Given that everything, including human thought and behaviours, can theoretically be studied in a mathematical context, it therefore follows that statisticians have no  boundaries beyond which they should not legitimately venture, or at least that any perceived boundaries are due to the limits of our knowledge.  The discipline is ubiquitous.  In order to answer the question posed by Dr Brownstein it might be necessary to ask him to provide a more useable and universally recognised term than Tory butcherings, but nevertheless a study of Hansard over the last few months should provide sufficient material to extrapolate into the rest of the term of this government on the frequency of the aforementioned butcherings.  A study of the history of butcherings, perhaps limited to the last 2 centuries,  should provide a fulcrum at which point a populace or individual will “do something”.  From this you could draw a statistical conclusion as to whether this will occur at any point in the next 4 + years, though this might involve a guess as to whether social media will decelerate or accelerate the tendency.  I do realise this is a big ask, and if the task overwhelms you could simply argue that my first statement involves infinite regress and leave it to the historians.  I must have missed the First Dog on the Moon, but would like to know the probability it lifted its leg on the US flag planted there, please.  Seriously, defining “butcherings” as actions in parliament and possibly similar institutions in other countries, over the next few years likely to increase inequality, I think it is an interesting and valid line of questioning when stripped of the Political (with a capital) angle and viewed as an almost global phenomenon (a number of countries in e.g. Latin America can currently be excluded arguably). At what point does a population or individual begin to resist inequality. What is the relationship between the individual and the mass of the population in this – do the actions of one influence the other? I was always told the tipping point came when the average person didn’t have much, but still had something to lose.  Too small an gap, and it isn’t worth the risk, too large, and all the aces are in other hands, and there is no hope of success.  Wdyt?  Has that point ever been defined?

Jean

****************************************************** Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your message will go only to the sender of this message. If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's 'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically to [log in to unmask]. Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are the views of the sender and cannot be assumed to be representative of the range of views held by subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To find out more about Radical Statistics and its aims and activities and read current and past issues of our newsletter you are invited to visit our web site www.radstats.org.uk. *******************************************************