Gina Miller, the pro-EU campaigner, has launched the “biggest tactical voting drive ever,” raising nearly £300,000 to support parliamentary candidates from different parties who want to stop “Extreme Brexit”.
But could tactical voting really make a difference to the election on 9 June? Is there any chance we could end up with a “progressive alliance” of parties opposed to “hard Brexit”, as the Green Party have advocated?
“There are two versions of a progressive alliance,” polling expert Professor John Curtice told us. “They’re closely aligned, but not quite the same.
“Version One is saying that any Labour, Liberal Democrat or Green winner is preferable to a Conservative winner. Version Two is that any pro-soft Brexit or Remain is preferable to any hard Brexit MP.
“The difference arises in cases like (pro-EU Tory) Ken Clarke and (Labour Leaver) Kate Hoey.”
In other words, a tactical voting drive that was purely about Brexit could in theory see Labour supporters voting Conservative, and vice versa.
Gina Miller’s campaign team didn’t answer FactCheck’s questions about whether they would support pro-EU Conservatives, saying details would be clarified soon.
Where does Labour sit in this tactical voting drive? The campaign page claims they will support “candidates who pledge to support a full and free vote on the Brexit deal”.
But, as political scientist Dr Chris Prosser points out: “Jeremy Corbyn has ruled out a second referendum, so the only way that Britain wouldn’t leave the EU is if there’s enough Lib Dems to form a government with the SNP – which is incredibly unlikely!”
The other problem is that voting priorities in Scotland and Northern Ireland are likely to be very different to those in England and Wales. In Northern Ireland, the DUP and the UUP are discussing an election pact, despite being on different sides of the Brexit debate.
Meanwhile, the Scottish Conservative leader, Ruth Davidson, is already calling for tactical voting to prevent a second Scottish independence referendum, saying the Conservatives are the only alternative to the SNP. So pro-EU tactical voting may not be nearly as effective, because other issues are on the table that could act against it.
Labour are currently miles off a majority, with just 229 seats compared to the Conservatives’ 330. But if you add in the SNP (54), Lib Dems (9), Plaid Cymru (3) and the Greens (1), this figure rises to 296. Plus, Labour will be hoping to keep its seat for Manchester Gorton, which is currently empty following the death of Sir Gerald Kaufman.
In theory, if these parties clubbed together they would only need 25 extra seats to get an effective majority (discounting the Speaker, the Deputy Speakers and Sinn Fein MPs, who abstain from parliament). Or, for a proper workable majority disregarding Sinn Fein’s abstention, 29 new seats.
It’s perfectly possible that tactical voting could help progressive parties make some gains in certain seats. After all, there are several extremely marginal constituencies, like Gower in Wales, where the Conservatives beat Labour by just 27 votes in 2015.
According to data from Electoral Calculus, if Labour, the Lib Dems, the SNP and Green voters had all coordinated perfectly in the 2015 election, they could have achieved a combined majority. But, of course, not only is that level of coordination impossible, there would also have been vast numbers of voters who wouldn’t want to vote tactically. And remember, those figures are based on 2015 levels of Labour support, before the party plummeted in the polls.
And even if a progressive alliance did manage to scrape a majority, the Conservatives would almost certainly still be the largest single party, meaning they could try forming a minority government or a coalition.
According to a YouGov poll last year, 43 per cent of people likely to vote in England said they supported a “progressive” party. But even if people are prepared to vote tactically, or for an alliance, they might be in the wrong constituencies to make a difference.
YouGov said: “While there is a high level of transferability within the ‘progressive’ pool, ultimately the pact would have a hard time securing electoral success. This is because the most enthusiastic supporters of a progressive alliance would add votes where they were least needed to elect left-of-centre MPs.”
Yes. According to Professor Curtice, tactical voting started occurring at an unprecedented level in the 1990s and already has an impact on elections. So it’s possible that many people who are prepared to vote tactically are already doing so.
“Getting more of it looks more difficult, unless Brexit proves to be such a crucial issue,” Curtice said.
“If you make alliances, you change the incentives of how people vote,” Dr Prosser told us.
“And you might change the incentives of the people on the other side of politics vote. You can’t just change one piece of the puzzle when it comes to voting; everything is moving in tandem.
“There’s plenty of people who see themselves as progressive, but don’t like Labour, or the Lib Dems or the Greens, or they don’t want Scottish independence. If you say to them: ‘We’re going to come together and make Jeremy Corbyn Prime Minister’, I think there’s a lot of people who wouldn’t be OK with that.”
Even if they had enough seats, it’s hard to see how these parties could ever form a coalition together – though it’s not impossible. Labour and the Lib Dems have already rejected calls for an election pact with other parties.
And although politicians sometimes go back on their word, at the moment it seems unlikely that Labour would ever hook up with the SNP. The parties have been highly critical of each other, with Corbyn saying he does not see them as “reliable allies”.
Professor Curtice explained: “South of the border, people occasionally say: ‘Wouldn’t it be nice if Labour and the SNP got together?’. The Labour party has just been crucified by the SNP. What the hell makes you think they’re going to get together? The Labour party neither wish to touch the Tories with a barge poll, or the SNP with a barge poll.
“You can try persuading Labour voters in Scotland to vote SNP, but I kind of just wish you the best of luck.”
Prosser added: “Unless something really drastic happens, like Scottish Labour being dissolved, I think it’s very unlikely. Labour is actually competing against the SNP in Scotland, so it’s very hard to see how that would work in terms of electoral competition.”
“On the face of it, it has an obvious appeal,” said Dr Prosser. “But it’s very hard to see how it’s likely to change the final outcome of the election, in terms of who wins and who loses.
“Tactical voting does make a difference in individual seats and, in the past, the Liberal Democrats in particular have strongly relied on people voting tactically. One of the problems they faced in 2015 was the evaporation of this tactical support.
“So it probably will make a difference in some individual seats, but with the Conservatives as far ahead as they are, it’s very unlikely to change the final outcome.”
http://ift.tt/2p9F23P Source: http://ift.tt/2fXCsMO
Originally posted at Family Inequality.
It looks like the phrase “start a family” started to mean “have children” (after marriage) sometime in the 1930s and didn’t catch on till the 1940s or 1950s, which happens to be the most pro-natal period in U.S. history. Here’s the Google ngrams trend for the phrase as percentage of all three-word phrases in American English:
Searching the New York Times, I found the earliest uses applied to fish (1931) and plants (1936).
Twitter reader Daniel Parmer relayed a use from the Boston Globe on 8/9/1937, in which actress Merle Oberon said, “I hope to be married within the next two years and start a family. If not, I shall adopt a baby.”
Next appearance in the NYT was 11/22/1942, in a book review in which a man marries a woman and “brings her home to start a family.” After that it was 1948, in this 5/6/1948 description of those who would become baby boom families, describing a speech by Ewan Clague, the Commissioner of Labor Statistics, who is remembered for introducing statistics on women and families into Bureau of Labor Statistics reports. From NYT:
That NYT reference is interesting because it came shortly after the first use of “start a family” in the JSTOR database that unambiguously refers to having children, in a report published by Clague’s BLS:
Trends of Employment and Labor Turn-Over: Monthly Labor Review, Vol. 63, No. 2 (AUGUST 1946): …Of the 584,000 decline in the number of full-time Federal employees between June 1, 1945 and June 1, 1946, almost 75 percent has been in the women’s group. On June 1, 1946, there were only 60 percent as many women employed full time as on June 1, 1945. Men now constitute 70 percent of the total number of full-time workers, as compared with 61 percent a year previously. Although voluntary quits among women for personal reasons, such as to join a veteran husband or to start a family, have been numerous, information on the relative importance of these reasons as compared with involuntary lay-offs is not available…
It’s interesting that, although this appears to be a pro-natal shift, insisting on children before the definition of family is met, it also may have had a work-and-family implication of leaving the labor force. Maybe it reinforced the naturalness of women dropping out of paid work when they had children, something that was soon to emerge as a key battle ground in the gender revolution.
Philip N. Cohen, PhD is a professor of sociology at the University of Maryland, College Park. He writes the blog Family Inequality and is the author of The Family: Diversity, Inequality, and Social Change. You can follow him on Twitter or Facebook.
Note: Rose Malinowski Weingartner, a student in Cohen’s graduate seminar last year, wrote a paper about this concept, which helped him think about this.
http://ift.tt/2p9Dqag Source: http://ift.tt/1TO98UO
[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]
Children who are born into poverty often struggle to escape it. Researchers have studied this generational snare for years, concluding that underfunded schools and overworked or absent guardians exacerbate the cycle.
But a recent study from the University of Chicago finds that quality daycare can make a big difference: low-income mothers with access to good programs raise kids who grow up to earn more money.
In other words, quality child care, which includes educational activities and healthy meals, appears to better prepare children for school and the labor force.“Supplying the support for low-income families will lead to a larger social return,” said co-author and economist Jorge Luis Garcia.
The cost of child care in the United States can rival the mortgage payment, ranging from about $5,000 on average annually in Alabama to a whopping $22,000 in Washington, D.C. It can also be hard to find. An analysis of eight states last year from the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank, found more than half of young children in rural Zip codes inhabit a “child care desert,” or communities where small children outnumber day-care spots by at least 3 to 1.
This can lead to inconsistent care, especially among poor families.
The University of Chicago study, led by James Heckman, a Nobel laureate economist, tracked children from birth until age 35. Heckman and his team focused on two full-time programs in North Carolina, which provided free care to low-income kids, ages eight weeks to five years.
The researchers followed a group of kids who were born in the mid-seventies and received the care, which featured daily educational exercises, and a “control” group that either stayed at home or landed in cheaper or part-time programs.
They found that mothers who received the free, full-time care made more money while their kids were in preschool, and outearned their peers twenty years later.
When the kids turned 30, meanwhile, they were outearning their counterparts in the control group: The girls made roughly $2,500 more per year and the boys made a staggering $19,800 more.
The program disproportionately benefited boys, the researchers wrote, because boys who grow up economically disadvantaged are more likely to get suspended at school and land in the criminal justice system.
The findings reinforce the importance of good care in early childhood — but lawmakers continue to debate about if and how to pay for it. The North Carolina programs in Heckman’s study, for example, cost about $18,000 yearly per child. That price tag is out of reach for most working families.
During the campaign, President Trump proposed allowing parents to deduct the average cost of child care in their area from their taxes. Details of how that would work, however, have yet to be released.
Ivanka Trump, now special assistant in the West Wing, has been leading White House efforts to work out a blueprint that the GOP-dominated Congress might embrace. Republicans have generally opposed expanding government benefits.
Lynette Fraga, executive director of Child Care Aware of America, a national organization focused on the quality of child care, said politicians should consider child care an economic issue.
“When you have nurturing, responsive care in early childhood, your brain development is on a terrific trajectory,” Fraga said. “It’s the building blocks for healthy, long-term outcomes. It’s a win for parents, children and the future workforce.”
http://ift.tt/2p9EH19 Source: http://ift.tt/11PLRFx