When politics meets data

There was one important data lesson I took away from the recent TV debate for the UK General Election.

I’ll start by saying I have no political persuasion. I am somewhat indifferent to all parties running in this year’s General Election. As the philosopher Ice-T once so eloquently stated; I don’t hate the player, I hate the game.

So it was more for curiosity and sport that I tuned in to the TV debate last week between the leaders of the two main parties in the UK General Election. Like any good old fashioned boxing match, it helped that one was in the red corner and one in the blue. While I didn’t enjoy the proceedings very much, I have been interested in how one moment has sparked a data debate. Now data is something I do very much enjoy, and a teachable moment has presented itself. So let’s get to it!

The matter in hand was concerned with how Rishi Sunak, current Prime Minister and leader of the Conservative party (fighting in the blue corner), stated that Keir Starmer, leader of the Labour party (fighting out of the red corner), was going to raise everyone’s taxes by £2,000 if Labour are voted in. A claim Sir Starmer rebutted. Repeatedly rebutted actually, as Mr Sunak relentlessly kept throwing the same punch.

Discussions since have touched upon the source of this claim, and it’s fair to say that, yes an ‘independent’ group conducted the analysis that led to the £2,000, but even they acknowledged, the analysis was served with a fair few assumptions baked in. Now there’s nothing necessarily wrong with that. Any methodology and analysis will have limitations and often assumptions that need to be acknowledged and understood.

I somewhat understand why Mr Sunak would leave out the details when throwing a figure round in a forum such as this. I am someone who knows all too well,

when presenting data the more assumptions you explain, the more attention you drain.

But I am pretty sure ol’ Rishi, with much of his career in finance, banked on the majority of people not lifting the hood on that stat to see the underlying mechanics.

Regardless of the debate and scrutiny of this figure since, the damage was done. And I find it sad that many won’t even peel back the first layer on any information provided to them.

We need to develop curiosity and the critical thinking skills,

which will enable people to evaluate data sources and defend themselves against the barrage of information they’re hit with on a daily basis.