You choose to interpret them that way. If you don't like the way Mike and the Daily Mail have chosen to interpret them, you would probably be better off writing to them than obsessing over me. Good luck with your campaign. This matter is closed from my POV and I won't be responding to anymore of your posts on it, it being entirely boring to me and everyone else.
For some reason some people do not like the idea that the poll in question indicates that Labour has a higher percentage of its supporters in work than any other party. I am not sure why they would have a problem with that, but there you go.
Because it is misleading when not compared with the fact they also have the most of working age who are not working
Why is it misleading to mention a statistic without mentioning another statistic from a field of thousands of possible statistics, few of which will be mentioned? It may be another interesting way of looking at the data, but so would breaking it out by retirees, those of working age who are long-term vs short-term unemployed.... and so on.
Actually the example of the hospitals I gave earlier isn't correct, as labour do have the most people in work as a percentage, apologies.
It is misleading because because it makes it seem as if you are more likely to have a job if you vote labour when you are also more likely to be unemployed.
If it were on a programme like Watchdog, @Bobafett claim that labour are the part of the working man, would be ripped apart when it turned out they were also the party of the unemployed
I don't really understand what you're getting at. Being the party of the worker, and also the party of the working age unemployed are not mutually contradictory. They don't invalidate one another as statements, and there's no obligation to assert both simultaneously. It's an extra fact, just as saying "Labour is the party of stay-at-home mums" might be (I don't know if it is, that's just an example).
It might mean that "Labour is the party of those of working age" might be a more useful statement, I guess. In some ways separating out those in work and those not is a bit misleading because there's a lot of movement between the two camps (I don't have stats on long-term unemployment to hand, but few of those classified as out of work will never have worked, and few of those in work will never be unemployed). It suggests that those who either work, or are likely to in the future, tend towards Labour.
If anyone wants to back YES in the indyref at 11/2, you can do so now at Ladbrokes. Obviously, that won't last for long, given that the best price with any other bookie is 7/2. Most people should be able to get £100 or so on.
It's a stonking price for sure - whatever your view on the outcome.
Yes, what a pity it's a stonking price on the wrong side!
Hills are offering 1/4 right now too. And they let me have £200 on that.
@isam - Labour is ahead in the polls and 60% of those saying they would vote Labour are in work. That is higher percentage than for any other party. Thus, more working people support Labour than support any other party - both in absolute and in percentage terms. There is no way around that, I'm afraid.
They also have more people of working age out of work in both absolute and percentage terms, but I m not using that as an argument because it is statistically misleading, as is the one you have just made
Why is it misleading? It is a statement of fact in terms of what the poll in question reported.
Well that's exactly why it's misleading!
Because it relies on another part of the poll, the fact that labour could just as easily be called the party of the unemployed, being hidden.
If you went to a hospital for cancer treatment because it had the most people that survived five years, but weren't told it also had the most people who died instantly during treatment, wouldnt you think that misleading??
It could indeed be called the party of the unemployed by people that wish to portray it in that way. The strength of such a message would depend on whether voters felt that it was bad to be unemployed. Clearly, Labour supporters - more of whom are in work than those who support the other parties - do not believe it is an overall negative; perhaps because they understand that the vast majority of people who are unemployed want to find work and that most of them do so within a relatively short period of time.
For Osborne then took up the baton, pushing for the inclusion of an EU referendum bill in the coalition’s legislative agenda. David Laws and Nick Clegg dismissed this idea. But IDS then pointed out that the Liberal Democrats used to boast of being in favour of an In / Out referendum."
There was some talk of pushing a Referendum Bill though with the Parliament Act. I thought for that to happen, Mr Wharton's Bill had to be re-introduced unchanged.
More "global warming flat-lined in 1992" logic from Stewart Wood:
Stewart Wood @StewartWood Tory poll bounce 'going gangbusters' Nov 29 2012, 32% Mar 18 2013, 32% Jun 19 2013, 32% Oct 23 2013, 32% Jan 17 2014, 32% Today: 32%
If I lived in his constituency I'd vote tactically for the Tories if it would get rid of someone who tortures statistics like that.
Edited to add: Turns out he's in the House of Lords. At least _now_ can we get a cross-party consensus that it needs to be abolished?
@isam - Labour is ahead in the polls and 60% of those saying they would vote Labour are in work. That is higher percentage than for any other party. Thus, more working people support Labour than support any other party - both in absolute and in percentage terms. There is no way around that, I'm afraid.
They also have more people of working age out of work in both absolute and percentage terms, but I m not using that as an argument because it is statistically misleading, as is the one you have just made
Why is it misleading? It is a statement of fact in terms of what the poll in question reported.
Well that's exactly why it's misleading!
Because it relies on another part of the poll, the fact that labour could just as easily be called the party of the unemployed, being hidden.
If you went to a hospital for cancer treatment because it had the most people that survived five years, but weren't told it also had the most people who died instantly during treatment, wouldnt you think that misleading??
It could indeed be called the party of the unemployed by people that wish to portray it in that way. The strength of such a message would depend on whether voters felt that it was bad to be unemployed. Clearly, Labour supporters - more of whom are in work than those who support the other parties - do not believe it is an overall negative; perhaps because they understand that the vast majority of people who are unemployed want to find work and that most of them do so within a relatively short period of time.
Both would be spin, which I'm not interested in., and I'm not making any aspersions on Labour voters or the unemployed. I have been both on several occasions
I have no reason to denigrate labour at the expense of the conservatives, or vice versa, I don't think much of either party, and would prob vote. Labour before I did Tory. But I would say the figures posted last night by @Bobafett are better for the conservatives than Labour, and if Labour tried to use them as proof of being the party of the working man, it would be a bad idea that would result in egg on their face, as it is statistically dishonest
If anyone wants to back YES in the indyref at 11/2, you can do so now at Ladbrokes. Obviously, that won't last for long, given that the best price with any other bookie is 7/2. Most people should be able to get £100 or so on.
It's a stonking price for sure - whatever your view on the outcome.
Yes, what a pity it's a stonking price on the wrong side!
Titters ....
I feel "Shadsy" is in danger of getting his collar felt by the constabulary for daylight robbery with NO menaces of vulnerable adults.
For some reason some people do not like the idea that the poll in question indicates that Labour has a higher percentage of its supporters in work than any other party. I am not sure why they would have a problem with that, but there you go.
Because it is misleading when not compared with the fact they also have the most of working age who are not working
Why is it misleading to mention a statistic without mentioning another statistic from a field of thousands of possible statistics, few of which will be mentioned? It may be another interesting way of looking at the data, but so would breaking it out by retirees, those of working age who are long-term vs short-term unemployed.... and so on.
Actually the example of the hospitals I gave earlier isn't correct, as labour do have the most people in work as a percentage, apologies.
It is misleading because because it makes it seem as if you are more likely to have a job if you vote labour when you are also more likely to be unemployed.
If it were on a programme like Watchdog, @Bobafett claim that labour are the part of the working man, would be ripped apart when it turned out they were also the party of the unemployed
I don't really understand what you're getting at. Being the party of the worker, and also the party of the working age unemployed are not mutually contradictory. They don't invalidate one another as statements, and there's no obligation to assert both simultaneously. It's an extra fact, just as saying "Labour is the party of stay-at-home mums" might be (I don't know if it is, that's just an example).
It might mean that "Labour is the party of those of working age" might be a more useful statement, I guess. In some ways separating out those in work and those not is a bit misleading because there's a lot of movement between the two camps (I don't have stats on long-term unemployment to hand, but few of those classified as out of work will never have worked, and few of those in work will never be unemployed). It suggests that those who either work, or are likely to in the future, tend towards Labour.
All I did was point out that "Party of the working man" based on that poll was misleading
As would be "hospital of the cancer survivor" if that hospital also killed the most patients using their methods
"Party of the working age" would be perfectly reasonable, why didn't @Bobafett say that I wonder.
If anyone wants to back YES in the indyref at 11/2, you can do so now at Ladbrokes. Obviously, that won't last for long, given that the best price with any other bookie is 7/2. Most people should be able to get £100 or so on.
It's a stonking price for sure - whatever your view on the outcome.
Yes, what a pity it's a stonking price on the wrong side!
Titters ....
I feel "Shadsy" is in danger of getting his collar felt by the constabulary for daylight robbery with NO menaces of vulnerable adults.
No it isn't 'very damaging to the Tories' and has as much to do with polling crossover as Harman's PIE. What will bring about 'crossover' is the economy - which is why the government is wise to avoid damaging it.....
There isn't much evidence that the improving economy is reducing the gap at all. We can debate why that might be - people not thinking it's a real improvement, not crediting the government for it, or simply the Ashcroft point: most people just don't like the Conservative Party at the moment and won't vote for it whether the economy improves or not.
Personally I don't think the economy is driving voting intention at all at present - it's barely coming up on doorsteps. But you clearly feel it will. When do you expect this change to occur?
Comments
It might mean that "Labour is the party of those of working age" might be a more useful statement, I guess. In some ways separating out those in work and those not is a bit misleading because there's a lot of movement between the two camps (I don't have stats on long-term unemployment to hand, but few of those classified as out of work will never have worked, and few of those in work will never be unemployed). It suggests that those who either work, or are likely to in the future, tend towards Labour.
A well-balanced piece on how the surveillance powers of the intelligence services should be overseen:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/03/nick-clegg-snowden-security-oversight-internet-age
Edited to add: Turns out he's in the House of Lords. At least _now_ can we get a cross-party consensus that it needs to be abolished?
Both would be spin, which I'm not interested in., and I'm not making any aspersions on Labour voters or the unemployed. I have been both on several occasions
I have no reason to denigrate labour at the expense of the conservatives, or vice versa, I don't think much of either party, and would prob vote. Labour before I did Tory. But I would say the figures posted last night by @Bobafett are better for the conservatives than Labour, and if Labour tried to use them as proof of being the party of the working man, it would be a bad idea that would result in egg on their face, as it is statistically dishonest
I feel "Shadsy" is in danger of getting his collar felt by the constabulary for daylight robbery with NO menaces of vulnerable adults.
Shocking I tell you, shocking.
As would be "hospital of the cancer survivor" if that hospital also killed the most patients using their methods
"Party of the working age" would be perfectly reasonable, why didn't @Bobafett say that I wonder.
Why is JackW's ARSE so strikingly brilliant.
Personally I don't think the economy is driving voting intention at all at present - it's barely coming up on doorsteps. But you clearly feel it will. When do you expect this change to occur?