RE: ID cards - What wasn't mentioned about the results of the consultation exercise

["Owen Lewis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Dave Howe
> Sent: 29 October 2004 17:34
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: ID cards - What wasn't mentioned about the results of the
> consultation exercise
>
>
> Mike Richards wrote:
> > Buried in the results of yesterday's consultation document:
> > Opposed 370  - 48%
> > In favour 240 - 31%
> > Supportive in principle,but with reservations about some aspects of the
> > Bill 60 - 8%
> > Neutral 96 - 13%
> >
> > Uh I make that a clear win for those who are opposed to the scheme.
> Ah, but those are the raw, unspun statistics.
> <glasses colour=rosy mindset=blunkett>
> obviously, the 370 opposed responses came from either email, snailmail
> or phone, making them three petitions, worth one vote each.
> The 8% with reservations can be counted as being in favour, because they
> are in favour *in general terms*, and the neutrals can be removed
> entirely because wishy-washy people like that have no place in a proper
> poll.
> This means the population is in favour of the bill by a whopping 300
> votes to 3 - a majority of over 90%!!
> </glasses>

:-)

>From what I can see:

	-	The number of responses in the consultation (<800) is smaller that the
sample a professional polling organisation would have used (=>1000?).
Perhaps a statistician might like to give us an expert opinion on the
validity of a self selecting sample of this size?

	-	Whilst the pollsters would check their sample to ensure that there was no
pre-set bias, volunteered responses in a consultation process will tend to
be skewed. Whilst, as we know - well, some of us know ;-) - neither are
random, the latter is a better assured measure of popular opinion.

	- 	Letters received on the topic that were something short of a formal
response to the consultation document but expressing a preference has a
stronger bias in the other direction. That this sample is likely to have
been better representative of the general public is a beckoning conclusion,
though one that must be less than fully warranted. However, how else to
explain a stronger bias and 180 deg out of phase with balance in the formal
responses?

	-	In some respects, the HO have seemed determined to shoot themselves in
the foot over this issue. Accordingly, I'm not surprised that the outcome of
the public consultation exercise is somewhat confused.

Owen