Continuing my occasional series ...
LabourHome have got themselves all in a tizz over a map of the UK that allegedly shows the areas with the highest concentration of BNP members, because it looks very similar to the map showing Labour constituencies, from which they deduce that the BNP are an electoral threat to Labour in particular.
Well, duh. We knew that anyway. Further, we are well aware that:
a) Labour do best in towns and cities; the Tories do best in rural/suburban areas.
b) You could take a map showing areas with the highest concentrations of people with any random characteristic (left handedness, a liking for chocolate, membership of a particular political party) and you'd find that that this looks similar to the BNP map - because such a map would simply show the areas with the highest population densities, i.e. towns and cities, which happen to be areas where Labour tend to do well.
c) Ergo, the map tells us absolutely nothing new.
H/t Obnoxio The Clown (scroll down to RT's fine bit of editing in the comments)
Friday, 21 November 2008
There is more of everything in densely populated areas (2)
My latest blogpost: There is more of everything in densely populated areas (2)Tweet this! Posted by Mark Wadsworth at 18:21
Labels: BNP, Commonsense, LabourHome, Logic, statistics
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Great post. All good comments.
especially your point C
Strange and frightening logic in this.
So, will people start correctly referring to them as a "far left" party soon?
Post a Comment