C_steam

No, it's "over 60%". Polling is a science, people like gallup pay mathematicians lots of money to validate and ensure statistical accuracy on their polls and regularly review their sampling methods. The result is that the size of a 'typical' poll, as used by gallup and the other one (IC something?) are actually very small (typically well less than <5000) but 'statistically' are still very accurate and thus can be viewed as representative.

On the other hand a BBC or in fact any similar newspaper or on-line poll is not statistically very valid as the sample is not representative of the populace as a whole and anyway can be easily corrupted by web sites getting members to multiple vote - which MAY be a reason why the BBC pulled this one.

So we don't really have a meaningful number beyond the fact that 60% of those who responded favoured an English whatever. It cannot statistically be held that that percentage is accurate across the whole population - it may be less, it may be more, the truth is that we don't know the make up of the sample, we don't know the error bounds and we cannot rule out forced methods of bias.

hence it means almost nothing!

__________________
--------------------------------------------------

Users on ignore list: None. I've got to have people to laugh at.
Cowardly Posters* list: BobFM, Bellatrix.*People who post personal insults then refuse to reply

.

cassie

Regardless of any inaccuracies on the English Democrats website, surely it is the electorate which is important rather than the whole population!

The latest estimates are that England's population is 50.6 million (UK circa 61 million). However, the electorate in England is approximately 38 million (UK circa 45 million).

To say that "It cannot statistically be held that that percentage is accurate across the whole population" is to ignore the whole theory of statistics! Of course results can be extrapolated from sampled information, and you are free to dispute them, but what do you suggest in lieu? Tea leaves or sea weed or just sticking a finger in the air to see which way the wind (if any) is blowing?

I'm afraid that I am very unimpressed by cynics who have nothing constructive to accompany their scepticism!

As for the totally unsubstantiated conclusion "hence it means almost nothing", that is somewhat diminished by widespread media reports of opinion polls after the last Tory Party Conference indicating significant decreases in support for Brown and his government which led to his decision not to call an early general election. So much for meaning nothing!

Hartlepool

The ED have removed that statement from their website,or put it somewhere else.
It was a silly statement to make that,"Over 60% of the ENGLISH POPULATION want an English Parliament".

jgrabham

You mean people south of Oxford... oh wait, sorry, I forgot that is England. We northerners dont count do we?

__________________
Look, the people you are after are the people you depend on. We cook your meals, we haul your trash, we connect your calls, we drive your ambulances. We guard you while you sleep. Do not... f**k with us.

Proudly increasing my CO2 output since 2007

"I'd have no desire to penalize a man because he's worthonly fifteen dollars a week. But I'll be damned if I can see why a man worth
forty must be penalized - and penalized in favor of the one who's less
competent."
- Ayn Rand

Johnny Hates Jazz

UKIP MEP Derek Clarke from the East Midlands

(As the conference was in Leicester)

__________________
English Democrats SAY NO To European Union

English not British not European
- It's time to decide at the 2009 European Elections

C_steam

Go away and read the whole thing again. Then go away and learn about statistics. Then you may realise that polling is based on statistics and that you can't extrapolate data across a whole population without an accurate sample group being set up in which you know the relationship between the sample group and the population.

In this case, the data about the sample group is largely unknown, hence the results are only indicative of that sub-set of the whole population. You have no error bounds, you have no basis in fact for any true extrapolation.

Please don't confuse statistical extrapolation with an informed guess - it may come as some suprise to you that these two things are, in fact, different.

By the way, please try and clone yourself so that there would be two of you - that way you'd become a wit.

__________________
--------------------------------------------------

Users on ignore list: None. I've got to have people to laugh at.
Cowardly Posters* list: BobFM, Bellatrix.*People who post personal insults then refuse to reply

.

cassie

As with too many 'experts', you love to dance around the subject without burdening us with any particulars (facts, data, numbers, if you prefer). I must confess that I do not feel any need for any strictures from you, least of all on this subject.

Where and what is the evidence for your assertion: "In this case, the data about the sample group is largely unknown"?


___________________________________

Britannist

Thank you for answering my question (about which UKIP MEP spoke at the English Democrat conference in September 2007), Kentishman.

C_steam

I've given you the particulars - there ARE NO facts, data, number beyond the simple results of the poll given. Which is precisely my point. Although it does seem that you are arguing from both sides of the fence - on one hand you critiscise for having no particulars, on the other you don't want any strictures.

Look, if you know nothing about sampling, sample size, statistics, variability, error bounds and so on that's OK - but please accept that a poll where you do not know anything about the respondants CANNOT be extrapolated to be representive of a whole population, except in the broadest terms. Surely you accept that?

As to the second para, of course the data about the sample group is unknown - it is an on-line poll where you click one response only. How can my statement "the data about the sample group is largely unknown" be anything other than true? All you know is that the respondants are using a computer - which in itself would sway the data, as it would downplay the young, the aged and those from deprived backgrounds. Secondly on-line polls are by their very nature biased since there is a tendancy only for those who have a relatively strong opinion on the subject to actually be bothered to vote. Which is why a 'proper' poll asks you a LOT of questions about yourself in order to ensure that the sample is statistically representative or to allow the various factors to be compensated for in the number crunching.

Look - It's nothing personal - its just that you can't derive a meaningful 'national' figure from a very limited on-line poll. The 'real' answer could be higher, or lower - there is no way of knowing.

So rather than making snide little comments about 'experts' why don't you refute my points with logic and analysis. prove you were right, show us how mathematically with statistical precision you can extrapolate a national result from a one question on-line poll.

Go ahead. I'm waiting, but i rather think I'll be waiting a very long time because, frankly, you clearly don't know what you are talking about on this subject.

__________________
--------------------------------------------------

Users on ignore list: None. I've got to have people to laugh at.
Cowardly Posters* list: BobFM, Bellatrix.*People who post personal insults then refuse to reply

.

arden forester

Sorry, but that doesn't follow. Falconer just wants his cake and eat it. A federal solution would be perfectly fair, perfectly rational, and would maintain the union. But to carry on with this Alice in Wonderland solution WILL lead to discontent and illwill.

Labour wanted to appease the Nats and give their cronies some local autonomy. The Tories waffle on about "English days". None of it adds up because the members of the House of Commons are no longer equal. To perpetuate this or add another, but similar, dimension, is crass in the extreme! It is also not democratically fair.

__________________
www.ardenforester.blogspot.com
www.westminster-whispers.blogspot.com