contra euro poll
32% of voters believe UKIP is racist
33% Believe that #UKIP is more honest than all others.
— General Election (@UKELECTIONS2015) April 30, 2014
Comres euro poll
Men (Women)
#UKIP 42% (31%)
#LABOUR 27% (27%)
#CONSERVATIVE 15% (24%)
#LIBDEMS 6% (10%)
certain to vote
Men 47%
Women 42%
— General Election (@UKELECTIONS2015) April 30, 2014
Comres euro poll
Aged 65+ (18-24)
#UKIP 46% (33%)
#TORIES 24% (14%)
#LABOUR 16% (37%)
#LIBDEM 7% (7%)
100% to vote
65+ 54%
18-24 =21%
— General Election (@UKELECTIONS2015) April 30, 2014
Which of the following qualities do you think he has?
A natural Leader
Cameron 13%
Miliband 3%
Clegg 3%
— General Election (@UKELECTIONS2015) April 30, 2014
Which of the following qualities do you think he has?
In touch with the concerns of ordinary people
Miliband 20%
Clegg 8%
Cameron 5%
— General Election (@UKELECTIONS2015) April 30, 2014
Yougov
Which of the following qualities do you think he has?
Has no qualities
Clegg 60%
Miliband 54%
Cameron 48%
— General Election (@UKELECTIONS2015) April 30, 2014
9% of #Labour voters think Miliband is a natural Leader.
11% of #Libdems think same of Clegg
31% of #Conservatives think same of Cameron
— General Election (@UKELECTIONS2015) April 30, 2014
Conservatives 4/5
UKIP 2/1
Labour 4/1
Lib Dems 66/1
and Andyajs has done the form guide showing General Election 2010 versus CC elections 2013
I've done a few calculations using last year's local election results.
The
boundaries of the CC divisions don’t match up tidily with the
constituency, but these are basically the ones that comprise the Newark
constituency:
Not
completely accurate because a small portion (in terms of population) of
the Radcliffe on Trent CC division is included in the Newark
constituency, although most of it is in Rushcliffe. Also a small bit of
Tuxford is in Bassetlaw.
Now I will be the first to admit that when you ask someone on how you are going to do at something, if you have a vested interest you will put a rose tinted view on things. So the piece below is taken from the UKIP DAILY and obviously is going to be pro UKIP. Now if you have an alternative view and would like me to post your predictions using your own methodology then I would gladly post it for you. Below is the article, having used a breakdown I posted on Sunday YOUGOV EURO POLL Be glad of your thoughts
YouGov published a Euro Election poll over the weekend where they
broke the results down by area of the country. These areas did not
correspond exactly with the regions, they were coarser, but the results
can be used to attempt to predict the number of MEPs that may be
returned in each region.
I have a workbook which calculates the distribution of seats based on
the d’Hondt system used in the European Elections. The results of my
analysis of the YouGov poll is shown below – the regions are grouped by
the areas that YouGov used, the outline results of their poll more
conveniently reviewed on the UK General Election 2015
Site. Hence, the predicted percentages for some regions will be
identical – clearly, the actual results will vary more between regions,
but it’s the best data we have at present.
What conclusions can be drawn from this? For a start, it will be a
close run thing in SW England and SE England where Conservatives and
Labour are polling the same on 22%. They each could get 1 or 2 seats,
depending on which one pushes slightly ahead of the other, and in SW
England that outcome may affect whether UKIP gets 2 or 3 seats. Will
Gawain Towler get a MEP job in Brussels or not?
The result in NW England is surprising, returning 4 MEPs, which
matches that of the SE Region, which has 10 slots instead of the North
West’s 8. This means that Shneur Odze gets a job in Brussels, as well as
Paul Nuttall, Louise Bours and Steven Woolfe.
The UKIP poll for the North of England, 35%, equalling the South of
England, the two most pro-UKIP regions, shows that UKIP’s strategy of
working hard to win over the Labour voter in the north is working, where
UKIP is ahead of Labour on 33%.
The Liberal Democrats will get slaughtered, of course. They presently
have 12 MEPs, and will be reduced to 4 – so much for Nick Clegg’s
committing his party to the EU. The Greens will be reduced from 2 to 1
MEP, whilst the SNP will maintain their 2.
History tells us that our poll ratings climb as the election
approaches, and there is some evidence that UKIP voters are more likely
to vote in low turnout polls. At the moment UKIP is in the lead (based
on the poll) with at least 28 MEPs, but it could go higher. Watch this
space.
Populus
Absolutely certain to vote by age
18-24 = 24%
25-34 = 38%
35-44 = 51%
45-54 = 51%
55-64 = 64%
65+ = 68%
Men = 57%
Women = 46%
— General Election (@UKELECTIONS2015) April 28, 2014
Populus
Mavis Riley factor
Dont know who to vote for
Men 11%
Women 24%
18-24 = 26%
55- 64 = 9%
S.E ENGLAND 13%
N.ENGLAND 21%
— General Election (@UKELECTIONS2015) April 28, 2014
Well, we are now on the run up to what is essentially Christmas for political parties. The rankings below do work similar to heavy rain in the mountains and then flooding days later in the valley. So some parties could have higher traffic now but it could take weeks or even a month to truly reflect in their Alexa ranking. This is due to it being a three month average. But still it is the best for showing trends of those websites.
UKIP have got the highest ranking so far for any political party, BNP seem stubborn to move even though they have barely mustered above a 100 council candidates. It seems that people are still looking at their message. The LibDems have seen a sharp increase in traffic, so even though Clegg may have lost the debate he certainly put his party back on the map. Labour & Conservatives have fallen back with SNP slipping even more be interesting to see how the Independence Referendum plays out coming to September. The Greens are still to reclaim their high position of a few months ago.
We then have the Left Unity with 12 candidates in the council elections yet top ten slot for political parties. Someone is definitely visiting the site. Be interesting to see if like the TUSC who last year achieved top ten status but then fell right back or can it be sustained for the coming months.
Respect have also seen a rise again back into the UK rankings after nearly becoming a no data candidate 5 months ago. The official Loonies have also seen a sharp rise after falling back quite significantly.
Their is a lot of new parties added to the list and will be very interesting to see how this chart develops after the May elections.
Last months rankings are in brackets, and each link is to the ALEXA page for the party not the parties website
Council areas where the returning officers for Euro regions are based:
East Midlands: Kettering
Eastern: Chelmsford
London: Lewisham
North East: Sunderland
North West: Manchester
South East: Southampton
South West: Poole
West Midlands: Birmingham
Yorkshire and Humber: Leeds
Scotland: Falkirk
Wales: Pembrokeshire
Yougov
N.Eng Voting
LAB 48%
CON 26%
UKIP 15%
LD 7%
Who would make best PM?
Cameron 28%
Miliband 23%
Clegg 5%
DK 44%
— General Election (@UKELECTIONS2015) April 24, 2014
Yougov
London Voting
LAB 38%
CON 33%
LD 14%
UKIP 11%
Who would make the best PM?
Cameron 35%
Miliband 18%
Clegg 8%
DK 39%
— General Election (@UKELECTIONS2015) April 24, 2014
Yougov
S.England voting
CON 41%
LAB 30%
UKIP 15%
LD 10%
Who would make best PM?
Cameron 39%
Miliband 17%
Clegg 6%
DK 6%
— General Election (@UKELECTIONS2015) April 24, 2014
Yougov
Midlands/Wales voting
LAB 33%
CON 30%
UKIP 20%
LD 11%
Who would make the best PM?
Cameron 39%
Miliband 17%
Clegg 4%
DK 42%
— General Election (@UKELECTIONS2015) April 24, 2014
Yougov
Scotland voting
LAB 40%
SNP 26%
CON 21%
LD 4%
UKIP 3%
Who would make the best PM?
Cameron 29%
Miliband 23%
Clegg 4%
DK 45%
— General Election (@UKELECTIONS2015) April 24, 2014
Political parties which are standing a full (1) list of candidates in each and every region in England will qualify for a minimum of ONE broadcast in England.
Additional Criterion
Political parties which meet the threshold criterion
will qualify for additional PEBs if they can demonstrate substantial
levels of past and/or current electoral support across England.
Local Elections
Threshold Criterion
All parties standing candidates in a minimum of ONE
SIXTH of the seats being contested will qualify for a single broadcast
in England in addition to any European broadcasts.
Additional Criterion
No additional PEBs will be offered for the local elections.
Scotland
European Elections only
Threshold Criterion
Political parties which are standing a full (2) list
of candidates in Scotland will qualify for a minimum of ONE broadcast
in Scotland.
Additional Criterion
Political parties which meet the threshold criterion
will qualify for additional PEBs if they can demonstrate substantial
levels of past and/or current electoral support across Scotland.
Wales
European Elections only
Threshold Criterion
Political parties which are standing a full (3) list
of candidates in Wales will qualify for a minimum of ONE broadcast in
Wales.
Additional Criterion
Political parties which meet the threshold criterion
will qualify for additional PEBs if they can demonstrate substantial
levels of past and/or current electoral support across Wales.
Northern Ireland
European Elections
Nb. For the purposes of the European election
Northern Ireland is a single three member constituency. MEPs are
elected through the STV (Single Transferable Vote).
Threshold Criterion
Political parties which are standing at least one
candidate for the European Parliament and which have current
representation in the European Parliament, the House of Commons, or the
Northern Ireland Assembly will qualify for a minimum of ONE broadcast
in Northern Ireland.
Additional Criterion
Political parties which meet the threshold criterion
may qualify for additional PEBs if they can demonstrate substantial
levels of past and/or current electoral support across Northern
Ireland.
Local Elections
Threshold Criterion
All parties standing candidates in a minimum of ONE
SIXTH of the seats being contested will qualify for a single broadcast
in Northern Ireland in addition to any European broadcasts.
Additional Criterion
No additional PEBs will be offered for the local elections.
The provisional allocation of all PEBs is subject to review and amendment until after the confirmation of nominations.
(1)
A party may be deemed to be standing a full list if it is clear that
it intended to stand a full list but at a late stage failed to do so,
for example, because a candidate had to withdraw.
Populus
Aged 18-24 voter
Labour 53%
Conservatives 28%
LibDems 9%
Greens 6%
UKIP 3%
SNP 1%
Absolutely certain to vote 33%
— General Election (@UKELECTIONS2015) April 22, 2014
Populus
Aged 65+ voter
Conservatives 47%
Labour 19%
UKIP 18%
LibDems 11%
SNP 4%
Greens 1%
Absolutely certain to vote 71%
— General Election (@UKELECTIONS2015) April 22, 2014
I want to use this post to examine the political map in the 2015 UK
general election in much the same way. The aim of this post is NOT to
get into long drawn-out discussions about which seats are already in the
bag for any of the political parties. I know I will get some
respondents disagreeing with my methods. I know that many of you will
likely have different criterion on which you judge a seat to be 'safe'.
If you want to get into a debate about what is or isn't a 'safe' seat
this is the wrong place to do so. Rather I want to show how the UK is
not that different from its cousins across the pond. We too have our
'goat seats'. We too have zones and areas of the country where it would
be cost-effective for the campaigns to avoid.
So, let's make a start. I am going to start by listing the seats where
the same winning party has polled over 50% in the last four general
elections. So, for example in Aberavon Labour have polled 51.9, 60.1,
63.1, and 71.3 per cent in the last four elections, each time securing
winning margins of at least 35%. Similarly in Hampshire North East the
Conservatives have polled 60.6, 53.1, 53.2 and 50.9 per cent in the last
four elections, each time securing winning margins of at least 28%.
There are 52 such constituencies in the United Kingdom, with a
population of over 5 million and an area of 4,791 square kilometres.
Half of these seats are in London or the North West and are
predominantly Labour-dominated. In fact only seven of the 52 are not
currently dominated by Labour. The map below shows their distribution.
Next I took those seats which the same winning party has secured
majorities of over 20% in each of the last four elections. This added
another 51 seats to the 52 we already have. So now there are 103 seats
with large majorities and/or massive vote share for a single party.
These 103 seats account for almost 10 million people in seats with an
area of 19,937 square kilometres. This is an area roughly the size of
Wales, with a population greater than the cities of London, Birmingham,
Manchester and Glasgow combined. The map is shown below:
I did the same for those seats with consistent 15%+ winning majorities
for a single party from at least the last three elections, and included
those which have only had two elections due to new parliamentary
boundaries. This further shrinks the map. There are now 215
constituencies which have established consistent large majorities, large
enough to be outside the reasonable expectation of a seat changing
hands. These 215 constituencies comprise 20,576,440 people, around a
third of the population. These constituencies take up an area of almost
70,000 square kilometres. The map is shown below:
The final stage was to use my own judgement in selecting those seats
where one could reasonably expect a particular party to win. In doing
this I used those seats my own models are projecting to be a very high
probability of success for a particular party. These judgement calls are
clearly personal, and in the weeks and months to come I expect to
reveal some of the methods I use here. However, I have purposely being
very conservative in these choices on this occasion and set my models up
likewise. This further shrinks the map, although I must say here that I
would personally 'call' a number of seats not included based on my
experience and the numbers. That said, even with a conservative setting,
the map now shows 351 seats where it is reasonable to assume the result
is known in 2015.
These 351 seats have a population of 33,881,216 people with a land area
of 114,919 square kilometres. This is an area equal to the whole of
England excluding the East Midlands, over half of the population. The
map is shown below:
I know many of you will challenge both my methods and assumptions. But
this post is intended to display the geography of political priorities
and to underline how, for many people, politics is simply not worth the
effort. In future posts I will further analyse the geographical
distribution of the target seats of all the main parties, together with
the efficacy of campaign spending. For now it's enough to simply present
the numbers.
The list has been updated and as such, is as up to date as we know, follow the link above if you would like to know who has been chosen as PPC
360 LABOUR
211 CONSERVATIVE
140 LIBERAL DEMOCRATS
90 UKIP
26 THE GREEN PARTY
25 PLAID CYMRU
18 CLASS WAR PARTY
2 MEBYON KERNOW
2 JUSTICE 4 MEN & BOYS PARTY
1 HEALTH CONCERN
1 TUSC
1 SDLP
1 PIRATE PARTY
1 NHA PARTY
Your help with links for PPC websites would be gratefully received.
Feel free to leave a comment with the information.
Latest ICM Scotland poll would mean
#SNP 3 seats
#Labour 2
#Conservative 1
with the Conservatives just 1% above losing their seat to #UKIP
— General Election (@UKELECTIONS2015) April 21, 2014
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/poll-says-scots-more-likely-to-vote-yes-if-they-think-the-torys-will-win-th.1398070214
People in Scotland are more likely to vote for independence if they
think the Conservatives will win the next UK general election, a poll
suggests.
But the prospect of a Labour government would see a surge in support
for the union, with more voters rejecting independence, the ICM poll
found.
ICM recorded the highest overall support for independence since last
August at 48% excluding "don't knows", results reported in the Scotland
on Sunday revealed.
If the Tories look like winning the 2015 general election the Yes
campaign could be on the cusp of victory at 49% excluding undecided
voters, according to further ICM results published today by sister paper
The Scotsman.
The party, which has one MP in Scotland, could also lose its only
Scottish MEP to Eurosceptic party Ukip at the European elections next
month, the poll suggests.
Overall, ICM found 39% in support of independence with 42% against and 19% undecided.
The prospect of a Tory government would see a two per cent swing
from undecided to boost Yes to 41% while the No vote remains unchanged.
The prospect of a Labour government would see support for
independence fall to 36%, support for the union surge to 44% and leave
20% undecided.
Support for Ukip is on the rise and they are on the verge of
becoming Scotland's third most popular party in the European Parliament,
according to ICM voting intentions.
The SNP remains the most popular party at 37%, although support is
down 4% on last month, with Labour holding fairly steady in second place
at 28%.
Tory support has dropped two points to 11% while support for Ukip is up four points to 10%.
Lib Dem support was two points up at 7% while the Greens remained unchanged at 4%.
ICM interviewed an online sample of 1,004 Scottish adults aged 16+ on 14-16 April 2014.
Is too much of England run from London? Public Back Regional Decision Making (Survation for Devolve Deliver)
In
new polling looking at the potential appetite for regional devolution
in England, 65% to 13% of the public agreed that “too much of England is
run from London” and the statement “London receives preferential
treatment over the rest of the UK” had a significant 70% agreement vs
16% for the opposing statement
The
public do not support a level of devolved power for England that
Scotland and Wales currently experience, but backed more economic powers
being delivered at a local or regional level by 50% to 33%. Local and
regional devolution of transport decisions was backed by 61% to 23%
The
Labour Party’s recent moves to discuss such devolution may find support
from a sceptical public of whom only 8% trusted Government ministers
over others for decisions about local service delivery. 40% told
Survation they were more likely (net) to vote for a party which promised
to devolve more power to their area vs. only 8% (net) less likely
"These results show that a majority of the public are unhappy with
the degree to which power in the UK is centralised in London. Whilst
there is not support for full Scotland-style devolution in English
regions, there is clearly an appetite to see powers in many areas,
including transport, service delivery and even some economic powers,
wrested away from central government and handed over to more local
bodies. With a majority of Labour and Liberal Democrat voters saying
they would be more likely to support a party promising to devolve
powers, it seems that Ed Miliband has potential gains to make from his
increased focus on this area."
I have just put in the ICM polling information to see just what may happen. It not only suggests UKIP would win 57 but some of their greatest bets now such as Great Yarmouth would be won by Labour, where as if UKIP did ever get 27% I am sure that would be one of the first notched up on the board. It also thinks that Lib Dems on 8% would still save half their seats. With that kind of share of the vote even Mr Clegg would be twitchy in Sheffield Hallam. Great tool but very much flawed at times.
As the parties make a launch for the European elections here is a MEP who was elected as UKIP but now fighting the election with An Independence From Europe Party. How much of an affect will this have? Well when the results roll in we will find out.
http://www.aipmep.org/
Populus poll
Labour 35%
Conservative 34%
UKIP 14%
Libdem 9%
— General Election (@UKELECTIONS2015) April 18, 2014
Populus polling
Men (Women)
Conservatives 34% (33)
Labour 33% (38)
UKIP 15% (12)
LD 10% (8)
Absolutely certain to vote
Men 60% Women 43%
— General Election (@UKELECTIONS2015) April 18, 2014
Populus
Aged 18-24 (65+)
Labour 48% (23)
Conservative 34% (43)
LD 6% (7)
UKIP 4% (20)
Absolutely certain to vote
18-24 = 33%
65+ = 74%
— General Election (@UKELECTIONS2015) April 18, 2014
Populus
Absolutely certain to vote by voting intention
UKIP 70%
Conservative 68%
Labour 64%
Liberal Democrat 57%
— General Election (@UKELECTIONS2015) April 18, 2014
YouthSight poll of voting intention amongst students 1-2 April
Labour 43%
Conservative 24%
Green 14%
Lib Dem 6%
UKIP 5%
— General Election (@UKELECTIONS2015) April 18, 2014
Amongst Scottish students polled about the Independence Referendum
No 58%
Yes 37%
#indyref
— General Election (@UKELECTIONS2015) April 18, 2014
The Labour Party has
appointed US election strategist David Axelrod as a strategic adviser on
leader Ed Miliband's 2015 election campaign.
Mr Axelrod was a key architect of Barack Obama's victory over John McCain in the 2008 presidential race.
He will work alongside shadow foreign secretary, Douglas Alexander, who is to run Labour's general election strategy.
Labour will also call on Mr Axelrod's consulting, firm AKVD, in its bid to win power, BBC Newsnight revealed.
After masterminding Mr Obama's election to the White House, Mr Axelrod went on to become a senior adviser to the president.
Ed Miliband understands the struggle
that people are going through in Britain to make a living wage, to
support their families, to retire with some dignity”
David AxelrodUS election strategist
He quit the post in 2011 in order to work on the successful 2012 campaign to re-elect Mr Obama.
The strategist has since acted as a media commentator and as a
director of the Institute of Politics at the University of Chicago. 'Huge asset'
Ed Miliband hailed the appointment as "excellent news" and
predicted the strategist would be a "huge asset to our campaign as we
work to show the British people how we can change our country for the
better".
Mr Axelrod said he had been struck by the power of the Labour leader's ideas and the "strength of his vision".
Is this the killer for the Libdems?
Which party is led by people of real ability?
1% MIDS/WALES
2% LONDON
2% S.ENG
2% N.ENG
6% SCOTLAND
— General Election (@UKELECTIONS2015) April 18, 2014
Yougov
Mids/Wales vote
LAB 35%
CON 34%
UKIP 16%
LD 10%
Which party led by people of real ability?
CON 22%
LAB 15%
LD 1%
NONE 46%
DK 17%
— General Election (@UKELECTIONS2015) April 18, 2014
Yougov
S.England voting
CON 40%
LAB 28%
UKIP 17%
LD 13%
Which party led by people of real ability?
CON 24%
LAB 15%
LD 2%
NONE 42%
DK 17%
— General Election (@UKELECTIONS2015) April 18, 2014
Yougov
London voting
LAB 41%
CON 34%
UKIP 12%
LD 9%
Which party led by people of real ability?
CON 18%
LAB 10%
LD 2%
NONE 45%
DK 25%
— General Election (@UKELECTIONS2015) April 18, 2014
Yougov
N.England Voting
LAB 42%
CON 28%
UKIP 16%
LD 8%
Which party led by people of real ability?
CON 23%
LAB 21%
LD 2%
NONE 38%
DK 16%
— General Election (@UKELECTIONS2015) April 18, 2014
The
Socialist Equality Party is proud to announce our slate of eight
candidates to stand in the North West region for the 2014 European
Elections.
Chris Marsden, 52, is the national secretary of the Socialist Equality Party and a member of the Editorial Board of the World Socialist Web Site. Julie Hyland, 49, is assistant national secretary of the Socialist Equality Party and a member of the Editorial Board of the World Socialist Web Site. Robert Skelton, 44, writes regularly for the World Socialist Web Site,
with a focus on the disclosures by whistleblower Edward Snowden of mass
illegal surveillance by the US and British security services. Lucy Warren, 25, is a Learning Support Assistant. She joined the SEP in 2010, and is a member of its youth organization, the International Youth and Students for Social Equality (IYSSE). Mark Dowson, 39, is a call centre worker. He joined the SEP in 2011 out of his experiences in the Occupy movement and writes for the World Socialist Web Site on the National Health Service and social conditions in Britain and Europe. Ajitha Gunaratne,
46, works in the National Health Service. He joined the Revolutionary
Communist League, forerunner of the SEP in Sri Lanka in 1990. He writes
on the NHS. Joe Heffer, 25, is a postgraduate student at the University of Liverpool. He joined the SEP in 2009 and is a member of the International Youth and Students for Social Equality. He writes on issues facing students and young people for the World Socialist Web Site. Danny Dickinson,
66, is a retiree having worked as a seaman, car and rail worker and for
the Pilkington group, St Helens. A socialist his entire adult life, he
writes for the World Socialist Web Site on the struggles of workers in Britain.
The
entire criminal justice system, according to The Independent on 10th January this year, is
infiltrated by organised crime gangs. That was the conclusion of a leaked Scotland Yard report which was
supposed to remain secret.
We
could
certainly be forgiven for thinking that corruption is rife throughout
the
great institutions of state. The
integrity of the police, hammered by the tragic mishandling of the
Stephen
Lawrence case, was hit further as the phone hacking scandal exposed
appalling corruption. Phone hacking also revealed wrongdoing by
print journalists, some close to the heart of political power, while the
BBC’s
reputation was tarnished by numerous revelations about Jimmy Savile. The
political establishment has gone through
five years of torment over the expenses scandal with powerful
aftershocks still
being felt today. Nor has the Church
escaped, especially the Romish one whose reputation globally lies in
tatters.
These
and other scandals have left scars in the public psyche, but how deep does
distrust run? Is the UK really facing a
crisis of confidence in its ability to run things cleanly? And is that distrust
justified?
Recent
ComRes research for International Justice Mission (IJM), published to
coincide with The Locust Effect – written by IJM’s Founder and CEO Gary
Haugen – reveals a wide seam of disaffection with the UK’s justice system.
The good news
is that most people, 59%, are ‘generally satisfied that Britain operates under
the rule of law’. Also encouraging is
that while there is a gap in confidence between older and younger people, the
latter register as more sceptical largely because there are more who decline to
offer a view at all.
And this
positive outlook translates into confidence in how people live their lives: 54%
report feeling safe walking alone at night in the area where they live, despite
a big variation between men and women.
But the real
shocker in the survey is the revelation that between a third and 40% of people
regard the criminal justice system as corrupt, depending on which part of it you
ask about.
Most
significantly, 40% do not agree that ‘generally speaking, people in Britain are
treated equally under the law’ - yet that is a fundamental tenet of our legal
system. Similarly 37% cannot agree with
the statement that ‘I don’t generally regard the British Government as
corrupt’.
On the
efficacy of the justice system again we find a surprisingly large pocket of
disquiet: 36% believe the police in Britain ‘have a significant corruption
problem’ (agreeing, it would seem, with Scotland Yard’s own ‘secret’ report)
and a further 34% ‘do not trust the courts in Britain to deliver just
outcomes’.
Across
every measure, people in lower income groups are the most negative towards the
ability of the State to see that justice is done. Forty-four percent in social group DE, which
includes the jobless and dispossessed, regard the British Government as
corrupt, compared to 31% in social group AB at the other end of the
spectrum. Similarly 49% of DEs do not
believe people are generally treated equally under the law, compared to 34% of the
more privileged ABs.
The
proportion of people who feel safe walking at night compares extremely favourably
with countries where the rule of law is so clearly a major problem and a cause
of inequality and injustice. At 54% it
is much higher, for example, than in Venezuela (34%), South Africa
(38%), Paraguay (40%), Costa Rica (41%) and Bolivia (43%),
It is this more positive personal
experience of safety which reveal the reality that access to justice is far
worse in many parts of the Developing World than in Britain. A 2008 United Nations report
estimates that four billion people live outside of the protection of the rule
of law. The Locust Effect points to other global studies which reveal
troubling trends showing that ‘everyday violence’ – acts of violence that are
already against the law, including rape, forced labour, sex trafficking, land
grabbing and police brutality – not only threaten the safety of billions of
people worldwide but significantly undermine international development efforts
aimed at ending poverty across the world.
As
author Haugen points out, “the answer to ending global poverty lies first and
foremost in ending common, everyday violence and introducing effective local
law enforcement. The problem is that the
justice systems are so broken that they do not shield the poor from violence.”
He goes on to suggest a reason why, while people in the UK feel more
secure than their counterparts in the developing world, many Britons are still
deeply pessimistic about their country’s justice institutions. Law enforcement ‘is a service that is often
out of sight, out of mind’ and Haugen suggests that affluent societies have
grown so accustomed to the comfort of a secure and effective justice system
that we focus more on its failings than its efficacy.
Haugen’s
global analysis does seem to be echoed in the variations in our own British
attitudes survey; it is particularly troubling that the poor in our own country
have the greatest distrust of the institutions created to defend us.
But
while we
in the prosperous West fret over corrupt police selling personal
information to
tabloid journalists, however odious that may be, we must not get out of
proportion the huge advantages we enjoy. Our justice system largely
works impartially and effectively. Girls here do not boycott school for
fear of
being sexually assaulted, the poor are not routinely run off their
property and
we do not fear being arrested for a crime we have not committed in order
to satisfy
a bribe-greedy police force.
Haugen’s book
is a great antidote to our lack of appreciation for the advantages we enjoy,
and an important contribution to the literature about why so many languish in
poverty and how they deserve our help.