|
|
Post by Merseymike on Mar 27, 2021 7:43:51 GMT
Seems to be a universally underwhelmed response to the Tory candidate selection . Yet it is important for the Conservatives to run a proper campaign for the by-election as the Tees Valley mayoralty election on the same day is on a knife edge and votes in marginal wards in Hartlepool will be vital. That being said, running well-known locals hasn't been too fruitful for the Tories in the past . Thinking back to Graham Robb in 1992 ( local radio DJ) and Gus Robinson in 2001 ( owner of ubiquitous Hartlepool construction company) both of whose notoriety failed to boost the vote. It doesn't look as if there are going to be many candidates from the town itself. Any news who Reform UK will stand? |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Mar 27, 2021 7:52:06 GMT
"The Party That Supports Our Boys" Enough to make you puke. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Mar 27, 2021 9:29:55 GMT
Far be it for me to complain about dodgy barcharts, but really.... Aside from choosing a non-zero base on the y-axis, what is there remotely to complain about? And a non-zero base is appropriate in this context. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Mar 27, 2021 9:33:46 GMT
"The Party That Supports Our Boys" Enough to make you puke. At least when we do that sort of thing most of us mean it and are sincere! That is naked and unashamed gutter diving by a total arsehole. But I think we all knew he was? Obviously a worried arsehole prepared to get very dirty indeed. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Mar 27, 2021 9:39:00 GMT
"The Party That Supports Our Boys" Enough to make you puke. At least when we do that sort of thing most of us mean it and are sincere! That is naked and unashamed gutter diving by a total arsehole. But I think we all knew he was? Obviously a worried arsehole prepared to get very dirty indeed. That is exactly my point. It's utter hypocrisy as Labour did not support higher defence spending during this period. Moreover, if we face "dangers" then what we need is effective civil defence, technology, and the like. Not squaddies to go and fight wars which have nothing to do with us, which is the purpose of a larger army. |
|
mboy
Liberal
Listen. Think. Speak.
Posts: 23,831
Member is Online
|
Post by mboy on Mar 27, 2021 10:11:44 GMT
TBF this is still better than the Labour selection  |
|
|
|
Post by grahammurray on Mar 27, 2021 10:26:04 GMT
Far be it for me to complain about dodgy barcharts, but really.... Aside from choosing a non-zero base on the y-axis, what is there remotely to complain about? And a non-zero base is appropriate in this context.Why? |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Mar 27, 2021 10:35:23 GMT
Aside from choosing a non-zero base on the y-axis, what is there remotely to complain about? And a non-zero base is appropriate in this context.Why? Partly to show up the change in the numbers, but also because the armed forces have a base level (being stationed in places permanently as a defensive force) plus a deployable surplus (sent anywhere in the world when and where they are needed). It's this second element which has been most affected - see ex Chief of the General Staff Lord Richards' comments that the UK could not expect to recapture the Falklands now, because of the cuts to deployable resources. |
|
|
|
Post by grahammurray on Mar 27, 2021 10:47:15 GMT
Partly to show up the change in the numbers, but also because the armed forces have a base level (being stationed in places permanently as a defensive force) plus a deployable surplus (sent anywhere in the world when and where they are needed). It's this second element which has been most affected - see ex Chief of the General Staff Lord Richards' comments that the UK could not expect to recapture the Falklands now, because of the cuts to deployable resources. But why is it OK in this particular case to use a non-zero axis? Askin' for a friend. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Mar 27, 2021 11:57:24 GMT
Can your friend read?
|
|
|
|
Post by grahammurray on Mar 27, 2021 12:20:10 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by grahammurray on Mar 27, 2021 12:29:46 GMT
It would appear that she can. At least I assume that's what she meant by "I can read lumpheads like Boothroyd like a book." I tried to explain that you'd used a very intricate reasoning to explain a non-zero graph axis by saying an axis rooted at 0 meant we wouldn't be able to recapture the Falkands. I may have lost the thread of what you were arguing somewhere in mid Atlantic. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Mar 27, 2021 12:36:15 GMT
It appears it's you that can't read.
|
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Mar 27, 2021 12:36:40 GMT
Far be it for me to complain about dodgy barcharts, but really.... Aside from choosing a non-zero base on the y-axis, what is there remotely to complain about? And a non-zero base is appropriate in this context. If that had been issued by the Lib Dems it would be called a "dodgy bar chart". Which, frankly, it is. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Mar 27, 2021 12:39:31 GMT
Is it your idiotic position that a non-zero base on the y-axis is never reasonable?
I notice you don't highlight the non-zero base on the x-axis. So you don't object to it in principle.
|
|
|
|
Post by grahammurray on Mar 27, 2021 12:42:05 GMT
It appears it's you that can't read. Then how would I know that you've just told me I can't read? It seems such a deliciously involved theory that I would love to hear more. How exactly does hacking the bottom of a graph have any impact on our ability, or inability, to retain the Falklands? I hope the Argentinians don't discover the power of graph labelling. |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Mar 27, 2021 12:45:09 GMT
To address the point made by Davıd Boothroyd the chart may have been appropriate if published in The Journal of Defence Studies and labelled "Deployable manpower resources", and set to an agreed base figure for non-deployable resources. However as a tweet during a by-election where its target audience is likely to interpret it, on the basis of a cursory glance, as a halving of manpower it seems to me to tick the dodgy box. IMO |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Mar 27, 2021 12:45:52 GMT
Is it your idiotic position that a non-zero base on the y-axis is never reasonable? I notice you don't highlight the non-zero base on the x-axis. So you don't object to it in principle. To whom is your question directed? |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Mar 27, 2021 12:50:34 GMT
You evidently think the people of Hartlepool are people who don't really care about the great issues of the day, such that when faced with a very important byelection and a campaign point from a major party, they only give its campaign literature "a cursory glance". I think the people of Hartlepool are wise and reasonable people who are perfectly capable of understanding the various forms of data presentation used to illustrate an underlying truth about the way the Conservatives have run the country.
|
|
|
|
Post by grahammurray on Mar 27, 2021 13:08:00 GMT
You evidently think the people of Hartlepool are people who don't really care about the great issues of the day, such that when faced with a very important byelection and a campaign point from a major party, they only give its campaign literature "a cursory glance". I think the people of Hartlepool are wise and reasonable people who are perfectly capable of understanding the various forms of data presentation used to illustrate an underlying truth about the way the Conservatives have run the country. i don't doubt that the people of Hartlepool care about this and other issues and are definitely capable of working the graph out. Unlike you, I'm also confident in the ability of people elsewhere to inetrpret graphs. The real question is why you specifically think that this one is OK but that others using the same methodology are dodgy. |
|
