The tables for ICM’s poll are now available here. Firstly the question on the couples’ tax allowance did indeed ask specifically if people would support or oppose a tax break for married couples with children, and found that 65% of people did with only 29% opposed, a far higher proportion of people than other polls suggest support a tax break for married couples per se.

Support amongst married couples with children – the people who might actually benefit from such a tax break – was predictably higher at 78%, but then again 61% of people who were not married or did not have children also supported it. It is very easy to overestimate the extent that people vote with their pocketbooks.

The questions on which social class people think the Conservative and Labour parties stand up revealed an interesting contrast in the way party supporters view their own party. Conservative supporters mostly see the Conservative party as standing up for everybody (57%), with a significant minority saying it stands up for the middle class (29%). Labour supporters however are far more evenly split – 39% see Labour as standing for everybody, but 37% see it as standing for the working classes and 20% see it as standing for the middle classes.

Equally striking is the contrast in how party supporters see the other side. Conservative supporters’ view of the Labour party is quite mixed, 34% see it as a party of the working classes, 22% a party for everyone, 18% a party for the middle classes, 12% a party for the upper classes. Labour party supporters view the Conservatives in far starker terms – 55% think they are a party for the upper classes, 22% the middle classes.

What it suggest to me is while class has greatly declined as an important factor in voting, and doesn’t seem to be a major factor in Conservative support (they tend to see their party as the party for everyone, and are rather unsure about the opposition) there is still a substantal chunk of the Labour vote that sees their party as the party of the workers, and the Conservatives as the party of the toffs.

Finally, a methodological note – ICM seem to have added what I think is a new factor into how they deal with likelihood to vote. Previously they just filtered by likelihood to vote, taking in only those who said they were 7/10 or more likely to vote. They are still doing that, but are also weighting them so that people who are 10/10 likely carry more weight than those who are 9/10 likely. They are also factoring in whether people voted last time, and weighting those people down by half (so someone who says they are 8/10 likely to vote and voted in 2005 gets a weight of 0.8. Someone who claims they are 9/10 likely to vote this time, but didn’t bother in 2005, gets a weight of 0.45

144 Responses to “More from the ICM/Guardian poll”

1 2 3
  1. @ Philip JW.

    I really don’t think it will be the straw that breaks the camels back. Iraq i would argue is pretty irrelevant in the eyes of most voters. They will be voting on the economy, time for change vs DC’s competence. These are issues that only spin can decide. I will be happy to say I’m wrong if anyone can point me to a recent poll where Iraq significantly registered in people’s priorities.

    @ Colin
    I come back to a point that i raised on another post: the reason that these sort of tax breaks that Cameron is envisioning where cut back under the previous Tory government and scrapped under Labour is that they simple didn’t have any effect on behaviour. It’s fine if you just see the policy as a ‘reward’ for marriage, but it’s not being couched in those terms.

  2. Philip JW.

    “pumping billions and billions of pounds into the economy”

    Pumping money into the economy in any given period should cause an increase in GDP (or the savings rate at least). Without it there might have been no growth or even further decline.

    We will never know what the effect of no fiscal stimulus might have been – though David Cameron might, him being descended from a prophet.

    Whether it is a good thing to do depends on your school of economics and politics; something we don’t discuss on here (!) but we can’t deny it would have an effect, however small.

  3. Shopkeeper Man

    With regard to Cameron’s ancestry, the Brahan Seer (Scottish prophet) may just have contributed some genes. However, the fact that he is a direct descendant of Queen Victoria’s uncle and predecessor on the throne, King William IV (4th great-grandfather) and his mistress Dorothea Jordan, does suggest an alternative epithet that might be used for him. :-)

  4. Name (required)

    You weren’t supposed to type that in the name field!

    Employing the fallacy of confusing correlation and causality IS a cardinal sin.

    The fact that politicians (and a remarkable number of “academics”) are sinful, doesn’t absolve them from burning in statistical hell!

    ” It’s fine if you just see the policy as a ‘reward’ for marriage, but it’s not being couched in those terms”

    I think it is being couched in exactly those terms Jack-though I would agree Labour portayal of it as an end in itself has not been challenged anywhere near enough.

  6. OLDNAT:-
    “You are committing the cardinal sin of confusing correlation and causality!”

    If those results of a Poll by CSJ were the sole source of their conclusions about the beneficial effects of married parents on the family, I suppose you might have a point-though it would be a foolhardy policy maker who rejected causality without trying to find a more plausible source for the correlation-and a negligent one who merely used the “cardinal sin” you assert to avoid any attempt to address the problem at issue.

    In the CSJ paper from which I quoted :-

    “Why is the Government anti-Marriage?
    Family Policy derived from strong evidence would lead to policies which
    supported Marriage”
    Centre for Social Justice, December 2009

    a number of beneficial effects are listed with the appropriate references to support them.

    I believe that CSJ’s work is credible.
    I don’t think for one moment that IDS would attract the support of someone like Camila Batmanghelidjh if it were not.

  7. Phillip JW

    I watched Chicot today. No doubt about Wilmshurst view. One odd thing stayed in my mind – when Wood was asked was that the view of all the legal advisers. Wood visibly hesitated and said yes in a different tone of voice. I did wonder if he was then expressing the majority view of all the legals in the FO. Chilcot did not follow up as I thought he might have. Strange that all the legals had the same ‘dogmatic view’, not one legal mind thought that there was some “uncertainty” – perhaps I’m clutching at Straws!

  8. COLIN

    “I believe that CSJ’s work is credible.”

    I’m sure you do!

    However, unless you have run all these stats through SPSS, along with other variables such as income, social class, educational attainment of the mother, deprivation level of postcode etc, the research is not credible to those who are not predisposed to believe.

    Show me the correlations between all those variables, and you might start to persuade me. Selective use of statistics is not persuasive.

  9. OLD NAT

    I sincerely hope that whilst you continue to debate the many & various ills which you can dream up for excusing the horrors which masquerade as “society” in parts of Scotland, a UK government-together with incredible people like Camila Batmanghelidjh who do understand the problem-will actually be trying to do something about it.

  10. Colin

    Your post seems strangely partisan!

    I was simply asking for a fairly basic analysis of the data.

    If you don’t understand “SPSS” , it’s the standard software used in government and academia to investigate the multiple and complex correlations within social data.

    I’m afraid your descent into abuse, suggests that your understanding of society is as weak as your understanding of statistical analysis.

  11. The BBQ of Cause and effect.

    I got a gas BBQ in the early summer but every time I tried to use it last year it rained…

    Have I bought a magic BBQ that makes it rain?


  12. Percy Holmes. I believe Wilmshurst was deciding whether or not she should answer . As an experienced lawyer, she would know that such a question(hearsay) would not be permissable in a court of law.She probably should not have answered and have suggested they called whomever they wished as further witness.

  13. Peter

    You should have known better than to buy a political BBQ!

  14. Colin

    Camila Batmanghelidjh was a name not known to me, so I checked on Wiki. I know that source is not definitive so i would be delighted for you to identify to me her skills in statistical analysis of complex social data.

    I’d be impressed by someone whose background was “a first class degree in theatre and dramatic arts at the University of Warwick …a master’s degree on the philosophy of counselling and psychotherapy, two years of child observation at the Tavistock Clinic, Bloomsbury, London and a course in art therapy at Goldsmiths’ College. For four years, she trained in psychotherapy. She also worked as a nanny and discovered a talent for working with children.” who also had a skill in statistical analysis.

  15. Sorry, off topic:

    Here’s a spreadsheet I’ve done on Google Spreadsheets which combines the Tories’ Top 200 targets (Rallings&Thrasher) with the latest information from the Electoral Commission on when the counts will take place:

  16. @Shopkeeper Man/Old Nat

    Well, I guess we can all sigh with relief that Cameron and Harperson are cousins, so this class war discussion in the polls and former election strategies should no longer matter – as one way or another we’ll end up with someone from the same family, albeit distantly!


    ” I guess someone forget to tell Harriet Harman because just a few days ago she was attacking the Tories using the language and arguments of class war.”

    Oh I see now !!

    ANY talk about equality of opportunity and social mobility becaomes a “class war” (sic) issue. Boy are the Tories lucky you are not one of their advisors….are you ?

  18. Colin

    Good Morning, Afternoon, Evening

    Looking forward to your response.

  19. Even if the CSJ’s analysis of cause & effect is correct, it doesn’t mean that financial support for marriage will affect the behaviour of significant numbers of people. It might induce people in stable relationships to get married instead of cohabiting, but I doubt if that would make any difference at all to the children of such unions. I can’t imagine supporting marriage would induce many people not already in stable relationships to suddenly transform themselves into stable partners in long-term relationships. Does anyone seriously believe the so-called “deadbeat Dads” are going to become responsible husbands & fathers because of this sort of initiative? Is it likely that couples will refrain from splitting up and/or divorcing in order to get this allowance?

  20. @ Rob Sheffield – “ANY talk about equality of opportunity and social mobility becaomes a “class war” (sic) issue.”

    That depends how it’s framed. Whether you like it or not, Harman’s comments a few days ago were reported as a revisiting of Labour’s “class war” attacks. The Telegraph headlined the story “Harman revives class war strategy with an attack on inequality” while at the other end of the political spectrum The Guardian reported it as ‘Harriet Harman puts class at heart of election battle’.

  21. Name (Required) – I like your style (you’re not from round these parts are you?)

    “Prison Works” was a great example of a policy framed around public image rather than fact.

    Of course, there’s an ambiguity that gives the phrase its irony, as the phrase itself is what is intended to “work” on the electorate, rather than actual imprisonment.

    I think Cameron is working on the simple premise that tax cuts are popular, and this one will help his standing amongst the old-school in his own ranks.

  22. OLD NAT
    Good morning.

    Thanks for your two postings last night. They certainly give me a clue about the nature of the gulf between us.

    No I had not heard of SPSS, but it interests me that your first response to a discussion on social deprivation is to highlight computer software & government process.

    Your strange reaction to the Kids Company founder seems similarly mired in a desire for dry academic qualification.
    I note that you omitted to mention Ms Batmanghelidj’s achievements-they are ( same source as you used) :

    “Deciding to go outside the existing structures, Batmanghelidjh used her mortgage repayments to set up The Place to Be, which offers psychotherapy and counselling to children in schools. It is now a national project and serves more than 40,000 children a year.
    In the mid-1990s she then went on to found, and is still director of, Kids Company. This registered charity supports children with severe behavioural, emotional and social difficulties resulting from significant levels of trauma and neglect, which usually means the lack of even one functioning parent. Kids Company aims to restore their trust and provide an environment in which they can begin the healing process, using a variety of approaches such as psychotherapy, counselling, education, arts, sports, hot meals and various other practical interventions. It serves almost 12, 000 clients through 37 schools in inner London, a drop-in centre in Camberwell, and a post-14 educational institute, the Urban Academy, in Southwark. It is financially supported by charitable trusts, government funding, and business donations, but twice Batmanghelidjh has re-mortgaged her flat to see it through a financially difficult period.
    Batmanghelidjh won the Social Entrepreneur of the Year Award 2005. She was nominated in The Good List 2006, a list of exceptional people, and was awarded the Woman of the Year award in 2006. As another recognition of her accomplishments, she was the subject of the venerable BBC Radio 4 programme Desert Island Discs in October 2006. In 2008 she was awarded an honorary doctorate by the Open University. She has written Shattered Lives: Children Who Live with Courage and Dignity and other papers”

    There is of course no reason that someone living so far north, and with more interest in Scotland than the rest of UK should know about Kid’s Company.But it suggests someone whose knowledge of work in the field of social deprivation is scant.

    You might find Kids Company website informative.
    As also these organisations :-
    Tomorrows’s People; Chance UK; Nelson Trusty; Working Rite; Spear Course’ Blue Sky Development Regeneration…etc etc -they are all CSJ award winning organisations in the field.

    Actually Working Rite operates in Scotland-but I don’t know whether they use SPSS-somehow I doubt it.

    But I have no doubt that you will know of Rev Sandy Weddell, Baptist Minister in Easterhouse. He is the chap who said ” Men are being erased from family life here”. It was through experience with Sandy Weddell at Easterhouse that IDS came to form CSJ.

    I don’t know whether Rev Weddell uses SPSS either.

    Anyway, no doubt the good people of Scotland will be duly appreciative at the ballot box when the appropriate stuff has been shoved through SPSS, and a solution to their problems emerges at the other end.

  23. @Derek Pierson

    I don’t know the details of the IDS analysis or even his proposals for supporting marriage in any detail other than what I have read in the press. But I’m surprised at your dismissal of a financial encouragement to marriage. Most government social engineering is predicated on the power of financial incentives and disincentives to influence behaviour at the margin. What to you and I might seem like small amounts of money can be life-changing for couples living in poverty.

    In the last 13 years the gap between rich and poor has risen to its widest since the War, so the Times reports today. If that is the case, then something more needs to be done to provide a route out of poverty. Maybe IDS is on the right track?

  24. I wonder if Ms B would qualify as an elite teacher of anything other than Drama?

    Statistical analysis is to my mind a bit limited by the fact that stats can be twisted to support just about any argument.

    Most people vote according to what they feel is right. That’s why “prison works” eventhough the stats might suggest it doesn’t.

  25. Anthony Wells

    Svejx commenting this morning on Political.Betting. Com (blog 123) has referred to the Polling Conference held at the British Academy last week.

    He says “Anthony Wells was asked the question – As a member, why was AngusReid not at the conference? His response – AR was there but not asked to speak, a strange reply. Now it seems AR was not even asked for their opinion. What is going on? Are AR being treated as some sort of pariah, that nobody should pay any attention to? They have a consistent but quite different opinion of the situation, which requires discussion…..”

    While there is a healthy debate going on about the reliability of AR’s polling results (both on your and the Political Betting sites) I get the impression that AR are in the trade treated as inferior and would welcome your comments on this.

  26. Do we know when Ipos Mori’s next poll will be it’s been about a month and a half since their last poll.

  27. I knew someone who worked at the MET office Cllr Peter Cairns (SNP). He said that he thought the MET office had a contract with B&Q so they could sale BBQ’s does this answer your question?

  28. Mike – it wasn’t a case of each company being given a time to talk about what they want.

    Basically the morning of the conference was about phone polling, so Martin Boon gave a presentation about how phone polling had advanced since 1992 and things like the spiral of silence and past vote weighting, then John Curtice gave the academic view on past vote weighting, then MORI gave what was essentially their rebuttal on why they didn’t do it.

    Lunchtime session was about exit polls, which was again a pollster (Nick Moon) giving his angle, then an academic (Steve Fisher) giving his. In the afternoon is was online polling, so Peter Kellner flew the flag for online polling, then Paul Whiteley gave an academic viewpoint on it, then Andrew Cooper gave a sceptical account of why it might not be so great.

    So you see the layout of the conference – for the phone and online section, there were two pollsters giving opposing views, and an academic giving their input.

    Some people are frankly ready to see conspiracy theories in the most basic things. I was sat next to Andy Morris, who is an old friend and colleague, for the whole conference I don’t recall him seething with fury at being left out ;)

  29. I just found an interesting article on the Rich/POOR gap apparently from a report commissioned by the government which suggest the divide is wider than in the 1970’s.

    Re The Right Hon DC. My understanding is his grandfather on his fathers side is Jewish. How Scottish he is I am not at all sure.
    I had assumed, assumed mind Cameron was an “anglised” (apologies Old Nat, JBD ect) version of Kaminshoshski or some such.

  31. @COLIN
    Once again Colin, spot on. I more and more get the impression
    that wicked, self centred, money orientated, Tories like us, have more concern for the disadvantaged young (whom have grown like topsy over recent years,) than persons of other view points.

    I think the Conservative party could have James Ludlow as an advisor and win the forth coming GE very handily.

  33. Colin

    My original point to you that you were confusing correlation and causation.

    You have now confirmed that you have little understanding of data analysis. How you respond in developing social policy after the data analysis is the political process.

    Determining the policy without understanding the data is a simple demonstration of ignorance and prejudice.

    It may well be that your policy is an appropriate response to a social problem, but since you haven’t analysed the problem properly, we can’t know.

    Your approach is similar to that of those who dismiss polling evidence because “all the people I talk to think …..”.

    Evidence based decision making is better than blind prejudice, but only if the evidence is the best available.

    Tory policy making doesn’t seem much different from the court of Lord Braxfield, who famously said to a juror ariving late to court “Come awa, Maister Horner and help me to hang some of the damned scoondrels”

  34. Encouragement to do sensible, long-term things with money is the one thing that will lift the poorest upwards. It’s just too tempting to spend any surplus on alleviating treats when you don’t have much money.

    I don’t think there are any obvious Tory proposals that will help poor people to save.

    They want to cut the child trust fund from people on middle incomes,(and presumably for those whose income spikes at just the wrong time in the year before giving birth)

    The effect of that might not be felt in time for this May, but it wouyld in five years time.

  35. “Encouragement to do sensible, long-term things with money is the one thing that will lift the poorest upwards.”

    And pretty good advice for bankers as well…. Come to think of it you might want to pass it on to the debt laden consuming middle classes too.


  36. OLDNAT

    I don’t know what your role in politics is in Scotland-or indeed if you have one at all. Perhaps you are merely an interested bystander like the rest of us.

    But I sincerely hope that your particular brand of remote & patronising obfuscation will not be a feature of social policy in the next Government at Westminster.

    I feel no risk in suggesting that all of the social enterprises I have brought to your attention would categorise your attitude as the one which hampers them most when interacting with government.

    I note that Working Rite’s website features this commendation from SNP:-

    ” “We will support the development of work-based for young Scots, along the lines of the Working Rite Model”
    SNP Election Manifesto 2007.

    Clearly SNP do not share your haughty disdain for their work-although the reference is a bit dated.

    One must assume then that you are a Scottish Nationalist who does not support SNP.

    However-it matters not to me one way or the other.
    Please don’t bother to respond.

  37. I would but I suspect they’re too busy “at the coal face” to listen.

    They’ve probably got their long-term financial future sorted by pay-roll anyway.

    I don’t think many people actually spend much time making provision for saving money. Those who can fill about two forms in and leave it to the computer to subtract money each month and put it somewhere safe.

    Those who struggle have to really concentrate, which is why an automatic payment on birth into a trust fund will work better for the poorest than an additional means test.

  38. Sorry, that was addressed to Peter

  39. Colin

    I made no comment about any of these social enterprises because they are not germane to my original point.

    I am content that you have demonstrated with clarity that you don’t understand evidence.

    We are agreed on one thing, however. Social policy making at Westminster will not be hampered by lack of supporting evidence under the next Government.

  40. How long would Cameron retain the support of IDS and his own supporters in the electorate (or on these pages) if he were to say from Number 10, “thanks very much but not now, we’ve got higher priorities”?

  41. It seems to me latter day cultural attitudes which imply that as long as you are not a child molester nothing is your fault and wash away any sense of guilt, need to change. If you take out a mortgage and have the house reposessed by the bank, so what. If you buy a car on hp and have it snatched back, so what.
    To a point this is fine by me, its that individuals credit rating not mine. Producing a baby which you know is going to be “raised”
    in less than ideal surroundings without the benefit of two parents and will probably suffer from the poor start in life, for all its life, is not fine, is not so what, its feckless irresponsibility and needs urgent attention. Political dogma getting in the way is not acceptable, nor is hot air from supposed radicals.

  42. Is there any methodological reason for halving the weighting when people didn’t vote in 2005? I can understand the reason for applying some effect, but it seems like they’ve picked 50% out of the air – why not 80%, or 60%, or any number?

    I would imagine an effect as large as 50% would be damaging to Labour, though I have no idea if this makes a significant difference to the poll results. I wonder if it might affect the results on the class questions, too.

  43. That’s a bit harsh on IDS Roland. As far as I know he’s radical but pragmatic rather than full of hot air. i just doubt whether his radicalism would be allowed at the top table.

    Further, i’m not sure IDS would agree that getting married is the opposite of feckless irresponsibility, any more than renting is the opposite of it.

  44. Surely where you say “It is very easy to overestimate the extent that people vote with their pocketbooks” what you really mean is “It is very easy to overestimate the extent that people are prepared to say in response to an opinion poll that they vote with their pocketbooks”. You should never forget the difference between the way people say they will vote and how they actually vote in the privacy of a polling booth.

  45. OLDNAT, I think you’re misrepresenting Colin’s position. He’s arguing that there are now a range of social enterprises working with deprived communities that are providing evidence for the need for the sort of solutions that IDS is proposing, and cites the Kid’s Company CEO as a particular prominent example of someone who has come out publicly in support.

    You are claiming that there is no evidence of a causal relationship but have provided nothing to substantiate this claim. Of course it’s necessary to examine very carefully the data to avoid the confounding effect of other factors, and SPSS is as you say the standard social science statistical tool for doing this. But what makes you think that this analysis has not been carried out? Perhaps even using SPSS as the tool? Do you know for a fact that the data analysis in the report is flawed? Or are you just asserting without any evidence that the data does not support the conclusions reached, because you don’t like the conclusions?

    The onus surely is on skeptics to demonstrate that the analysis is flawed.

    As far as I can see, the findings of the report are pragmatic rather than ideological and there is little that is specifically Tory about it other than an emphasis on small-scale rather than statist solutions. And even that has had its left-of-centre supporters (see for example Fritz Schumacher).

  46. Leslie

    My original request to Colin was precisely for the correlations between a wide range of social variables.

    It is not my contention that tax credits for married couples is necessarily wrong – simply that publishing “evidence” which is no such thing, but simply a list of correlated variables, does nothing to substantiate the policy.

    It is clearly impossible to discover whether the analysis is flawed without seeing the manner in which it was conducted.

  47. I think the problem with teasing out the real causality in social issues is that it is impossible to apply rigorous scientific methods to people. There are literally thousands of factors affecting each person’s life and there is no way to accurately apply controls to your data. But that doesn’t mean that, up to a point, conclusions can’t be drawn from the data.

    I used to deal a lot with “shaken baby” cases, where there is a great deal of debate about the science involved (mostly generated by those accused of the crime, plus their advocates). The doctors that give expert evidence will generally put forward their opinion that a child was assaulted, and support this with the observation that “in X number of cases of observed accidental head injury this has never been observed”. They will then be challenged with the words “is there scientific proof that this could only have been caused by shaking?” and the answer is “Errr, well, no. Because even if we wanted to, the government would never allow us to drop 1,000 healthy babies onto their heads from a controlled height to generate a data-set to create that proof”.

  48. Neil A

    Indeed , which is why correlations between available data are a useful tool but only if you correlate a wide range of factors.

    To start with an a priori assumption then look for evidence to support it leads to bad policy making.

  49. @ Old Nat

    My understanding is that IDS started by looking at what was happening before he proposed solutions. If you remember that as Tory leader he was distinctly right-wing, the proposals of his group are surprising and suggest something of a ‘conversion’ experience in the face of the evidence (regardless of whether he interpreted it correctly or not). They don’t suggest to me that he started from a priori assumptions.

  50. @Leslie @Neil A @RichardW

    “The onus surely is on skeptics to demonstrate that the analysis is flawed.”/ “I think the problem with teasing out the real causality in social issues is that it is impossible to apply rigorous scientific methods to people” / “the proposals of his group are surprising and suggest something of a ‘conversion’ experience in the face of the evidence ”

    Evidence ? Not possible to make a rigorous analysis ? IDS just returned from the road to Damascus ?

    If you want to look for evidence that is critical of ‘small scale’ and non state-led regeneration approaches, whether they try to exclude the local state and rely on other non-state actors (as in pre 1997) or try to involve from the start/ ground up local people in opposition to local politicians then look (1) at the NAO evaluation of the Thatcher administrations regeneration policy which infamously critiques it as a “patchwork quilt” or (2) the 9 year ‘formative’ evaluation (paid for by the government) of the NDC programme (a mechanism that was part of the strategy for neighbourhood renewal itself premised firmly on the idea of resident/ people led regeneration. On latter post 1997 approach it is interesting to note that- as more and more organisations (non state/ third sector/ charity/ local entrepreneurs/ tenant groups/ and community organisations) have became deeply involved in regeneration since 1997 the approach has been decried as a ‘spaghetti bowl’.

    Furthermore scientific policy research has consistently decried localism as mere ‘privatism’ or ‘voluntarism’ which inevitably- on a longitudinal analysis- woefully fails to provide a robust and strategic approach towards (nor sufficient resources for) the multi faceted nature of urban (and market / seaside town rural) regeneration problems: a veritable “local trap”. Localism does not deal very well with what are known as ‘the wicked issues’ in urban and rural deprivation/ societal breakdown: yet BOTH Tories and Labour wax lyrically about it.

    The ‘privatism’ solution proposed by IDS is not only a rehash of stuff that has been tried before to little positive long-term effect in both US and UK, it is also most categorically *not* ‘common-sense, practical or neutral’ but rather innately ideological in its approach i.e. that tenuous and thoroughly simplistic quasi libertarian notion that ANYTHING is better than a state led solution.

    Evidence sources
    1) That famous report on Conservative regeneration policy – NAO, 1990 Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General Regenerating the Inner Cities HC 169, National Audit Office (HMSO, London)
    “In 1988, inner city policy took on a distinctly new style…..for the economic regeneration of the inner cities, the re-moralization into self-reliance of their inhabitants, and the defeat of welfare dependency”: does this not sound strangely familiar to the work of IDS ??!!

    2) the site of the NDC evaluation is here:
    = a feast of longitudinal data and reports for you t get your teeth into NeilA

    See- as a further minuscule introduction to the evidence-
    = great Canadian report (“urban regeneration; learning from the British experience”) that looks at 50 years of approaches ( you can download each chapter- the buttons to the right- as a .pdf )
    = great report from this charitable trust on the practicalities and difficulties of getting communities involved/ or to lead, regeneration activities. You can download the 4 page summary as a .pdf
    = overview on notions of localism, you can download this as a .pdf file
    = a powerful paper by Catalyst written by David Walker that critiques localism as inevitably anti egalitarian

1 2 3