Creative ways of representing the gender gap

Standard

So, a bit more than 50% of the world’s population are women. About 22% of the world’s elected legislative representatives are women (see here) and the UK is just about average on this front.As of January 2014, 9 women served as Head of State and 15 served as Head of Government.(There are 195 independent states in the world).

Sounds a bit abstract? Here’s another way of thinking about it:

Here’s a picture of world leaders and influential politicians participating to the Charlie Hebdo solidarity march. Look at it carefully:

original(via)

An ultra-Orthodox Jewish paper in Israel decided to photoshop and crop out female politicians, because their editorial policy forbids pictures of women. Let’s see how this looks like:

Continue reading

Monday Graph: attitudes to immigration by political party

Standard

Courtesy of British Future (via)

In a poll carried out by Ipsos Mori for British Future, people were asked: to give the contribution of immigration to Britain on a score of 0 (entirely negative) to 10 (entirely positive).

The results are below

download2

What we see:

-Roughly about 1 in 5 of all voters gave immigration a 0; about 1 in 4 gave it a score higher than 7

-UKIP voters quite unsurprisingly stand out in that 41% gave it a 0 and only 5% (so one in 20) 7 or higher.

-Conservative voters cover the anti-immigration side and middle ground quite evenly, but they are unlikely to give immigration a score higher than 7

Continue reading

Smart people saying smart things

Standard

First of all, Grayson Perry. In the New Statesman. Mandatory reading for anyone interested in gender studies; or class studies, or identity studies.

“When we talk of identity, we often think of groups such as black Muslim lesbians in wheelchairs. This is because identity only seems to become an issue when it is challenged or under threat. Our classic Default Man is rarely under existential threat; consequently, his identity remains unexamined. It ambles along blithely, never having to stand up for its rights or to defend its homeland.”

Then, a series of interesting reactions to UKIP winning the by-election in Clacton:

First, a Fabians report on “Labour’s UKIP Problem” and how it can be overcome; by Marcus Roberts, with research from Ian Warren and Rob Ford (No, NOT the mayor of Toronto, the academic from Manchester who wrote “Revolt On The Right”!).

“There are five critical and high-risk seats under direct threat by UKIP, for both Labour and the Conservatives each:

• Labour seats under direct UKIP threat: Great Grimsby, Dudley North, Plymouth Moor View, Rother Valley, Rotherham

• Con seats under direct UKIP threat: Clacton, South Thanet, Thurrock, Great Yarmouth, Waveney”
IPPR’s Alice Sachrajada: UKIP argue that the UK needs to ‘get back control of its borders’ and should limit ‘the overall numbers of migrants’. Their main vehicle for doing so is leaving the EU, coupled with even tighter controls on non EU migrants. Whatever the merits of these policies – and at IPPR we’re convinced they would damage the UK’s national interests – reducing immigration in such ways would not, in the short to medium term, necessarily reduce the impacts of immigration.”
And finally, William Lacy Swing, Director General of the International Organisation for Migration (IOM), on why Europe needs to make immigration easier
“The high-road scenario for migration has to start with a fundamental shift in perceptions; we need to correct the myths and misconceptions that surround migration, and so restore public confidence in governments’ ability to manage migration effectively. That means we need to reaffirm that discrimination and violence against migrants is intolerable. Above all, perhaps, we must create recognition of the overwhelmingly positive contribution migrants have made throughout history by launching an open dialogue about the role of migration in contemporary societies.”

The most pro-Europe and Euroskeptic constituencies; who takes most advantage of the ‘European Citizen’ experience?

Standard

eu_flag-t2

(via)

This post on Constituency Opinion reminded me, in many ways, of a personal research experience: doing the fieldwork for the EUCROSS survey; with Romanian immigrants living in London. The study looked at how we experience being European citizens (and members of a multicultural society) in everyday life: how likely we are, for instance, to have friends of a different nationality than others, to enjoy food and music not from our home country, to travel for work/study/leisure; and how this intersects with attitudes towards the EU and with variables such as class and nationality.

Now, let’s look first at the Constituency Opinion data:

The most pro-European constituencies are:

1. Hornsey and Wood Green; MP Lynne Featherstone- Lib Dem safe seat
2. Bristol West; MP Stephen Williams, Lib Dem safe seat
3. Edinburgh North and Leith, Labour/Lib Dem marginal, current MP Mark Lazarowicz, Labour
4. Manchester Withington again Labour/Lib Dem marginal, current MP John Leech, Lib Dems
5. Edinburgh South again Labour/Lib Dem marginal, current MP Ian Murray, Labour, elected with a majority of just 316 votes.
6. Islington North, MP Jeremy Corbyn, Labour safe seat
7. Battersea, Conservative/Labour marginal, MP Jane Ellison, Conservative
8. Islington South and Finsbury; Labour/Lib Dem marginal, current MP Emily Thornberry, Labour
9. Hackney North and Stoke Newington;
MP Diane Abbot, Labour safe seat.

10. Streatham; MP Chuka Umunna, Labour safe seat

So, let’s keep a tally:

Constituencies: 6 in London, 2 in Edinburgh, 1 Manchester, 1 Bristol; so overwhelmingly urban.

MP’s: 5 labour, 3 lib dems, 1 tory, no tory safe seats; (also, interestingly, 4 women, 6 men- which is better gender parity than the UK parliament ever had, and 2 MP’s are non-white/ethnic minority.) Trends are easily visible: pro European constituencies vote Lib Dem and Labor, but with the exception of Battersea, not Conservative.

Now let’s look at the opposite end- the most Euroskeptic constituencies.

Continue reading

A quick recap for David Cameron

Standard

David Cameron the mask slips

(via)

So, glancing at the paper on my way to work yesterday, I came across this :

“Cameron also joked about taking legal action against pollsters who suggested the two campaigns were neck and neck, when the final result saw 55% vote no to independence and 45% yes.

“I’ve said I want to find these polling companies and I want to sue them for my stomach ulcers because of what they put me through. It was very nervous moments,” he said.”

Now, now… see what that statistical margin of error can do? The moral, gentle readers, is that learning about statistics can save you a stomach ache.

Also, do learn how to read demographic stats, too.

The 3% margin of error- and how it can change a political debate

Standard

As I’m writing this post right now, we’ve been knowing for sure for several hours: with 55% of “no” votes, Scotland is staying in the UK. On a quick look at my Twitter feed, I’m getting a mixed bag of relief, celebration, introspection, ‘what next’ concern and that rant from Trainspotting (nsfw).

The one comment that caught my eye, however, came from Sussex Uni fellow Ben Stanley.

We surely do remember that YouGov poll:

Bw4KUBXCUAAHvJP(via)

Continue reading

Monday Graph: The Scottish Independence Referendum and the collapse of the Conservative vote in Scotland

Standard

b(via)

Well here we are, just 3 days lef to the Scottish Independence Referendum. Just until last month, it looked like the “Yes” vote was hardly approaching 40%, let alone stand any chance. Then September came and suddenly the possibility looks much more real; with that one Sunday Times Poll showing the Yes Campaign taking the lead with 51%; followed by two Survation and one ICM/Guardian polls indicating the No Campaign is back ahead- but only by an ever-so-slightly margin. (You can track Independence Referendum poll results here)

So, in other words…

How did we get here? A thought-provoking article on the Economist’s ‘Graphic Detail’ blog suggests that “An energetic campaign by the nationalists over the past months is one explanation. But the underlying causes go back much further. They lie in long-term shifts in the Scottish electoral landscape.”

Let’s look at the graphs published by the Economist:

Continue reading