The British Public is wrong about almost everything

[Bungle73]

British public wrong about nearly everything, survey shows

Research shows public opinion often deviates from facts on key social issues including crime, benefit fraud and immigration



A new survey for the Royal Statistical Society and King's College London shows public opinion is repeatedly off the mark on issues including crime, benefit fraud and immigration.

The research, carried out by Ipsos Mori from a phone survey of 1,015 people aged 16 to 75, lists ten misconceptions held by the British public. Among the biggest misconceptions are:

- Benefit fraud: the public think that £24 of every £100 of benefits is fraudulently claimed. Official estimates are that just 70 pence in every £100 is fraudulent - so the public conception is out by a factor of 34.

- Immigration: some 31 per cent of the population is thought to consist of recent immigrants, when the figure is actually 13 per cent. Even including illegal immigrants, the figure is only about 15 per cent. On the issue of ethnicity, black and Asian people are thought to make up 30 per cent of the population, when the figure is closer to 11 per cent.

- Crime: some 58 per cent of people do not believe crime is falling, when the Crime Survey for England and Wales shows that incidents of crime were 19 per cent lower in 2012 than in 2006/07 and 53 per cent lower than in 1995. Some 51 per cent think violent crime is rising, when it has fallen from almost 2.5 million incidents in 2006/07 to under 2 million in 2012.

- Teen pregnancy is thought to be 25 times higher than the official estimates: 15 per cent of of girls under 16 are thought to become pregnant every year, when official figures say the amount is closer to 0.6 per cent.

Among the other surprising figures are that 26 per cent of people think foreign aid is in the top three items the Government spends money on (it actually makes up just 1.1 per cent of expenditure), and that 29 per cent of people think more is spent on Jobseekers' Allowance than pensions.

In fact we spend 15 times more on pensions - £4.9 billion on JSA vs £74.2 billion on pensions.

Hetan Shah, executive director of the Royal Statistical Society, said: "Our data poses real challenges for policymakers. How can you develop good policy when public perceptions can be so out of kilter with the evidence?

"We need to see three things happen. First, politicians need to be better at talking about the real state of affairs of the country, rather than spinning the numbers. Secondly, the media has to try and genuinely illuminate issues, rather than use statistics to sensationalise.

"And finally we need better teaching of statistical literacy in schools, so that people get more comfortable in understanding evidence."

Bobby Duffy, the managing director of Ipsos Mori Social Research Institute, said: "A lack of trust in government information is also very evident in other questions in the survey - so 'myth-busting' is likely to prove a challenge on many of these issues. But it is still useful to understand where people get their facts most wrong."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...t-nearly-everything-survey-shows-8697821.html

This doesn't surprise me one bit.

 

[jon0844]

I'd agree with all of that, bar crime statistics which plenty of police officers have confirmed as being suspect.

 

[90sWereBetter]

It's not surprising when so many people still read The Sun and The Daily Mail.

 

[Antman]

It's not surprising when so many people still read The Sun and The Daily Mail.

Oh for pitys sake not another anti Sun/Daily Mail whinger?:cry:

I don't read either but I don't make ridiculous judgements about those that do:roll:

 

[Oswyntail]

I must apologise. This does actually support the views communicated by many of the rail staff on here. The public is wrong

 

[deltic]

I'd agree with all of that, bar crime statistics which plenty of police officers have confirmed as being suspect.

the crime figures reported here are not those that come from the criminal justice system - they are from a large annual survey or people's experiences of crime which is widely regarded as fairly accurate especially in terms of picking up trends.

In a lot of these areas there are too many vested interests in not accepting perfectly valid statistics and little reliable reporting of data in the first place. I'm always amused by the responses to the BBC's Mark Easton blog that often looks at social issues from a data perspective and how few people believe the data.

We are fortunate in this country to have an excellent civil service and statistical service that produces unbaised data - its a shame so few Governments actually use the data to make their policy decisions and then wonder why the policy does not work. Classic example is the made up number of 200,000 problem families

 

[LexyBoy]

"We need to see three things happen. First, politicians need to be better at talking about the real state of affairs of the country, rather than spinning the numbers. Secondly, the media has to try and genuinely illuminate issues, rather than use statistics to sensationalise.

And before any of this can happen the policymakers (media and government) need to base their views on the real state of affairs, rather than unfounded prejudice reinforced with cherry-picked stats. Forgive me if I don't wait for this to happen.

Also, I am of the opinion that a lot of the kind of stories the survey refers to are backed by those fully aware that they are factually dubious or false, but who have an agenda which can be furthered by the message given. E.g. it is in the interest of those wishing to have a smaller state to overplay the impact of the benefit system; it is in the interest of those wanting more police power to play on peoples fears of crime & terrorism; it is in the interest of powerful corporations to portray nationalised systems as failing.

 

[SS4]

What can one expect when everything is spun by someone to make them look better?

How often have we been given raw data, preferably in CSV format or even PDF? We're not given the numbers but results derived from those numbers which are easily doctored.

The benefits one is the one I take issue with most of all. It seems to be that government propaganda against those unfortunate enough to be on benefits is working
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Secondly, the media has to try and genuinely illuminate issues, rather than use statistics to sensationalise.

And on that day Satan will skate to work. The media is strangled by economics, we have a press largely free of government interference but one that is censored by funding.

 

[tbtc]

Not only are the Great British Public generally wrong about these things, but you'll find that when they are told the correct figure for something they'll instinctively argue with it.

Tell people that immigrants are around 1/8 of the population (rather than the 1/3 that people think) and they'll respond that "yeah, but there's millions here illegally". The difference (as quoted above) is probably only around 2%.

Tell people that crime is falling and they'll respond that "yeah, but these are only the crimes that get reported and the figures are massaged". Not every crime is reported (in the way that not every crime was reported ten/twenty/fifty years ago), but it's hard to massage the figures for violent crime/murder.

It's part of the same culture that can't mention the word "experts" without prefacing it with "so-called". I know best, even if the facts disagree with me - that kind of mentality.

Basically, if people don't like the facts then their initial reaction is that the facts must be wrong (not that their prejudices need to be reviewed)!

 

[gordonthemoron]

it doesn't help that the government (and Daily Mail) lump all recipients of 'benefits' together, i.e. Pensioners, Low Income, Job Seekers & Disabled, and label them all scroungers.

 

[tbtc]

it doesn't help that the government (and Daily Mail) lump all recipients of 'benefits' together, i.e. Pensioners, Low Income, Job Seekers & Disabled, and label them all scroungers.

Ah, no - pensioners are "hard working people who've saved all of their life" (which maybe means that they don't need such big state pensions) - look at the way that the Tories responded to Labour's suggestion of amending the "triple lock" (which means that the state pension has to go up by the highest of three measures) - "Labour will target pensioners who have worked hard their whole lives".

So whilst the sick and poor and workshy and disabled are all tarred with the same brush, pensioners can do no wrong (which is why pensioners are seeing incomes rise at a time when everyone else seems to be seeing their incomes fall).

 

[SS4]

Ah, no - pensioners are "hard working people who've saved all of their life" (which maybe means that they don't need such big state pensions) - look at the way that the Tories responded to Labour's suggestion of amending the "triple lock" (which means that the state pension has to go up by the highest of three measures) - "Labour will target pensioners who have worked hard their whole lives".

So whilst the sick and poor and workshy and disabled are all tarred with the same brush, pensioners can do no wrong (which is why pensioners are seeing incomes rise at a time when everyone else seems to be seeing their incomes fall).

If I were cynical (which I am) I'd say nobody dares cut pensions because the elderly vote and the government of the day is always more interested in self-preservation than the good of the country

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Tell people that immigrants are around 1/8 of the population (rather than the 1/3 that people think) and they'll respond that "yeah, but there's millions here illegally". The difference (as quoted above) is probably only around 2%.

Basically, if people don't like the facts then their initial reaction is that the facts must be wrong (not that their prejudices need to be reviewed)!

If that question was asked in Oldham or Blackburn. the populace would come up with a different answer to those in Frinton-on-Sea, as their visual perspective of what appears to be the staus quo is formulated on what they see in their daily lives.

 

[jon0844]

The elderly don't just vote but are often the only people interested in local politics and therefore hound councillors and MPs to the point where things are done just to shut them up.

Of course everyone else could shout as loud and take an interest, but don't for various reasons (including the belief that it wouldn't make a difference).

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

hock:

Ah, no - pensioners are "hard working people who've saved all of their life" (which maybe means that they don't need such big state pensions)

So that means that those pensioners with enough intelligence to have saved up for a supplementary pension for many years, bearing this extra monthly cost out of their salary rather than being being profligate, in order to have something to add to their pension, are to be censured for doing so.

Both my wife (72) and I (68) fall into the category of pensionable age members of society having put the maximum amount allowable as employees contributions during our working lives, rather than "just living for the moment" and therefore not having as much disposable income each month during our working lives.

Are you saying that we should not have been so careful with our financial decision making and just "lived life to the full" in our younger years and "to hell with the consequences" with what awaited us in our retirement years or sadly as it seems to certain members of the Great British Public, should both of us eke out a meagre living on what the basic state pension allows, in a way that Charles Dickens would have put pen to paper about...hock:

 

[Oswyntail]

.... pensioners are seeing incomes rise at a time when everyone else seems to be seeing their incomes fall...

Not if their income is in part derived from interest on savings :cry:
One fact often ignored in the pensioners debate is that they have gone through their working lives making provision (or not) for later within the systems that prevailed at the time. If you are within a year or so of retirement, there is no chance to re-steer your ship, even less if you are already retired. The only genuinely fair time for a government to impose pension reforms on anyone is on their 16th birthday, so that a full working life is spent under those conditions.

 

[GB]

So 1000 people took the survey and that's enough to state that the British public wrong about nearly everything?

 

[455driver]

So 1000 people took the survey and that's enough to state that the British public wrong about nearly everything?

They didnt ask me!:cry:

As for what Paul has just posted, I could not agree more with you.
Why should people who have been sensible and saved for their retirement now be worse off than people who have squandered their money, that is why I disagree with all this means tested rubbish (for pensioners at least), they should all get the heating allowance etc not just the ones who spent all their earnings or were unable to save.

This Countries record for looking after its pensioners is shocking and to try and squeeze more out of them is disgusting.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Not if their income is in part derived from interest on savings :cry:
One fact often ignored in the pensioners debate is that they have gone through their working lives making provision (or not) for later within the systems that prevailed at the time. If you are within a year or so of retirement, there is no chance to re-steer your ship, even less if you are already retired. The only genuinely fair time for a government to impose pension reforms on anyone is on their 16th birthday, so that a full working life is spent under those conditions.

Glad to see that someone appears to understand what I wrote in posting # 15.

 

[LexyBoy]

So 1000 people took the survey and that's enough to state that the British public wrong about nearly everything?

No, as they didn't ask "nearly everything". If the questions were "name something blue", "what is your name" and "what is your favourite food", then I would expect very few wrong answers.

If the questions were about anything in the entire universe, then the chances of anyone knowing anything would be slim indeed.

In terms of the questions asked however, I would be confident in a competent outfit like Ipsos Mori to have designed the survey such that the reported results are correct with a high confidence level.

 

[Flamingo]

I must apologise. This does actually support the views communicated by many of the rail staff on here. The public is wrong

Told you so

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

As for what Paul has just posted, I could not agree more with you. Why should people who have been sensible and saved for their retirement now be worse off than people who have squandered their money, that is why I disagree with all this means tested rubbish (for pensioners at least), they should all get the heating allowance etc not just the ones who spent all their earnings or were unable to save.

Thank you for your posting of support.

 

[Lampshade]

Because large sections of the media like to pander to bigotry and racism, making isolated cases appear to be the rule rather than the exception.

 

[cmjcf]

As for what Paul has just posted, I could not agree more with you.
Why should people who have been sensible and saved for their retirement now be worse off than people who have squandered their money,

There's no need to make up nonsense like that.

they should all get the heating allowance etc not just the ones who spent all their earnings or were unable to save.

Even the ones who are well off and living in Spain? That sounds like a worthwhile use of public funds.

This Countries record for looking after its pensioners is shocking

Except that's not even remotely true, is it? How terrible that our pensioners are the best off that they've ever been. :roll:

 

[455driver]

You post this-

There's no need to make up nonsense like that.

and follow it with this-

Except that's not even remotely true, is it? How terrible that our pensioners are the best off that they've ever been. :roll:

where did you read that?
In the papers?

As for this-

Even the ones who are well off and living in Spain? That sounds like a worthwhile use of public funds.

No, not the ones who live in Spain (or anywhere else, just the ones who live in this Country*.
I dont think we should be giving child benefit to any kids that dont live in this Country either but that isnt the fault of the pensioners is it!


* thats England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and all the little islands around us, is that clear enough for you!

 

[starrymarkb]

Even the ones who are well off and living in Spain? That sounds like a worthwhile use of public funds.

Those are the ones that also complain about the BBC despite not paying a licence fee for their 2m Satellite dish...

Roll on the new Sky Satellites with a beam tightly focused on the UK (the ex-pats are already kicking off about losing their UK TV!)

 

[cmjcf]

where did you read that?
In the papers?

In the ONS's Pension Trends reports, actually. (They even provide a handy video summary of the findings.) Retirees aged 60-75 are significantly better off than those over 75 (who naturally retired years before them). Current pensioners are 50% better off in real terms than 20 years ago, and 250% better off in real terms than 40 years ago. But let's not let facts get in the way of a good whinge, eh?

No, not the ones who live in Spain (or anywhere else, just the ones who live in this Country*.

So you're in favour of means-testing, then? If you're excluding those drawing a British pension but living overseas, then it's not a "universal" benefit.

 

[455driver]

So you are talking about inflation then!

The same can be said about any worker, I am paid a lot more now than I was 20 years ago, the trouble is my bills are also a lot higher.

I am in favour of means testing when it is being applied fairly.

 

[cmjcf]

So you are talking about inflation then!

No, you're supposed to read posts before you reply to them.

... better off in real terms ...

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Current pensioners are 50% better off in real terms than 20 years ago, and 250% better off in real terms than 40 years ago. But let's not let facts get in the way of a good whinge, eh?

Did you read the posting that I made concerning my wife and myself and how we forsook much spare disposable salary as we had chosen to pay the maximum amount possible as employees contributions whilst working up to both our retirement dates. This was at the cost of not taking extra holidays, etc, during that time

If both of us are better off now, it is solely because we chose to forsake mere fripparies whilst working and our extra benefits of the enhanced pension are solely down to our own careful financial planning.....Nothing more, nothing less.

I do not regard my postings as "whinging" but as just making a simple statement of fact.