National insurance cut

[Murphy]

If you want to go back more than 100 years to prove that it's "been cherry picked to show what someone wants ie Labour good Tories bad" my guest.

Put up or shut up as the saying goes.

 

[tonys]

If you want to go back more than 100 years to prove that it's "been cherry picked to show what someone wants ie Labour good Tories bad" my guest.

Put up or shut up as the saying goes.

You have posted one graph of a certain period of time showing one thing and another graph over a completely different length. To show the difference or not they should be shown over the same time, should they not?
I did not attack you so why the attitude?

You normally insist on a complex answer, those example charts do not correspond in length doesn't show a complete picture of the evidence you wanted to show

 

[platinum87]

That isn't a full analysis as you would have to go back right to the start of the records to show a full and complete picture, that graph has been cherry picked to show what someone wants ie Labour good Tories bad.

If you want to go back more than 100 years to prove that it's "been cherry picked to show what someone wants ie Labour good Tories bad" my guest.

Put up or shut up as the saying goes.

There is far less difference between labour and conservatives than there is between coke and pepsi.

Bringing up charts is entirely a waste of time.

The difference is basically in what people think they are.

 

[tonys]

There is far less difference between labour and conservatives than there is between coke and pepsi.

Bringing up charts is entirely a waste of time.

The difference is basically in what people think they are.

I have made this point before but you can guess what happened

 

[Murphy]

You have posted one graph of a certain period of time showing one thing and another graph over a completely different length. To show the difference or not they should be shown over the same time, should they not?
I did not attack you so why the attitude?

Who said anything about you attacking me, talk about being overly sensitive.

If you think those graphs show different things maybe you need to look harder, and if you need two charts to be over the same period of time before you can make sense of them maybe charts are to complicated for you.

Still waiting for you to prove that FullFact.org cherry-picked those stats to show "Labour good Tories bad", you got the stats that go back more than 100 years?

There is far less difference between labour and conservatives than there is between coke and pepsi.

Bringing up charts is entirely a waste of time.

The difference is basically in what people think they are.

And yet the difference is there in the stats, wishing it away isn't going to change that.

 

[Efour]

How do you think voting for them will improve any of the problems. They will be as bound by all the factors that would be faced by either the Tories ,Labour, Greens or the Monster Raving Loony party. Economic forces at home and abroad, the attitude to their policies from the voters, how and what changes they want to make, the list goes on. Yes in it's simplest form it's let's change government but as we all know it's more complex than that

I know it was tounge in cheek I guess I should emoji more.

I agree with you 100% it really doesn't matter who's running the UK. Global forces dictate.

 

[tonys]

Who said anything about you attacking me, talk about being overly sensitive.

If you think those graphs show different things maybe you need to look harder, and if you need two charts to be over the same period of time before you can make sense of them maybe charts are to complicated for you.

Still waiting for you to prove that FullFact.org cherry-picked those stats to show "Labour good Tories bad", you got the stats that go back more than 100 years?

And yet the difference is there in the stats, wishing it away isn't going to change that.

I think you can understand why I am as you say it overly sensitive but I'm not going there.
I have said you need to provide statistics over the same period of time for them to be classed as valid against each other and to pick a period which just so happens to show one particular set of facts that back up your side is no worse than the other form problem. I'm just saying to get the full picture you need to provide the data that you so love in a full formate that will show the comparison you are suggesting completely not just a snippet. I don't need to provide the information you do as you made the comment.

 

[tonys]

I know it was tounge in cheek I guess I should emoji more.

I agree with you 100% it really doesn't matter who's running the UK. Global forces dictate.

It wasn't meant to be, it is my opinion over 46yrs of living in this country and my education. Just because I like short and simple explanations doesn't make me unable to use common sense to work something out that is a complex problem(I get there eventually). Complexity brings about confusion

 

[Murphy]

I have said you need to provide statistics over the same period of time for them to be classed as valid against each other and to pick a period which just so happens to show one particular set of facts that back up your side is no worse than the other form problem.

Read the charts, pay particular attention to what it says under the bold title, what it says each chart is a measurement of.

Then maybe it will dawn on you that the two charts don't have to be over the same period because a) people know what a year is and can transpose one year to another (as in 1997 in one chart is the same 1997 in the other), and b) They're measuring different things.

I don't need to provide the information you do as you made the comment.

Well you do if you want to prove that FullFact.org cherry-picked those stats to show "Labour good Tories bad".

 

[Freakbro]

Query/[Forumsearch] "simple"
Username Parameter/ "tonys"
.
.
.
.
.
.
<Error> Buffer overflow

 

[slinxy]

There is far less difference between labour and conservatives than there is between coke and pepsi.

I'm reporting this to the mods and to the International Court of Justice! such profanity can not go unpunished!
There's a massive difference between "The real thing" and isded.

 

[tonys]

Read the charts, pay particular attention to what it says under the bold title, what it says each chart is a measurement of.

Then maybe it will dawn on you that the two charts don't have to be over the same period because a) people know what a year is and can transpose one year to another (as in 1997 in one chart is the same 1997 in the other), and b) They're measuring different things.

Well you do if you want to prove that FullFact.org cherry-picked those stats to show "Labour good Tories bad".

Yes we can see that they both cover the same period that you specify all I was saying that the two graphs needed to be of the same length to show how they compared to each other. Other surpluses are shown but not in what relation to the other graph.
I didn't disagree with you on the what it showed just that it showed what you wanted to show just like me if you remember.

 

[Murphy]

just that it showed what you wanted to show just like me if you remember.

Prove it.

 

[tonys]

Prove it.

No as it will only lead to ruin

 

[slinxy]

Read the charts, pay particular attention to what it says under the bold title, what it says each chart is a measurement of.

Yes we can see that they both cover the same period that you specify all I was saying that the two graphs needed to be of the same length to show how they compared to each other. Other surpluses are shown but not in what relation to the other graph.
I didn't disagree with you on the what it showed just that it showed what you wanted to show just like me if you remember.

The issue with charts and statics is that the governement at the time of period and the goverment at the time of the the report can make the reports result to whatever they want.

Government of the period... lets not record this figure... so they will be no figure for future reports..
Government of the report... naa... we should use a different benchmark or include/exclude that cost..

Normally when I get asked to write a report, I ask how do you want the outcome to reflect? I rarely get told to be unbiased.

The only thing that really matters is how you as an individual felt at that time, or how you feel about a certain party. That may be reflect more on your personal circumstances and recency bias.

 

[Murphy]

The issue with charts and statics is that the governement at the time of period and the goverment at the time of the the report can make the reports result to whatever they want.

The stats are from the ONS so if you have something more accurate I'm all ears.

 

[bobuk]

National insurance cut The first step in abolishing the old age pension.​

 

[Demon]

Would this help...

(Source)

(Source)

Like it or not the myth that the Conservatives are good when it comes to public finances is exactly that, a myth. There's only been a single period that a Conservative government has had a surplus and that was a tiny one for a very short period of time.

Just looking at those and wondering what use they are to determine any parties 'performance' since it doesn't show all the macro economic and other macro events going on? on the bottom graph do we blame labour for the sky rocketing deficit in 2009/10 and praise the coalition for arresting that, or do we just use bigger number on graph = bad and paint the coalition as having a poor performance, all the while ignoring the financial crash of 2008 that led to it all?

The 1973 and 1990 global recession, the 2008 financial crash, the war.. all you can really see IMO is that obvious events such as these always lead to a period of increased deficit just after that then peaks and comes back down independent of the ruling party at the time.

 

[arknor]

That isn't a full analysis as you would have to go back right to the start of the records to show a full and complete picture, that graph has been cherry picked to show what someone wants ie Labour good Tories bad.

how many hundreds of years do you want to go back? before 1970 probably nothing is relevant to modern economy.

er all know who asset stripped the country the tories under thatcher

 

[tonys]

The issue with charts and statics is that the governement at the time of period and the goverment at the time of the the report can make the reports result to whatever they want.

Government of the period... lets not record this figure... so they will be no figure for future reports..
Government of the report... naa... we should use a different benchmark or include/exclude that cost..

Normally when I get asked to write a report, I ask how do you want the outcome to reflect? I rarely get told to be unbiased.

The only thing that really matters is how you as an individual felt at that time, or how you feel about a certain party. That may be reflect more on your personal circumstances and recency bias.

Can't remember where I've heard that argument before,lol. Totally right though