please empty your brain below

I'm shocked at you abusing statistics in this way.
Worse, tarring Boris with a R E D brush indeed...
Aagh, Cornwall's fallen off.
@ Blue Witch - abusing statistics? Surely it is a statement of fact as to what happened in the respective elections?

If the politicians decide to mismanage the process with the resultant low turnout and voter dissent then that's their responsibility isn't it?
I didn't think London was voting?
London was the pilot group.
Even 40% is not exactly impressive though, is it?
The BBC has been copying you - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20374139
I think that PC's response to my original statement perfectly exemplifies that the average person does not understand statistics.

That is, why it is utterly incorrect (neither reliable nor valid, in statistical terms, which are the core principles of the discipline) to mix data from totally different sources, sampled under different circumstances, at different times, within one graphical representation of a particular phenomenon.

I strongly suspect that is the point that DG is making here, but, even so, it exemplifies the general level of tabloid/tablog/advertising industry's blatant abuse of statistics these days.
So did Hertfordshire have a mayoral election as well as a pointless PCC one? Crumbs, I wish I'd voted now…
@ Blue Witch - err I am well aware that the London vote was in May this year hidden within the Mayoral Election. I must have missed (i.e. never heard as it was not made) the media comparisons yesterday about PCC election turnout relative to the London turnout.

I am perfectly aware of the basic principles about statistics - I've done my fair share of study and use of them for business purposes. Still thanks for chucking me in with Mr and Mrs Avergage in the stats dumbo class!

My point is that the turnout is appallingly low when you simply compare the number who voted relative to those who were entitled to do so. Comments from the public who were interviewed seemed genuine enough to me in terms of not knowing the candidates, not being clear about the role of the PCC and there being little publicity, especially if you are not online. If you are somehow suggesting that what happened is somehow satisfactory why are the Electoral Commission going to undertake an investigation?

The government could have done this differently with probably a more positive response. However I do not particularly like the idea of PCCs - especially where former policemen are now overseeing the police!! Experience to date of the London arrangements is not at all encouraging with Mr Greenhalgh being pilloried for his performances in front of the GLA and Met Police. My local police station is now a "redevelopment opportunity" rather than a functioning police station. I do not consider that Mr Johnson or Mr Greenhalgh are remotely interested in my thoughts about losing my local police station which I consider to be an essential public service. They agreed the Police Station be permanently closed and sold off with no public consultation - so much for easy contact, listening to the public and all the spin from the Home Office / Downing Street. My GLA member has responded to my questions but is powerless under the new arrangements.
PC - nothing you have said there relates to the fundamental flaw in displaying data in this way.

While I agree with much of what you say, I'm afraid that with a £140 billion deficit two and a half years ago, something had to be done in this country.

The police were/are a very, very inefficient organisation, and they have been cut less than many other vital public services.

It ws up to the candidates to get the information out there, not the governmint.
A view from the other side:

Police Inspector Blog

You can read some posts about how a pcc is a retrocess of 9 elected officers to 1, single crewing, office/clerical overstaffing, etc...
I voted.
(None of my choices have won.)










TridentScan | Privacy Policy