[olduser]

The government is consulting on NHS reforms (though as usual they have kept it quiet).
There are questionnaires, and if you dig deep enough, provision for statements.

I find survey questionnaires frustrating as they never ask the right questions, I assume as the questions are compiled or approved by the organisation asking them, they will avoid questions like, 'Are we crap at what we do?'

It is unsurprising but not very useful to find people who have been 'cured' are grateful

I suppose we are meant to be fooled by the survey into thinking they care about we or their customers feel.
Or am I getting very cynical in my old age?

[TC1474]

I am very cynical (must be catching 😉) about surveys, as I was once told that it is a very easy way with clever questioning of the person answering the questions, for the end user or the organisation conducting the survey to get the answers they hope for by simply wording the questions in a way which means that whatever they ask, for the majority of the time the response will suit their requirements.

In the case of something like the NHS, they will survey thousands, and because of clever wording they will get the majority answer they want and then disregard those that have not played the game and sung to their tune.

Which is why I very rarely take part in or believe many of the survey's conducted.

Told you I was a cynic 😊

[Drivingforfun]

In addition to above, as someone who works with stats I can definitely say from witnessing such things how easy it is to interpret stats in countless ways. What naturally follows is that an organisation can publish findings in such a way as to be interpreted in whichever way is desired. In fact in lots of cases you can use exactly the same figures to support completely opposite arguments and make it compelling

One example I have, not from NHS but still a government service: there's a well-used argument that disability benefits are not means-tested (you can get them if you work) yet only 15% of claimants have a job, in other words disabled people need to try harder. However, and I've personally experienced this, but if you work they'll use this to argue that you can move about and do stuff, so you don't need as much support, and cut what you get. In other words, the 15% figure exists because they consciously create it!

[TC1474]

Originally Posted by Drivingforfun

In addition to above, as someone who works with stats I can definitely say from witnessing such things how easy it is to interpret stats in countless ways. What naturally follows is that an organisation can publish findings in such a way as to be interpreted in whichever way is desired. In fact in lots of cases you can use exactly the same figures to support completely opposite arguments and make it compelling

One example I have, not from NHS but still a government service: there's a well-used argument that disability benefits are not means-tested (you can get them if you work) yet only 15% of claimants have a job, in other words disabled people need to try harder. However, and I've personally experienced this, but if you work they'll use this to argue that you can move about and do stuff, so you don't need as much support, and cut what you get. In other words, the 15% figure exists because they consciously create it!

That was what I was trying to say, but you said it much better... 👍

[Rolebama]

Can't remember who said it, but: "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics." Springs to mind.

[NMNeil]

@Rolebama Probably a Mark Twain quote.
For the past 6 months we have been inundated with polls and surveys, and they all said that Kamala 'giggles' Harris would be our next President. 🤣

"Statistics (and surveys) can prove anything, sometimes even the truth"

Attributed to Voltaire.

[olduser]

Originally Posted by NMNeil

@Rolebama Probably a Mark Twain quote.
For the past 6 months we have been inundated with polls and surveys, and they all said that Kamala 'giggles' Harris would be our next President. 🤣

"Statistics (and surveys) can prove anything, sometimes even the truth"

Attributed to Voltaire.

I think, apart from the giggles she was on a looser, I don't think the US is ready for a woman in charge yet, just maybe Annie Oakley might stand a chance!

[Beelzebub]

Originally Posted by olduser

I think, apart from the giggles she was on a looser, I don't think the US is ready for a woman in charge yet, just maybe Annie Oakley might stand a chance!

Really? In 2016, more people voted for Hilary Clinton than for Donald T Rump.

[olduser]

Unfortunately, that isn't how the American system works.

[Beelzebub]

Originally Posted by olduser

Unfortunately, that isn't how the American system works.

What has that got to do with the point I was making?

[Mark07]

It seems we've drifted away from the original topic.

[Rolebama]

I have honestly lost count of the amount of surveys I haven't completed. Purely because whenever they ask a multi-choice question, there is never the answer I would truthfully give. This is including surveys from commercial enterprises, local government and any central government department.
Whenever I see a television news item that starts with; 'according to a recent survey...' I ask around among my friends and relatives, and they were never asked either.

[NMNeil]

Originally Posted by Mark07

It seems we've drifted away from the original topic.

My fault, but unintentional, just showing that polls and surveys are inaccurate at best.

[olduser]

Originally Posted by Beelzebub

What has that got to do with the point I was making?

Sorry Beelzebub, I was not clear in my post.

I am agreeing with the point you made, if the candidate with the most votes did win then America would have had a female president but unfortunately they don't use that method.

It would appear that the swing states do not want a female president, American politics appears to be as tribal as most other, 'democratic' nations.

For what it's worth, I think heads of state work best when they are purely symbolic.

[olduser]

Originally Posted by Mark07

It seems we've drifted away from the original topic.

I am sorry Mark07, I am as much responsible for pulling the thread in a different direction as anyone.
But in the Off Topic section, as long as contributors are civil to each other and no bullying is it not interesting to let things flow to see where they go?