In the words of Homer J Simpson:
"Oh people can come up with statistics to prove anything Kent. Forty percent of all people know that."
BoJo, don't misuse stats then blurt disclaimers when you get rumbled
As we all know, there are "lies, damned lies, and statistics". No doubt that line will be pulled out again to bolster the case for British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson against Sir David Norgrove, head of the UK Statistics Authority, who has made it clear he's unimpressed with Boris's use of the stats. Norgrove criticised …
-
-
Tuesday 19th September 2017 12:05 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: In the words of Homer J Simpson:
Thats the one!
My partner is a statistician (even has a PHD), and at least twice a week, she points out to me Facebook posts.. and they always begin with "97% of people..", you look next time, it is always 95%..
But I keep pointing out, intelligent people don't use Facebook, WTF is she doing on it!
-
Tuesday 19th September 2017 12:14 GMT wolfetone
Re: In the words of Homer J Simpson:
There's an advert for some sort of mascara on at the moment with (I think) Rita Ora on it, and it first states that "79% of 120 people agreed", then all of a sudden, it goes to "75% of 102 people agreed".
But 79% of 120 is 94.8, and 75% of 102 is 76.5.
Where do they get .8 and .5 of a person from? Is that biologically possible?
-
-
Tuesday 19th September 2017 14:56 GMT John Brown (no body)
Re: In the words of Homer J Simpson:
"Actually it would more likely be "153 out of 204 people agreed" but that statistic looks like a a lot of people disagreed."
Like Ryanair. Which sounds worse. 2% of all flights cancelled. 50 flights per day cancelled. Marketeers and PR will fudge where they can, otherwise choose the "best looking" numbers, percentage or absolute, whatever they think plays best with the audience.
-
-
Tuesday 19th September 2017 12:51 GMT Anonymous Coward
2 percent
People make a big deal out of £350 million a week, or as I like to think of it, about a fiver a head. £350 million per week would be a lot of money if it was your personal income, but its not, it's in the context of public spending. It is a drop in the ocean in public spending terms, and I don't see why people get worked up about it. The Treasury estimates total public spending will be £814 billion next year. £17 billion is 2% of that, i.e. not very much at all. Would you turn your life upside down for a 2% pay rise?
It isn't even 2% more for the Government to spend (or, more likely, fund corporation tax cuts) anyway, since lots of things that the EU pays for out of this - like scientific research and various agencies etc - will have to be replaced, plus the extra costs for increased customs personnel etc. The Government could "choose" not to spend it on these things, but in reality there is no choice - for example, who is going to approve new drugs if there isn't a shiny new British agency to do that (and ditto all the other EU institutions which will have to be replicated), the Government have promised to continue funding existing structural and investment projects, scientific research and farming subsidies, and all these extra border guards and customs people aren't going to work for nothing.
-
-
Tuesday 19th September 2017 15:36 GMT Loyal Commenter
Re: 2 percent
Why dont we just watch what the old agency in the EU does and go off their ruling?
That would presuppose that drugs being sold in the UK post-brexaster will all be approved in the EU. In reality, if there isn't a sufficient regulator in place in the UK, it will mean the market being flooded with unregulated and/or untested pharmaceuticals.
That prescription you just picked up from your pharmacist - is that actually what it says on the label, or is it a knock-off tablet imported from China made from talc and formaldehyde? Is it a well-tested drug that has been evaluated for safety, or is it something your GP prescribed you because he/she got a kick-back from a pharmaceutical rep so that they can gather data using you as a guinea-pig?
I think most people would agree that medicines need regulating, and that the regulator needs to have the remit to regulate those medicines within the jurisdiction that they are being used. This basically leaves us with two choices - regulate those drugs ourselves, or join in with the EU regulator, which enjoys economies of scale, and harmonisation across an entire continent. I know which one I'd opt for...
-
-
Tuesday 19th September 2017 14:15 GMT Prst. V.Jeltz
People make a big deal out of £350 million a week
As of Q1 (the first quarter of) 2015, UK government debt amounted to £1.56 trillion, or 81.58% of total GDP, at which time the annual cost of servicing (paying the interest) the public debt amounted to around £43 billion (which is roughly 3% of GDP or 8% of UK government tax income)
Whenever people band around big figures of govt spend / loss / need , I always like to compare to national debt interest payments.
3.6 BILLION per month , whilst may be only be 3% of GDP , still seems like a bit of a waste to me, and when I get into power , we're all eating spam sandwiches until its paid off!
-
Tuesday 19th September 2017 14:22 GMT Stevie
Re: 2 percent
But the point is that the 350 weekly megaquids were never there in the first place, at least, not in the way the UKIPpers said it was.
As I understand it the deal was floated as "350 mq the EC makes us spend on unnecessary foreign stuff that we will get back every week", when the reality is "The EC makes us spend 350 mq per week on stuff we will have to buy anyway, Brexit or no Brexit".
I dunno how anyone fell for this nonsense in the first place. When was the last time anyone was there when a politician actually gave public money back without closing all the town libraries or selling off the ambulances (while somehow keeping the same number of fact-finding missions to Cancun and Barbados)?
-
Wednesday 20th September 2017 19:22 GMT Trigonoceps occipitalis
Re: 2 percent
The argument is that £350M will be returned to "UK control". I think that is true but the estimate (guess, lie etc) of actual addition to money spent in the UK seems to be between about £250M and zero.
Bring back Michael Miles and take your pick. I doubt we will really have a rigorous answer until 2030 or so.
-
Tuesday 19th September 2017 17:24 GMT John Smith 19
" I don't see why people get worked up about it." IE the £350m on the NHS
Because the leave campaign have admitted it was the reason people voted leave?
Because it was (and is) blatant bu***hit that was denied (by the leave campaign) within a day of it being seen on the side of the bus?
Because instead of hiding or removing it they left this on the side of the bus, despite it being blatant bu***hit?
Because leave voters might feel they'd been played like "A banjo at an Ozark hoe down," to coin a phrase?
-
-
Tuesday 19th September 2017 15:19 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: In the words of Homer J Simpson:
The only people who got statics right were the researchers on "Family Fortunes", they always asked 100 people and you got the numbers of people that gave a particular answer.
Can't argue with that sort of accuracy.
They asked 100 people "Describe Boris Johnson with one word."
The top answer with 90 was nob followed by a word I am unable to show due the family nature of the show.
-
-
-
-
Tuesday 19th September 2017 13:21 GMT ukgnome
It wasn't a misquote - it was an amalgamation based on the fact that this is purely about statistics, Lies and damned lies never came into it.
Also it's about BoJo, so what I probably should of written is this
Ah Ah Ah well huff puff waffle snarf snarf damned statistics wot wot fuzzy wuzzy statistics bah
-
-
Tuesday 19th September 2017 15:13 GMT Anonymous Coward
<points and laughs> Issue with written? or do you think it should be wrote?
Both are grammatically OK, maybe you left school a long time ago.
Although "should HAVE" would of been the actual grammatical correction on this occasion.
Pointing and laughing is all well and good, but if you can't be arsed to complete the tutelage then you are an appalling pedant and an equally appalling grammar nazi.
-
-
-
-
-
Tuesday 19th September 2017 11:19 GMT James 51
The only thing that Gove ever did that I was greatful for was stabbing Bojo in the front and the back at the same time. I know it's hard to believe but he would be even worse as PM than May is. The problem with lying your way to the top is that sooner or later you encounter a situation were the lies make things worse and he won't be able to change tac when that happens.
-
Tuesday 19th September 2017 11:32 GMT Arctic fox
@James 51 Re"....he won't be able to change......."
No he won't. Mendacious is his middle name. He has a very clear pathology when it comes to his distant relationship to the truth much exhibited in his smug selfsatisfaction when he believes that he has gotten away with it regardles of what the rest of us think.
-
Tuesday 19th September 2017 12:26 GMT h4rm0ny
Re: @James 51 Re"....he won't be able to change......."
Lies, as Boris Johnson is fond of, are self-advantageous in the short term. They get YOU personally ahead. But they're bad for the system as a whole. Boris Johnson would looooove to be Prime Minister and much as I don't hold Theresa May in high regard, Boris Johnson would find a way to stab a Jellyfish in the back.
As Ian Hislop responded when asked if Boris Johnson was a smart person pretending to be a buffoon, or a buffoon pretending to be a smart person: "yes."
-
-
Tuesday 19th September 2017 12:52 GMT Rich 11
Re: @James 51 Re"....he won't be able to change......."
Keep him away from actual sharp knives, pointy scissors, staplers and bleach.
And cable cars and zipwires and bicycles and bizarre post-Olympic structures. Oh yes, and bridges.
Better yet, just return him to private life. He can then get back to the things he does best, like philandering and threatening old friends, away from the public eye.
-
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
-
-
-
Tuesday 19th September 2017 11:51 GMT Anonymous Coward
Bojo has his faults but at least he's not Corbyn. Jesus, May's bad but Corbyn would be the ruination of us all.
And there, in a nutshell, is the calamity the UK faces. Not a single, intelligent, high calibre individual anywhere on the front benches of Westminster, now, or in the past twenty years. All of them pissy PPE, history or language graduates from Oxbridge, who understand nothing, have not an ounce of talent, not the slightest empathy or understanding of public sentiment, indeed, they have a total disregard of public opinion if they think they can get away with it. Not to mention utter cowardice when dealing with anything controversial. Smug, privileged beneficiaries of the status quo (and this includes the opposition).
On the basis of the political ruination they've rained on this country, I'd have all colleges of the universities of both Oxford and Cambridge privatised, and sold to the highest bidder, to do with as they wish.
-
-
Tuesday 19th September 2017 15:42 GMT Loyal Commenter
Margaret Thatcher and Angela Merkel were both research chemists.
And Thatcher, for all her faults, stuck to her beliefs, and was at least largely honest, unlike today's politicians.
Her failing wasn't that of all the bullshitting PPE graduates we have now, it was that she was a ruthless capitalist and believed only in the market, whilst claiming that there was 'no such thing as society', thereby doing a pretty damn good job of breaking society for the advantage of the well-off. In other words, a Tory.
-
Tuesday 19th September 2017 17:53 GMT Anonymous Coward
claiming that there was 'no such thing as society'
That particular soundbite, much loved by Grauniad readers, is frequently taken out of context. It was said during a debate on the NHS in which someone said that if we wanted a better NHS "society" had to pay for it, and Maggie pointed out that when it comes to paying bills there's no such thing as society, because every penny comes out of individual taxpayers pockets. It's as true today as it was then.
-
Wednesday 20th September 2017 06:49 GMT John Smith 19
"because every penny comes out of individual taxpayers pockets. I"
IOW every penny of "Government" money is in fact a penny of taxpayers money.
Which is a fair point.
However the actual quote does give quite a good sense of her inability to connect with human beings.
Something which May seems to share, although frankly I think Thatcher was somewhat smarter.
-
-
-
-
Wednesday 20th September 2017 15:16 GMT John Smith 19
"Politics, Philosophy, and Economics". Or, as the rest of us say, "unsubstantiated opinions"
But very convincingly argued unsubstantiated opinions (which require no machinery IRL to implement).
And as we know in software if the system doesn't have to produce the correct answer it can run as fast as you like.
And a system that does not even have to exist can be be as cheap as you like, as fast as you like and have as much capacity as you like while being as easy to develop as you like.
The clusterf**k that is "Universal Credit" looks much more understandable once a few of these types got involved, does it not?
-
-
-
-
-
Tuesday 19th September 2017 13:30 GMT James 51
Actually AC, as a sovereign nation with control over the money supply this is exactly what the UK has. What would happen if we used it is another story. Of course if companies like Google and Amazon started paying tax at the rates they'd be paying if they were based in the UK and not in magic money island just off the shore of far, far away the funding gap would be much smaller.
-
-
Biting the hand that feeds IT
