An Interesting Bit of Fluff From You Gov - Public Perceptions of Fictional Characters' Politics

[miss_s_b]

http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/88fhchg0tf/YG-Archives-FictionalCharactersVoting-050412.pdf

So YouGov did a survey on which party people think various fictional characters would vote for. From the little I know, I would suspect most of them are correct, but I want to talk about the one I know is definitely false, and the one I think is probably wrong.

Firstly, Victor Meldrew is definitely a Labour voter. This is canonical, he talks about it in the show, he reads the Daily Mirror onscreen on a regular basis, and in one episode is shown roundly abusing a Tory canvassar, and in another episode castigating a Tory politician in a hospital. So why do the majority of people think of him as a Tory?

There's a definite stereotype effect going on; most of the Tories are characters people don't like, or love to hate, and most of the Labour characters are seen as good fun but a bit thick. The one Lib Dem is the Vicar of Dibley - worthy, does good works and makes people happier, but is ultimately pretty powerless and someone to feel sorry for. So I think people put Victor Meldrew as a Tory because he's so bloody grumpy, and people see him as selfishly grumpy - but he's totally not. He's a tireless crusader against injustice, not just for himself, but for others (see the episode set in the Old People's home), and he has the Labourite's unshakeable conviction that the government ought to sort things out.

The other one that I think is a bit off is the Doctor. The biggest result for him is "wouldn't vote", which is probably correct, because I think the timelord maxim of non interference still has SOME traction on him... But then the next biggest is Green LOL! The Doctor is a scientist. The Greens, despite their hearts being in the right place, are totally wedded to woo. Add to that their occasional authoritarian tendencies and... no, the Doctor is a Lib Dem. I shall stubbornly cling to that belief.

Comments

[miss_s_b]

* shrug *

It comes from many years of talking to Labour members, whose first instinct when something bad happens is to wonder aloud what the government can and should be doing about it.

But please, if you have something more than a bald assertion of opinion as fact to give me, do. I like learning new stuff.

[juggzy]

Sure. Here's the Labour Party policy making process: http://www.labour.org.uk/policy_making

Government by the people for the people - needs to be a process by which the people are part of making policy.

I think you're lying when you say of talking to Labour members, whose first instinct when something bad happens is to wonder aloud what the government can and should be doing about it. I'm not saying that, for starters, and I don't know any Labour party members who do say that. I know people who say it about Labour, such as yourself, but, as I have just said, it's a lie.

[miss_s_b]

I think we're possibly slightly talking at cross purposes. It doesn't really matter to me who decides what the policy IS per se; what matters is that the response to any given crisis is to bring out or ask for new regulations and laws, rather than to try and enforce the existing ones.

And I know better than anyone that the position of a party's leadership and its members can be at massive odds, but that doesn't change the fact that this is a sentiment that seems to me common among Labour members. Perhaps you present differently to outsiders than you do to each other?

You can think I'm lying if you like, but I know I'm not. However, aware as I am that the plural of anecdote is not data, I fear there's little point in either of us trying to convince the other that our anedotes are better.

* shrug *

I also think I've responded remarkably calmly to your personal slurs so far, but if they continue I might stop doing so.

[juggzy]

And I have remained remarkably calm in the face of your slurs. Or do you really not understand how offensive was your statement about Labour Party people?

It's not a slur to challenge a blatant untruth.

I accept that you may think that it's your own personal experience - but all the
Labour Party? Really.

If I said something like "in my experience all Lib-Dem members are prone to twisting the truth to fitting the message they want to give - and they never, ever stick to their principles", you'd rightly be offended.

I'm not saying that, of course. I'm challenging your libellous assertations about all Labour party members. And I don't give tuppence - really, I don't - about you staying 'remarkably calm'. If this is being 'remarkably calm, I'd hate to see you being pettily and randomly rude, instead of just pretending to be so while staying 'remarkably calm'. No, I don't want to continue this discussion, either.

[gwenhwyfaer]

Actually, my reaction to that wasn't a million miles away from Juggzy's. (And you know how I feel about the Labour Party!) It felt uncomfortably like the kind of mindless tribalism I got sick of seeing from Labour in about 2002, when they knew they'd sold their souls and couldn't justify it any other way.

I think she's way off base to call you a liar, though.

[miss_s_b]

Hmmm. It wasn't necessarily meant as a criticism, but I take your point that it could be read as such. Thank you for pointing that out in a reasonable fashion.

[juggzy]

Actually, I was saying that the statement about the Labour Party members was a lie, and that by repeating it, she was lying. Is she a liar? I don't know.

I think I am well within my rights to challenge lies about me and people I know when I see or hear them.