It Would Seem That Cameron's Stance On Gay Marriages Has Done Him No Favours.

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2283926/Lord-Ashcroft-Drops-support-Tories-David-Camerons-gay-marriage-obsession.html

Even the Labour party chose not to support him over this matter, but instead took the opportunity to obtain further political points.

/// But Michael Dugher, Labour’s vice chairman, said his withdrawal of financial support was ‘a damning vote of no confidence’ in the Prime Minister. ///

[sp1814]

Does anyone know why some straight people feel that they are in a position to say what gay people want with regards to marriage equality?

This isn't the first time we've heard this increasingly hoary old chestnut.

Where does it come from???

[sp1814]

Also, should we not applaud David Cameron for sticking to his principles, rather than 'following the money'?

If Lord Ashcroft has announced that he would withdraw funding from the Conservatives if Cameron had pursued the cause of marriage equality, and then Cameron had done a U-turn, would that be an act worthy of praise?

Should our Prime Ministerbe driven by conscience or cash?

[Zeuhl]

/Does anyone know why some straight people feel that they are in a position to say what gay people want with regards to marriage equality?/

The usual reason for that sort of subjective misinformation is that one or two people expressing a view that reflects someone's own view is somehow accepted as statistically valid and any views to the contrary are 'deleted'.

[sp1814]

Zeuhl

Perhaps it came from a poll conducted a while back by ComRes (paid for by Catholic Voice), which revealed that:

"...just over one in four (27%) would marry their partner if the law allowed it"

But there was a massive flaw in the question. It asked respondants whether they would marry their partner, but a fairer question would be "Would you like the option to marry at some point in the future".

Asking someone whether they want to marry the partner their with at the time of the poll is a different matter.

[emmie]

because unless one has an overall referendum in Britain counting heads in ye or nay mode, than how can one say that most people are in favour, and gay or straight should it matter. I have as much right to express my opinion on whatever topic, it doesn't mean to say one is right or wrong, but i do think that just because you are gay doesn't make you an expert, no more being straight does on matters of marriage, gay or straight.

[Zeuhl]

/because unless one has an overall referendum in Britain counting heads in ye or nay mode, than how can one say that most people are in favour/

It's called Quantitative Research em

You don't need to ask everybody.

If you select your sample carefully you can get an answer from 2,500 people that will not change if you extended it to asking the whole population.

[emmie]

and as some have suggested perhaps Cameron's stance was more a vote catcher than a firm belief.. it wouldn't be the first time a politician has chased votes, throwing long held beliefs to the four winds -

[emmie]

so you are suggesting that taking a sample of 2,500 people and that gives you an overall picture of how people think of a particular matter...

[Zeuhl]

That's interesting sp


I forgot to mention the other factor in subjectivity and misinformation

Not only is there 'deletion' there is also 'distortion'; usually to fit with someone's existing model of the world.

Someone reads that 'only 73% of gay people want to marry their partner' and what they distort it to is that 'only 73% of gay people want gay people to have the opportunity to marry'

Very insidious.

[Zeuhl]

/you are suggesting that taking a sample of 2,500 people and that gives you an overall picture of how people think of a particular matter/

Yes it does - and it has been scientifically verified on countless occasions though it isn't foolproof

If the sample includes the relevant proportions of a group's demographics and is large enough to be statistically significant (ie it isn't relying on such small numbers that getting a few atypicals will throw the result) then you will get the same result as you would if you asked the entire group.

[emmie]

so one could have a sample of 2,500 people on our future in the EU, and overall if it's an out vote, that applies across the country, not sure how this works.

[sp1814]

em10

You wrote:

I have as much right to express my opinion on whatever topic, it doesn't mean to say one is right or wrong, but i do think that just because you are gay doesn't make you an expert, no more being straight does on matters of marriage, gay or straight.

You may have that right, but you don't have the right to state as fact that 'most gay people don't want marriage equality'.

Once you say that, you're misrepresenting the opinion of gay people.

One could accurately state, "None of my gay mates want to get married", but unless you have evidence to the contrary, you shouldn't speak on behalf of gay people stating (as fact) that most do not want to get married.

[LazyGun]

Here you go Em - link for you on opinion polls, sample size, representativeness and likely accuracy.
http://www.historians.org/projects/GIRoundtable/Polls/Polls2.htm

[sp1814]

em10

This is how polls work.

Look at polls taken just before an election...very rarely do that get it wildly wrong. The big polling companies use rigorous mathematical algorithms to ensure the most accurate results, weighting for geography, race, economic status, sex, sexuality, gender etc.

And poll after poll after poll has shown that the majority of people are in favour of marriage equality.

Perhaps that figure includes those who are fussed either way, but who's attitude is "Well, I don't really care...but hey ho, what harm could it do?"

I think that might include a lot of people.

[Zeuhl]

em

I'm referring to research or opinion polling (as sp quoted the ComRes/Catholic Voice poll at 17.31)

Not referenda or voting

A properly designed poll of 2,500 people will tell us what the UK population thinks about EU membership

But no government would have a mandate to take action without everyone having the opportunity to vote.

I think you'll find that research polling is used extensively before elections and referenda in order to gauge electorate opinions and adjust campaigns accordingly. It is very good at doing that - slightly less good at predicting how people will vote in a general election but still usually accurate.

[sp1814]

em10

You asked, so one could have a sample of 2,500 people on our future in the EU, and overall if it's an out vote, that applies across the country

Mathematically and hypothetically 'yes', but in order for that to work, we would have to reject the idea of democracy which is based on one man, one vote.

You would effectively be excluding most of the population from the process - and how would you feel if you weren't one of the 2,500 chosen?

[emmie]

I was referring to you specifically as a gay man as opposed to all gay people, that was obviously not clear.

[Zeuhl]

Sp true

And with the EU - that's before we get into the troubling issue of question design; for research purposes or a referendum

the mind boggles

[emmie]

i believe in the principle of one person one vote, that way if it's in the general election, you have cast your vote, opinion, choice for that one candidate, have had your say. If you sample a small amount of folk, and how do the pollsters choose them? how do you know that is the opinion overall. That is what i am trying to work through.

this is from that article, piece that lazygun posted

It is an old rule that the smaller the sample the greater the chances of error. Nevertheless, the size of the sample is not as, important to experienced pollers as the representativeness of the sample. A large sample, carelessly chosen, can lead to greater error than a properly selected small sample. The main question to the poller is, therefore: Is the sample a good cross section of the population? In other words, does the sample include the various types of people who make up the whole

[LazyGun]

@em - well yes, that was from the article. Did you read the other bits about why they consider a poll of 2,500 to be an adequate sample size, a representative sample of the population as a whole?

And whilst an opinion poll of a representative sample might be useful in assessing the public mood, no one in their right mind would suggest that we should be running the country by opinion poll......