<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for Social Statistics</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.social-statistics.org/?feed=comments-rss2" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.social-statistics.org</link>
	<description>Society, Statistics (and some sermons)</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 02 Jul 2011 08:56:57 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Dubious statistics in the Higher Education White Paper by Rich Harris</title>
		<link>http://www.social-statistics.org/?p=322#comment-6</link>
		<dc:creator>Rich Harris</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 Jul 2011 08:56:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.social-statistics.org/?p=322#comment-6</guid>
		<description>A good commentary on some of the problems with the White Paper and it&#039;s somewhat narrow and utilitarian view of education are discussed here: http://tinyurl.com/68q5qyp</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A good commentary on some of the problems with the White Paper and it&#8217;s somewhat narrow and utilitarian view of education are discussed here: <a href="http://tinyurl.com/68q5qyp" rel="nofollow">http://tinyurl.com/68q5qyp</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on All out? Minimum turnouts and ballots for industrial action by Siani</title>
		<link>http://www.social-statistics.org/?p=315#comment-5</link>
		<dc:creator>Siani</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Jun 2011 15:51:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.social-statistics.org/?p=315#comment-5</guid>
		<description>I thought the ComRes stats themselves were interesting in that I don&#039;t think they really showed the levels of public support to government proposals that the interpretation in the i seemed to suggest.

The figures showed that 50% of people agreed with the statement &#039;The Government should ban public sector strikes unless there has been a turnout of at least 50% in the strike ballot.&#039; That&#039;s half of the respondents. I&#039;d perhaps use the phrase &#039;only half&#039;. 50% doesn&#039;t necessarily seem a strong basis for declaring public support for change (32% disagreed with the statement and 18% didn&#039;t know).

Meanwhile, in another question 49% said that public-sector workers had a legitimate reason to go on strike. Just like the strike ballots themselves discussed in the article above we&#039;d need to know which way the &#039;don&#039;t knows&#039; (and presumably also some non-respondents to the survey) would be more inclined towards in this survey before we can draw too many conclusions about what the public does or doesn&#039;t support.

I&#039;d also be interested to know the thoughts of the 22% who disagreed or didn&#039;t know in response to the very leading survey statement: &quot;it is unfair for low-paid public sector workers to pay for mistakes make by bankers before the financial crisis&#039;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I thought the ComRes stats themselves were interesting in that I don&#8217;t think they really showed the levels of public support to government proposals that the interpretation in the i seemed to suggest.</p>
<p>The figures showed that 50% of people agreed with the statement &#8216;The Government should ban public sector strikes unless there has been a turnout of at least 50% in the strike ballot.&#8217; That&#8217;s half of the respondents. I&#8217;d perhaps use the phrase &#8216;only half&#8217;. 50% doesn&#8217;t necessarily seem a strong basis for declaring public support for change (32% disagreed with the statement and 18% didn&#8217;t know).</p>
<p>Meanwhile, in another question 49% said that public-sector workers had a legitimate reason to go on strike. Just like the strike ballots themselves discussed in the article above we&#8217;d need to know which way the &#8216;don&#8217;t knows&#8217; (and presumably also some non-respondents to the survey) would be more inclined towards in this survey before we can draw too many conclusions about what the public does or doesn&#8217;t support.</p>
<p>I&#8217;d also be interested to know the thoughts of the 22% who disagreed or didn&#8217;t know in response to the very leading survey statement: &#8220;it is unfair for low-paid public sector workers to pay for mistakes make by bankers before the financial crisis&#8217;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Random isn&#8217;t always fair: the curious case of the London Olympics ballot by Random isn&#039;t always fair: the curious case of the London Olympics - Lengoo Rants &#8211; views on Life and London</title>
		<link>http://www.social-statistics.org/?p=263#comment-4</link>
		<dc:creator>Random isn&#039;t always fair: the curious case of the London Olympics - Lengoo Rants &#8211; views on Life and London</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Jun 2011 10:14:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.social-statistics.org/?p=263#comment-4</guid>
		<description>[...] posted here: Random isn&#039;t always fair: the curious case of the London Olympics  addthis_url = [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] posted here: Random isn&#039;t always fair: the curious case of the London Olympics  addthis_url = [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Random isn&#8217;t always fair: the curious case of the London Olympics ballot by Random isn&#039;t always fair: the curious case of the London Olympics &#124; shopMatrix</title>
		<link>http://www.social-statistics.org/?p=263#comment-3</link>
		<dc:creator>Random isn&#039;t always fair: the curious case of the London Olympics &#124; shopMatrix</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Jun 2011 09:36:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.social-statistics.org/?p=263#comment-3</guid>
		<description>[...] here to read the rest: Random isn&#039;t always fair: the curious case of the London Olympics  Share on bebo Blog this! Bookmark on Delicious Digg this post Share on dzone Recommend on Facebook [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] here to read the rest: Random isn&#039;t always fair: the curious case of the London Olympics  Share on bebo Blog this! Bookmark on Delicious Digg this post Share on dzone Recommend on Facebook [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Widening participation? by Rich Harris</title>
		<link>http://www.social-statistics.org/?p=145#comment-2</link>
		<dc:creator>Rich Harris</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Mar 2011 09:55:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.social-statistics.org/?p=145#comment-2</guid>
		<description>This may also be of interest:
http://publicuniversity.org.uk/2011/03/11/more-costly-for-students-more-regulation-for-universities-and-not-fit-for-purpose/</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This may also be of interest:<br />
<a href="http://publicuniversity.org.uk/2011/03/11/more-costly-for-students-more-regulation-for-universities-and-not-fit-for-purpose/" rel="nofollow">http://publicuniversity.org.uk/2011/03/11/more-costly-for-students-more-regulation-for-universities-and-not-fit-for-purpose/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

