LibDems being creative!

i'm with Ivanhoe/John R on the graph. It's probably the top bit of the graph (ie the bottom line isn't zero). Using a logarithmic scale would be far to higher-maths (and an interesting concept).

yes it's a picture and not a maths dissertation. At least they were good enough to put the real numbers on the graph - that's a bit of transparency and honesty at least (and means this whole debate is a bit academic, but none-the-less fun for it).

As for the quotations. Loved the bikini one. My thought was 'Politicians use statistics rather like a drunken man uses a lamppost - for support rather than illumination'

No, if the chart was a magnification of the top bit of the graph, that would have exaggerated the difference between the Labour and Lib Dem bars, not appeared to make it smaller.

Creative use of bar charts to downplay the strength of the third party is an old device. There's a paradox - since a national third party has to work harder to persuade voters that they're actually the main challenger, it's a particularly useful tool for the Lib Dems.

Here is a similar bar chart from during the campaign, which generated some excited Tory comment at the time:

[url=http://http://www.torybear.com/2009/07/lying-or-incompetent.html][/url]

Yes. I'm not getting this stuff about only showing the top part etc. If the figures are represented correctly, even if you stretch or shrink what we see, or chop off the bottom so we don't see, surely the proportional relationship (is that even English? You know what I mean) stays the same.

James Hatts wrote:

I don't think Loanna's attempt to dredge up the 1983 by-election is helpful

The reference to Simon Hughes is relevant. The Lib/Dem bar chart is plainly deceitful and our Lib/Dem MP is a liar (in 2006). I too might lie under pressure so I don't wish to be censorious, but I'm not asking for your vote.

I think it's harsh to accuse Simon Hughes of lying, hypocrisy yes, but it's hard to come out as gay, and a lot harder when you are in the public spotlight.

I don't think we should be condemning him because he's a bit messed up, and ultimately, who he has sex with is his business, not the newspapers.

The hypocrisy comes from allowing homophobia to be used back in 1983, but I'm sure there's a lot from the 1980's people are ashamed of...the clothes, voting for Thatcher, thinking the Falklands was off Scotland, mmmm, Bucks Fizz (my favourite when I was 8 and still on my ipod).

Politicians say what they need to, to get votes, and I think most of us would do the same thing to get what we want, though perhaps with slightly more embarrasment when we are caught out...but these are politicians we are talking about, not the good people of the world like estate agents and used car sales people.

I wonder what people would have said if he'd said he was gay but then settled down with a woman.
He could have answered 'no I'm bisexual' but strictly speaking he didn't lie.

He said his reply was "clearly misleading". It compounds the offence to say that's not a lie.

I really dont think Simon Hughes' sexuality is in any way relevant to the barchart on this leaflet. When it comes to producing barcharts I dont think there is any maths too complicated for some parties to use when it comes to presenting the results the way they want them to be seen (which is why I agree that the graph is not on a linear scale as well as being cut off above the origin). It's misleading, less so because at least the numbers are shown, but misleading nonetheless.

If people do insist on dragging Simon Hughes' sexuality or the 1983 campaign into it I would just say that Peter Tatchell has long since forgiven Simon for anything that happened in that campaign (and the Liberals were far from the worst offenders in that byelection) so it's difficult for anyone else to hold a grudge. And unless you think you have an absolute right to know the sexuality of the candidates asking for your vote (I dont think you do) then I dont think we can complain too much if they try to keep this private.

beetroot wrote:

If the figures are represented correctly, even if you stretch or shrink what we see, or chop off the bottom so we don't see, surely the proportional relationship (is that even English? You know what I mean) stays the same.

If you use a linear scale then yes. If you use a non-linear scale then no.

Imagine the result had been Labour 10,000 and Lib Dem 9,000. If you give 1cm for every vote then the Labour bar is 10cm and the Lib Dem bar is 9cm.

If you do something fancier and non-linear you can get a different looking graph. You could square the results (multiply them by themselves) and Labour have 100,000,000 and Lib Dem have 81,000,000. If you now give 1cm for every ten million votes (squared) then the Labour bar is still 10cm but the Lib Dem bar is 8.1cm instead of the 9cm using a linear scale.

They almost certainly didnt square the results to produce this effect but they must have done something else non-linear (taking the log of the results probably).

Neil wrote:

I really dont think Simon Hughes' sexuality is in any way relevant to the barchart on this leaflet.

Who said it was?