![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Reliably sourced criticism has been removed with the edit note:
removed party-political sound bites - it is the job of opposition party members to criticise anything and everything the government dd and for that reason this stuff should not be given so much weight here
This seems entirely disingenuous. Clearly the opinions of political leaders is relevant. ( Hohum @) 19:05, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
I quote the contentious part of the proposed article below. "The Leader of the Opposition and Labour Party Keir Starmer claimed Boris Johnson was using the scheme as a "desperate announcement to distract from his own lawbreaking"; Johnson had been fined the day prior due to his involvement in the Partygate scandal. [1] His party also criticised it as an "unworkable, unethical and extortionate policy that would cost the UK taxpayer billions of pounds during a cost of living crisis". [2] Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey echoed similar concerns to Starmer: "They’ve announced this because they’re trying to deflect attention from the Prime Minister’s lawbreaking [...] They’ve brought this in to try to move the story away from the shocking partygate revelations." He also criticised the cost of the scheme, expressing his desire for it to be spent towards the cost of living crisis instead. [3] The Scottish National Party responded negatively to the policy, with Scottish first minister Nicola Sturgeon calling it "despicable", SNP Commons leader Ian Blackford calling it "evil" and Scottish health secretary Humza Yousaf using it as evidence of institutional racism in the British government. [4]" See https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Rwanda_asylum_plan&diff=prev&oldid=1083050130. It's clearly reasoned discussion. Proxima Centauri ( talk) 10:40, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
References
Is it really
traditional (or maybe even in the manual of style) to list always polls with the higher number first, even when two are being presented as a change over time? Writing the paragraph as 42% of those questioned disagreed with the scheme, while 35% were in support [and later] 44% of those questioned supported the plan, and that 40% were opposed to it
seems very easy to misread as "the 42% became 44%, the 35% became 40%".
As a wider flag on that, the BBC source being cited is quoting the second YouGov poll as showing that support for the policy has been falling since the policy's announcement, although it looks like they're comparing a YouGov poll to a Savanta one. (The same source says that Savanta polls alone have shown a drop in support and an increase in opposition.) If the two YouGov polls aren't directly comparable, perhaps because they framed the question differently, we should avoid doing that here. -- Lord Belbury ( talk) 14:02, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Reliably sourced criticism has been removed with the edit note:
removed party-political sound bites - it is the job of opposition party members to criticise anything and everything the government dd and for that reason this stuff should not be given so much weight here
This seems entirely disingenuous. Clearly the opinions of political leaders is relevant. ( Hohum @) 19:05, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
I quote the contentious part of the proposed article below. "The Leader of the Opposition and Labour Party Keir Starmer claimed Boris Johnson was using the scheme as a "desperate announcement to distract from his own lawbreaking"; Johnson had been fined the day prior due to his involvement in the Partygate scandal. [1] His party also criticised it as an "unworkable, unethical and extortionate policy that would cost the UK taxpayer billions of pounds during a cost of living crisis". [2] Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey echoed similar concerns to Starmer: "They’ve announced this because they’re trying to deflect attention from the Prime Minister’s lawbreaking [...] They’ve brought this in to try to move the story away from the shocking partygate revelations." He also criticised the cost of the scheme, expressing his desire for it to be spent towards the cost of living crisis instead. [3] The Scottish National Party responded negatively to the policy, with Scottish first minister Nicola Sturgeon calling it "despicable", SNP Commons leader Ian Blackford calling it "evil" and Scottish health secretary Humza Yousaf using it as evidence of institutional racism in the British government. [4]" See https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Rwanda_asylum_plan&diff=prev&oldid=1083050130. It's clearly reasoned discussion. Proxima Centauri ( talk) 10:40, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
References
Is it really
traditional (or maybe even in the manual of style) to list always polls with the higher number first, even when two are being presented as a change over time? Writing the paragraph as 42% of those questioned disagreed with the scheme, while 35% were in support [and later] 44% of those questioned supported the plan, and that 40% were opposed to it
seems very easy to misread as "the 42% became 44%, the 35% became 40%".
As a wider flag on that, the BBC source being cited is quoting the second YouGov poll as showing that support for the policy has been falling since the policy's announcement, although it looks like they're comparing a YouGov poll to a Savanta one. (The same source says that Savanta polls alone have shown a drop in support and an increase in opposition.) If the two YouGov polls aren't directly comparable, perhaps because they framed the question differently, we should avoid doing that here. -- Lord Belbury ( talk) 14:02, 15 June 2022 (UTC)