Today the British Election Study published its face-to-face data for the 2017 election. The BES has two main elements: one is a large online panel element, using the same respondents in multiple waves so that they can track change at an individual level. The other part is a smaller face-to-face element, using a genuine random sample to try and get the best sample possible. The face-to-face element is also cross-referenced with the marked electoral register (that is, the copy of the register in polling stations where people’s names are crossed off as they vote) so that they can verify after the election whether people genuinely did or did not vote.

This means the face-to-face data is by far the best data we have on actual turnout levels and on turnout levels among different demographic groups. When discussing turnout I’m often asked about the official figures for turnout among men and women, young and old, and have to explain that these figures do not exist. While there are official figures of the numbers of votes cast in each constituency and the number of people on the electoral register (a different figure, note, to the number of people who are actually eligible to vote, where there is an absence of official data), there are no actual figures for turnout among demographic sub-groups of the population. We know how many people voted, but not details of their age, gender, class or other demographics.

Up until now there has been a widespread narrative that in 2018 Labour managed to engage young people who do not normally vote and substantially increase youth turnout at the general election (referred to by the rather irriating neologism “youthquake”). This was never based on particularly strong evidence. The narrative had begun to take hold during the campaign itself because of the difference between polls (a simple explanation of the polls during the 2017 campaign was that companies showing a large Tory lead were doing so because they weighting down younger respondents based on their past unlikelihood to vote and companies showing smaller Tory leads were basing turnout more on self-reporting and, therefore, often showing higher youth turnout). A common and not unreasonable assumption before the general election was, therefore, that if youth turnout did increase those polls showing a smaller Tory lead would be right, if youth turnout stayed low the Tories would win comfortably. Another common discussion during the campaign were the enthusiastic crowds of young people that were attracted to Jeremy Corbyn’s events. People sensibly cautioned that what mattered was whether those crowds actually suggested normally uninterested young people would vote, or just represented the more politically engaged young people.

By election day, there was a narrative that if all those enthusiastic young people actually came out to vote Labour would do well, and if it was just a mirage the Tories would win. Therefore when the Conservatives did do less well than most people expected the most easily available explanation to reach for was that young people had indeed been enthused to go out and vote Labour. In the immediate aftermath of the election an implausible claim that youth turnout was 72% was widely reported, without any apparent source. Shortly after that polling evidence from various companies emerged that did support a higher level of youth turnout. Given that the problem with polling accuracy in 2015 was that poll samples had too many of the sort of people who vote, particularly among young people, this evidence was rather dicey. It could have been that youth turnout had risen… or it could have been that polls still contained too many of the sort of young people who vote. The final bit of evidence was that seats that contained a larger proportion of young people did see their turnout rise more at the election… though as Chris Prosser and the rest of the BES team ably explain in their paper, this is not necessarily the strong evidence you might think: seats with more young people tend to be urban and more diverse, so it’s equally possible that urban areas in general saw a larger increase in turnout.

In fact the BES data released today – using a random sample and checked against the electoral register – does not find evidence of any increase in turnout among under 25s, thought does find some evidence of an increase in turnout among those between 25 and 44. The boost in youth turnout that people have been using to explain the 2017 election may not actually exist at all (or if it does, it was among relatively young voters, rather than the youngest voters). That’s not to say that young voters were not still important in explaining the election result – age was still an important divide on how people voted, young people did still heavily vote for Labour so it is still fair to say Labour managed to enthuse young people more, it’s just that the level of turnout among under 25s does not appear to have risen; Labour just took a greater share of support among younger voters.

This does raise some other questions about the polls at the 2017 election. Until now the most obvious explanation for why some polls got the figures very wrong and others got them right is that, by basing turnout patterns on what happened in 2015 some polls missed out on a genuine surge in youth turnout, therefore understating Labour support, and that polls showing higher youth turnout were closer to the actual result. However, if youth turnout didn’t actually rise then this explanation seems far less convincing. My own view is that the way turnout models were done was probably still a major factor in the error, but it may be more a case of how they were done rather than the principle (besides, there were some approaches, like the YouGov MRP model, that used demographics in their turnout modelling and did well). More on that issue another time.

In the meantime, there’s a summary of the BES findings on youth turnout here and their full paper is here.


562 Responses to “Some thoughts on the BES turnout data and the absent “youthquake””

1 7 8 9 10 11 12
  1. @Trevor Warne – it’s chaff, thrown out to distract and confuse. Completely pointless.

    “If you only care about GDP then let’s take the Irish model onto a global stage.”

    Let’s not. What’s the point about talking about Ireland when we were actually talking about the UK? Ireland hasn’t voted to leave the EU.

    “OK fine, I did show EU’s cr4p performance on a comparative historical and peer group measure before (EA especially) – I’ll repost it if you missed it or have goldfish issue.”

    Yes I do remember this.[Hint – most people manage to post on here and discuss issues without the need for insults – you do rather like your ‘remainer goldfish’ jibe don’t you? Can we try to remain civil throughout – is that possible for you?]

    Again, this is completely irrelevant. We are talking exclusively about the impact on the UK since June 2016, against a scenario where we had voted to remain.

    “I’ve only ever wanted to discuss the models but Remainers like yourself want to discuss the decimal places in models that they clearly either do not understand or do not wish to question provided they are given an answer they like.”

    Well to be honest, these models are all about decimal places or they’re about nothing, but speaking personally, if I were in your shoes I’d be a little more circumspect and modest when claiming others don’t understand models after your pre Christmas embarrassment, but each to their own.

    “I’d argue the degree of stimulus and fiscal slippage, etc was tiny …”

    Now, finally, something vaguely relevant.

    That is an interesting point and to be honest, I don’t really know the answer. There was a cut in interest rates, which must be quite hard to quantify in terms of economic effect, and the QE amounted to around 4% of the total annual GDP. On the face of it this seems quite a large potential impact, but I don’t know exactly how the mechanism of QE translates into direct economic impact. Perhaps you do?

    The immediate government response to Brexit was to allow a further £125bn of deficit spending, which is quite a lot, although to be completely fair, only £60bn of that was directly due to Brexit. That works out at around 0.65% of GDP pa for the five year spending round, which is again a pretty healthy economic boost. This has since been increased in the 2017 budget, so I think there is a valid case to argue that the stimulus measures adopted since the referendum are pretty substantial.

    You will probably disagree, but if so, at least we’ll be back to talking about something a little more relevant to the point in hand.

  2. “Why would they be deceiving us?
    What would be their motive?
    Why should I on balance disbelieve, rather than believe them?”
    @Colin February 1st, 2018 at 1:43 pm

    Well the last point is the easiest to answer — you should always have a sceptical view. The link I posted from the other day may not be typical (who knows?) but when you get a second, independent, view that contradicts the official view you do have to wonder.

    As to motive we are talking about PR, and so are in the realms of management, not operations. We all make mistakes, and the security services are no different. Of course their errors can be significant because of their line of work. A Brazilian electrician was executed which turned out to be a mistake. If there is no pressure to get to the truth what’s to stop those days becoming ‘oh well, tough; moving on…’

    As to your first point about deception, that’s down to culture. It’s human nature to cover up errors. If we don’t encourage openness where it’s possible, to reassure the public, then resentment will grow.

    Hey, I’m no expert on this, but I always start as a sceptic. Justice needs to be seen to be done as well as being done. Just look at the US, where you get videos of police opening fire on people, and yet still getting off. I appreciate that their work environment is difficult (and I certainly wouldn’t do it, that’s for sure) but my impression is that they always get off. I have not seen any data, but I would expect the number of deaths to drop as education and lessons learned is implemented.

    OK, drifted onto US stuff, so I’ll shut up now.

  3. CROFTY

    VOTES FOR FIVE YEAR OLDS.

    Brilliant post, and entirely compliant with the research methods in vogue on these threads.

    The only problem in introducing your proposal might be the problem of transporting them to the polling booths, since very few of their parents and grandparents will be voting, having failed the “apostrophe s” test.

  4. AL URQA

    You seem to be talking about the Police.

    I was talking about the Security Services in response to another poster, who I also thought referred to them.So we seem to be at cross purposes.

    On the Police-we may not be so far apart :-)

  5. @Trevor W

    “Maybe the sweet spot for voting is 48 and anyone aged 48 gets to vote twice, or is that reserved to clever students who manage to be on a home and uni electoral register? :)”

    ———

    Sweet spot for who? Mathematicians often peak in their early twenties, musicians mid-twenties, the guy who led the Dambusters raid was around 24 I think, Harold Wilson led the Dept. of Stats during the wR in his 20s.

    :(

  6. wR = war

  7. CROFTY

    Indeed-and why not?

    I have noticed that today’s 5 year olds are much brighter & more mature than when Old People were that age.

    I still feel that the issue is only logically & honestly dealt with by a well thought through Age of Adulthood which applies across the board.

    5 year old adults? Well I.ve watched that tv series-Secret Life of 4 Year Olds-and they seem pretty adult -so why not.

  8. @ ALEC:
    – Ireland is the example for Lancaster House Plan B so highly relevant since all you seem to care about is increasing GDP. DANNY has been brainwashed by Brussels into thinking nothing exists East of the Ural mountains, South of the Med or West of the Pacific but I’m sure you’ve seen one of those round things called a globe.
    – Historic and peer comparisons are very worthy measures of comparison, I’m sorry if you adopt the blind monkeys approach to things you don’t like – your problem, not mine. I have requested you send evidence from the parallel universe of counterfactuals before but maybe your portal is down?
    “Well to be honest, these models are all about decimal places or they’re about nothing” You might be interested in decimal places that are minimal compared to even the errors in obtaining GDP data. Since HMG, BoE can affect the “weather” I’m more worried about the big picture and what HMG in particular are planning for the different outcome possibilities. Each to their own but in a battle of decimals places versus worth nothing, I’ll go with worth nothing and leave you to argue whether the correct spacing for the deck chairs on the Titanic was 8″ or 8.2″.
    – ((1.002^11.92)-1) *1,900 = 45.8bn. In April I could round that to 40bn but you seem to like the decimal places so by all means use your time machine to check your parallel universe and see if it was 45.8bn or not, making sure that the HMG in that parallel universe has of course abided by ceteris paribus for the entire period.
    – You could check the effect QE has had based on historic comparisons (tricky for peer group as most peers acted the same and other factors like currencies were effected) but you don’t like doing that and you won’t believe me if I tell you it did nothing more than reflate housing and debt bubbles with GDP actually worse than the previous period. Targeted lending and the good bits of Keynesian policies would have been better IMHO but all water under the bridge now. Certainly QE does not equate to GDP, I’m sure that was a simple mistake on your part so I’ll save you the embarrassment of having to explain that one.

    As for insults, let’s just say those in glass houses are throwing plenty of stones! If the kitchen is too hot, then well…

  9. @ CARFREW – 48 happens to be my age and approx the tipping point of LAB v CON VI. We’ve also been musing about the idea of SMogg v Miliband in a medieval dual contest for who is next PM to save this pesky nonsense called democracy that Remainers seem to detest so much. Corbyn is too old and a pacifist so we picked Miliband due to his age and sandwich eating skills. Farron can be Miliband’s second but he’s none too popular with the crowd!
    Slow day in the office as you might have guessed :)

  10. Evening all from a cold Bournemouth after a day of Sun.

    Are any UKPR posters running, as I am, the London Marathon on April 22, which takes us through quite a few marginal seats?

    May hangs on.

  11. Al Urqa
    I am with you on prisoners. Do they cease to be citizens? Do they not have children who cannot vote for themselves?

    I just can’t understand why many people feel so strongly about it tbh!

  12. Trevor Warner
    We Remainers do not deny democracy! It is Leavers who don’t want any more of it! One strike and you are out!

  13. @TREVOR WARNE

    “@ CARFREW – 48 happens to be my age and approx the tipping point of LAB v CON VI. We’ve also been musing about the idea of SMogg v Miliband in a medieval dual contest for who is next PM to save this pesky nonsense called democracy that Remainers seem to detest so much. Corbyn is too old and a pacifist so we picked Miliband due to his age and sandwich eating skills. Farron can be Miliband’s second but he’s none too popular with the crowd!
    Slow day in the office as you might have guessed :)”

    ————-

    Yes, convenient that it has to be a duel so that it rules out Corbyn! And making Miliband get Farron, it’s clear where your allegiances lie, Trevor!

  14. If you can’t tell the difference between a sixteen year old who can get married, join the army etc. etc. and a five year old who can’t, you have issues…

  15. @Chrislane

    “Are any UKPR posters running, as I am, the London Marathon on April 22, which takes us through quite a few marginal seats?”

    ——-

    Will you be plogging? I have just read about plogging…

  16. Carfrew @TREVOR WARNE

    Surely a more appropriate medieval method of settling disputes would be “Trial by Bible” (which fans of the Cadfael series will be aware of).

    The blindfolded conflicting parties each point at random to a passage in the holy text, and that determines who wins.

    The only question is the choice of holy text to use.

    In a Lab v Con case, I’d suggest the most appropriate one would be the Leave Manifesto.

  17. @oldnat

    “Surely a more appropriate medieval method of settling disputes would be “Trial by Bible” (which fans of the Cadfael series will be aware of).”

    ———

    Personally I think standing for election is more medieval, but hey…

  18. Quite a few 16 and 17 year old parents around. Not able to vote.

  19. @ ANDREW111
    “We Remainers do not deny democracy! It is Leavers who don’t want any more of it! One strike and you are out!”

    One divisive painful referendum to decide this issue was more than enough, thank you very much!

  20. @colin

    But is there a UK “age of adulthood” of 18?

    In Scotland as I understand it anyone over 16 has full legal capacity;the age of criminal responsibility is 8 but prosecution and punishment varies according to age up to 21; the age of sexual consent is 16 as is the age for marrying without parental permission and to be able to leave home; a 16 year old can vote in local and national elections but you need to be 18 to vote in supranational elections for the UK and EU parliaments and to serve on a jury; you can drive a car at 17 but cannot buy alcohol and tobacco products until you are 18.

    Presumably there is a similar mixed picture in England but certainly in Scotland it seems 18 years is not a notably significant age for defining an age of responsibility and capacity.

  21. @trevorwarne

    When you are losing an argument it is best not to resort to insult as a first line of defence as it proves that you are beyond doubt.

  22. @Trevor Warne – thanks for your 5.14pm post.

    I’ve read through it three times now and all I get is a garbled mess that has either no relevance to the points being discussed or is so poorly written to be unintelligible.

    Not for the first time I’ll have to give up on this, but it was an interesting exchange in parts regardless.

  23. Been talking about this for a long time, but this could represent a very significant move – https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/01/labour-plans-landowners-sell-state-fraction-value

    It’s a great plan, well overdue. It’s main political selling point, apart from meaning we can build more proper low cost houses where we need them, is that it was originally devised by Winston Churchill.

    Bit hard for the Tories to claim it’s part of a Stalinist takeover.

  24. JonesinBangor

    So you believe in the school of thought that says “having that wart removed was so painful I will refuse the operation for bowel cancer” I suppose!

  25. @Hireton – could you understand what he was on about? There are times when I worry that I must be stupid, but I try again and it still doesn’t make any rational sense.

    Is there something wrong with me?

  26. Hireton

    Being a “young person” has had a specific legal status in Scotland for a long time – though the length of it has changed, as the school leaving age was raised.

    In the 1937 Act, for example, it was defined as meaning “a person who has attained the age of fourteen years and is under the age of seventeen years”.

    The concept of that status as being a transition from childhood towards adulthood has been pretty constant, however.

    There is a useful summary of the law on legal capacity since 1991 (and the preceding rules) here.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Legal_Capacity_(Scotland)_Act_1991

  27. @Trevor Warne

    “You could check the effect QE has had based on historic comparisons (tricky for peer group as most peers acted the same and other factors like currencies were effected) but you don’t like doing that and you won’t believe me if I tell you it did nothing more than reflate housing and debt bubbles with GDP actually worse than the previous period.”

    ——-

    Well the BoE did a study that concluded that QE gave something like 2% growth and 4% inflation. There’s been a bit more QE since of course…

    However, given a major purpose of the endeavour was to assist the struggling banks, and help get some govt. debt away in the process, one might reflect on what the economic hit might have been without that.

  28. @alec

    I tired very hard but I came to the conclusion that he does not know either so it is impossible for anyone else to know.

  29. HIRETON

    Could easily find an “England only” list.

    Not sure if this is in respect of England only-but you can click for Age 16, 17 & 18:-

    https://www.mumsnet.com/teenagers/legal-rights-at-18

  30. @Trevor W

    Haven’t found the original study, but in this one, on page 22…

    https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/working-paper/2016/qe-the-story-so-far.pdf?la=en&hash=8F7A0D4F0C0E466AACA9A03325776C2A13AAF55F

    …they find that the first £200Bn of QE may have pushed up GDP by peak of up to two percent, and inflation between three quarters and one-and-a-half percent.

    (Also it seems US QE might have had quite a large benefit for us too.)

  31. HIRETON

    ooops………..Couldn’t easily find …………!

  32. So it appears that Steve Baker with prompting from JRM may have been misleading Parliament in suggesting that an allegation had been made by Charles Grant of the CER that Treasury officials were deliberately falsifying economic modelling to show that all Brexit options were worse economically than EU membership.

    http://uk.businessinsider.com/brexit-minister-steve-baker-says-civil-servants-may-be-conspiring-against-the-government-2018-2

    A recording has now been made available it seems which proves that Grant did not say that.

    Baker seems to be finding the transition from backbench ideologue to responsible Minister somewhat problematic.

  33. Alec,
    ” We are talking exclusively about the impact on the UK since June 2016, against a scenario where we had voted to remain”

    Actually, I dont think we are. I think the ill effects on industry set in during the run up to the 2015 election, when the tories took seriously the proposal to hold a referendum, and therefore raisd the possibility that in a few years, investments might not be secure. We should extend the baseline of the aborted recovery backwards to when it began.

    Trevor Warne,
    “DANNY has been brainwashed by Brussels into thinking nothing exists East of the Ural mountains,”

    Oh dear. Its more about police shooting pople in USA, Putin determined to make the presidency a life appointment, current affairs item today about thought police in China. It is beyond me why anyone thinks there is a paradise out there ready to welcome us and make us rich.

  34. hereon – bet Baker doesn’t resign or get sacked though

  35. HIRETON

    This comes as no surprise. The lack of talent in this cabinet is astonishing. Utterly dreadful.

  36. ***OLDNAT DISCLAIMER – MY REMARKS REFER ONLY TO ENGLAND AS SCOTLAND IS A DIFFERENT COUNTRY THAT DOES THINGS TOTALLY DIFFERENTLY AND IS ENTIRELY OUTWITH MY KNOWLEDGE AND THEREFORE RIGHT TO COMMENT***

    @Sam,

    Your list of “rights” that under 18s enjoy.

    Leave compulsory education to undertake work, an apprenticeship or training Pay taxes and national insurance – Almost right, but under the Education and Skills Act, an apprenticeship is considering compulsory education, and everyone up to 18 has to be in some kind of education even if they also work. They don’t have the right to just go to work, or to be unemployed, or to live off their rich parents, etc. Because they are not mature enough to make that choice

    Consent to sexual relationships – Well, some relationships yes. But they don’t have the right to choose to have a relationship with their teacher, or to take part in adult movies, or to sell their body Because they are not mature enough to make that choice

    Marry or enter a civil partnership – No they don’t. They have to get their parents’ consent (see Oldnat Disclaimer above). The law feels that only their parents have the knowledge and judgement to decide if the marriage is in their interests Because they are not mature enough to make that choice

    Be held responsible for a crime – Well, that one’s true, although the punishments are not the same. However, Criminal Responsibility begins at age 10. Should voting also do so?

    Legally change their name by deed poll – A decision which has virtually no consequences, and anyway every person in the UK has the right to go by whatever name they wish, whatever age they are, so long as they do not commit fraud.

    Drive a vehicle – Hmm, well only if it’s a disabled carriage or a moped. Otherwise you have to be 17. Unless it’s a vehicle bigger than a car, in which case persons under 18 are not permitted Because they are not mature enough to make that choice

    Join the armed forces – Ahem, well, the UK is under constant criticism for recruiting “child soldiers” who aren’t old enough to make such a Big Decision. Besides which, they can’t be deployed to a combat theatre until they are 18 Because they are not mature enough to make that choice

    Become the director of a company – You’re right about that one. But of course any director can only be appointed if the shareholders think they’re up to it, and if they’re not it’s primarily the shareholders that lose out.

  37. The recent Permanent Secretrsy to the Treasury comments pithily on Treasurygate :

    https://twitter.com/nickmacpherson2/status/959116044848779264

  38. @NIckP, Hireton

    Baker belongs to that class of people on the Right who claims he wants a return to some nebulous better time in the past. but then does things that, at any point in that past, would have resulted in his swift resignation in disgrace.

    I’d love us to go back to the time when a gentleman’s word meant something. Baker and a lot of his cohorts (the repellant Rees-Mogg being another) would be in another occupation more suited to their talents. But the modern Conservative Party is the place for people to preach personal responsibility, not the place to practise it.

  39. Neil A

    “MY REMARKS REFER ONLY TO ENGLAND”

    Actually, they don’t.

    Some aspects of law apply in every jurisdiction in the UK : others only within specific jurisdictions.

    Your correct shout should have been “MY REMARKS REFER TO ENGLAND, AS i DON’T KNOW WHAT LAWS ARE COMMON AND WHICH AREN’T”

    Even better if you didn’t shout at all.

  40. “TREVOR WARNE
    @ DANNY – read the whole post, no skimming, skipping and out of context quote cherry picking please!”

    Blimey that’s a bit harsh!! I’d rather gnaw me legs off.

    ……………………………………………………………………………………………..

    [As with my post on VOTES FOR FIVE YEAR OLDS I should stress that the above is a joke. I think TW’s posts are great and am hardly aware of their length.

    And, not that it’s important, but I am fully in favour of votes at sixteen. I certainly felt that to be right for the referendum, notwithstanding any reasoned arguments against.]

  41. There seems to be an argument being made that because people cannot do things at various ages, voting should be reserved until the latest of such dates. Why?

    The direct consequences of driving a car badly are very likely to be far worse than voting badly.

    Getting married or having sex aged 16 is far more likely to ruin your life chances (or someone elses) than voting.

    Most votes are pretty worthless, and the numbers involved in reducing the voting age are unlikely to change anything in most constituencies.

  42. @Oldnat

    I said my remarks referred only to England, not that the laws did. You are correct that I don’t know what the laws are in Scotland and, increasingly, Wales and Northern Ireland.

    Your constant censure has pushed me to make it clear that I have no right to speak of that which I do not know.

  43. @Danny

    I have already set out why I think voting should be in the last tranche of responsibilities people are trusted with.

    If most votes are worthless, why get even more people to vote? What a waste of money, surely. Better to spend it on ambulances. And if having children vote is hardly going to effect elections anyway, why not start the suffrage at 10? (or 5 or 2).

    As to the consequences of a vote, well in theory they could be incredibly dramatic. One MP being elected by one vote in one constituency in a drawn election could be the difference between, say, replacing Trident or scrapping the deterrent, or repealing the Abortion Act, or legalising drugs, or abolishing the Human Rights Act. And in a referendum, that one vote could mean (apparently) an 8% drop in the country’s GDP, pushing hundreds of thousands into poverty.

  44. NEIL A

    I think we can agree that:

    1/ A lot of people vote who aren’t necessarily making decisions that would be any better informed than those of the average sixteen year old. [In some cases a two-year old…]

    2/ It is a concern that the percentage of the population who do vote, or have any real interest in politics, is worryingly low.

    If you do agree on those points then what risk can there be in allowing sixteen year olds the vote?

    I can only see the benefits of a greater interest at an early age – which may then continue and develop – and the possibility that they might feel they really ARE part a the wider society.

    After all, as it seems very unlikely that disinterested teenagers will vote, that means that we are actively encouraging those that are genuinely concerned.

  45. Voting age –

    My view is that it doesn’t really matter. You do have to draw the line somewhere but whether 18 or 16 doesn’t matter. I am happy that either is perfectly fine.

  46. Just in at the FT:

    “Theresa May’s Brexit advisers are secretly considering whether Britain could strike a customs union deal covering trade in goods with the EU, a move that would severely limit the UK’s ability to strike out on its own.”

    This (as well as regulatory alignment/SM) is of course what is needed for Northern Ireland. I mentioned it a couple of weeks ago as being something that could satisfy all commitments made in December to the EU and to the Irish (north and south).

  47. I read comments on whom to exclude from voting with great interest – well, studying a complete lack of reflections really.

    You see,, until the 1936 Soviet constitution people who employed other people and those who didn’t work had no right to vote in Soviet Russia. I think it is a very principled approach – the same as the commentators here expressed when discussing limiting voting rights. Let’s choose a principle! Mind, at least the one of 043-1936 one had a (social) scientific basis.

    On the other hand, the 1936 constitution (otherwise known as Stalin’s constitution, although it was largely written by Bukharin) abolished these considerations when giving voting rights to all those bourgeoisie and other kinds of exploiters – yet somehow I feel it difficult to associate Soviet democracy with 1936 …

  48. prof h

    “Theresa May’s Brexit advisers are secretly considering whether Britain could strike a customs union deal covering trade in goods with the EU”

    They’re not keeping it secret very well.

1 7 8 9 10 11 12