[ad_1]
happy
A majority wishes to waive the protection of privacy in order to denounce abuses in social security.
The most important thing in short
- Five weeks before the vote on the control of the social insured, opinions seemed already taken: 57% of voters would agree with the model, 39% are against.
- The opponents of the bill come mainly from the political left, as shown by the first survey conducted by gfs.bern on behalf of the GIS.
- They should tackle even more the weaknesses of the law until voting on Sunday, November 25, to turn the tide.
The political scientist Lukas Golder of the gfs.bern institute is convinced, because the no-camp is already quite high.
The new law on social security supervision aims to allow detectives to legally control people suspected of fraud, after the European Court of Human Rights complained of the lack of legal basis for current practice.
Abuse control is more important than privacy
At the beginning of the election campaign, the weaknesses of the model were reported: can the observation go into the room of alleged fraudsters? Can drones be used for video recordings? Will insurance companies have too much power and private investigators more power than the police? All the arguments accepted by the respondents.
But: The basic principle of fairness is much more important than the weaknesses of this model. "We wish that a surveillance be possible if there is a suspicion of fraud," Golder said.
The focus is on the desire for increased surveillance as an effective means of combating social security abuse and fraud. For 72% of respondents, this is the main argument in favor of a yes, as determined by gfs.bern.
Cheating is only done by others
As a result, two-thirds of them promise that insurance benefits will be more widely accepted. The law has a good chance, "because it responds to something that people want."
And for that, one is also willing to make concessions to the private life: "The private life would be of course the principal counter-argument of the new regulation But there, most do not feel concerned because they have the certainty that they are really right, that they do not commit or intend to commit fraud. "
According to Golder, this argument should pave the way for much wider circles, but for the moment, this concern is not apparent.
Left against the rest
Non-deposit is therefore 11 percentage points lower than those who have definitely given their opinion. "The referendum has little chance outside the circles of the left". In fact, the rejection is only more than 60% among supporters of the PS and the Greens.
The voters of the SVP and the unbound party are on the opposite side. On the other hand, the middle parties, CVP and FDP, which tip the scales in such polarized situations, clearly outweigh the "yes".
Are the opponents in a lost position? "The no camp has a problem," says Golder. So what should happen to make the sensation happen and the model be rejected?
To convince the majority of a no, it should highlight the weaknesses. "You have to convince wider circles that the weaknesses are much more pronounced than the surveillance principle that has just been accepted," Golder said. Finally, the voting campaign should take place more and more outside the Internet.
Government criticizes for once on the government line
But to get a lot of non-votes are no longer there: only 4 percent of respondents have not decided yet. And those undecided tend to turn more to yes. According to Golder, this proposal also shows that, contrary to experience, people who generally have less confidence in the government want to say yes to increased scrutiny of potential social security fraudsters – and thus follow the recommendations of Parliament and of the Federal Council. Thus, the opposition is more difficult to mobilize and to obtain votes.
Golder also assumes that the chart set in the first poll will hold, "everything else would be a surprise". The sensation will probably stay out of the way.
Source link
