This morning’s YouGov poll for the Sun has topline figures of CON 32%, LAB 44%, LDEM 9%, UKIP 10%. I think we can now be pretty confident that the underlying Labour lead in YouGov’s daily polling has ticked up to twelve points or so, mostly it seems from a drop in Conservative support and increase in UKIP support – Labour’s own support remains pretty much unchanged.

The main driver of change here was presumably the positive publicity UKIP got from their strong performance in the recent by-elections, the Rotherham fostering row and the talk of a Conservative-UKIP row, an excellent week of news coverage for UKIP. Whether it will be sustained or will fade away again as the news agenda rolls on is a different matter.

(As a reminder, the vast majority of the fieldwork for this poll was completed before the Autumn statement. Tomorrow morning’s poll will be the first one conducted after the statement, though personally I wouldn’t expect any huge impact.)


144 Responses to “YouGov/Sun – CON 32, LAB 44, LD 9, UKIP 10”

1 2 3
  1. JAYBLANC

    Unfortunate that you see politics as simple party tribalism.

    I’d be amazed if there wasn’t a whole scale realignment in Scottish party support after independence.

    That won’t be restricted to one party.

    Report comment

  2. IMO – answe 1 would wind me up pushing me towards Yes while answer 2 would improve my repspect for the RUK no campaiger.

    In short I hope the NO campaign are grown up about this.

    This is SLAB you are talking about? There is No hope fof SLAB (or the Scotsman) being grown up. The SNP would be seriously concerned if there was.

    Their latest move could cynically be seen as parking their tanks on SLAB’s lawn (and every room in the house too) but from NS is genuine. Labour supporters distressed by NewLabour would feel they been Rip van Winkle and wakened to a Butskillite Labour party freed of class tribalism and Trident.

    Christian Democrats have already found that they don’t have to accept domination by fundamentalist free marketeers, nor vote for the Labour party.

    Report comment

  3. jayblanc @ John B Dick

    However, all bets are off on “Within the SNP”. Post Independence, the SNP would certainly fracture as they see no need to present a united front once they have the only thing that united them.

    Being in government and being part of a winning team will keep them united for a while. A new generation of leaders will need to emerge in Labour.

    I don’t see the SNP splitting through the Greens and socialists may grow at their expense. Independence will succeed where Murdo Fraser failed, so there will be growth in the right wing party too.

    At first it will be Labour that shrinks to make room for them. I don’t see SLAB attracting anyone of the calibre of their first three FMs until the old guard are gone.

    The notion that the SNP must split into left and right assumes that the Westminster dual party system is the best of all possible worlds.

    Other models are possible and the PR Scottish Parliament is BY DESIGN capable of encouraging variety. It isn’t necessarily always going to be Tweedledum v Tweedledee.

    Report comment

  4. CHRISLANE1945

    Assuming you log on later today – did you see this encouraging poll in NI?

    http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/education/majority-of-parents-want-school-mergers-16246763.html

    While I disapprove of their continuing with selective education, at least the majority in both communities don’t want selection to be on religion!

    Report comment

  5. If after Independence people mean 2020 then it will depend on how well the first Independence Government fairs and how well people and parties adapt to Independence.

    Over time there is bound to be realignment for everyone.

    As to the first election in 2016 I expect the SNP to do well, if not a majority.

    Why?

    Firstly because they will have won the referendum, against the odds.

    There will be an air of enthusiasm and positive attitudes.

    The losing side will have gone through a period of retirements realignments and soul searching from which I doubt they will have fully recovered.

    Although the Tories have adapted surprisingly well to devolution, better than Labour in some respects, it took the majority of the first parliament to recover from having opposed it’s creation.

    Peter.

    Report comment

  6. PETERCAIRNS

    Its wonderful how attitudes change to deal with reality.

    We’re seeing how business is afraid of independence

    http://news.stv.tv/politics/204573-three-in-four-industry-leaders-say-independence-bad-for-business/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

    Yet back in 1997, “76% of businesses believe a double-yes vote in Thursday’s referendum would harm the climate for business in Scotland.”

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/politics97/news/09/0907/devolution.shtml

    Report comment

  7. CARFREW
    “Interestingly we had related problems in the post-war period”
    If you were, for the sake of argument, to take ideology into account, it might include a recognition or rejection of research as a basis of policy on resource management and production systems and their impact on wealth distribution and population movement. So, yes, imperial preference and protectionism let us benefit pre-war from low cost production of primary materials in the colonies and major basic indusrtries like cotton and garments and jute sacking in the UK. The basis of low-cost production in countries with this comparative advantage exists now in the supply of garments from SE Asia, and is moving from China, but the latter retains advantages from shifting the pattern of comparative advantage from labour to low-labour cost through advanced technology in manufacturing and the taking of design and market management from western systems and models.
    Is it not ideological to seek ways of redirecting public policy, financing and skills development towards competitive design and production systems in the national economy, be it small farmer production of high quality niche market food products, or dress design, or music, car, information systems and technology, medicine, or indeed financial management; but in all these sectors, to be providing the enabling systems and public resources to be providing access to information, opportunity, employment and capital throughout society, and to be prioritising the educational and distributional systems which would permit their achievement? Could you do it in a strictly market oriented economic system, in which you expect the market mechanism to provide for the distribution of information, investments and benefits, or would you need to be continuously conducting research and monitoring with the participation of an investing and benefiting community?

    Report comment

  8. @ Peter Cairns

    “I expect that, like the Republicans, UKIP want more defence spending, lower taxes and a smaller state.

    In reality, as in the US, be it Romney or Reagan the end result with be higher spending, a bigger deficit and a belief that what they had done wasn’t their fault.”

    Well I think what people say they want is not neccessarily indicative of their political/governance ideology when they act so completely contrary to their stated position. And they don’t really explain their inconsistency.

    Report comment

  9. @ Billy Bob

    Ever heard of Beverly Park Estates during your celeb and architectural research?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beverly_Park,_Los_Angeles

    h ttp://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/02/fashion/02mansion.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0

    I have looked up the following election results for the Precinct that serves it:

    Presidential:
    Obama: 55%
    Romney: 44%

    CA-Sen:
    Feinstein (D): 63%
    Emken (R): 37%

    CA-33:
    Waxman (D): 54%
    Bloomfield (R pretending to be an I): 46%

    Sometimes when I look at results like this I kinda wonder who the GOP is actually fighting for in this battle to throw the U.S. into default in order to preserve top rate tax cuts. I can assure you that none of the 191 Obama voters in this precinct currently are dependent on government handouts nor were they promised extra government benefits as inducement to vote for him.

    You want to know the irony about BH swinging Republican in the context of all this GOP class warfare against the non-wealthy and the alleged “moocher class”? BH residents, at a local level, depend and rely upon government more than any of their LA neighbors. And people often move to BH just for the accessibility of first rate government services that LA government services pale in comparison to.

    Report comment

  10. Yougov
    Con 32 Lab 42 LD 10 UKIP 9

    Not today then…..
    :-)

    Report comment

  11. @ John B Dick

    “I don’t know about the 4th session, but the first had (thanks to Labour) more women MSP’s than Scotland had EVER IN TOTAL sent to Westminster.

    Two party leaders are openly gay. Two are women.

    An independent Scotland will be a modern progressive European country. Anything to be distictive from the English has got something going for it.”

    Yes but you still can’t compete with us in CA or at least the CA Assembly. Our gay party leader is actually in charge (which is actually unfortunate for us). We let our gays and our women actually control the place. Not to mention the blacks, Latinos, and Asians. And the Jews. :)

    Half of our Dem Delegation from CA to Congress was female. Actually over half for a time during the better part of this last decade. It did switch back to majority male after the most recent election.

    @ Richard in Norway

    “I think that graph is a warning of what happens when you try to avoid being Greece by doing exactly the same austerity cuts as Greece.”

    Wish more people would head the warning.

    @ Billy Bob

    Do you know how far the constituency of Daventry is from London? Specifcally the town of Holdenby within it (since I imagine these constituencies are fairly large). This seems like something you would know.

    Report comment

  12. LASZLO
    @ Carfrew
    I agree with a number of points, but…
    ” I find such systems insufficient to deal with the complexities of the modern world.”
    The world is not more complex today than it was in the 19th century. In many ways it is simpler. But it is more complex than it was in the 1970s.
    “if something doesn’t fit then I can just change my view.”
    Try it with things that directly affect the circumstances in which you satisfy your needs. It’s not “just”… Hence the enduring “tribalism” and the problems with “third” parties.

    —————————

    Not sure why it was more complex in the 19th century? Though I’m prepared to believe it. Certainly seems to be getting more complex to me these days though. Maybe it’s just getting older…

    Re: “satisfying needs” – do you mean bias due to self-interest? Yes, that’s another possibility but I was avoiding going down that road because it risked talking about the motives of political parties and their supporters and that does not appear to happinate.

    Of course it is possible to argue for your needs or indeed those of others on a fair basis rather than a biased one. Providing your needs are reasonable. If however someone is selfish and determined to be biased to that end that’s a bit different to unintentional bias due to being too invested, confirmation bias, or having blind spots due to ideology etc.

    Report comment

  13. @rich o
    “one of them actually did his dissertation on Blade Runner, and he literally watched the film around 50 times. Is this a good way to spend tax payers money?”
    Is this any worse than tax payers funding people to study English Literature and read/write about Macbeth for the billionth time? Or pretty much anything apart from maths and science subjects?
    Alternatively, at a time when the world consumes, talks about (even on this site), spends money on, is employed by, etc. the “media” (books, newspapers, television, videos, films, music, the web, advertising, …) then perhaps media studies is a more vital and important area for research and vocational study than many other traditional subjects.

    Report comment

  14. Martyn

    I find it difficult to believe that UKIP can poll consistently >10% and not get at *least* one MP, even after taking their shambolic organisation and FPTP into account.

    I find it extremely easy to believe. After all UKIP managed to get about 13% of the vote (where they stood) this May to get about 7 councillors (out of around 9,000 up for election) – a net gain of, er, nil. As Anthony has pointed out even at 20% they might pick up nothing. They’re an extreme example of how FPTP operates against Parties with an even geographical spread. They also suffer from the fact that a lot of people won’t vote for them, so even if they become the main challenger in a seat, they won’t be able to squeeze smaller Parties as say the Lib Dems have in the past.

    It is possible that they could develop the odd constituency (say in the east of England), but with no sign of vote concentration enough to even pick up LA seats in any number or density, it seems unlikely in a couple of years.

    Report comment

  15. Carfrew
    “If by ideology you really just mean that I have my own opinions on things then sure, but that doesn’t mean I have to be biased.”
    Okay – I’ll try to be clearer.
    Warning to everybody else: this may be a long post so just skip it.

    By ideology I mean a constructed set of positions on ideal distribution/power relations/etc for the whole of society – when these positions are violated we tend to get angry and politics is in effect constructing the government to make the ideological stance the ‘reality’. [1]
    Over time we learn the rules of which ideology is appropriate to which social context.

    This is less like a set of ideological axis and more like a grammar. Much like language is constructed from the same basic blocks (nouns/verbs/etc) but the specific language’s grammar sets out how those blocks are used together.

    So it used to be that marriage was a trade between a husband and a father – that the wife was effectively a slave and had no choice in the matter.
    The social relationship between the husband and wife is what we would classify in political terms as broadly feudal – the wife does as she’s told and all resources are distributed upward. The relationship between the husband and father is a capitalist one – they’re trading the wife but each side tries to get the ‘best deal’.

    Generally speaking now we frown on this sort of marriage (the father>husband relationship is illegal) but ‘traditional’ marriage still forms along the power/distribution lines between man and wife.

    ‘Modern’ relationships are communist/anarchist in their construction – each person takes as they have need, it doesn’t matter how many resources each person gives in to the relationship and decisions are make through mutual consensus.
    etc

    And generally speaking, the set of ideologies you support are more consistent than not – so as you select a series of ideologies for one context, you’re more likely to select the ideologies for other contexts.
    This seems tied to underlying psychological constructs of empathy, etc
    People with ‘excess’ empathy tend to select more socialist (i.e egalitarian) and communist (i.e based on need) constructions – hence ‘bleeding heart’.

    Typically speaking these constructions are subconscious and we aren’t aware of them – the system justifications for our behaviour are after the fact (in the same way that ego-justification happens after we’ve already made a personal decision).

    “Of course, there’s still a danger of confirmation bias”
    Danger? More like that’s normal procedure for the human mind and very difficult to actually be conscious about.

    “debating on the net with others of differing views!!”
    This tends not to lead to people considering that it’s their own ideology that might be wrong – but a shouting match where the other side is always wrong.

    On the problem of change – it’s not actually clear what is cause and what is effect.
    Do our subconscious constructions change first and then we justify them after (‘I read a book/had a conversation/etc that challenged my worldview’) or do our constructions change based on new information? Or is it a feedback loop? etc
    I suspect it is probably a feedback loop – but that could be wrong.

    And as far as change in ideology goes – I’m well aware of that myself.
    I started as a (small-c) conservative, transitioned to a capitalist liberal, by 2010 I was a social democrat bordering on socialist and now I’m the far-far-left – so I’ve pretty much gone through the whole ideological range.

    [1] As Marx put it – the state exists for one class to oppress another.

    Report comment

  16. @SoCalLiberal

    Holdenby about 80 miles down the M1 to London… or get to Northampton for a train to Euston Station.

    Will get back to you about other posts.

    Report comment

  17. CARFREW
    ‘Re: “satisfying needs” – do you mean bias due to self-interest? Yes, that’s another possibility but I was avoiding going down that road because it risked talking about the motives of political parties and their supporters and that does not appear to happinate’

    The point of my previous post, which you may have found confused, was to argue that an ideology may well be necessary as the basis of a poltical and economic policy which would bring us and others out of the present crisis. Rather than repeating the formulae of the 30′s or indeed the 1850′s, it would need to be based on research. Mrs Thatcher shared with some totalitarian systems the belief that research on the working of political and economic systems was not necessary to her and others knowing how these systems should work. Socialism was wrong and was ending. There is no such thing as society. This is an ideological which was shared by Stalin among other totalitarian leaders. I consider that ideological reform away from totalitarian and utopian systems is partly at least one which will strengthen the basis of research in the working of social and economic systems, including production and distributional systems, but also in the greater application of science to industry and the market and to the social educational basis of production and market participation and management. I wondered if you might share or challenge this assumption.

    Report comment

  18. @John B Dick

    I never said in to what they will split. But that with a party unified by the goal of independence, getting independence will certainly split them up. And lower-case c social conservatism has not gone away in Scotland. I think you are placing far too much on the idea that post-independence Scotland will maintain the same political landscape of current Scotland.

    And I do not think that the EU countries will be so eager to maintain Scotland as an important part of Europe until post-independence stability was proven, not merely assumed.

    Report comment

  19. “The social relationship between the husband and wife is what we would classify in political terms as broadly feudal – the wife does as she’s told and all resources are distributed upward. The relationship between the husband and father is a capitalist one – they’re trading the wife but each side tries to get the ‘best deal’.”

    Yep, that more or less sums up what goes on in our household and I can heartily recommend it as the basis for a long and happy marriage!

    Report comment

  20. CROSSBAT11
    I knew it. A fellow Taliban.

    Report comment

  21. CROSSBAT11

    ” the wife does as she’s told and all resources are distributed upward” is capable of an alternate interpretation – but one best not discussed on a genteel site such as this.

    Report comment

  22. @ Carfrew

    The world is today simpler because although there are more variables to account for, they are linked and inter-dependent so it can be better analysed than when all the variables exist in isolation and their relationships are accidental/external.

    As to self-interest and values – I didn’t quite mean that. Firstly, it is easy to act against one’s own interests and values. You don’t need to change the values (e.g. health is a value for me, I know that smoking is not good for health, yet I smoke, so knowingly I act against my values and interest).

    What I meant: values derive from needs (valueing things, people, relationships, emotions, etc against my needs). It is possible that I don’t know what my needs are, but it’s impossible not having needs qnd hence values. True, important values cannot be changed without changing needs. The most superior need is the situation, constellation in which the satisfaction of my other needs is optimal by my own evaluation (hence the stickiness of the status quo) and it is expressed in my world-view (if systematised then ideology). It can be incoherent, of course, but I’m not free to change it if my needs don’t change or circumstances don’t force me to abandon the status quo.

    So choosing, adopting, discarding values is not an intellectual activity, but results of my (and others’) sensual-prqctical activities that enlighten me of the incoherence of my values.

    Report comment

  23. @ Tingedfringe

    Just to be annoyingly pedant: the building.blocks of the human language is the sentence and not the word :-)

    Report comment

  24. LASZLO

    @”Just to be annoyingly pedant: the building.blocks of the human language is the sentence and not the word ”

    that didn’t sound right to me, assuming “building block” is intended to signify “basic unit”.

    The basic unit of language appears to be recognised as the Morpheme, which are the “irreducible” units which make up words.

    They are sounds, or combinations of sounds which have a meaning. A word may contain one or more morphemes, and a morpheme contain one or more syllables.

    Cat is a single syllable -word morpheme.

    Cats is a two morpheme word – Cat + s ( ie more than one cat)

    Unbreakable is a three morpheme word-Un +break +able.( ie Not +break +can be done)

    Report comment

  25. How much morphine do you need to prevent
    boring!

    Peter.

    Report comment

  26. Interestingly “A” can be both a letter, a word and a paragraph. Possibly a short book also.

    Dunno about morphenes: I’ve lived fairly happily – well, grumpily anyway – `for 68 years without being aware of the little rascals

    Report comment

  27. As much as is required to blot out Scottish politics.

    Report comment

  28. @WOLF
    @carfrew
    Be interesting to have a Top 100 best UK Government investment decisions and Top 100 UK Government worst decisions.

    ——————————

    Yes, we are not very good at it. This does not mean it cannot or should not be done… some of our rivals are much better at it. That’s what Heseltine is trying to get across with his recent report…

    Take the Space race. Cost the Americans a lot of money BUT… there was a lot of spin-off. We all know about Velcro and Teflon but also other things like new techniques for managing very large projects. It also spawned whole new industries, big ones, like satellite communications and the development of the integrated circuit for computers. The circuits were invented in a private sector lab but NASA provided a market for them until they were developed enough to be sold commercially.

    The lesson is… when taking a punt, go for something with lots of spin-off. Even if the original goal fails, you still get the other stuff. Even if the moonlandings had failed they still would have had the rest.

    Another example to seal the deal. The development of the internet, funded by the US government through the military. Not exactly small fry, the internet, with lots of uses and the irony is you wouldn’t be able to query the effectiveness of government funding in this thread were it not for the fact it had been successful.

    Now, Government is more appropriate to invest in these sorts of projects because the private sector on its own tends not to invest for as long a term, or may not be able to marshal sufficient resources. There are other ways of skinning it though, for example seeding lots of smaller projects and seeing which bear fruit.

    I gather the Germans might have been doing a fair amount of this but I haven’t gotten far down that road and when I last debated it a while ago some right-wingers pointed out the difficulties presented by EU regs when it comes to government investment these days. At the time I found something more fun to do than exploring labyrinthine EU bureaucracy, but I plan to return to it as it does seem our rivals find more ways around it than we do.

    There is also the issue of bailing out an industry struggling during a downturn as we did during the oil crisis of the seventies/early eighties but Thatch wasn’t as keen. We’ll see how the Americans do having bailed out their car industry…

    Report comment

  29. ONS figures today confirm that the manufacturing sector had a very rough time in October. These confirm the fears from the PMI surveys, and are actually significantly worse, with clear indications that this isn’t a one off. PMI suggest more bad news to come in November, and the forward stats are also indicating this sector will struggle again in December.

    Significant talk now of a triple dip, which is a marked change of sentiment from a few weeks ago, when there was widespread acknowledgement that the +1% GDP figure would fall back in Q4, but few were actually thinking of minus territory.

    Beneath these stats there has been mounting evidence of a tipping point in the employment market. Manufacturing in particular held on to staff for the first few months of contraction, clearly expecting a return to growth, but this hasn’t happened and the survey data suggests net job losses. The construction sector has done likewise for three months now, but the bad news is that for the last two months, the PMI service sector data suggests firms are shedding staff here too.

    I’ve posted before about potential anomalies between the PMI surveys and actual data, so we won’t know the true position for a while, but the situation regarding employment is potentially politically difficult for the government, especially so if we do look like entering a triple dip.

    Report comment

  30. @JOHN PILGRIM
    CARFREW

    “Interestingly we had related problems in the post-war period”
    If you were, for the sake of argument, to take ideology into account, it might include a recognition or rejection of research as a basis of policy on resource management and production systems and their impact on wealth distribution and population movement. ”

    Well, an ideologue might choose to reject research but I wouldn’t want to unless the research was found to be erroneous in some way… poor data, flawed methodology or something…

    “Is it not ideological to seek ways of redirecting public policy, financing and skills development towards competitive design and production systems in the national economy… to be providing the enabling systems and public resources to be providing access to information, opportunity, employment and capital throughout society, and to be prioritising the educational and distributional systems which would permit their achievement?”

    Not really, that’s not what I would consider ideological, though again it may depend a bit on how you choose to define ideology.

    What you are advocating is basically along the lines of the scientific method. You do your research, work out what seems to work best, maybe develop a hypothesis and test it, and implement. Now if you want to call that ideology you can, but it’s not really the same as an ideology that states that there shouldn’t be a state, or property, or that the workers should control the means of production or that most everything should be privatised.

    A scientific approach is rather anti-ideology in that you keep revising your approach as new data emerges. Even if you still consider something that keeps changing, perhaps very far from its original starting point, an ideology, then it’s still something of a bulwark against bias in that you are prepared to revise in the light of evidence.

    That said there are notable examples of where even great scientists had difficulties letting go of something despite mounting evidence. But then when that happens, they HAVE effectively become ideological…

    Report comment

  31. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20645838

    It was a media scoop, news and entertainment all rolled into one – even Prince Charles cracked a joke about it. All good clean fun by the press pack I guess.

    Now it looks like some unfortunate victim has taken it to heart and another life passes by.

    When people like David Kelly take their own lives, the press cranks up and tries to find blame within the government. I wonder whether anyone will bother to run any stories about media responsibilities for this one?

    Report comment

  32. Agree Alec.

    At the time, I wondered how the tv news channels justified playing the sound recordings from that phone call.

    Report comment

  33. @Alec

    “ONS figures today confirm that the manufacturing sector had a very rough time in October. These confirm the fears from the PMI surveys, and are actually significantly worse, with clear indications that this isn’t a one off. PMI suggest more bad news to come in November, and the forward stats are also indicating this sector will struggle again in December. ”

    Any indicators of how other years (October – December ) fare?

    Report comment

  34. Germany too :-

    “Germany’s central bank, the Bundesbank, has cut its growth forecast for next year, saying the country’s economy might be entering a recession.

    Growth in 2013 is now expected to be just 0.4%, compared with a forecast in June of 1.6%, but is expected to bounce back to 1.9% in 2014.

    Meanwhile, industrial output fell a steeper-than-expected 2.6% in October.”

    BBC

    Report comment

  35. France too :-

    ” France’s unemployment rate rose to 10.3 percent in the third quarter of 2012, its highest since the third quarter of 1999, from 10.2 percent in the previous quarter, data published by national statistics office INSEE showed on Thursday.”

    Reuters

    Report comment

  36. @Statgeek – manufacturing dropped 2.1% on the year and industrial production (includes mining, oil and gas etc) fell 0.8% yoy.

    Whichever way you cut it, the figures are bad.

    Report comment

  37. @Colin – I’ll see you some bad German GDP figures and duff French employment data, and raise you a pile of Greek debt and some Spanish service sector numbers.

    Are you man enough to hold your hand?

    Report comment

  38. ALEC

    I don’t understand Poker.

    Could we play Snap instead ?

    Report comment

  39. @JOHN PILGRIM

    I agree that approaches of previous governments may have contained elements of ideology, and also that some ideologies may, even though ideological, may be nonetheless more conducive to research-based policy.

    Report comment

  40. @LASZLO
    @ Carfrew
    “The world is today simpler because although there are more variables to account for, they are linked and inter-dependent so it can be better analysed than when all the variables exist in isolation and their relationships are accidental/external.”

    —————————–

    Ah, now see to me, if they are linked and interdependent that tends to make things harder not easier. All those strange knock-on effects. In science people often try to isolate variables to make things easier. But if more interdependence makes things easier for you all I can say is. .. well done!

    Report comment

  41. @colin – “I don’t understand Poker.”

    Me neither.

    I’m a dab hand at charades, although I’m not sure how to act out ‘total Greek debt implosion’.

    On the internet.

    Report comment

  42. ALEC

    :-)

    Report comment

  43. CARFREW
    (resarch) is not really the same as an ideology that states that there shouldn’t be a state, or property, or that the workers should control the means of production or that most everything should be privatised.

    “A scientific approach is rather anti-ideology in that you keep revising your approach as new data emerges. Even if you still consider something that keeps changing, perhaps very far from its original starting point, an ideology, then it’s still something of a bulwark against bias in that you are prepared to revise in the light of evidence.”

    That said there are notable examples of where even great scientists had difficulties letting go of something despite mounting evidence. But then when that happens, they HAVE effectively become ideological…”

    E.g. Lysenko, central figure in this discussion, since he was appointed by Stalin to replace Chayanov, whose empirical evidence of a need to adapt to local knowledge and practice in agriculture was opposed on ideological grounds by the Communists, as contrary to state ownership and collectivisation of agricuture. Lysenko’s teachings were also followed by Nazi geneticists in support of the need for a ruling race of ubermenschen.

    I liked your reply, since it makes clear a need for, and differences in, a definition of ideology. “it may depend a bit on how you choose to define ideology” – more than a bit, I think. That is, the opposition of totalitarian systems and leaders to research, and the tendency towards that position of utopian or millenarian oriented politicians – including Thatcher and Reagen, Blair and Bush in respect of major interventions in other regimes and countries – is a basic factor in “knowing” that your own system or vision is right.
    It isn’t only totalitarian or single vision systems which are based on an ideology, as you suggest, and such systems – e.g. Soviet collective or state farming and industry – may fail, especially in maintaining the social objectives, full employment or welfare systems, for example, that they are aimed at, not because the ideological model was wrong but because of sheer bad management and particularly information management. Ditto their and the western banking systems, which failed on remarkably similar aspects of failure of information and thus control over housing and similar financing, and thus destroyed the basis of financing production and market systems.
    A policy of moving away from specific models of state or private sector ownership of the means of production,, e.g. in Vietnam and China, suggests that you can retain the principles of a socialist ideology without the paraphenalia of the private market; China, however, is making huge investments in science and technology, and appears to be recognising that its problems of conflict with rural communities impacted by development can’t be met by uniform or regimented responses of systems, but must be information based, adaptive and locally derived. A process of reform of the economic, financial and social welfare systems of the west would, if you followed Reaganomics, be based on what the market demands, e.g. continued high unemployment to bleed inefficiencies out of the system. It appears to me to be illogical not to see, not just investment in research, but research as a fundamental part of change and adaptation as necessary to reform; that is fundamental to an ideology of reform, and specifically in matching education and training, employment and wage policy and related social suppor,t to changes in production and market systems and to their fiscal basis and banking. In that context we will continue to see the old concepts of ideology, well outlined in your response, fade in relation to knowledge based systems.

    Report comment

  44. LAZLO
    The world is today simpler ….
    .
    CARFREW
    But if more interdependence makes things easier for you all I can say is. .. well done!

    Do you mind? We may think the world is simpler, because “globalisation” appears to make it so, and indeed may work that way in respect of long-drawn-out processes of urbanization and monetization, and Ivan Illich’s famous “schooling” – which subscribe, with IT, to world wide economic and information systems. On the ground, however, whether within continuing ethnic minorities or in the vast areas of rural poverty which exist in half the world, the problems and realities are complex and alien to your simplistic, supposedly progressive, and essential colonialist picture.

    Report comment

1 2 3