So Communicat

Yesterday you believed the report was 'fundamentally flawed' and there was 'little doubt that the study was politically motivated'.

This morning you were sure that '(1) the data base was too narrow and (2) the questions were framed so as to elicit negative rather than positive responses'.

This afternoon when challenged to put up the evidence for your claims, you suddenly 'don't have the report to hand' and 'any further comment would probably become political'.

So instead you give us an absurd example of a hypothetical question that is skewed to get a predetermined response. Nothing at all to do with the study that you condemned.

So my guess is that you haven't read the report and were just crapping on because the Government didn't like it and tried to tried to besmirch the reputations of the researchers to deflect attention from the content of the report.

You claim to be an academic. Pigs fly too!

I agree Frank - there's something very suss about Communicat's supposed academic critique and his/her inability to answer your questions meaningfully.

AJFA I like to laugh, thanks, from your first line you had me in stitch's.
I can exclusively reveal? come the story was out there days before!
Costello and the minister for miss information sorry IR had it hours before on ABC radio.
I however can tell you its the voting public you need to talk to.

Frank I was (a) asked to remain apolitical (which I did) and (b) give an example (which I did). You did not ask me to refer to the study so, in an effort to remain apolitical, I took an example that I all thought all members of the group would understand.
I stand by my other comments and, as I will now be away from the computer for a while, you may howl me down in my absence. (However I would warn you that the laws of libel apply even to this list.)

Communicat

A most unconvincing 'explanation'.

This is the first reference to a possible libel action that I've seen on OLO - which is a very robust debating ground.

Threats of libel actions are often used to intimidate and silence. For my part, I am happy to continue to rely on a fearless defence of truth and discussion that is in the public interest.

You may do as you please.

Frank - I am about to leave for the airport so this will be very brief but the sample was too small...8000 sounds like a lot but it is a drop in the ocean and it did not include the unemployed or many young women who were intending to go on leave to have a child. The interviews were conducted by telephone - never a good idea if you want people to tell the truth. Random sampling? Maybe but this is notoriously difficult to do.
Questions? "Does an award play a role in your pay and conditions?"
- should be something like "Do you believe...and if so, how?"
And a statement like "More and more is expected for the same pay..." is framed in a way which will produce agreement.
Hope you know understand what I am getting at...I assure you I have read the report. I'll be away for a few days - dare I say doing some research!