Jump to content

Question Time


Elixir

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Baxter Parp said:

Holy cow, you continue to be a complete dolt, much to my astonishment.  Have a long hard think about the number of people appearing on QT on any one show and have a long hard think about what you've just done.

It doesn't matter which way you want to try and spin this, they were still over-represented.

2010 - 204 guests (not all of which were politicians) of which 4 were SNP = 1.96%
2011 - 199 guests of which SNP made up 2%

etc. etc. 

 

1 hour ago, lichtgilphead said:

It's really easy to produce meaningless statistics, isn't it.

But a little harder to be critical of the orginal statistic when it comes from the SNP though? :rolleyes:  The statistics that I collated were on the exact same basis as the post that I was told was

 

7 hours ago, Baxter Parp said:

Usual evidence-free speculative guesswork and nonsense to support the status quo from Strichener, there.

 Let's remind ourselves of what kicked this off:

7 hours ago, Baxter Parp said:

 

You can quite legitimately question the methodology.  Indeed I encourage you to do so, if you have twitter you can do so from the above quoted post.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, strichener said:

But a little harder to be critical of the orginal statistic when it comes from the SNP though? :rolleyes:  The statistics that I collated were on the exact same basis as the post that I was told was

Can you point out where the original SNP figuresmade reference to election percentage share or to number of seats please? I must have missed that part.

However, I'm happy to compare the SNP statistics with a totally unrelated number (just like you did)

2010 - 40 Episodes / 4 Appearances (10%)
I think you get the picture, they were over-represented compared to both the percentage of households that could receive digital TV in 2000 (2.2%) and by number of  houses with electricity in 1910 (2.0%).

Sturgeon must resign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These are the minimum number of SNP representatives on QT (I say minimum as I am not sure that I would relate a name to the SNP in all circumstances and so have stuck with ones that I do recognise):
2010 - 40 Episodes / 4 Appearances (10%)
2011 - 39 Episodes / 4 Appearances (10.25%)
2012 - 39 Episodes / 4 Appearances (10.25%)
2013 - 36 Episodes / 4 Appearances (11.11%)
2014 - 36 Episodes / 4 Appearances (11.11%)
I think you get the picture, they were over-represented compared to both election share (1.7%) and by number of seats (0.9%).
Call me absolutely flabbergasted that my original opinion is actually backed up by facts. 
Who would have guessed that a post that miraculously begins with a timeline in 2015 showing how mis-represented the SNP are is being very selective in it's time-frame.  It is of course designed to appeal to the uber-fuckwits and therefore comes as no surprise to see you posting it here and attempting to dismiss any criticism of it.


[emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]FFS
You're forgetting the 'guest variable' in your %.
Hardly surprising mind.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎25‎/‎05‎/‎2018 at 20:37, strichener said:

It doesn't matter which way you want to try and spin this, they were still over-represented.

2010 - 204 guests (not all of which were politicians) of which 4 were SNP = 1.96%
2011 - 199 guests of which SNP made up 2%

They had 6 MPs which is about 9% so they were under-represented.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/25/2018 at 21:16, lichtgilphead said:

Can you point out where the original SNP figuresmade reference to election percentage share or to number of seats please? I must have missed that part.

However, I'm happy to compare the SNP statistics with a totally unrelated number (just like you did)

2010 - 40 Episodes / 4 Appearances (10%)
I think you get the picture, they were over-represented compared to both the percentage of households that could receive digital TV in 2000 (2.2%) and by number of  houses with electricity in 1910 (2.0%).

Sturgeon must resign.

Did you tweet the original person with similar thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said:

They had 6 MPs which is about 9% so they were under-represented.

6MPs is not 9% of the UK representation which is the relevant figure when looking at the audience reach of the show.

If you are basing your 9% on the %age of Scottish seats then limiting the show to the same basis actually makes it worse for the SNP as they were on 100% of the shows.  Keep digging.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, strichener said:

Did you tweet the original person with similar thoughts?

No, I chased him down the street, shouting abuse at him. My dogs were barking wildly and were only prevented from biting him by the fact that I had them muzzled. Close thing really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Baxter Parp said:

Labour MPs are on 90% of episodes so presumably that's representative of the number of MPs they have, right?

No but they are the official opposition so of course they're going to be on most of the time. (Although that does reinforce the 2 party set up unfortunately)

The SNP are a very small minority in UK terms and I think they actually get enough representation. UKIP got far more than they deserved but it can be argues that they were representing a lot of people who felt that the main parties weren't.

We certainly got more airtime in the run up and aftermath of the independence vote.

It's not that big a deal for me. Far worse is the 'reporting' on BBC Scotland.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎26‎/‎05‎/‎2018 at 22:13, strichener said:

6MPs is not 9% of the UK representation which is the relevant figure when looking at the audience reach of the show.

If you are basing your 9% on the %age of Scottish seats then limiting the show to the same basis actually makes it worse for the SNP as they were on 100% of the shows.  Keep digging.

Jesus f**k, given the facts and the original post this makes no sense at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 MP's is 9%.

Of 67.

 

 

Seriously though, why is everyone getting bogged down with a numbers game when the appearances have no correlation to the number of MP's. If there is a hot topic like Brexit or the independence referendum, then of course there will be greater representation to reflect that.

 

Edited by Suspect Device
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Suspect Device said:

6 MP's is 9%.

Of 67.

 

 

Seriously though, why is everyone getting bogged down with a numbers game when the appearances have no correlation to the number of MP's. If there is a hot topic like Brexit or the independence referendum, then of course there will be greater representation to reflect that.

 

I am aware of what he meant but to then claim that using the same basis (Scotland Only) where the SNP had 100% representation as "makes no sense at all" is what happens when the truth becomes inconvenient.

On the numbers - It is a prerequisite for any criticism of a Baxter post.  You can't make perfectly reasonable observations without quoting numbers if it is in any shape or form anti-SNP (such as why an SNP representative would choose 2015 as the starting point when it was neither the first time the SNP were in power in Scotland nor the year of the last election).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, strichener said:

I am aware of what he meant but to then claim that using the same basis (Scotland Only) where the SNP had 100% representation as "makes no sense at all" is what happens when the truth becomes inconvenient.

On the numbers - It is a prerequisite for any criticism of a Baxter post.  You can't make perfectly reasonable observations without quoting numbers if it is in any shape or form anti-SNP (such as why an SNP representative would choose 2015 as the starting point when it was neither the first time the SNP were in power in Scotland nor the year of the last election).

The point was about this year - the SNP are wildly under-represented.  They're the third biggest party in Parliament, the third biggest by membership, the party in government in Scotland yet they've only been on twice in this year's 18 episodes.  That's with an average of 90 opportunities to appear.The idea that this is to make up for some over-representation from four or five years ago is without evidence and only exists in your wooden noggin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Baxter Parp said:

The point was about this year - the SNP are wildly under-represented.  They're the third biggest party in Parliament, the third biggest by membership, the party in government in Scotland yet they've only been on twice in this year's 18 episodes.  That's with an average of 90 opportunities to appear.The idea that this is to make up for some over-representation from four or five years ago is without evidence and only exists in your wooden noggin.

:lol:  There we have it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...