The dichotomy between "shirkers" on the one hand and "strivers" on the other is the backdrop against which the coalition is reforming welfare. Building the narrative, however, relies upon a friendly, nay compliant media.
The dichotomy between “shirkers” on the one hand and “strivers” on the other is the backdrop against which the coalition is reforming welfare. Building the narrative, however, relies upon a friendly, nay compliant media.
The graph below, created by Gavin Edwards using data from Lexis Nexis, show the number of times the word “scrounger” has been mentioned in UK newspapers annually since 1994.
I’m not sure there’s anything to add; the graph speaks for itself.
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
12 Responses to “(Graph) Number of times the word ‘scrounger’ has been used in UK newspapers since 1994”
Hank
Then let me amend that. Search for the number of times “Taylor Swift is amazing”. Or how about “UFOs are real”. Or “Apple stock is set to soar”. Then draw a line on the graph when governments were elected. These supposed causalities only have meaning if you approach the subject with a link already formed in your mind. It is statistically and logically fallacious to infer any link based on an exercise like this.
Hank
Then let me amend that. Search for the number of times “Taylor Swift is amazing”. Or how about “UFOs are real”. Or “Apple stock is set to soar”. Then draw a line on the graph when governments were elected. These supposed causalities only have meaning if you approach the subject with a link already formed in your mind. It is statistically and logically fallacious to infer any link based on an exercise like this.
Hank
Then let me amend that. Search for the number of times “Taylor Swift is amazing”. Or how about “UFOs are real”. Or “Apple stock is set to soar”. Then draw a line on the graph when governments were elected. These supposed causalities only have meaning if you approach the subject with a link already formed in your mind. It is statistically and logically fallacious to infer any link based on an exercise like this.
Sparky
Mr Morrow, you have degrees in archeology and cultural heritage. Come back and argue about statistical significance and causality modelling when you have a background in a numerate discipline.
Sparky
I might also suggest that if you want to be taken seriously by potential employers (rather than getting another internship) then you remove those ridiculous ear studs.