Among yesterday’s front pages was a data visualisation which, at first glance, was one of the most effective I’ve ever seen: the Independent had made an infographic showing yesterday’s £6bn budget cuts in context - as a fraction of a debt mountain.
Then I looked closer - and something’s very, very wrong.
Can you tell what it […]
Among yesterday’s front pages was a data visualisation which, at first glance, was one of the most effective I’ve ever seen: the Independent had made an infographic showing yesterday’s £6bn budget cuts in context - as a fraction of a debt mountain.
Then I looked closer - and something’s very, very wrong.
Can you tell what it is yet?
Maybe not. What the Independent have done is confuse the UK’s deficit with our debt. Sounds like splitting hairs, but it’s not.
Let’s demonstrate using my personal finances, which are in almost as parlous a state as those of our great nation.
As a recent graduate, I have around £20,000 debt, repayments for which whoosh out of my bank account on direct debit. Thanks to overspending on beer, office snacks and (ahem) gym memberships, I spend around £50-a-month more than I earn, after I’ve paid all my bills.
To get back on an even keel, I don’t need to pay off my £20,000 debt: all I need to do is get a £600-a-year pay raise (which works out at £50-a-month), or spend £50 less.
So cancelling my gym membership, saving myself £20 each month, leaves me with just £30-a-month to find. It means I’ve tackled about half of my monthly shortfall.
It doesn’t mean I’ve saved £20, and have £19,980 to go. In fact, I haven’t paid back any of my debt. The regular repayments from my bank account will (eventually) sort that out. I just need to stop going further into debt each month.
The government is in exactly the same position. Provided debt isn’t ridiculous, and we’re making our repayments, we’re fine. The UK’s debt is just shy of £900bn. The cuts announced on Monday do nothing to address it.
The UK’s deficit (the gap between the government’s income and spending) is around £157bn. Most economists think around £48bn of this is temporary, due solely to the recession. That means around £109bn of cuts need to be found. So, in fairness to the Indie, the £6bn still remains a small fraction of the whole. There’s much worse to come.
In other words, a national broadsheet newspaper made the debt problem look around eight times worse than it is, doubtless worrying (or at the very least) confusing its readers. And it used the whole of its front page to do so.
It’ll be interesting to see how they deal with it. An error of such magnitude against a corporation would doubtless result in lawsuits. That obviously won’t happen in this case, but the Indie does owe its readers an apology, and a prominent correction.
I’m a sucker for a nice infographic (okay, a nice bit of chartporn). But data is important. As more and more is released and done with it, it’s crucial journalists learn to treat it properly - and that’ll only come when it’s treated with the same respect (and fear) that surrounds misspelling someone’s name.
That’s still a long, long way off.
The UK’s not considering introducing a “pure” proportional representation system – where number of votes translates entirely into number of seats – but comparing the status quo with what a ‘fair’ electoral system yileds interesting results.
It’s visualised below.
Highlights include:
Let me know what you think. The systems being mooted in the UK would result in something between this visualisation and the status quo - a pure list system isn’t under consideration, so consider this as for illustrative purposes only.
