Have you stopped beating your wife? [or husband}

[salymap]

Reading the DAB thread the same problem arises. Questions posed in such a way that 'they' get the responses they want.

I've come across this a lot in questionnaires that try to trick the public. Have you any examples of this so that we may all be wary.?

I know the enquiry about our local Post Office followed this pattern. It closed on the day my MP sent a letter to say it would stay open. It was decided in advance

[kernelbogey]

At my work (a University) there was a '90 day consultation period' about significant structural and personnel changes. Managers made a great fuss about saying that every written comment would be carefully examined, discussed by a team of managers and would be replied to.

The outcome was that long detailed comments were crudely paraphrased and the paraphrase replied to. It was clear to us drones that the consultation was a charade. (Still the managers had a nice awayday at a posh hotel .)

It's reminiscent of that technique politicans employ in interviews. 'That's an interesting question, John; but first let me just say this...'

[eighthobstruction]

I've not actually read it, but hearing the govt's mid term report talked about and analysed it appears (as one would expect) that the gloss is easily seen through, not matter how hard they keep trying to polish it, with disingenuous answers. Grant Shapps could not keep the embarrassed smile out of his voice while talking about it on PM. Luckily for them the Labour attempts to throw grit at it are.... (Hmmm how to extend the metaphor??)....forgetting their own lack lustre...

[gradus]

Concerning kernelbogey's point about 90 days consultation, I have never found that it made a real difference to a decision although details can be changed as a result. I don't suppose anyone really thought that anything would be c0hanged as a result of 90 days consultation and I very much doubt that the framers of the legislation (it it was driven by legal necessity) ever intended that it should. Just another step in the ritual dance.

[salymap]

Concerning kernelbogey's point about 90 days consultation, I have never found that it made a real difference to a decision although details can be changed as a result. I don't suppose anyone really thought that anything would be c0hanged as a result of 90 days consultation and I very much doubt that the framers of the legislation (it it was driven by legal necessity) ever intended that it should. Just another step in the ritual dance.

RitualDance is right gradus. Around here we have little notices fixed to trees on the verge, all about house extensions. It is fun to guess which will be allowed.

[Anna]

Exactly, 'public consultation' seems to be a farce. An open meeting is held, points of view and objections are put forward, a petition is handed in. The result? Exactly that which had been agreed prior to the meeting and the County Council having conveniently 'lost' the petition ... so it comes to the point where you just feel like giving up against the Men in Suits Who Know Best (even though they don't live here but in the Ivory Tower that is County Hall and dispense their wisdom to the Serfs)

[Flosshilde]

I've not actually read it, but hearing the govt's mid term report talked about and analysed it appears (as one would expect) that the gloss is easily seen through, not matter how hard they keep trying to polish it, with disingenuous answers. Grant Shapps could not keep the embarrassed smile out of his voice while talking about it on PM. Luckily for them the Labour attempts to throw grit at it are.... (Hmmm how to extend the metaphor??)....forgetting their own lack lustre...

I did think that it was rather amusing () that Dave used a catch-phrase from an advert for varnish in presenting the mid-term report to Parliament, & then said that a further review of all the missed targets etc would be published, giving the 'unvarnished truth'.

[Lateralthinking1]

Having been at the heart of this country's biggest ever consultation exercise - 500,000 responses - I was required to hear the general public's concerns at 20 one day exhibitions. During that "road show", there were many accusations about the wording of the questions and whether it was designed to get answers that were wanted. Decisions, I was told by members of the public, had already been made. Well, the decisions hadn't been made and as far as I could tell the questions were intended to be open ones. That is not to say that some of them were not poorly worded because of ineptitude or that the Government of the day didn't like some options more than others. Still, those opposed to certain options have every right to question the process. I would do.

Being more concerned about the welfare of others than some, I offered to return to see people if what emerged later proved that my advice to them had been untrue. I explained that I was in a relatively junior position and that I was sticking my neck out as this would not be an offer senior managers would endorse. At the same time I had enough faith in the lines given to me to feel quite sure I was on solid ground. The response was that I was either misleading them or that I was being misled. Everyone said that they would never see me again, whatever I said. As it turned out, no decision was taken on the basis of that consultation and the six years of detailed, complex, studies that had preceded it. What I had said in every case turned out to be absolutely true.

In general, my concern would be less about the wording of questions in a consultation exercise than about the weight given to consultation responses. I am in no doubt that most weight is given to private companies and the organisations representing them, lesser weight is given to establishment pressure groups and the least weight is given to radical pressure groups and individual members of the public. This Government effectively indicated in Summer 2010 that too much time was being spent on individuals' concerns and resources were cut accordingly, even in respect of routine business. It also believes that we should be more like the French and finding easy ways to develop infrastructure. New Labour was on that path too, changing the legal requirements.

The options one now has are either to cave in or to take part in consultations anyway. One thing that needs to be borne in mind is that the public still has influence where large numbers of votes could go elsewhere. The sheer numbers of people who responded to the consultation on the forestry sell-off led to a u-turn. It helps if policy is poorly formulated in the first place as was the case there. And I think it is fair to say that policy formulation is likely to be more slapdash now. When corners are cut, more things might be achieved but there is more scope for error. In my policy area, they are repeating the previous exercise at vast expense to the taxpayer. This time it may lead to concrete decisions. However, the new exercise is being done on the back of a cigarette packet. It is not as professional. This means that there are likely to be many areas in which opponents can reveal its limitations.

Remember too that whatever the objectives of this Government, it has made u-turns in 30 policy areas in 31 months. It isn't as confident as it appears to be. Partially that's to do with internal divisions. It is also about the two parties' poor electoral support.

[scottycelt]

At my work (a University) there was a '90 day consultation period' about significant structural and personnel changes. Managers made a great fuss about saying that every written comment would be carefully examined, discussed by a team of managers and would be replied to.

The outcome was that long detailed comments were crudely paraphrased and the paraphrase replied to. It was clear to us drones that the consultation was a charade. (Still the managers had a nice awayday at a posh hotel .)

It is the same in private industry. Modern management culture (in my experience) has an entirely separate agenda of its own and is contemptuous of both 'lower-order' staff and public, whilst constantly claiming to be 'carefully listening' to both.

Even in difficult economic times this still seems to be the case, which does not bode at all well for the future.

[Flosshilde]

It is the same in private industry. Modern management culture (in my experience) has an entirely separate agenda of its own and is contemptuous of both 'lower-order' staff and public, whilst constantly claiming to be 'carefully listening' to both.

Even in difficult economic times this still seems to be the case, which does not bode at all well for the future.

I would say that it's not so much a case of it being the same in private industry as the practices of private industry infiltrating the public sector as governments believe that private industry is more 'efficient'.

[antongould]

It is the same in private industry. Modern management culture (in my experience) has an entirely separate agenda of its own and is contemptuous of both 'lower-order' staff and public, whilst constantly claiming to be 'carefully listening' to both.

Even in difficult economic times this still seems to be the case, which does not bode at all well for the future.

Scarily true scotty .......and everyone is suffering from it in so many ways.

[french frank]

I participated in a (general) BBC survey once. The interview took 40 minutes, but there were several questions I declined to answer. Annoyingly, that was recorded as Don't Know/No Opinion. I did have an opinion but the question didn't allow that form of answer. The only possible answer would have given quite the wrong impression.

Also, where the ICM/Mori polls will ask blunt questions like: Do you think the BBC has dumbed down in recent years? (two polls showed that over half of those asked said Yes to this), the BBC survey phrased all its Agree/Disagree propositions in terms of compliments.

How do you respond to the question: "The BBC has high quality programmes and services?" Self evidently, the answer is Yes it does, since you can name several of them. But to say Agree, implies simple approval when you also want to express downright disapproval to some / a lot of things. I wouldn't say Yes, so it went down as No Opinion.

There would - of course - be a subtle difference if the question had said: BBC programmes and services are of high quality. You could legitimately reply Disagree (Slightly or Strongly).

It's a G.E Moore distinction ("Moore, I said, do you then have apples in that basket?")

Courtesy, Beyond the Fringe:

I opened the door accordingly and went in, and there was Moore seated by the fire with a basket upon his knees. "Moore", I said, "do you have any apples in that basket?" "No", he replied, and smiled seraphically, as was his wont. I decided to try a different logical tack. "Moore", I said, "do you then have some apples in that basket?" "No", he replied, leaving me in a logical cleft stick from which I had but one way out. "Moore", I said, "do you then have apples in that basket?" "Yes", he replied. And from that day forth, we remained the very closest of friends.'

[salymap]

Lovely to see you back ff

[french frank]

Lovely to see you back ff

With my usual conversation-stopping contributions ...

[salymap]

With my usual conversation-stopping contributions ...

No, that's my party piece actually.