Par for the course for the maths teachers I've had! But then my brain has never been able to cope with pesky numbers on their own like that... After staring at the Banbury graph for about 10 minutes I think I understood the point he was making, that looking at fuel poverty rates county by county obscures the inequality within whereby some 'sacrifice' areas have significantly worse fuel poverty than the average and better-off areas. The worse-off 'skew' the graph to the right with a long tail of outlying higher percentages, whereas the more affluent areas balance this out with a 'skew' to the left of where you would expect from a 'normal distribution'.



Something like that... Anybody more maths-literate feel free to correct or explain it better!

Glad you liked the rest.

cheers,
I