The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[chrisp65]

I'll just pop this here.

Secretly remain

Quote

Jeremy Corbyn says Labour is "not supporting or calling for a second referendum" on the UK's EU membership.

Quote

Mr Corbyn also hit back at critics within the party calling for the UK to remain in the EU single market and customs union after Brexit.

"The single market is dependent on membership of the European Union,"

 

[bickster]

10 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

I'll just pop this here.

Secretly remain

 

Why lie though, membership of the single market isn’t dependent on membership of the EU, quite obviously and demonstrably it isn’t.

 

[HanoiVillan]

The ambiguity continues. The final paragraphs are also of note (same link as above):

'Mr Corbyn said the UK would "obviously" have to be in "a customs union" with the EU after Brexit, but suggested the existing arrangements needed improvements.

He expressed reservations about the way the single market, which allows for goods to be traded freely between EU members, works.

"There are also aspects of the single market one wants to think about such as the restrictions on state aid to industry, which is something that I would wish to challenge," he said.

He also called for changes to the EU customs union, which sets common external tariffs for countries outside the EU, suggesting it was "in come cases protectionist against developing countries".'

[snowychap]

The myth of the 2017 youthquake election

Quote

In the wake of the surprise outcome of the 2017 election people began to look for an explanation for Labour’s unexpectedly good performance. One explanation quickly became prominent: Jeremy Corbyn had mobilised previously disengaged young voters, who had turned out in droves to vote Labour.

This claim is largely based on anecdotes. Corbyn appears to be particularly popular amongst the young, often photographed surrounded by young people. Chants of ‘oh Jeremy Corbyn’ echoed around the Glastonbury festival, and Labour’s social media strategy is cited as energising young voters in droves.

When we turn to the da0ta we can see that turnout went up in constituencies with lots of young people. After the election, one post-election poll suggested that turnout amongst 18-24 year old went up by as much as 16 percentage points in 2017, with another suggesting an increase of 12 points.

The Labour ‘youthquake’ explanation looks to become an assumed fact about the 2017 election. The Oxford English Dictionary even declared ‘youthquake’ their word of the year. But people have been much too hasty. There was no surge in youth turnout at the 2017 election.

In order to find out what really happened in the election, pollsters and academics have been waiting for the turnout figures from the British Election Study (BES). Using the newly released BES data, we analyse the relationship between age and turnout at the 2015 and 2017 elections in a new paper. Below, we graph the relationship between age and turnout in 2015 and 2017. In both elections, older people are much more likely to have voted than young people and the age-turnout relationship barely changed between 2015 and 2017. The shaded grey areas represent the margin of error that surrounds the estimated level of turnout at each age. There is no evidence of a surge in voter turnout amongst the youngest eligible voters (indeed turnout in the youngest age group is actually slightly lower in our 2017 survey).

 

There was likely a small increase in turnout across a large age range, with a slightly larger rise for those aged 30-40. The margin of error means that we cannot rule out a small increase (or decrease) in youth turnout in 2017. We can be confident, though, that there was no dramatic surge in youth turnout of the sort suggested by some other surveys. In short, there was no ‘youthquake’.

So how did people mistake anecdote and preliminary survey evidence for the truth?

Measuring turnout in surveys is particularly tricky. People who don’t vote also tend to be more reluctant to take surveys. The end result is that we can end up with too many voters in surveys, making surveys insufficiently representative of the general population (problems that led to the polls going awry in 2015). Second, some people will tell you they voted when they actually didn’t. This makes it very difficult to work out what the turnout rate amongst different groups actually was.

Our best chance of getting an accurate estimate of turnout is to use the BES face-to-face survey – the gold standard measure of electoral behaviour in Britain since 1964. The BES face-to-face survey is different to other types of survey, which tend to be conducted via the internet and over the phone. Those methods are particularly prone to problems of response bias – the types of people who do surveys online or on the phone are more likely to vote than the population as whole.

The BES face-to-face survey is designed to be as representative of the country as possible – including contacting large numbers of people who didn’t vote in the election. People are selected at random from thousands of addresses across the country and doors are knocked until as many people as possible participate.

We also verify people’s survey answers by checking the marked electoral register. Of course, the BES face-to-face isn’t perfect and there is a ‘margin of error’ around the turnout estimates but the results are as close to the truth about who turned out to vote as is possible to get.

That there was no sudden surge in youth turnout should probably not be as surprising as it is. Everything we know about turnout suggests that voting is ‘sticky’ – most people who vote in one election will go on to vote at subsequent elections, and most people who abstain will continue to do so. We also know that older people are more likely to vote than young people – something that has always been the case in Britain and other countries. Turnout did go up in 2017, but only by a small fraction (2.5 percentage points). All of this suggests that large, sudden, and unexpected shifts in the age-turnout relationship are very unlikely.

Why then did the idea that there was a surge in youth turnout take hold? In part it is because political commentary is prone to believing that what politicians set out to do is effective, even if there is no concrete evidence that it is. Increasing youth turnout was part of Corbyn’s political strategy. As Labour did unexpectedly well, it is not unreasonable to think that strategy might have paid off, even though this turns out not to be the case.

Labour also was more popular amongst young people than old people in 2017. The figure below shows the relationship between age and the likelihood of voting for Labour in 2015 and 2017. Although Labour’s share of the youth vote did increase, this is not the same as a surge in youth turnout. Labour was more popular amongst younger voters in 2015 as well and Labour’s popularity increased amongst all ages except for those over 70.

The relationship between age and vote also changed significantly between 2015 and 2017 because of older voters. The graph below plots the probability of voting Conservative by age in 2015 and 2017. It shows a big shift between 2015 and 2017 amongst the older age group, as many UKIP voters switched to the Conservatives following the Brexit referendum.

Another reason the idea of a surge in youth turnout took hold is that the constituency level data appeared to support the claim. However drawing conclusions about the behaviour of individuals from aggregate level data is risky (in statistics, this is known as the ecological fallacy). We can see this at work with the change in turnout between 2015 and 2017. Turnout did go up in constituencies with more young voters: for every percentage point increase in 18 to 29 year olds living in a constituency according to the 2011 census, turnout went up by 0.1 percentage points compared to 2015.

However it is easy to show why drawing conclusions about the behaviour of young voters from this sort of analysis is a bad idea. For every percentage point increase in 0 to 4 year olds living in a constituency, turnout went up by 0.9 percentage points!

Few people, it is probably safe to say, think that turnout went up in 2017 because of a sudden surge in the number of British toddlers voting in elections. 2017 was not the toddlerquake election.

What this relationship is showing, of course, is not that turnout went up amongst toddlers but that turnout went up in sorts of places with lots of toddlers. The same is true of the relationship between the number of young adults and turnout. Turnout did go up slightly in the sorts of places with lots of young adults. That does not necessarily mean it was those young adults doing the extra turning out.

 

[Xann]

Tom Watson has managed to overturn the Snoopers Charter.

Fair play Tom.

[tonyh29]

1 hour ago, Xann said:

Tom Watson has managed to overturn the Snoopers Charter.

Fair play Tom.

David Davis says Hi

[Xann]

1 minute ago, tonyh29 said:

David Davis says Hi

Er - No he left to F*** up Brexit in 2016

 

 

[tonyh29]

2 minutes ago, Xann said:

Er - No he left to F*** up Brexit in 2016

 

 

it' was His court case as much as anyone else's  .. the original ruling came about as a result of Him & Watson ( & Liberty)  .. all that Watson "won" today was the government appeal against the original decision (which included Davis)

irony for Brexiter Davis being that the ECJ over ruled Westminster 

 

[Xann]

1 minute ago, tonyh29 said:

it' was His court case as much as anyone else's

Tom Watson, who saw it through?

Yeah right.

[HanoiVillan]

49 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

it' was His court case as much as anyone else's  .. the original ruling came about as a result of Him & Watson ( & Liberty)  .. all that Watson "won" today was the government appeal against the original decision (which included Davis)

irony for Brexiter Davis being that the ECJ over ruled Westminster 

 

Capital 'H' for 'His' and 'Him'? Divine intervention, maybe?

[snowychap]

1 hour ago, tonyh29 said:

David Davis said bye

Fixed.

[Rodders]

re above by @snowychap

could still be a youthquake after all (simply says evidence doesn't provide detail to support the above conclusion).

https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/blogs/peter-kellner/the-british-election-study-claims-there-was-no-youthquake-last-june-its-wrong

Quote

he British Election Study claims there was no “youthquake” last June. It’s wrong

This latest election “debunking” doesn’t come off

by Peter Kellner / January 30, 2018 / Leave a comment

 

 

As a rule I enjoy attempts to debunk conventional wisdom. It is not done enough. However, I am not sure the authors of the latest such exercise have proved their case.

This is how the authors of the British Election Study (BES) have upended one of the most widely held beliefs about last year’s general election:

“The Labour ‘youthquake’ explanation looks to become an assumed fact about the 2017 election. The Oxford English Dictionary even declared ‘youthquake’ their word of the year. But people have been much too hasty. There was no surge in youth turnout at the 2017 election.”

Before going further, I must express my huge admiration for everyone who has made the BES such an important resource for political scientists for more than half a century. That includes the authors of the latest study, most of whom I know and respect.

However, their latest pronouncement goes way beyond what their data can support. They base their analysis on two post-election, face-to-face surveys after the 2015 and 2017 general elections. Their sample size in 2015 was 2,987; in 2017 it was 2,194. These are larger samples than in most individual polls conducted for the media—though some research reported by the media involved far more people (such as the 50,000 polled weekly by YouGov, which formed the basis of their prediction of a hung parliament, and their indication that the Conservatives were in trouble in Canterbury and Kensington).

Where the BES team skate on thin ice is when they seek to draw precise conclusions from small sub-groups. They derive their main conclusion from the 1,400 respondents that they have crossed-checked against the electoral register, to confirm whether those who say they voted actually did so. This is a valuable exercise which, by definition, campaign polls cannot do, because people have not yet voted (or abstained). Even doing so after the election is expensive and time-consuming. So, congratulations BES, for doing this.

Here are the figures that underpin their conclusion that turnout did rise significantly among 25-44 year-olds, but actually fell sharply among the under 25s, and changed little among the over-44s:

It is the figures for the under 25s that have caused such a stir. The figures for all the other age groups are broadly in line with what pollsters reported months ago.

Here’s the problem. BES interviewers questioned, and confirmed the turnout answers, of only 157 under 25s in 2015 and 109 in 2017.

Data obtained from such small subsamples are subject to large margins of error. The normal formula indicates that the reported turnout for this group could have been eight points adrift of reality in 2015 and almost ten points adrift in 2017. Applying those figures to the BES data, we may deduce that the correct figure for the turnout of the under 25s was 41-57 per cent in 2015 and 34-53 per cent in 2017. (Technically, we would expect the true figure in each election to be within those wide ranges 19 times of out 20; but one time in twenty, a perfectly well conducted survey would be beyond even these limits.)

On those figures, we can say nothing sure about the change in turnout among under 25s in these two elections. (By the by, I am amazed that the BES report data with a near-10 point margin of error to a decimal place. This purported precision is utterly spurious.)

In fact, the true margins of error are greater than that—though how much greater is impossible to calculate. The formula used above assumes a perfectly designed sample with a 100 per cent response rate. BES’s sample design was fine; but its response rate was below 50 per cent. Nobody can be sure whether the voters they did not reach behaved like the voters they did manage to interview.

My own guess is that all pollsters, including the BES researchers, have huge difficulty accurately measuring the behaviour of students in particular. Some are registered at their parents’ address, some at their university, some at both, some at neither. We also know that many registered in the weeks leading up to last year’s election. If more students were on the register last year than in 2015 (including those who converted from one-address voters to two-address voters, to make sure they were able to vote on the day), then it’s possible that the number of students who voted last year was higher than in 2015, even if their turnout percentage rate was the same, or even lower.

So what is the truth? In some constituencies that a) were hard fought (for example because they were marginal, or had changed hands in 2015), and contained a higher proportion of students, turnout rose sharply: by nine percentage points in Cambridge, for example, seven points in Canterbury and Bristol West, and five in Brighton Pavilion and Norwich South. In other, usually safer, seats with large student populations, the picture is more mixed.

These examples do not prove that a “youthquake” happened; but the BES data do not disprove it. For the moment, this particular piece of conventional wisdom survives to fight another day.

 

[snowychap]

@Rodders Interesting stuff. Cheers for posting.

[bickster]

One example of local Labour Party knobheadery. Knowsley Council just spent £100,000 losing a court case they were never going to win  Taking on the largest (Uber) and third largest (Us) PH Operators in the country, when we were retaining the man who literally wrote the Licencing Lawbook as a QC was never going to end pretty. Instead of losing gracefully, they council had a spokesperson come out and muttered something about profits over public safety. (This has shite all to do with public safety apart from in the council's twisted logic). During the consultation period we told them they actually couldn't do what they were attempting, that it was Ultra Vires, they didn't listen. Now that £100,000 they've spent comes out of the Taxi Licensing budget, which is paid for through Licence Fees, which means Licences will go up, putting the licences up will just mean drivers move authorities and KMBC don't get the licence fees. Knock on effect of that... smaller taxi licensing budget, less enforcement action, less enforcement officers. Sorry what was that about public safety? 

From Private Eye. Liverpool Labour Leader Fat Joe caught lying about the wages he receives. It's the latest in a long list of idiotic things the fat plank has done including lending Everton FC millions of pounds of taxpayers money to build a new stadium, yet the bloke that own's them is a billionaire. Guess which team he supports, they don't play in red

[markavfc40]

They don't do themselves any favours do they. You can preach socialism all you like but when you have council leaders like the one in Liverpool lying about not taking his full salary and doing favours for the team he follows at taxpayers expense it does the whole party and the whole concept of socialism no good.

In Birmingham the Labour council are a bad as the Tories and have carried out the Tories cuts for them with hardly a murmur of dissent. The way they treated the already low paid bin men was a disgrace and I was so pleased to see the Unions get the better of them. That whole fiasco cost something like 7 million pound in trying to make savings, at the cost of the low paid, that would save 300k a year. They could well be in for a rude awakening come the council elections in May.

Edited February 10, 2018 by markavfc40

[blandy]

1 hour ago, markavfc40 said:

They could well be in a rude awakening come the council elections in May.

I don't live there, but Sheffield's Labour council is in a right mess with their PFI street maintenance contracts. The contractor Amey Plc is chopping down loads of trees which don't need to be chopped down and in the face of vehement opposition from the residents. It's been going on for ages, and all the dodgy sorts of things that you see in instances of councils gone wrong are apparent - secrecy, over-reaction, untruths, failure to listen, lies, obfuscation, pig headed idiocy, bullying, intimidation, conspiracy with friendly media, refusal to concede even the clearest of flaws....Their behaviour is utterly disgraceful. Twunts.

[markavfc40]

7 hours ago, blandy said:

I don't live there, but Sheffield's Labour council is in a right mess with their PFI street maintenance contracts. The contractor Amey Plc is chopping down loads of trees which don't need to be chopped down and in the face of vehement opposition from the residents. It's been going on for ages, and all the dodgy sorts of things that you see in instances of councils gone wrong are apparent - secrecy, over-reaction, untruths, failure to listen, lies, obfuscation, pig headed idiocy, bullying, intimidation, conspiracy with friendly media, refusal to concede even the clearest of flaws....Their behaviour is utterly disgraceful. Twunts.

It is a similar situation in Birmingham where Amey have been responsible for highway maintenance since 2010 and the state of the roads is diabolical and the initial five year program where they went in and resurfaced all the roads was in many cases done so poorly what should have lasted 15+ years is already failing across the city. I can't really put that at Labours door though as that PFI was done during the Tory rule alongside the Dems.

It isn't something I have been aware of in Birmingham but I'd imagine the reason they are chopping down the trees is to lesson the maintenance costs. It is called de-accrual. You will see things like guard rail, bollards, signs and other street furniture being taken off the highway for the same reason.

I work within highways maintenance in Warwickshire and they have partially privatised the maintenance provision and Balfour Beatty undertake the works. Well I say that they sub contract most of the works out to whoever will do it for the cheapest price and again the standard overall is poor.

Edited February 11, 2018 by markavfc40

[bickster]

24 minutes ago, markavfc40 said:

It is a similar situation in Birmingham where Amey have been responsible for highway maintenance since 2010 and the state of the roads is diabolical and the initial five year program where they went in and resurfaced all the roads was in many cases done so poorly what should have lasted 15+ years is already failing across the city. I can't really put that at Labours door though as that PFI was done during the Tory rule alongside the Dems.

It isn't something I have been aware of in Birmingham but I'd imagine the reason they are chopping down the trees is to lesson the maintenance costs. It is called de-accrual. You will things like guard rail, bollards, signs and other street furniture being taken off the highway for the same reason.

I work within highways maintenance in Warwickshire and they have partially privatised the maintenance provision and Balfour Beatty undertake the works. Well I say that they sub contract most of the works out to whoever will do it for the cheapest price and again the standard overall is poor.

Liverpool just ended their contract with Amey for Highway Maintenance 4 years early by mutual consent, taking it back in-house, which they reckon will save £90mil. So they can do some things right.

Quote

Liverpool City Council is to take back control of looking after the city’s highways by ending its contract with Amey, by mutual agreement.

A report to the council’s cabinet next Friday (24 November) is to recommend that the nine year contract for the delivery of highways services (established in July 2013) be closed in the New Year as part of a drive to deliver £90m of savings over the next three-year period due to Government cuts.

If approved, the council and Amey will complete the mutually agreed exit by the end of January 2018.

The moves comes as part of a council wide review which has brought parks services, street cleansing, bin collections, IT and HR and Payroll services all back “in house” to deliver further savings.

Although cost savings were initially made under the contract, the council considers that further savings could be achieved in looking at alternative smarter and more flexible delivery methods, as shown with its new pothole repair contracts with the private sector.

Following the negotiated exit, it is also proposed that an interim service be put in place for an 18 month period to allow the council to carry out a detailed review of the various options for future service delivery.

The highways services which are currently delivered by Amey are:

Highway Maintenance
Highway Inspections
Highway Enforcement
Condition Surveys
Street Lighting Inspection & Maintenance
Winter Maintenance
Gully/Highway Drainage Maintenance
Highway Structures Maintenance & Management
Street Works Co-ordination
Alleygate Maintenance
Highway Professional Services

In the short term, it is proposed to separate the current service provision, as follows:

1. Client based functions and associated resource be transferred back to the Council. This will include, for example, the highway inspections, street works inspections, project management and work scheduling, and professional services (e.g. design).
2. The operational element of the service and the associated resource, be transferred to Liverpool Street Scene Services Limited (or LSSL). This will include, for example, the gully cleansing operatives, the street lighting operatives, and the white works operatives (e.g. flagging works).

The negotiated exit from the contract will result in eligible staff either transferring back to the council or Liverpool Street Scene Limited (LSSL). The detail of those with TUPE rights will be confirmed 28 days prior to transfer/exit.

Councillor Ann O’Byrne, Deputy Mayor of Liverpool, said:

“The stark reality of these punitive government cuts is forcing the council to look at every single penny we spend to ensure not just value for money but to help protect the vulnerable as much as we possibly can.

“The highways contract with Amey LG did initially deliver savings but we believe more can be achieved by bringing the operations back in house.

“We have seen with other services such as street cleansing and refuse collections that insourcing can deliver savings which can be reinvested to make our money go further.”

“Anyone who travels by car through Liverpool knows the city has a pothole issue and the council is doing all it can. Unfortunately this issue is a double whammy because while we are investing £88m in repairs the Government are putting in just £18m.

“The Mayor has already written to the Minister highlighting this lack of investment and we will continue to make the point especially while London receives an inordinate amount of transport investment compared to northern cities like ourselves.”

Councillor Steve Munby, Cabinet Member for Highways, added:

“I am confident that this proposal will deliver the best possible value for council tax payers, help us improve services and deliver savings through eliminating management fees and working with staff and the trade unions to promote innovation.”

A further report will be submitted to Cabinet considering future delivery arrangements within 12 months of the exit from the contract.

Amey’s Highways Business Director, David Ogden, said:

“We have reached a mutual agreement with Liverpool City Council to end our highways contract early after both sides raised concerns about the sustainability of the contract.

“The financial environment has changed significantly since the signing of this contract and we both agreed that this is the best course of action for all. Working together since 2013, Amey and Liverpool City Council have maintained the highways and street lighting service across the city, and are now committed to ensuring a smooth transition to a new service delivery approach in the coming months.”

9

Highwayindustry.com

I'd be skeptical about the savings though, as this is the council that also bought the Cunard building to be the border point of the new Cruise Liner Terminal only to find out after the purchase that both the Border Agency and the cruise line companies had already rejected the idea as unfeasible two years prior to the building being bought. They then had to turn the Cunard Building into the new municipal offices moving an awful lot of council-run services there... it's not a good idea, it's a Grade 1 listed building with big massive open plan floors. My mate works for the Culture Company, a fairly laid back team making plenty of noise (goes with the territory), they are next to the Housing Directorate who need a much quieter atmosphere. They've also shoehorned the 999 call centre in the building somewhere and bought in the British Music Experience museum for the Ground floor. The majority of the old offices? Still unlet with no income coming in. (another of Fat Joe's brainwaves)

[chrisp65]

3 hours ago, blandy said:

I don't live there, but Sheffield's Labour council is in a right mess with their PFI street maintenance contracts. The contractor Amey Plc is chopping down loads of trees which don't need to be chopped down and in the face of vehement opposition from the residents. It's been going on for ages, and all the dodgy sorts of things that you see in instances of councils gone wrong are apparent - secrecy, over-reaction, untruths, failure to listen, lies, obfuscation, pig headed idiocy, bullying, intimidation, conspiracy with friendly media, refusal to concede even the clearest of flaws....Their behaviour is utterly disgraceful. Twunts.

I've been following the Sheffield trees thing, truly fascinating how badly wrong a council can get it. Masked heavies acting as security for the chopping down of trees by a private contractor whilst the council absolutely refuse to engage.

Regardless of rosette colour, they're a council that deserves to be kicked out next election.

[darrenm]

I don't really understand why councils need to be politically attached. They're all shit.