I think afew makes the point repeatedly that the entire questionnaire should be reorganised along different lines. It is not just that the questions are leading. Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman
Most of the questions in the questionnaire are restrictive, leading, and manipulative. The effect is to force respondents into apparent consent to the policy choices set out in the Green Paper. A polling institute which made use of questions of this kind would quickly be challenged and discredited.
My reading of the above: "A polling institute would have to ask better questions to maintain credibility."
=What are the better questions?
But maybe I shouldn't be in this conversation at all? (I'm don't think I'm being helpful.) Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
All questions are helpful. Convince yourself, then convince a friend, then convince an enemy. You're playing the role of friend needing to be convinced. Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman
How to get into that "anything interesting" envelope?
So, do we agree that it is impossible to write a non-loaded multiple choice question regarding the topic(s)?
Thing is, I can't see them changing the whole structure because we have found fault, but I can see them taking note of "the form of the questions" for next time round...
I'm trying to think practically. A hundred great suggestions end up in the bin because they don't tie to what's feasible on the ground. I can see it where I work. The guy from Data Quality bores us for hours about how much we need X, Y, and Z, and he's right of course. He spends hours writing long messages, paper and e-mail, intranet, you name it, he sends his messages out and is ignored by everyone because they're not that interested and he never gives them simple things to do. He needs to say:
STOP DOING 'A', DO B INSTEAD. IT WILL WORK BETTER. (HERE ARE SOME EASY TO REMEMBER NUMBERS IN CASE YOU FORGET.)
We're not paid enough to be like other lobby groups. We have to be faster, smarter, more fun, more exacting, ET always gets to the point, knows what's what etc. If the survey is a crock, then I think the letter could say so more clearly and be shorter.
Then again, I never was good at meetings or reading reports... Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
But I don't fully agree with you. If we're just going to do a snappy, smart, brief put-down saying the consultation is a crock, then we will get shoved in the wastebin, imo. The point of this is that it does go to (I think) sufficient length to argue the case against the questionnaire, and that it will also be sent to the Communication Commissioner whose job it is to look out for this sort of thing, and we will also copy in EP Committees and MEPs. Which I think means it will be read and responded to.
It won't change the face of the earth. I hope it may serve as a basis for challenging whatever "results" DG-TREN try to present as "public opinion" on the basis of responses to the questionnaire. And push the (reluctant) EC a millimetre along the road towards more open communication and acceptance of democratic input.
This is the version I had.
(That pic brought back sudden memories...another strange part of the mind awakens...as if it had been slumbering...and the song isn't even on it!)
Here he is:
looking a bit like this chap:
And to think I never knew 'till now (though I'd heard it) that the original was by the Animals.
Diddle-iddle-iddle-ow;
And to place the date, my memory of the Graham Parker album is linked to this:
(Whatever happened to, all of those heroes, all those...shakespearos...we made their ears bleed...No! We watched their Rome burn. No! They watched their Rome burn. The memory is an unbalanced tool..."I said, somefin be'ah change!")
Afew, I wish you all ze good luck and I offer you ze big drink!
Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
<Garble burble old fart memories pffflll....>
(Oh, it's one of my all-time favourite songs!)
