-shows-8697821.html

British public wrong about nearly everything, survey shows

A new survey for the Royal Statistical Society and King's College London shows public opinion is repeatedly off the mark on issues including crime, benefit fraud and immigration.

The research, carried out by Ipsos Mori from a phone survey of 1,015 people aged 16 to 75, lists ten misconceptions held by the British public. Among the biggest misconceptions are:

- Benefit fraud: the public think that £24 of every £100 of benefits is fraudulently claimed. Official estimates are that just 70 pence in every £100 is fraudulent - so the public conception is out by a factor of 34.

- Immigration: some 31 per cent of the population is thought to consist of recent immigrants, when the figure is actually 13 per cent. Even including illegal immigrants, the figure is only about 15 per cent. On the issue of ethnicity, black and Asian people are thought to make up 30 per cent of the population, when the figure is closer to 11 per cent.

- Crime: some 58 per cent of people do not believe crime is falling, when the Crime Survey for England and Wales shows that incidents of crime were 19 per cent lower in 2012 than in 2006/07 and 53 per cent lower than in 1995. Some 51 per cent think violent crime is rising, when it has fallen from almost 2.5 million incidents in 2006/07 to under 2 million in 2012.

- Teen pregnancy is thought to be 25 times higher than the official estimates: 15 per cent of of girls under 16 are thought to become pregnant every year, when official figures say the amount is closer to 0.6 per cent.

Among the other surprising figures are that 26 per cent of people think foreign aid is in the top three items the Government spends money on (it actually makes up just 1.1 per cent of expenditure), and that 29 per cent of people think more is spent on Jobseekers' Allowance than pensions.

In fact we spend 15 times more on pensions - £4.9 billion on JSA vs £74.2 billion on pensions.

Hetan Shah, executive director of the Royal Statistical Society, said: "Our data poses real challenges for policymakers. How can you develop good policy when public perceptions can be so out of kilter with the evidence?

"We need to see three things happen. First, politicians need to be better at talking about the real state of affairs of the country, rather than spinning the numbers. Secondly, the media has to try and genuinely illuminate issues, rather than use statistics to sensationalise.

"And finally we need better teaching of statistical literacy in schools, so that people get more comfortable in understanding evidence."

Bobby Duffy, the managing director of Ipsos Mori Social Research Institute, said: "A lack of trust in government information is also very evident in other questions in the survey - so 'myth-busting' is likely to prove a challenge on many of these issues. But it is still useful to understand where people get their facts most wrong."

The problem is nothing like people think. I think most people let the government get on with it because it dose not directly affect them.

Party politics is also part of the problem. It's not that UKIP have lots of supporters, but that the some areas where people are likely to vote for UKIP are swing areas. Government policy is decided by a few thousand people who do not vote on tribal lines and live in marginal areas.

**Ketara**

Who on earth would believe that 30% of the country was made up of immigrants? We have roughly sixty three million people in this country, only an idiot would think that eighteen million of them were foreigners. This isn't Dubai.

I suppose people might be misdirected by the fact that those six million or so immigrants tend to be heavily concentrated in the south-west of England, because that's where the majority of the jobs are, and because its where you usually geographically find yourself upon entering the country. So people see the concentrated numbers of immigrants in certain locales, and it makes it seem like there are more than there actually are?

**Wolfstan**

Steve steveson wrote:
I think this it appropriate here:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/british-public-wrong-about-nearly-everything-survey-shows-8697821.html

British public wrong about nearly everything, survey shows

A new survey for the Royal Statistical Society and King's College London shows public opinion is repeatedly off the mark on issues including crime, benefit fraud and immigration.

The research, carried out by Ipsos Mori from a phone survey of 1,015 people aged 16 to 75, lists ten misconceptions held by the British public. Among the biggest misconceptions are:

- Benefit fraud: the public think that £24 of every £100 of benefits is fraudulently claimed. Official estimates are that just 70 pence in every £100 is fraudulent - so the public conception is out by a factor of 34.

- Immigration: some 31 per cent of the population is thought to consist of recent immigrants, when the figure is actually 13 per cent. Even including illegal immigrants, the figure is only about 15 per cent. On the issue of ethnicity, black and Asian people are thought to make up 30 per cent of the population, when the figure is closer to 11 per cent.

- Crime: some 58 per cent of people do not believe crime is falling, when the Crime Survey for England and Wales shows that incidents of crime were 19 per cent lower in 2012 than in 2006/07 and 53 per cent lower than in 1995. Some 51 per cent think violent crime is rising, when it has fallen from almost 2.5 million incidents in 2006/07 to under 2 million in 2012.

- Teen pregnancy is thought to be 25 times higher than the official estimates: 15 per cent of of girls under 16 are thought to become pregnant every year, when official figures say the amount is closer to 0.6 per cent.

Among the other surprising figures are that 26 per cent of people think foreign aid is in the top three items the Government spends money on (it actually makes up just 1.1 per cent of expenditure), and that 29 per cent of people think more is spent on Jobseekers' Allowance than pensions.

In fact we spend 15 times more on pensions - £4.9 billion on JSA vs £74.2 billion on pensions.

Hetan Shah, executive director of the Royal Statistical Society, said: "Our data poses real challenges for policymakers. How can you develop good policy when public perceptions can be so out of kilter with the evidence?

"We need to see three things happen. First, politicians need to be better at talking about the real state of affairs of the country, rather than spinning the numbers. Secondly, the media has to try and genuinely illuminate issues, rather than use statistics to sensationalise.

"And finally we need better teaching of statistical literacy in schools, so that people get more comfortable in understanding evidence."

Bobby Duffy, the managing director of Ipsos Mori Social Research Institute, said: "A lack of trust in government information is also very evident in other questions in the survey - so 'myth-busting' is likely to prove a challenge on many of these issues. But it is still useful to understand where people get their facts most wrong."

The problem is nothing like people think. I think most people let the government get on with it because it dose not directly affect them.

Party politics is also part of the problem. It's not that UKIP have lots of supporters, but that the some areas where people are likely to vote for UKIP are swing areas. Government policy is decided by a few thousand people who do not vote on tribal lines and live in marginal areas.

Good find. shame it's stuff like this that doesn't make the news.

Again not defending it, but they general press love to pick on single mums. They fail to mention that the big chunk of the money paid out is supposed to help with the bringing up the child, not "free" money for the mother. Whether the mother uses it the right way is another matter, but the purpose is to provide for the children.

**Kilkrazy**

Wolfstan wrote:

Good find. shame it's stuff like this that doesn't make the news.

...

Well it did make the news. It's in The Independent, but of course hardly anyone reads that, perhaps because it is fairly centrist and doesn't have any political/social affiliation.

People tend to believe the things that fit their psychology.

**Mr Morden**

Benefit fraud:

Given the confirmation over the last few years that many MPs were exploiting the taxpayer for their own gain, and that nothing seems to have changed (*) other than they have been recommended a pay rise - they really should look closer to home before throwing stones............

(*) There was a lot of hot air but nothing actually seems to have been implemented with regard to their "perks" and loop holes, second jobs without consequence, money for lobby groups, etc etc

**Paradigm**

I think that, on the whole, there is a lot of political apathy in the UK at the moment on a lot of issues, particularly among young people. If I were to ask most people I know from collage, obviously exuding politics/history students who study these things, for their opinion on the EU debate, or immigration, or crime rates or any number of things mentioned in the second quoted article, I doubt I'd get much more than an instinctive/unconsidered response.

What this means, if this apathy does extend as far as I feel it does, is that the mass media can get away with representing the opinions of a minority as 'actual fact'. It's not so much a case of a silent majority as one that doesn't really care.

In a way, that's fair enough that people don't have a political opinion, as I imagine a lot of people (especially in today's troubled economic situation) couldn't care less about who's in power or whether we're in the EU unless it actually affects their day-to-day lives. However, it does skew what get's presented in the media. '60% of the population don't care about immigration' is not as effective a headline as '10% of people think we have too many immigrants'. When surveys are carried out, it's generally only the people with strong opinions that will respond, hence why they make up a larger portion of the results.

As such, what gets reported that you would assume would be a minority may in fact be a majority of those who actually have an opinion, but the majority of the population simply don't care.

**Skinnereal**

If parties are going to change policy to fend off UKIP and such, what makes them any different from them?
That is what, I think, puts people off voting. They're all the same, and only the Greens do anything different.

Of the immigrants I meet at or through work, they are generally hard working, usually very good at their job, and just normal people.
I can't see that the 'other' sort, that only move here to get benefits (do they really exist?), are any different to a fair percentage of Brits already here.

As for the Silent Majority, most don't like upsetting the applecart, or just making their views public.

**Paradigm**

Skinnereal wrote:
If parties are going to change policy to fend off UKIP and such, what makes them any different from them?
That is what, I think, puts people off voting. They're all the same, and only the Greens do anything different.

This, I think, is the real issue with British politics today. I read an interview with Ed Milliband recently where he was asked 'what do you think of people's lack of interest in politics?' and he claimed his biggest problem was that 'people think we're all the same'.

Regardless of what people think of them, I do think that the parties should be trying to move back to properly representing the people they originally stood for. Traditionally, the Conservatives have always represented the upper and upper-middle classes, the Lib Dems have always been, well, liberal, and Labour only formed to represent the principles of the working man and woman. This is why I laugh at the ConsevaLib coalition, as if you go back to the roots of Liberalism and Conservatism, the two are opposed. So somewhere along the line, someone (In this case Clegg and the Lib Dems) has sold out their Party ideals for power, which also pretty much ruins their chance in future elections, so they won't be able to change things if they wanted to.

These days, it's become about getting into power rather than actually representing the electorate, which is why so many people don't care. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter whether a Conservative or Labour Government is in power if you're struggling to eat under either. Back in the early 1900s, Labour focused all their policies helping the working class. Now? Not a chance. The Parties have all abandoned their ideals for personal gain.

It's ironic that the only significant/vocal parties that can actually say they stand for what they believe are Green and UKIP. However intolerant and downright stupid they might be, UKIP at least have the decency to stick to their (albeit intolerant/racist) guns.The problem with Green is that they do have strong ideals, but no one who owns any kind of petrol-powered vehicles is going to want them in power for fear of higher fuel taxes.

At the end of the day, when you have the Torys, Lib Dems and Labour all taking basically the same fairly centralist line, the parties with more radical views are going to get heard and get more media coverage.

**Kilkrazy**

The logic behind the Coalition was two fold:

1. To prove that the Liberals can be a party of government.
2. To get some of their own agenda "done".

They've failed on point 2, IMO, but I don't think their ministers have been worse than the Conservative or Labour ones so I think they've proved point 1.

Unfortunately the general disillusionment with politics as a whole of course involves the Liberals.

Regarding UKIP's "guns" their leader Farrago recently did an interview in which he was caught out not knowing a number of their actual policies, so I'm not sure they have real guns to stick to, more a general pub bore's list of moans.

**Wolfstan**

Don't forget that none of the buggers would of admitted to the "expenses" miss use if the papers hadn't got hold of it.

It does make me so annoyed that apart from special C4 News shows, nobody in the media actually discusses the issues fully. UKIP could have some valid concerns, but I wouldn't trust them as it stands.

Is membership good for us or bad for us? Who knows, no black & white facts are being presented. it could be that there is no real answer, just what you feel after reading the evidence. Which is how most decisions are made.

So the EU can fine us if you break the rules. So what!?! Don't pay them, the French have done it for years. What are they going to do, invade us. If we feel that the rule is that bad and unfair we just simply say "make us".

**Ketara**

Paradigm wrote:These days, it's become about getting into power rather than actually representing the electorate, which is why so many people don't care. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter whether a Conservative or Labour Government is in power if you're struggling to eat under either. Back in the early 1900s, Labour focused all their policies helping the working class. Now? Not a chance. The Parties have all abandoned their ideals for personal gain.

The main problem with the Labour Party representing the people and systems they originally stood for, is that the people no longer exist and the policies have either been successfully integrated already, or they've been discredited.

To wit, the British 'working class' has been more or less eliminated along with all the industry/manufacturing jobs. The Durham coal pit artists who used to meet up to discuss politics, the shipbuilding industries, the steel industries, they're all gone. The working class has either successfully migrated to the middle class, or the non-working class. There are a few left, but they no longer hold the votes or sway they once did.

With regards to policies, firstly they tried nationalising the various major utilities. The result was that it took three months to get your phoneline fixed, because government bureaucracy is horribly slow and inefficient. Giving unions free rein resulted in the Government being run by a bunch of unelected Trotskyites. The NHS and the minimum wage have already been successfully brought in. Grammar schools have all been closed down, because whilst they promote social mobility, it's at the expense of promoting meritocracy (where the talented succeed, and the less able are marginalised). Education is free, and everyone already has the vote.

Basically everywhere you look for Labour, you begin to realise that they have no idea who or what they represent anymore. They've become something of an outdated relic, which has resulted in them encroaching further and further into the Liberal Democrat and Conservative territory. The Conservatives conversely, stand for what they always have done. In other words, less government interference in everything, a laissez-faire approach to business, and hugging their piles of money to sleep at night.

**AlmightyWalrus**

We've got the whole immigration debate going on over here in Sweden too, with the difference that all the major newspapers blast the Sweden Democrats (rough equivalent of UKIP, although not as crazy) at every opportunity.

Just for the lulz, I leave you with this, an interview that ye olde BBC did with Jimmie Åkesson, the leader of the Sweden Democrats. Sorry about the Swedish subtitles and speaker in the beginning, couldn't find this segment without them.

This is a person that people actually vote for.

**-Shrike-**

Ketara wrote:
Grammar schools have all been closed down, because whilst they promote social mobility, it's at the expense of promoting meritocracy (where the talented succeed, and the less able are marginalised). Education is free, and everyone already has the vote.

Ahem. I'm currently at a grammar school.

**Paradigm**

Ketara wrote:
Paradigm wrote:These days, it's become about getting into power rather than actually representing the electorate, which is why so many people don't care. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter whether a Conservative or Labour Government is in power if you're struggling to eat under either. Back in the early 1900s, Labour focused all their policies helping the working class. Now? Not a chance. The Parties have all abandoned their ideals for personal gain.

The main problem with the Labour Party representing the people and systems they originally stood for, is that the people no longer exist and the policies have either been successfully integrated already, or they've been discredited.

To wit, the British 'working class' has been more or less eliminated along with all the industry/manufacturing jobs. The Durham coal pit artists who used to meet up to discuss politics, the shipbuilding industries, the steel industries, they're all gone. The working class has either successfully migrated to the middle class, or the non-working class. There are a few left, but they no longer hold the votes or sway they once did.

With regards to policies, firstly they tried nationalising the various major utilities. The result was that it took three months to get your phoneline fixed, because government bureaucracy is horribly slow and inefficient. Giving unions free rein resulted in the Government being run by a bunch of unelected Trotskyites. The NHS and the minimum wage have already been successfully brought in. Grammar schools have all been closed down, because whilst they promote social mobility, it's at the expense of promoting meritocracy (where the talented succeed, and the less able are marginalised). Education is free, and everyone already has the vote.

Basically everywhere you look for Labour, you begin to realise that they have no idea who or what they represent anymore. They've become something of an outdated relic, which has resulted in them encroaching further and further into the Liberal Democrat and Conservative territory. The Conservatives conversely, stand for what they always have done. In other words, less government interference in everything, a laissez-faire approach to business, and hugging their piles of money to sleep at night.

I suppose that's a fair assessment of the change in Labour representation, but even without the Working Class, there's still the welfare issues that they used to push for. Nowadays, there seems to be very little focus on that whatsoever unless it garners them more votes. I obviously don't expect a completely altruistic government, but all of the parties have really shifted in focus from their roots to focus on their own needs rather than the needs of the electorate they exist to represent. Of course, there is the argument that times/situations change, but even the core principles of the parties' seem to have gone out of the window in favour of electoral gain.

Looking more generally than just Labour, I doubt someone from a hundred years ago (when they parties all still held their respective core values) could easily identify any of today's politicians' party by their policies. Maybe I'm just overly cynical of politics, but it does seem that it has become a game purely of winning power, rather than wanting to do anything with that.

In a way, that's fine, but it then leads to the kind of political apathy (as people really can't be bothered to vote for another party that is exactly the same) that means idiotic but radical parties like UKIP get more attention for reasons I outlined in my last posts.

**Ketara**

-Shrike- wrote:
Ketara wrote:
Grammar schools have all been closed down, because whilst they promote social mobility, it's at the expense of promoting meritocracy (where the talented succeed, and the less able are marginalised). Education is free, and everyone already has the vote.

Ahem. I'm currently at a grammar school.

Alright clever clogs. I was generalising.

There were, I believe over 1,200 grammar schools, and we're now down to about 150. The point still stands more or less, that grammar schools are no longer seen by Labour as a good thing for promoting social mobility. Bizarely enough, they seem to have become more of a Tory principle.

Paradigm wrote:
I suppose that's a fair assessment of the change in Labour representation, but even without the Working Class, there's still the welfare issues that they used to push for. Nowadays, there seems to be very little focus on that whatsoever unless it garners them more votes. I obviously don't expect a completely altruistic government, but all of the parties have really shifted in focus from their roots to focus on their own needs rather than the needs of the electorate they exist to represent. Of course, there is the argument that times/situations change, but even the core principles of the parties' seem to have gone out of the window in favour of electoral gain.

Looking more generally than just Labour, I doubt someone from a hundred years ago (when they parties all still held their respective core values) could easily identify any of today's politicians' party by their policies. Maybe I'm just overly cynical of politics, but it does seem that it has become a game purely of winning power, rather than wanting to do anything with that.

In a way, that's fine, but it then leads to the kind of political apathy (as people really can't be bothered to vote for another party that is exactly the same) that means idiotic but radical parties like UKIP get more attention for reasons I outlined in my last posts.

The problem for any politician in Britain, is that the country more or less runs itself. Virtually all absolutely necessary legislation has already been passed, the army doesn't try and systematically take over every twenty years, the IRS and judicial systems do their own thing, and whilst inefficient in some sectors, the education and healthcare more or less squeaks along and does alright for itself. The economy is boom & bust, but that goes for all capitalist economies, and is more or less unavoidable.

Unfortunately, so long as conditions are generally tolerable(which they are), all people ask is that tomorrow goes on much like today. And that makes it terribly hard to get elected on radical new ideas. Hence, all the parties try and squeeze in on middle ground policies that more or less perpetuate what we already have, or promise to somehow make it all 'more efficient'. In reality, all that happens is that they institute another reorganisation of the NHS, or schools, which will last just as long as their tenure on power, whereby the next lot will then throw it all out and institute another system.

I suppose one could view it as the mark of a truly successful country, that we need for so little that people can ignore politics, that the country and the institution continue to function regardless of who is in charge, and that all the political parties look the same. It just means that what we have works. True, its not utopia. Things could be improved. But in improving one thing, the government usually damages something else, leaving the next government to reverse the two in a never-ending cycle.

Britain is quite possibly the most stable country in the world, and as someone who's lived under a whimsical dictator, I can appreciate just how wondrous such a simple thing as stability can be.

**Paradigm**

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad we're not under a dictator or a military regime, and I fully agree that stability is a good thing; the fact we don't need change speaks for itself. It just bugs me slightly that none of today's politicians seem to willing to change anything. Like you say, there are imperfections and this country isn't a Utopia, which means there's room for improvement that no one is willing to capitalise on.

More to the point, the political apathy that makes those willing to speak out seem radical, or dangerous to the stability, and leads to stuff like the Gagging Bill and ACPO thing. Things have become so stagnant that the government are seeking to alienate, minimise and almost criminalise any protest against that, legitimate or otherwise.

The Gagging Bill is an outrageous move for a nation that is regarded as one of the pillars of free speech and democracy. Orwell would be pleased to have been utterly vindicated. Big Brother is now watching. Dissenters shall be vaporised. Seriously, though, I think this is just an insane and largely unprovoked move that only serves to benefit the parties in power.

**HiveFleetPlastic**

The BBC is a "Tory mouthpiece"? Our Tory-analogues (the Liberals) are railing against our BBC analogue (the ABC, not to be confused with the US' ABC) for reporting things it finds politically inconvenient.

The question about demographics I found interesting because I recently found out Australia is a lot whiter than I would have guessed. I looked into it and found out the city I live in, Melbourne, is quite a lot more diverse than the national average. Maybe something similar could be going on with that UK survey.

Regarding political apathy, I think the truth is we're just not well-equipped as human beings for understanding and caring about anything as immense as our current societies. We're critters largely evolved to survive on the African savannah, our intellect a hack on top of billions of years of animal instinct, and innately comprehending large-scale social issues just isn't required to survive in that environment.

We're by and large motivated largely not by reason, but by emotion and rational shorthand, and that doesn't gel well with difficult, abstract issues. There are people living in our societies right now in horrible conditions, but there's little emotional traction there unless you see it up close.

On top of that, we have not just this innate ineptness at rationality in general but there are people out there - commonly known as "marketers" - engaged specifically in figuring out how best to exploit our irrationality for their personal gain. Politicians exploit this, and they themselves have the same flaw. The political system helps mould them into what they are.

**OrlandotheTechnicoloured**

No, the BBC is generally unpopular with whoever is in power because they think the BBC favours their opponents

So Labour was not impressed with them when Gordon Brown was prime minister either

which probably means they get things about right

**Kilkrazy**

University conducted media reviews show that the BBC is usually slightly favourable to the government of the day.

**MetalOxide**

The whole immigration and EU debate is stale.

**Ketara**

MetalOxide wrote:
The whole immigration and EU debate is stale.

Your thoughtful, evocative, and succinct summary is appreciated.