Quizzes & Puzzles5 mins ago
General Election Voting Intention
This poll is closed.
Who will you be voting for in the next general election?
- Conservatives - 40 votes
- 32%
- Labour - 32 votes
- 25%
- UKIP - 30 votes
- 24%
- I will not vote - 7 votes
- 6%
- Liberal Democrats - 5 votes
- 4%
- Green - 5 votes
- 4%
- SNP - 4 votes
- 3%
- BNP - 1 vote
- 1%
- Monster Raving Loony Party / Bus-Pass Elvis Party / Fancy Dress Party / Other "Joke" Party - 1 vote
- 1%
- I will spoil my ballot - 1 vote
- 1%
- Alliance (NI) - 1 vote
- 1%
- Independent - 0 vote
- 0%
- Plaid Cymru - 0 vote
- 0%
- SDLP (NI) - 0 vote
- 0%
- OUP (NI) - 0 vote
- 0%
- TUV (NI) - 0 vote
- 0%
- DUP (NI) - 0 vote
- 0%
- Sinn Fein (NI) - 0 vote
- 0%
Stats until: 14:09 Sat 21st Dec 2024 (Refreshed every 5 minutes)
© AnswerBank Ltd 2000 - 2024. All Rights Reserved.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by AB Editor. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Mikey, Don’t be so damned rude. You’ve said quite clearly that you agree with BlueToffee who has nothing negative at all to say about immigration. However, it now transpires that you don’t agree with him because you have concerns about uncontrolled immigration which he doesn’t appear to share. If the wrong impression has been gained here, don’t blame me – just think about what you're saying before you start crowing in future.
"Statistics can be massaged to produce any result you want them to produce "
This is true for bad statistics - and tends to be the rallying cry for people who wish to ignore research. Like any piece of information, statistics that come from good research aren't terribly massageable - or not if the person talking about them has actually bothered to read about them.
This is true for bad statistics - and tends to be the rallying cry for people who wish to ignore research. Like any piece of information, statistics that come from good research aren't terribly massageable - or not if the person talking about them has actually bothered to read about them.
Well, it's probably more Jim's ballpark than mine, but if someone has published the methods they used to get their figures, then you read it and figure it out. If they haven't, or they are subsequently revealed to have been dishonest about their method, you should probably be suspicious.
The point I'm making here is that the "you can massage statistics" argument is often used to ignore any figures whatsoever regardless of where they come from or how they are obtained, when all it should really do is encourage caution.
The point I'm making here is that the "you can massage statistics" argument is often used to ignore any figures whatsoever regardless of where they come from or how they are obtained, when all it should really do is encourage caution.
Krom, //...tends to be the rallying cry for people who wish to ignore research.//
That smacks of the tedious ‘racism, xenophobia’ retort we hear whenever anyone has the gall to criticise immigration. Let’s look at what BlueToffee has actually said:
No.1 – probably true, although without the enormous numbers of immigrants coming into this country would the NHS, which in 2012 spent £23 million on translating documents and providing interpreters alone, struggle quite as much?
http://
No 2.- I can’t see the relevance of that statistic.
No.3 – That fails to address the financial impact upon services such as health care, housing, education, etc. Additionally, I doubt very much that all of that, together with the benefits that people are automatically entitled to claim such as family tax credits, child benefit, etc., have been included - and if they haven’t then these statistics give a false impression.
No 4 – More than they gained in what? See No. 3.
No 5 – What are these studies, what did they account for, who conducted them – and just how accurate are they?
Easy to make claims – but the fact remains that if immigration wasn’t presenting a problem the major political parties wouldn’t be voicing concerns – and they wouldn’t be running scared of Ukip.
You talk about encouraging caution - and that’s exactly what I’m doing.
That smacks of the tedious ‘racism, xenophobia’ retort we hear whenever anyone has the gall to criticise immigration. Let’s look at what BlueToffee has actually said:
No.1 – probably true, although without the enormous numbers of immigrants coming into this country would the NHS, which in 2012 spent £23 million on translating documents and providing interpreters alone, struggle quite as much?
http://
No 2.- I can’t see the relevance of that statistic.
No.3 – That fails to address the financial impact upon services such as health care, housing, education, etc. Additionally, I doubt very much that all of that, together with the benefits that people are automatically entitled to claim such as family tax credits, child benefit, etc., have been included - and if they haven’t then these statistics give a false impression.
No 4 – More than they gained in what? See No. 3.
No 5 – What are these studies, what did they account for, who conducted them – and just how accurate are they?
Easy to make claims – but the fact remains that if immigration wasn’t presenting a problem the major political parties wouldn’t be voicing concerns – and they wouldn’t be running scared of Ukip.
You talk about encouraging caution - and that’s exactly what I’m doing.
