tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post1205533048533361834..comments2024-03-27T09:14:27.496+00:00Comments on All That Is Solid ...: Spinning Survey DataPhilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06298147857234479278noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-579042747549881392008-07-08T16:22:00.000+01:002008-07-08T16:22:00.000+01:00"It is the uses to which the CBI puts this data th..."It is the uses to which the CBI puts this data that I find really objectionable. And they can only do this by putting a spin on it."<BR/><BR/>I don't disagree with that and I find the CBI enormously annoying because of the way they are treated by the media as an oracle instead of a special interest lobby.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-52829836148496613192008-07-08T13:07:00.000+01:002008-07-08T13:07:00.000+01:00But John, while this is a perfectly adequate quest...But John, while this is a perfectly adequate question for a poll establishing the depth of 'in principle' acceptance of private provision of public services, this isn't what the CBI was interested in. It is about getting the government to speed up the marketisation of services and undermining opposition to them by pretending there is real ground swell support for privatisation. It is the uses to which the CBI puts this data that I find really objectionable. And they can only do this by putting a spin on it.Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06298147857234479278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-60977394239430128942008-07-08T12:05:00.000+01:002008-07-08T12:05:00.000+01:00but the question includes the proviso "Assuming th...but the question includes the proviso "Assuming they are of equal quality"<BR/><BR/>Yes, because the question was trying to find out what principled rather than pragmatic concerns people have, so the qualification was necessary and it is fair to read from the answer that people do not, in principle, object to the private sector supplying public services, so long as the quality of the provision is at least as good as that by pubic providers (however you define the quality). So it isn't a leading question.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-55019615882156302862008-07-07T16:00:00.000+01:002008-07-07T16:00:00.000+01:00but the question includes the proviso "Assuming th...but the question includes the proviso "Assuming they are of equal quality" - now this is possible in theory - but in reality they are never of equal quality with the same resources they are lesser - that is why the question is so badLeftwing Criminologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369810078697007763noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-60520965452939156122008-07-07T14:05:00.000+01:002008-07-07T14:05:00.000+01:00"The question YouGov asked its sample of telephone..."The question YouGov asked its sample of telephone respondents was "Currently public service providers include organisations from the public (i.e. state), private and voluntary (i.e. charitable). Assuming they are of equal quality does it matter to you who provide your public services?" Talk about a leading question! "<BR/><BR/>But it isn't a leading question. Or, if it is, I can't see why. The question is presumably designed to test whether people have in-principle objections to the use of private companies in the supply of public services, and I think it works, that it does not lead. If the conclusion is that people do not, in-principle, object to private companies supplying public services, it is hardly surprising, but worth knowing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-1167202125815425302008-07-07T07:58:00.000+01:002008-07-07T07:58:00.000+01:00Thats why we need a socialist government sad we do...Thats why we need a socialist government sad we do not have one.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05186557603493331701noreply@blogger.com