Name: 政治中還有信任嗎？| 與約翰-柯蒂斯爵士教授對話 (Is there still trust in politics? | In Conversation with Professor Sir John Curtice)
Uploaded: 2025-10-08T18:05:54.000Z
Duration: 57 min 49 s

程度副詞

We are talking about a deeply pessimistic electorate that at the end of the day have been asking themselves two fundamental questions.

我們在談論一個非常悲觀的選民，他們最終問了自己兩個基本問題。

第一個是，我負擔得起餵養我的孩子嗎？

And two, if I fall ill, will the NHS be able to deal with me in time?

第二個是，如果我生病了，NHS 能及時處理我的狀況嗎？

You've been a much longer standing fellow than me.

我意思是，這是我不知道的一件事。

I wonder whether we might start as though we have the inauguration slash coronation of Donald Trump last week.

我想我們是不是可以從上週唐納·川普的就職典禮或加冕禮開始聊起。

Thought might start with that actually, across the pond before we recross.

我想先從那裡開始聊，跨越大西洋之前，我們再回來。

How do we make sense of the Trump phenomenon?

How are pollsters making sense of the Trump phenomena?

民意調查員又是如何理解川普現象的？

It looks like from the last US election, the polls are still playing catch up with the Trump phenomenon.

從上次美國大選看來，民調似乎還在追趕川普現象。

People described Trump's success, including Trump himself, as a landslide.

人們將川普的成功，包括川普本人，形容為壓倒性勝利。

Well, point one about Trump is the relationship between rhetoric and truth is not necessarily one to one, but it's also something that journalists themselves said, and this is basically people being confused by or misinterpreting the result of the Electoral College for the result of the outcome.

嗯，關於川普的第一點是，言論和真實之間的關係不一定是一對一的，但這也是記者們自己說的，這基本上是人們對選舉人團的結果感到困惑或誤解了最終的結果。

So basically, the average lead for Harris in the opinion polls in terms of the overall national vote in the final polls was estimated by most of the aggregating websites as one point over Trump.

所以基本上，根據大多數匯總網站的估計，在最後的民調中，哈里斯在全國總票數上的平均領先川普一點。

In the end, Trump had a one and a half point lead over Harris.

最後，川普領先哈里斯一點五。

So the lead on the hour, two and a half points.

所以領先的時間是，兩個半小時。

But then of course, what's also true is that in most of the swing states, the same error was replicated, but that made the difference between the swing states being divided and possibly therefore Harris making it and Trump getting them all.

但當然，同樣真實的是，在大多數搖擺州，同樣的誤差被複製了，但這造成了搖擺州被分割，是以哈里斯可能獲勝，而川普則贏得了所有這些州。

So you end up with a very clear Electoral College victory.

所以你最終得到一個非常明顯的選舉人團勝利。

But actually in terms of votes, it's quite thin.

但實際上就票數而言，是相當微弱的。

And my response to you is that, oh, that the pollsters in the UK had been anything like as accurate as the polls in the US were, because the error in the lead in the polls in the US is about two and a half points.

所以我的回應是，噢，如果英國的民意調查員能像美國的民調一樣準確就好了，因為美國民調的領先誤差大約是兩點五。

The error on the lead here was of the order of seven points.

Labour were overestimated because people don't notice, because all you needed to do in 2024 was to put up a big number for Labour and because Labour get a very large parliamentary majority, albeit on a very low share of the vote.

工黨被高估了，因為人們沒注意到，因為在 2024 年，你只需要為工黨設定一個大數字，而且工黨雖然得票率很低，但卻贏得了非常大的國會多數席位。

每個人都會說，哦，沒事，對吧？

I mean, of course, I mean, Trump, I mean, there has been a change in the character of support for the Democrats and Republicans, which is not dissimilar to the changes that we've seen here in the wake of Brexit.

我的意思是，當然，我的意思是，川普，我的意思是，民主黨和共和黨的支持特質發生了變化，這與脫歐後我們在這裡看到的變化並不相似。

So here, of course, we have seen Brexit being supported essentially by people who are older, people who are more socially conservative, people who have less in the way of educational qualifications.

所以在這裡，當然，我們看到脫歐基本上是由年長者、社會保守派、學歷較低的人所支持。

It's a division that is arguably the product of globalization.

這是一個可以說是全球化產物的分裂。

The fact that education is now so much more important to positional labor market and the globalization has resulted also in a lot of migratory flows.

教育在勞動力市場中的地位變得越來越重要，而全球化也造成了大量的移民流動。

And that creates two groups in our society.

這在我們的社會中造成了兩群人。

Educated young graduates who can benefit from freedom of movement and who love living in a diverse society, and older people with less in the way of education qualifications for whom immigration is something that happens to them rather than something that they're likely to profit from.

受過教育的年輕畢業生，他們可以從行動自由中受益，並且喜歡生活在多元化的社會中；而學歷較低的年長者，移民對他們來說是發生在他們身上的事，而不是他們可能獲利的。

Now, equally in the U.S. i mean, Trump again is articulating similar divisions.

現在，同樣地，在美國，川普再次闡述了類似的分裂。

So the Republican Party now does relatively well amongst those who don't have a college degree.

所以共和黨現在在沒有大學學位的人中表現相對較好。

Trump does rather better amongst older people and you know, he's also got some groups like Latinos to go across.

川普在年長者中表現更好，而且，你知道，他也贏得了一些像拉丁裔這樣群體的支持，讓他們跨越。

But there wasn't a big change in the character of support for the public party in 2024 as opposed to 2020 or 2016.

但與 2020 年或 2016 年相比，2024 年對共和黨的支持特質並沒有很大的改變。

The big change kicks in really with 2016.

重大的轉變其實是從 2016 年開始的。

So the truth is not sure the polls aren't entirely accurate, but they do provide you a basis for understanding how both here and on the other side of the water, the demography and sociology of voting behavior has changed.

所以，真實情況是，民意調查不一定完全準確，但它們確實提供了理解，無論是在這裡還是在跨越大西洋的另一邊，投票行為的人口結構和社會學是如何改變的基礎。

I mean, again, just coming back to this side of the water, Peter Baltzer, late Gladstone professor of government in the late 1960s, very famously said class is the basis of British politics.

我想，回到這邊，彼得·巴爾策，已故的格萊德斯通政府教授，在 1960 年代後期，非常有名地說過，階級是英國政治的基礎。

There is now basically no significant relationship between social class and how people vote.

現在基本上，社會階級和人們的投票方式之間沒有顯著的關係。

Or if there is, it is the obverse of what Pulsar was talking about.

或者說，如果有的話，它與 Pulsar 所說的正好相反。

Because the core Labour vote, insofar as there is a core Labour vote, is the young middle class professional living in London.

因為工黨的核心選民，如果還有工黨核心選民的話，就是住在倫敦的年輕中產專業人士。

It's not the Derry Minor and help me make sense of that then if classes become less of a differentiator across the political spectrum, what is going on there, John, Help us make sense of that.

這不是德里郡的未成年人，請幫我理解這一點，如果階級不再是政治光譜上的區別因素，那到底發生了什麼，約翰，請幫我們理解。

Well, it's essentially what's suggesting basically social class became a major cleavage, not just in the uk, but in lots of other societies, although would interact with things like religion, et cetera, in different ways in the wake of the Industrial revolution and B the advent of the mass franchise at the beginning of the 20th century.

嗯，這基本上是在暗示，社會階級成為了一個主要的斷層線，不僅在英國，也在許多其他社會，儘管在工業革命和 20 世紀初大規模普選權出現之後，它會以不同的方式與宗教等事物相互作用。

The argument now is, according to some, is that basically we have now seen another fundamental social change that changes against what are the salient divisions in our society.

有些人認為，現在的論點是，我們已經看到了另一個根本性的社會變革，這與我們社會中顯著的分歧背道而馳。

So you start off as I suggesting the process of globalization.

所以你開始，就像我建議的，全球化過程。

The process of globalization, first of all means that markets are potentially affected by things that are happening outside a country.

首先，全球化過程意味著市場可能會受到國家以外發生的事情的影響。

And so therefore people cry for protection.

The second thing that's been going on is that the days when you could, let us say, join a newspaper at the age of 16 with maybe a few O levels and you made the tea and then they were short of somebody, so they said, look, there's that court case, go and write it up and you come back and you discover that the person could actually write a few words.

第二件事是，以前你可能在 16 歲加入一家報社，可能只有幾個 O-level 成績，你負責泡茶，然後他們缺人手，就說，你看，那個庭審，你去寫一下，你回來後發現那個人其實能寫幾個字。

And then maybe by the age of 56, they become the editor of the newspaper.

然後到了 56 歲，他們可能就成了報社的編輯。

In other words, they move up through and learn on the job.

換句話說，他們在工作中邊做邊學，逐步晉升。

Journalism is now an all graduate profession.

新聞業現在是個全體畢業生的行業。

護理業也是個全體畢業生的行業。

Educational qualifications have become much more important in today's labor market, which is based on the knowledge economy.

在現今這個以知識經濟為基礎的勞動市場，學歷變得更加重要。

And it's based on the knowledge economy because in the globalized world, it's services that matter much more than goods.

這是因為在全球化的世界裡，服務業比商品業更重要。

So in other words, globalization and the transformation of our economies have created new divisions.

所以換句話說，全球化和我們經濟的轉型，創造了新的分歧。

And they are divisions which are partly about economics, but they're also about culture.

這些分歧一部分是關於經濟，但也有關於文化。

They're about the difference between talking about immigration, between those who are comfortable living in a place like London, this is heaven on earth, and those who are much less comfortable about living in a diverse society.

關於移民的討論，以及那些對住在倫敦這樣的地方感到自在的人，這裡簡直是人間天堂，和那些對住在多元社會感到沒那麼自在的人之間的差異。

It becomes a debate about the extent to which we need society needs to impose certain moral codes to require people to learn a language, to acknowledge a flag, et cetera, et cetera.

這變成了一場辯論，關於社會需要多大程度上強制人們遵守某些道德準則，要求人們學習語言、承認國旗等等。

These are all things that create the social cohesion that's essential for society to function.

這些都是能創造社會凝聚力的事物，而社會凝聚力對社會的運作至關重要。

And those who take a more liberal view and say no, no, no, it's up to people to enforce their own moral code.

而那些持更自由觀點的人則說，不，不，不，由人們自己來執行他們的道德準則。

They choose what language they speak, they choose what religion they follow, they decide for themselves whether or not they're going to acknowledge the flag, etc, etc.

他們可以選擇說什麼語言、信什麼宗教，自己決定要不要承認國旗等等。

It's a much more individualistic perspective.

And so therefore when we talk about the culture wars, this is the underlying social changes that means that the arguments about values in our society today, it's not just about equality.

所以，當我們談論文化戰爭時，這就是潛在的社會變遷，這意味著我們社會中關於價值觀的爭論，不再只是關於平等。

So basically the traditional divide where social class was the demographic division in the level of ideology or values.

所以基本上，傳統的劃分是社會階級是意識形態或價值觀水準的人口劃分。

It was an argument about equality and inequality.

這是一場關於平等與不平等的爭論。

And those on the left said no, basically society needs to be less unequal and the state has an important role to play in, in making it less unequal.

而左派則說，不，基本上社會需要減少不平等，而國家在其中扮演著重要的角色，讓社會變得不那麼不平等。

Whereas if you're on the right, you said no, no, the role of the state is to provide the conditions to enable entrepreneurs to grow the economy from which everyone will be able to benefit.

而如果你是右派，你會說不，不，國家的角色是提供條件，讓企業家能夠發展經濟，這樣每個人都能受益。

Well now we've got the left right divide has not disappeared, but we now have a second divide.

嗯，現在左右派的分歧並沒有消失，但我們現在有了第二個分歧。

And it's divide between those people who essentially are social liberals and who feel that people should be able to make their own moral choices.

而這就抽成兩派人，一派是社會自由主義者，他們認為人們應該能夠做出自己的道德選擇。

They're also much more concerned about the ability of individuals to express themselves, concerned about the environment.

他們也更關心個人表達自我的能力，以及環境議題。

They're rather internationalist in orientation and social conservatives who are looking for protection both from cultural change and from economic change.

他們比較傾向國際主義，而社會保守派則尋求免受文化變遷和經濟變遷的保護。

Okay, so, and that creates a new division now and you can then see it.

好的，所以，這就造成了一個新的分歧，你現在可以看到它了。

So our politics now in terms of voting behavior is now shaped as much by that second division.

所以我們現在的政治，就投票行為而言，現在受到這個第二個分歧的影響程度和過去一樣。

它一直都存在，只是程度不同。

You know, the Liberal Democrats were always the woolly liberals.

你知道，自由民主黨人一直是那種比較溫和的自由派。

So that division was always there, but it's now become as important as the argument about equality.

所以這個分歧一直都在，但現在它變得和關於平等的爭論一樣重要了。