Suchergebnisse

I am writing this piece in response to the Hungarian opposition political parties’ agreement to create a joint programme for government and stand single candidates against Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s ruling Hungarian Civic Alliance party (Fidess) in all 106 electoral districts. The Hungarian opposition’s pledge to unite and form an anti-Orban block for the […]
The post Why alliance formation among opposition political parties is not a good idea? appeared first on Gulay Icoz.

There are concerns about the rise of populism and erosion of democratic standards throughout the world. Examples include countries such as Hungary, Poland and Brazil, growing support for populist parties in western Europe, and recent development in the US. Populism has grown through new challenger parties, but also through capture of previously mainstream parties.

David Bailey

Our guest for this episode is David Bailey, Senior Lecturer in Political Science and International Studies, at University of Birmingham. David is joining us to talk about his forthcoming book with Rowman & Littlefield, Protest Movements and Parties of the Left.

As we've been arguing on this show for the last few weeks, there is no doubt at this stage that the left is 'back'. Arriving admittedly a decade or two later than Latin America's "Pink Tide", the left has made electoral gains recently, both in Europe, and in the US. Yet it is also clear that the left is not used to having this kind of potential. To the contrary, suffering through its long period of post-Cold War defeat, it has been content to engage in a lot of internal squabbling, and become comfortable avoiding the tough question of how it might engage ordinary people with its ideas. David Bailey's book is a very interesting intervention, in this sense. Without necessarily taking a side in the debates he examines (to what extent should the left embrace the state? Should we pursue reform, or revolution?), he surveys the history of some of the more prominent moments and modes of leftist protest and struggle. What is interesting, however, is he choses to do this in an optimistic way. Refusing the left's traditional mournful stance on its history, and deliberately trying to focus on the things the movements got right, Bailey is out to capture the spark of revolutionary disruption in each of his case studies, where the impossible was somehow, suddenly, made possible.

I got to see an advance copy of the book recently, and more than anything I was kind of pleasantly surprised by his open-minded stance on left strategy, finding those sparks of disruption everywhere, from the early days of 1917 Bolshevik Revolution, to the anarchist movements of the Spanish Civil War, and even in post-war parliamentary reformism. The civil rights movements get a look in here, and there are chapters on the New Left, the history of feminism, and the rise of environmentalism. And those interested in more recent history will find the last chapters quite interesting I think, looking at the Occupy movement and, more interestingly, the influence of 'Left Populist' struggles Latin America on the rise of what Bailey calls 'left pragmatism' in Europe and North America, embodied of course in parties like Syriza and Podemos, but even more recently in figures like Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders.

To celebrate International Youth Day 2020 Rachel Mims, Senior Program Officer for Youth Political Participation at NDI, is joined by three young leaders from Zambia, Lebanon, and Moldova. They discuss competitive youth debate as an opportunity to build political skills, actively contribute to solving social problems, and create greater space for youth inclusion in public life. For more information please go to https://www.ndi.org/youth-leading-debate
Find us on: SoundCloud | Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS | Google Play
Given Kapolyo: I don't believe in the saying young people are the future leaders. Because the truth is they tell us this for years and years and years, when I was 15 they told me you're a future leader, then I turned 20 and they said I'm a future leader, then they turned 25, and they said I'm a future leader, so then I'm now just waiting, I'm saying okay, when does the future come?
Now I think just this is time that we turn it around, and say young people should be the leaders of today, as well.
Rachel Mims: Today's young people deserve real opportunities to participate in political processes, and contribute to practical solutions that advance development. When given an opportunity to organize, voice their opinions, and play a meaningful role in political decision making, they consistently demonstrate their willingness and ability to foster positive lasting change. They also become more likely to demand and defend democracy, and gain a greater sense of belonging.
Recent global movements such as movements for climate justice and racial justice demonstrate that young people are demanding a shift in who has power, and in how that power is used, yet young people still find themselves marginalized from mainstream politics, and are limited in their ability to exercise the same influence over decision making processes. This is particularly true for young people who have experienced intersecting forms of marginalization and exclusion. At a time when global inequality is increasing, young people remain disproportionately impacted, and are expressing frustration with leaders and institutions that they perceive to be inaccessible, incapable, unresponsive, corrupt, and often repressive.
NDI works globally to support the political participation of young people through a variety of approaches that increase young people's agency, and create a more supportive environment. One approach involves helping young people develop competitive debating skills, including an issue analysis and framing, reasoning, public speaking, and active listening. NDI has supported [inaudible 00:02:05] programs in several countries, including longstanding programs in Jordan and Moldova, and more recent programs in Guatemala and Libya. We've seen the debate skills not only enhance political participation, but also contribute to holistic youth development. Debate builds practical skills that pave the way for young people to successfully engage in civil discourse and peaceful problem solving, both with their peers and with adult power holders.
I'm Rachel Mims, Senior Program Officer for Youth Political Participation at the National Democratic Institute, and today we are joined by three young leaders from Lebanon, Moldova, and Zambia, each working in different ways to apply their debate skills and actively contribute to solving social problems. As a result, they're creating greater space for youth inclusion in public life. First we'll hear from [Gibbon Carpolio 00:02:58]. Next up, Rachbenda Fou, and then Selena Decuzar. Welcome to Dem Works.
In Zambia, NDI partner with a chapter of the Center for Young Leaders of Africa, and Youth for Parliament, to gather young people from across political parties, media, and civil society organizations to debate solutions for increasing the number of young people in parliament. This debate program created an opportunity for youth from parties and civil society to change ideas, develop their public speaking and research skills, and to generate discussion around critical issues facing youth in Zambia.
We spoke with Given Kapolyo to learn more. Given, thank you for joining us today.
GK: Thank you so much for having me. It's a great pleasure to feature. First of all, I'm a young African female, my name is Given Kapolyo, I'm a young politician, I'm a student, I'm an activist, I'm an advocate, and a public speaker now. I can proudly call myself a public speaker, after I took part in the NDI public speaking that was called the Youth Debate Zambia.
I live in the northern part of Zambia. That's Kasama, northern province, Kasama, rural part of Zambia, so it was great that I was moved from the northern part of Zambia to the capital city, just to participate in the Youth Debate Zambia.
RM: Thank you, and thank you for telling us about all the different hats you wear. I hope to hear more about your activism, and other things that you're doing in politics.
Can you tell me more about your experience in the debate program? What was it like? What were some of the topics that you all discussed?
GK: We began with a training session. We covered the history of public speaking, we covered the tricks that we need for public speaking, how you draw the attention of a crowd, how you keep them engaged, and ordered. It was different young people from different parts of the country, and we were all brought together and were taught together, and then were given a topic. We were discussing how we can increase the number of young people in parliament, the number of youths in parliament, and it was a very profound experience, in the sense that we didn't just learn, then they'd give us a chance to actually show what we had learned from the training, and it was that interesting.
By the time we were leaving the training, there were people that were so confident to go back to their communities, and just speak change into their communities, into the crowds, and that was just how interesting, and just how meaningful it was to me and other participants that were there.
RM: I really love the point about public speaking, and this immediate sense of agency that young people feel, that they can go back and use their voice, and they have skills that they can start to put into use right away. Can you talk about the connection between some of the skills that you learned and your future political aspirations? I know that you're interested in running for public office.
GK: One of the things that we learned at the Youth Debate Zambia was that communication, public speaking and communication have a lot to do with politics, and with the youth standing out as a public figure, because it's they also mentioned how many great orators were [inaudible 00:06:34] were to get into public office because of how they spoke, how good they were at it, and the impacts that it just had in changing society.
For me as a young politician, first of all I must mention that the country that I'm from it's very difficult for a young female. First of all, it's very difficult for a female to make it into public office. It's even worse for a young female to make it. That, it also prepared me for how I could use my words to show people that not only will I be a voice for them, I could actually speak my heart out to them, tell them what my plans are, but then do it skillfully in a way that they buy into it, and are able to elect me, and even how because we dealt with topics on how you could make your speech relatable such that as you're telling your story somebody that is listening instantly feels like you're telling their story, and when they're able to relate with you it will be very easy for them to actually elect you as their leader, because they feel like you're a mirror of them, and then you can represent them better.
The training for me was actually a point that I think began a lot of things for me, because I knew I could speak, but then I didn't know I could use it to further my political ambition. When I went back home, in Kasana, I was able to speak to various groups. Just by me sharing my story with them, they were able to buy into the vision that I have for my ward, because I have aspirations of standing as a ward counselor next year, in our general elections, and it's been very helpful.
I've been able to know another important thing we learned is how you should be able to read your audience, so depending on who I'm talking to, I'm able to know which skills I should employ.
RM: Thank you. I know you can't see me, but I'm nodding vigorously over here, because you just shared, I think, so many important lessons with our listeners, just about how you can use these skills to further your political ambition, how things are different for young women, and how they face different barriers and challenges into getting into elected office, and how these skills help create an opening.
I want to talk about NDI's work in changing the face of politics, and it relates directly to what you mentioned about being a young woman in politics. NDI is launching a decade-long campaign to accelerate the pace of change on all aspects of women's empowerment, and that includes their participation in leadership and politics, and I wanted to hear from you what you think young people's role is in not only changing the face of politics, but ensuring that young women have a role to play, and can participate in politics.
GK: We need to become alive to the reality that our parents will not be here 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 years from now, it is us that will be here. Every time I'm speaking to young people about young people involvement in politics and leadership and decision making and getting involved in civic spaces, I'm always telling them if we don't get involved now, then we are simply selling our future off ... Not even selling it off, we're simply giving it off for free. Because whatever our ... Those that we leave leadership to today, whatever decisions they make, or whatever they choose to do with the resources that we have, whatever they choose to do with our nation, they will not be here to face the repercussions, we will be here.
Most of our parliament, the Zambian parliament has over 158 seats, and only 2 people are below the age of 35, only two people are youth, but if we do get young people involved, then we do get young people into parliament, we will know to say this decision that I'm making today, I'm only 27, so the decision that I'm making today, 30 years from now the chances that I still will be here to answer for it and to face the repercussions of if I make a bad decision will linger in my mind, for even as I make a decision I'm thinking I'm not thinking five years from now, I'm thinking 10, 15, 20, 30, 50 years from now, because I'm assured I will still obviously be here. I feel the time is now that young people actually take over and provide solutions to many of these challenges, and many of the problems that our country, our continent, and even the world is facing today.
RM: So many of the points that you just talked about really point to the need for this culture shift, and a culture change within politics. I think a lot of what you are advocating for, particularly about greater youth inclusion, can help contribute to that shift, and politics being more inclusive and representative of young people.
I just really want to thank you for taking time to talk with us today, and to share your thoughts, and I really want to wish you all the best in your run for office. I think you would make an amazing political leader, and I'm really excited to see what your future holds, and where you'll go after your participation as a young person in politics.
GK: Thank you so much. I look forward to where I go to, so I keep working towards it. And this I'm guaranteed that I will get there. Thank you so much for having me. It's been a pleasure having this conversation with you. I look forward to further interactions.
RM: Us as well. Thank you again.
For more than 35 years, NDI has been honored to work with thousands of courageous and committed democratic activists around the world, to help countries develop the institutions, practices, and skills necessary for democracy's success. For more information, please visit our website, at www.NDI.org.
In Lebanon, NDI is collaborating with the television station MTV Lebanon, for its weekly program, It's About Time, which features political leaders responding to questions from the host and from young people who have been trained in policy analysis and debate skills by NDI. MTV Lebanon hopes that by expanding debate culture in the country and by proving that young people can debate, they will pave the way for hosting Lebanon's first debates between national political leaders before the next elections in 2022. The show has achieved broad viewership, and resulted in viral moments on social media, with some political leaders saying that they tune in specifically to watch the youth debate segment. I would like to introduce everyone to Rafka Noufal, a junior Lebanese lawyer, and active participant on the debate show. Rafka, thank you for joining us for the podcast today.
Rafka Noufal: Thank you for having me with you today.
RM: I'd like to start with you giving us a brief introduction about your work, and your background, and what brought you to the debate show.
RN: I'm a 24-years-old Lebanese junior lawyer. I studied law in the Holy Spirit University, a Catholic University in Lebanon, and I just graduated from my masters to a degree. I also have a certificate of completion of the [inaudible 00:14:06] university program on international criminal law and procedures, and am a very social person who's interested in politics and in all the topics that are rising inside our country. When I knew about the TV political show It's About Time, through my university, I was very excited and more willing to join this show because I saw it as a platform to raise our voice as the young people in Lebanon, and to give our opinion and our thoughts on all the political and social and economic topics that are arising inside our society.
I work as a lawyer now, [inaudible 00:14:42] bar association, and I work in an office that takes private law cases and more specifically criminal law cases. Throughout my work, I got familiar with the gaps and insecurities inside the Lebanese legal system.
RM: I see so much connection between your ability to do this work as a lawyer and having the opportunity to dig into these pressing political issues on the debate show. Can you tell me a little bit more about your experience on the show, and talk about some of what you gained, whether it's skills that you gained, or kind of how the show maybe changed your perspective about politics?
RN: In fact, the different trainings we did with NDI were very useful on many levels. First of all, it developed our skills in public speaking, which is very important in the life of politics, and to my work also of the lawyer. Also, these trainings triggered the reason and the logic inside every mind of the young people who participate in the show, and it let us discuss and have conversations people from all over the country, so this debate program let us know how to discuss, how to debate topics without hurting other people's feelings, or other people's opinions.
RM: Can you tell me a little bit more about some of the topics that you debated on the TV show, and maybe topics that came up that were a bit more controversial, or there was more, there were maybe more emotions, or opinions that people really wanted to share?
RN: First off, my last debate at the show was about the early elections in Lebanon. I was supporting that we should have an early election in Lebanon, to change the members of the parliament, because the government in Lebanon now, even the parliament, they are not doing enough work in order to take us, or to help Lebanon go through this economic situation, this economic crisis we're going through right now in Lebanon. I was supporting the fact that we should be doing an early election, to change the leaders, to change the member of the parliament. We need young people to get inside the parliament. We need new, free minds, that are not attached to the past, they are not divided by sectarianism. We need a civil country, not a country that is divided by sectarianism.
RM: Can you talk a little bit more about your thoughts on the protest, and what you see as a way forward not only for young people in Lebanon, but the entire so many people across the country have been engaged in the protests, kind of what do you see as a vision, or a way forward?
RN: I would like to start by giving, talking about the problem between this disconnection, between young people nowadays in Lebanon, and the political parties, before talking about the protests. In fact, political parties in Lebanon are still attached to the past, and they divide young people by sectarianism. You should follow this party because you are from the sect that this party supports, or also I think that political parties inside Lebanon lack any vision for the future beyond their personal interests, and the most important point is that they deny the youth right to participate in decision making process, because they are political parties that are doomed with ... How to say it? Political inheritance, and the cultural hierarchy that says that elders know better than young people, but in fact when that's not the case when it's faced with reality, because every generation faces new challenges, different from the challenges that the other generation faced, so all of this adding to the corruption that grows like a tumor inside [inaudible 00:18:54] infecting all the aspects after [inaudible 00:18:58] for about like the environment, infrastructure, and economic crisis led to the birth of this protest and this revolution that emerged inside the streets of Lebanon.
RN: I think that young people, and I'm one of them, we saw this revolution as a window of hope to change the current corrupted situation in the country, and maybe to take part of the decision making process, to give our opinion, our thoughts.
RM: Do you see some of the topics that have come up in debates, and young people's desire to protest and take part in the revolution, do you see that as a meaningful pathway to change?
RN: I think so. I think young people believe in these social movements because these social movements are based on the free minds, and are detached from sectarianism, and from inequality between the Lebanese people, and maybe these social movements can create in the future political parties that can govern Lebanon and help it to develop like other countries in the world.
RM: This year, under the banner of of Changing the Face of Politics, NDI is launching a decade-long campaign to accelerate the pace of change on all aspects of women's empowerment, and that includes their participation in leadership and politics. I wanted to ask you what you see as young people's role in changing the face of politics, and ensuring that young women specifically can participate and have a meaningful role in politics, and particularly in the context of Lebanon, this new politics that you all are attempting to usher in.
RN: I think that [inaudible 00:20:44] young people are making a step to bridge this gap between politics and youth people, because they are taking on important issues, such as climate change, mass immigration, and even women empowerment, however, I think that we still have a bit of problem inside the third-world countries, but as for women empowerment, I think Lebanon and and outside in other countries young people believe in gender equality between man and woman, and they don't consider gender as an indication for holding a political position.
In fact, we support us young people that competence, performances and efficiency are the only conditions for judging a person in a position of power, and not being a woman or a man. Thus, if we take charge in Lebanon, I think you will see more women engaged in the politics. For example, right now in Lebanon we are demanding the vote of the law for women's quota in all Lebanese election as a step to engage more women in the political life of the country.
RM: Do you think that this culture of youth debate, and young people sharing their voices on these important political topics, do you think that this trend will continue, in that it's important that young people continue to use debate to speak out about politics?
RN: The debating concept is important because first, it lets you build constructive arguments in a persuasive way, and you don't only talk just to talk, you have to talk with a logic and reason. Young people can express their opinion with public speaking skills, and to accept the opinion of other people without deciding them, or offending them, as I mentioned before.
RM: I really want to thank you for taking time out to share more with us about your political experience, and to talk about the political trends that we're witnessing in Lebanon. I think that a lot of what you shared can be really relevant for young people, and for others that are participating in politics, to really understand how this development skills and development of knowledge around debate can be useful for a political career.
RN: I would like also to thank NDI for all the training they did with us, and it was really a lifetime experience with them, and with It's About Time show.
RM: Great. Thank you.
RN: Thank you so much.
RM: NDI has worked with thousands of young people on the art of competitive policy debate, and has ongoing debate programs in three regions. To learn more about NDI youth debate programs, or access program resources, visit the Youth Leading Debate Initiative, on NDI.org.
In Moldova, NDI is facilitating the seventh iteration of the Challenger Program, which aims to help create the next generation of political leaders, policymakers, and civil servants. Challenger equips young people with the knowledge and skills to develop realistic public policies that respond to the needs and priorities of the people in Moldova. The youth debates take place in the second phase of the program, the policy debate school. During the program, the participants acquire research and analytical skills, and they also take part in developing a youth manifesto, which addresses important national problems faced by young people in the country.
I would now like to introduce you to Silena, who is a member of the Challenger Program, and is going to join us to talk a little bit about her experience. Hey, Silena, thanks for joining us today.
Selina Dicusar: Hello. Thank you for having me.
RM: I'd like to just start with you giving us a brief introduction about yourself, and telling us about your experience in the program.
SD: Okay. My name is Selena Dicusar. I am 20-years-old. I was born in the Republic of Moldova. Currently, I'm studying Moldova, at the international relations.
SD: I am a member of the Communication PR Department of the Erasmus Student Network Chisinau, but elections are currently underway, and I will run for Vice President. I am also participant of Challenger, and a double winner of the Best Speaker Award.
RM: Selena, thank you for that introduction. Can you tell me about your experience in the Challenger Program, why did you decide to join in the first place, and what do you think you gained from your participation in the program?
SD: It's certainly the most complex intense and in depth project that I've ever been involved in. I've had a unique experience participating in a project which changed my attitude towards politics, and taught me new skills. Firstly, I learned to value my knowledge in terms of languages and to apply them correctly in research. Secondly, I have learned to think critically, and always question any information I receive or process. And last but not least, I learned how to develop solutions.
About opportunities, yes, what I gained in Challenger helped me to properly recommend myself to the mayor of my native village, and prove that my ideas will help improve the situation in the village.
RM: Thank you. I think you brought up some really excellent points, particularly about this need to challenge information that we receive from different sources, and to really kind of understand what's being proposed for our different communities. Can you talk a little bit more about some of the debate skills? You mentioned that they connect to your political participation outside the program. What about the debate component helps prepare you for political engagement outside the program?
SD: First of all, the debate helped me understand how to make a manifesto, because we are writing manifestos in the program, and I think this is one of the most important skills that I have learned, and that have certainly helped me to engage more in politics out of the program.
RM: Great. Thank you. I want to talk a little bit about I know that you do quite a bit of work on the local level, and that you've been doing some work with the local mayor, so I want to talk about this trend that we're seeing, which is a bit of a disconnect between young people and formal political institutions, and we're really seeing young people kind of disengage from formal politics. I'm wondering based on your work in the community and on the local level what you think about this trend in young people moving away from formal politics, and also if you think that working on a local level is part of a solution or a viable pathway for young people to participate in politics.
SD: First of all, it is mandatory that parties and politicians stop underestimating youth. They shouldn't only change their attitudes, but also encourage young people to join parties, giving them the opportunity to work on the issues that interest them, and unfortunately one of the biggest issues between young people, political institutions, and parties in Moldova that they don't hear each other. Young people are often not appreciated fairly, they are not heard, and these of course discourages them from further action.
Local political participation is certainly a viable path that many Moldovans are unaware of, specifically my case about three or four young people and one curator from another city work on projects in our city [inaudible 00:28:24], those are the critical shortage of young people work is proceeding slowly. Most likely this is due to the fact that such work requires time and dedication. Is almost not rewarded financially, and among our youth experience is not in the first place for all. The situation is improving, the new generation is more politically active.
RM: Thank you, Selena, and I think a lot of the points that you made about how parties need to change their strategy about the way that they engage young people is really important, and also this need to work at multiple levels, that we're working at the lower level, but we're also creating opportunities at the national level, too, and I think your work experience speaks to that as well.
I want to talk a bit about young women's participation. This year, under the banner of changing the face of politics, NDI is launching a decade-long campaign to accelerate the pace of change on all aspects of women's empowerment, and this includes women's participation in politics. I want to ask you what you feel like young people's role is in ensuring that the face of politics changes, and that young women have more opportunities to participate.
SD: First of all, it seems to me that the new generation which is now growing up is more aware of the problems that humanity faces. This is a generation that can embrace changes slowly, and their role in ensuring that participation of women in politics is first of all to learning how to accept the leadership of a woman, and question the abilities of women and men working in the same area on the wages of equal criteria, and to better involve young women in politics we must first of all educate them because an educated woman is a strong woman who can defend her interests.
RM: Thank you. I think you know the point about it being a generational change, I think that's echoed in the other, the conversations with other young people, as well, is it seems like this generation is more willing to ensure that participation is inclusive, and then that includes young women as part of the conversation.
I really want to thank you for joining us today, and for sharing some insights about your participation in the program, and how you see your participation in Challenger really helping create political space for young people. Is there anything you want to add, in closing?
SD: I would like very much to thank the people coming here that created this program. It's a big challenge for Moldova to teach a generation of people that is aware of politics, that can change the political situation in the country, and the political culture, as well. I think if we get to teach more people how politics works, probably there will be a positive change in my country.
RM: Again, I just want to thank you for joining us, and answering the questions. I really wish you the best of luck in everything that you pursue, moving forward.
SD: Thank you very much.
RM: Thank you to our listeners. To learn more about NDI, or to listen to other Dem Works podcasts, please visit us at NDI.org.


Podcast Participants; Given Kapolyo, Rafka Noufal, Selina Dicusar.



24. Increasing Youth Political Inclusion through Debate

Democracy (General), #NDI #National Democratic Institute #Women #Citizen Participation #Youth

The Canadian Council for the Americas held a webinar on the political center (sorry, centre!) in Colombia and whether it can unite. There was former Vice President Humberto de Calle (under Ernesto Samper, and he was also the head of the negotiating team with the FARC*) and then a bit later also Colombian journalists and a financier, moderated by Ken Frankel.The quick answer is that it's really tricky.De la Calle's main point was that, unlike Colombian political tradition, the center needed to start with a basic program rather than choosing a person to rally around. He gave various indicators, based on local election results and polls, about an appetite for centrist positions and parties. Centrist policy positions included agrarian reform, tax reform, pension reform, and crop substitution.But that is where the conversation got more difficult. Responses included asking where was the focus on women and youth? If the right dominated non-urban areas, how was this going to function? What are some concrete objectives? Doesn't this seem too top-down? And, fundamentally, what is the "center" anyway?Unless I missed it toward the end, when I had interruptions and missed chunks, the political mechanics of all this was missing. Who gets the ball rolling, which means controlling the message at the beginning? De la Calle advocated for self-exclusion, meaning no one would be rejected as long as they broadly accepted the program. But that depends on who defines the program.I've written before about how the FARC really screwed the democratic left in Colombia, because it's too easy to connect the left to the FARC (and nowadays also to Venezuela, though I don't know how much that actually convinces people). But I hadn't thought as much about the center. This discussion demonstrated to me how tough such a project would be. The essential question "can it unite?" just kind of hung there. Fear has served the right very well, and it's hard to overcome.* His overall political biography is really interesting. Subscribe in a reader

Manuel Orozco directed a survey in Nicaragua for the Inter-American Dialogue. The results show deep distrust that has developed over years of corrupt government, from Daniel Ortega of course but also the right. Nicaraguans want free elections and they also want good choices, and they don't see either happening.It would be logical to assume that Nicaraguans would lay the blame for the crisis--political, economic, public health, etc.--on Daniel Ortega. But that's only partially true. This graph caught my attention the most:Several of these questions get at the repression and ineptness off the government, but a lot of people see this as just another example of Sandinista/right political conflict, which has dominated the country for over 40 years. Further, check out the sizable chunk of people who believe the crisis stems from the U.S. and the right.Who do Nicaraguans want to vote for? They don't seem to see good options. They don't identify with the political parties and a majority doesn't even identify as "pro-government" or "pro-opposition." If the election were held today, a large majority either doesn't know or would not choose from any candidate (which they could write in). They think there will be fraud and see international observers as important.What can we take away from this?--Lack of popular interest in the opposition and an alternate leader works very much to Ortega's favor.--International observers are critical for the legitimacy of any election. The next presidential election is now scheduled for November 2021.--Ortega's inept response to Covid-19 is truly devastating. No one believes him when he says it's barely affecting the country.--There is support for sanctions, but they should stay very focused on the Ortega clique.--as with Venezuela, the situation keeps getting worse with no real solution in sight. Subscribe in a reader

Gindo Tampubolon, Lecturer in Poverty, Global Development Institute The Conference of Parties (COP) 26 and its Glasgow Pact to phase-down coal remind the world once again of the need to come up with innovative technology to adapt and to mitigate the effects of our changing climate. This amplifies the original call from the UN World […]
The post Corruption and innovation II: green innovations around the world appeared first on Global Development Institute Blog.

Gindo Tampubolon, Lecturer in Poverty, Global Development Institute The Conference of Parties (COP) 26 and its Glasgow Pact to phase-down coal remind the world once again of the need to come up with innovative technology to adapt and to mitigate the effects of our changing climate. This amplifies the original call from the UN World […]
The post Corruption and innovation II: green innovations around the world appeared first on Global Development Institute Blog.

When minority parties delay and obstruct legislation does the majority party end up passing bills that are more moderate? It's a question that informs much of our political debate around dilatory tactics like the filibuster.

University of Michigan Political Scientist, Christian Fong, has a paper that models this question and argues that these delay and obstruct abiliities lead to policies that are closer to what the median voter may want.

What's more than the number of NFL players at team can have on the field?

The number of Republican candidates who have formerly announced their campaign for the presidency in 2016.

That's 16 Republican candidates to 11 NFL players. And, when you count the number of announced Democratic candidates (5), you almost have a complete offensive and defensive line!

As I sat and contemplated that number, I thought it had to be not only largest Republican presidential primary field, but the single largest presidential primary slate for the two major parties combined in the modern era.

Turns out, I was right.

OK, first the caveats. I define the modern presidential era with the 1972 campaign because that's the year that the McGovern-Fraser reforms, adopted by the Democratic Party, transformed the presidential nomination process. Essentially, the reforms opened up the selection process to voters in primaries and caucuses and while the reforms were established by the Democratic primary, the consequences of the reforms quickly spread to the Republican Party.

Second, it is hard to develop a hard and fast rule first for determining whether a candidate is seriously contesting the nomination.  I took the lead of political scientist Matthew Dickinson who recently opted for the standard used by Bill Mayer and Alan Silverleib: Did the candidate file a statement of candidacy with the FEC and who formally announced. For 1972 through 2008, I pulled from the list complied by Mayer and Silverlieb themselves in their chapter of the edited volume The Making of Presidential Candidates 2012. I then calculated the totals myself for 2012 and 2016, counting only the candidates that seriously contested the primaries or who had held previous elected office (so, Governor Tim Pawlenty and Congresswoman Michele Bachmann count, even though they were out before the first electoral contest, but so does Herman Cain of 9-9-9 fame).

Because I love charts, here's a chart. Click on it to enlarge.




What we get is 16 candidates in 2016--five more than the 11 Republicans running in 2008, 2012, and--yes--2000 (many people seem to think it was on McCain versus Bush, but there were many others who simply exited very early). With five Democrats announced today, that's 21 candidates total running for the Democratic and Republican nods. That's two more than in 2008, which saw 19 candidates total.

And, look at the resumes of just the Republican candidates. We have:

Former or Current Governors (8): Jindal, Bush, Perry, Kaisch, Walker, Christie, Huckabee, Pataki

Former or Current U.S. Senators (5): Rubio, Cruz, Graham, Paul, Santorum

Amateurs (3): Carson, Trump, Fiorina

Democrats

Former or Current U.S. Senators (3): Sanders, Clinton, and Webb

Former or Current Governors (2): O'Malley and Chafee

Dickinson's article, linked above, explains why so many Republicans are running for the job, noting that there is no incumbent candidate, it is unusual for the sitting party to hold the White House for more than two consecutive terms, and some candidates may be running for reasons other than winning. I agree with the points he makes. What I'm interested in knowing is how Republican primary voters--and, to a lesser degree, Democratic primary voters, will be able to make clear choices in such a crowded field. As other political scientists have noted, including Washington State University professor Travis Ridout and Vanderbilt professor Larry Bartels, is election outcomes can quickly narrow the field both for the media and voters in subsequent primary contests.

That is, the media will concentrate its attention on the top three or four vote getters in the Iowa caucus and Republican primary and hence, voters will learn more about those candidates than the others. The major difference now, however, is the presence of Super PACs--which considerably changes the information game for voters. Between wealthy backers of candidates and state Republican Parties adopting proportionate delegate selection rules for early contests, the Republican primary process should be considerably lengthened. That, of course, is historically unusual given that the Republican Party historically has favored winner take all contests that allow an early frontrunner to quickly garner enough delegates to become the party's nominee early.

In 2008, McCain had the Republican nomination wrapped up by mid-March while the Democratic contest continued through early June. Democrats will likely think this is to their advantage, as a long, drawn out primary will bloody the eventual Republican nominee who will then go down to defeat to Hillary Clinton in November.

Of course, that's not how events played out in 2008, now is it? Competition tends to bring out the best in candidates and, more often than not, make the eventual nominee stronger. Perhaps the competition among Republicans and a longer contest may work to their benefit in 2016 as well.

Ever consider that the US birthrate is dropping precipitously since it's a rather s--tty place to live? Like most developed countries, the United States is experiencing cratering birth rates. If the replacement rate is 2.1 birth per woman, its current reported rate of 1.6 is well below that. In other words, depopulation will set in for America just as it has for the likes of Japan and others if births continue to crater and anti-immigrant sentiment scares off would-be migrants. Fewer birth and nobody being welcomed inevitably spells depopulation. Although the United States likes to portray itself in all sorts of self-aggrandizing ways--the promised land, shining city upon a hill, and all that jazz--the truth is that its livability is rather worse than any number of other places.A Bloomberg interview with demographer Lyman Stone has some interesting things to say on the matter. First, flexible work may not be the solution: I think policymakers still have this delusion that the path to
high fertility is everybody having an awesome job with great benefits
allowing them to be "flexible" for their family, but this just isn't
reality. As jobs, even "family-friendly" jobs, turn into careers, and
careers turn into essentially religious or spiritual vocations, family
is deprioritized and birth rates decline. In empirical studies of
surveys across nearly 100 countries, a co-author and I found that this
effect was actually as strong for men as for women, so this isn't just
about breadwinners. The boss in the movie "Elf" is the bad guy because as far as a child is concerned, a parent's work is always the biggest competition for that parent's mental and emotional energy.Another observation is that Trumpian racists tend to gain favor as birth rates fall, which obviously has ominous portents: But as birthrates fall, far-right anti-immigration parties tend to do better,
not worse. So if a traditional value of being welcoming to immigrants
is something important to Americans, again, low fertility is a problem,
because it threatens the viability of political coalitions that support
an attitude of welcome and hospitality. And of course, in a more literal
sense, the absorptive capacity of a society with regard to immigrants
is related to population size: 1 million immigrants has a very different
social significance to a society with 100,000 births than a society
with 1 million or 10 million. Completing this downward spiral of falling birth rates mobilizing far-right ultra-racist groups is that low birth rates tends to quash innovation, too: Another thing we appear to value is something like, "Having a
dynamic economy with lots of innovation and entrepreneurship, without
inherited wealth that dominates the economic landscape." But I've shown
in extensive work that low birth rates directly predict less
innovation, lower entrepreneurship and a higher salience for inherited
wealth.America with all its problems has too far to go in fixing its broken society. It won't become much more livable anytime soon, so expect its birth rates to continue stagnating. 

In fragile states, democracy needs, even more, strengthening in times of pandemics as citizens and institutions are exposed to increased vulnerabilities. In some cases incipient dialogue and reconciliation networks may break down as social groups turn inward as a self-protection reflex, cultural barriers might exclude women and other marginalized groups from receiving healthcare, and armed groups might exploit the situation to increase their influence. In addition to the extraordinary effort of medical personnel providing life-saving health services, governments, civil society, and citizens alike need to do their part.
Trust in institutions is key to citizens' compliance with measures that restrict individual liberties. Extraordinary measures, such as declaring a state of emergency, restricting movement, and mobilizing emergency funds, come with an increased need for government leadership and responsibility. The government's response needs to be measured and expenses appropriate, though. More than ever, the executive branch of the government should allow parliamentary control over policy implementation, because lack of proper and functional oversight mechanisms may lead authorities to abuse—or be seen as abusing—their powers.
As multiple priorities will compete for limited resources in the coming weeks and months, political parties should build political consensus not only on ways to manage the current health crisis but also on a path to socio-economic recovery over the coming months.
Strengthen social solidarity. The distribution of resources to treat medical cases—and to protect communities at large—should be and viewed as being fair; a sense of inequity can lead to deteriorating social cohesion due to perceptions that some regions or ethno-sectarian groups are getting more than their fair share. Encourage cross-group networks of solidarity that complement government efforts.
Demonstrate effective leadership and communication. Political leaders have a duty to make tough decisions, but also reassure citizens and inspire those in the frontlines of the fight against the coronavirus. Leaders should explain the strategy, and show empathy, letting experts tackle medical and legal details. The government should communicate often, with "one voice," and with clarity. Always tell the truth—misleading information or manipulated statistics tend to avenge quickly, especially in an age when everyone can easily share information using smart devices. Also, keep in mind that preexisting socio-economic and political issues will not disappear during this time; constituents still need access to services, jobs, safety, etc.
Media and citizens need to exercise good judgment and critical thinking to avoid creating panic and inflicting unnecessary suffering on the already stressed population. Deliberate disinformation is meant to sow confusion, distrust between social groups, between citizens and their government, and lead eventually to doubt that democracy can delivery in times of crisis.
Have a positive outlook—acknowledge the effort and give hope. People need inspiring models, and strong characters are forged in difficult times. Moreover, fragile countries need positive stories of challenges to overcome together to spawn a sense of resilience and pride. All should praise the hard work and commitment of first responders and try to instill the same values of self-sacrifice, discipline, and resilience across the public sector and the society at large. Last but not least, decision-makers should project hope and explain how the country and the society will be transformed and made stronger, how it will be more cohesive, through a rediscovered sense of common purpose.


Credit: Ibrahim Naji

Democracy (General), Countries: Iraq

Normal
0




false
false
false

EN-US
X-NONE
X-NONE
















































































































































































































































































































































































































/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:8.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:107%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}





I guess I should be used to folks taking the work that I do
out of context. It comes with the territory when you are a scholar engaged in
the public realm. Normally, I shrug it off because both sides can be guilty of
it. But I take particular exception when the work I do to help inform the
public and to elevate the public discourse gets twisted beyond all recognition
to score cheap political points that bear no relation to the facts.


Back in the spring, MTN agreed to move Face the State to a
weekly format through the election. I thought it would be wonderful to use this opportunity to hold
debates on the show for the statewide offices receiving less attention:
Auditor, Secretary of State, OPI, Attorney General, and Supreme Court. I
reached out to all the major party candidates offering the opportunity to
debate. Nearly everyone was excited for the opportunity to share their
candidacies with Montana on statewide television.



In late August, Mike Dennison and I taped a Face the State segment
with Jesse Laslovich, the Democratic candidate for state auditor. You can watch
it here. That segment was supposed to be a debate. We had invited Matt
Rosendale, the Republican candidate, to join us. He chose not to attend or
offer other dates/times that would work with his schedule, which disappointed us. Laslovich was one of
the first candidates to agree to debate back in June. Given Mr. Rosendale's
decision not to debate, we gave Mr. Laslovich the whole half hour to share his
vision for the state auditorship with Montanans.



Today, the Montana Republican Party sent out a press release
calling Laslovich a "socialist" (I actually laughed out loud when I read this) and, using a clip from our interview on Face
the State, intimated that he supports single-payer healthcare as "evidence" of
their claim. Mr. Rosendale sent out a tweet with that same clip saying Mr.
Laslovich supports more big government to destroy healthcare.



First, Mr. Laslovich did NOT say he supported replacing the
Affordable Care Act with a single-payer option. He said our existing healthcare
system was still broken despite the positive gains made by the Affordable Care Act,
and that the single-payer idea should be taken seriously in any future
discussions of healthcare reform. That's it. He did not say he supported
single-payer. He did not advocate for it. He simply said a candid discussion
was necessary. 

 

Finally, and this is perhaps the most distressing, single-payer
healthcare already exists in the United States and has received support from
the Republican Party. It's called Medicare—you know, that single payer plan
providing healthcare for elderly Americans. If single-payer programs are
socialist, then any Republican supporting Medicare must be a socialist, too. At
least, if we are to simply employ the "logic" expressed in the Montana
Republican Party's press release.



Montanans deserve a fair and vigorous debate between their
parties, both of which have different ideas for moving our state forward. That
means candidates should debate one another, their views should be publicly scrutinized,
and the conversation should be based upon facts rather than distortions. The
Republican Party's characterization of our interview with Mr. Laslovich is
simply unfair and mischaracterizes Mr. Laslovich's position. They should issue an immediate retraction and apologize.

Do campaigns really matter? Can politicians, much as Merida tried to do in the Disney movie Brave, change their "fate" and win elections despite unfavorable fundamentals? Or are they destined to blow a bunch of money fighting windmills a la Don Quixote?

It should be clear that I believe campaigns matter; at least, that's exactly the story I tell in Battle for the Big Sky. Jon Tester won despite fundamentals clearly favoring the Republican Party and Congressman Rehberg in the epic 2012 battle for Montana's Senate seat.

But I also make plain in that book that campaigns very often do not affect the outcomes of elections, and in fact, cite approvingly the work by John Sides and Lynn Vavreck who--in their fantastic book the Gamble--show that fundamental factors (the economy, presidential popularity, and the like) pretty much determine presidential election outcomes regardless of what the campaigns do. As the 2014 congressional elections demonstrated, forecasters knew for quite some time that Republican odds of taking control of the Senate were fairly high. If anything, as the election drew closer to November, the odds got decidedly worse for Democratic incumbents in the Senate despite running strong campaigns (see Mark Begich and Kay Hagan).

As I sat and watched the state legislative races here in Montana unfold, I kept getting media inquiries about various competitive races. Did the Democrats have a shot to win SD 14 in Havre with Greg Jergeson? Could Jebediah Hinkle, who unexpectedly won the Republican primary for SD 32, beat known and former congressional candidate Franke Wilmer (a colleague of mine here at MSU)?

Invariably, I had to plead ignorance to reporters. I hadn't a clue. I know what the parties told me, but I had very little information to give reporters other than that and, let's face it, the parties had their own spin to advance. Incumbents tend to get reelected. Midterm elections are bad for the president's party generally speaking. Fundraising gives some sense of the candidate's talents and support.

Then--nothing. That's all I had.

Fact of the matter is, I had very little information with which to make any informed judgment about specific races. And to be frank, most voters had even less information with which to make their own judgments. Truth is, down ballot races like state legislative races are low information environment elections. State legislative candidates can generally raise enough money to get some name id and help voters associate their name with a party id, but other than that, most voters simply don't know much about the candidates other than that.

So I was skeptical every time I heard so and so had knocked on more doors, or candidate Y had more signs than candidate X. I just didn't think, in a low information environment election, it would make much difference on the final outcome of most of these races. And, to prove my point, I set out to forecast the outcomes of each state legislative race in Montana.

And I would do it purely with publicly available information.

Here's what I did. I set out to predict the probability that the Democratic candidate in each race would win their seat. In statistical terms, I ran a logistic regression with the output the mean probability of a Democratic win in that seat. Associated with that mean statistic is a confidence interval surrounding that estimate. For example, my model predicted that Diane Sands in Missoula had a 54 percent probability of winning her Senate seat, but the probability of a win could be as low as 31 percent or as high as 76 percent. On average, her chances were a tad better than a flip of a coin.

How did I develop that estimation? I gathered information on past elections in Montana, from 2004 through 2012. For each race, I gathered the following variables:

Percentage of the Vote for the Democratic Presidential Candidate
The Type of Seat (State Senate or State House)
Whether there was a midterm election (-1 if the President was a Democrat, 1 if the President was a Republican)
Democratic candidate spending as percentage of the total spending in the race (all data gathered from Follow the Money's website)
Whether the Democratic candidate was an incumbent
Whether the GOP candidate was an incumbent
Presidential Approval rating averaged for the year which I then interacted with the midterm election variable

I ran this model using the data from 2004 through 2012. It turns out that this model correctly predicted the outcomes 94 percent of the time.  Next, I collected the data for the 2014 cycle (using presidential vote estimates from 2012 for the newly drawn districts courtesy of Daily Kos--thanks Mike Jopek for reminding me that's where I found it). Then, using the estimates from the model for 2004-2012, I estimated the probability of a Democratic win in each 2014 race using the 2014 variables.

Using this, I predicted that the Democrats would lose two seats in the Senate and gain one in the House. In reality, the Democrats outperformed the model by holding even in the Senate and gaining two seats in the House.

But, my model--using no polls, no data about the ground game, and nothing specific about candidate efforts other than fundraising--came pretty close.

 All the variables behaved as one might expect. Incumbents perform better. The more Democrats dominated the spending in a race, they better they did. But was striking the drag President Obama had on Democratic prospects in the state legislature.

Let's look at the State Senate. Democrats had an excellent recruit in Greg Jergeson in SD 14. But Obama only got 40 percent of the vote in that district in 2012; my model gave Jergeson only 45 percent chance of winning. Jergeson lost.

Senate District 32 Obama got almost 49 percent of the vote, and yet--despite having substantially outraised Republican Hinkle--the model only predicted a mean 29 percent chance of Democrat Franke Wilmer winning. Hinkle won.

Carlie Boland, who ran in a district that gave Obama 51 percent of the vote in 2012, had only a 12 percent chance of winning. She lost to Republican Brian Hoven.

Only Mary McNally (D) surprised in my model, as it only gave her 22 percent chance of winning a district that had gone for Mitt Romney by nearly 52 percent in 2012. She beat Tonya Shellnutt, 54-46.

Campaigns matter. Except when they don't. And in a year when the win was firmly at the back of one party and in an era where redistricting has become far more sophisticated and voters increasingly vote straight ticket, campaigns mattered in very few of the state legislative races. That said, my model predicted that the Democrats would do worse than they did, so it would seem in a select few places, individual efforts and candidates may have made the difference. Diane Sands' winning by only a few vote and Mary McNally's victory in Billings very likely had to do with their own and the Democratic Party's concerted efforts to stem the red tide.

Next time a reporter calls me about state legislative races, I'll have a bit more to say.

PS: I ran my model on election day, but decided not to share my predictions until after the polls closed. I didn't want to inadvertently affect any outcomes, particularly after the big row over the Stanford-Dartmouth experiments. 

This past week,
Chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak released the government's 2021 budget.
Included in the package was an announcement of a £1 billion Towns Fund and notification
of the 45 communities in
England to receive support for infrastructure improvements. This is part of
the Government's Levelling Up promise made in the 2019 Conservative Party
manifesto, which would shift money to the left behind, post-industrial
communities of Britain that have suffered job and population losses over the
past four decades.

Soon after the
announcement, the Chancellor came under withering assault from the Labour
Party, which accused the government of allocating money generously to areas
represented by Tory MPs at the expense of communities more deserving of
assistance. Labour MP Steve Reed charged "the government of using taxpayers'
money to 'shore up' Tory votes with 'cosmetic' projects in hand-picked
constituencies" in The
Guardian. Labour Leader Keir Starmer said it "looks fishy". The Guardian's own
analysis showed that 39
out of 45 areas receiving funds have Tory MPs.

Did Boris Johnson's government
dole out cash to communities for political purposes rather than sending aid to
communities with the most need? It has long been suggested that distributive
politics—derisively called pork barrel spending—is largely absent from the
British political system. The Guardian
and Labour's claims, however, suggests otherwise.

The problem with these
allegations is that alternative hypotheses are not examined. What if, for
example, the communities in the most need just happen to be represented by Tory
MPs? To unpack what's going on requires a multivariate analysis controlling for
both political and social need variables in the dispensation of aid from the
Towns Fund.

To test the claim that
politics—rather than community need—drove the decisions to give certain communities
Levelling Up funds, I collected data on all 533 English constituencies. First,
I simply noted which constituencies were represented by Tory MPs (indicated by
a 1, 0 otherwise). Next, I downloaded information pertaining to community need.
The
English government produces several measures on the deprivation of
communities, including data on health, education, and employment. Parliamentary
constituencies are then ranked from the most deprived ("1") to the least
deprived ("533") based upon an aggregation of these several measures of
deprivation. Finally, I pulled together information on the marginality
of each constituency in the 2019 general election, which is simply the
percentage point difference between the first and second place finisher.
Smaller values indicate more electorally competitive constituencies.

The dependent variable
for the analysis is whether the constituency received funds from the Towns Fund
in the budget announced last week—1 if yes, 0 otherwise. I then ran a logistic
regression with the aforementioned independent variables: Tory MP, Deprivation
Rank, and Marginality. The results appear below.Labour's claims have
merit: constituencies with Tory MPs are significantly more likely to have
received funds from the Towns fund as compared to constituencies represented by
the opposition parties. And, the more marginal the constituency, the greater
the chance of getting money from the fund as denoted by the negative sign on
the marginality variable and its significance (p <.049).

However, there is also
evidence that deprivation matters—so the decision to dispense cash is not only about
propping up Conservative party electoral fortunes. The deprivation variable is
negative and significant, meaning that better off communities are less likely
to receive Levelling Up funds. Money is flowing to communities in need, but
poorer communities have an even better shot if they elected a Tory MP in 2019
and did so in a tight election. For those of you interested in how well this
simple model operated, 92 percent of cases were correctly predicted.

Now that we know that
politics and need matter, how much do they affect the process and which factors
are most important? Looking at the marginal effects of the variables, it would
seem that marginality and having a Tory MP dwarf deprivation in the decision to
give communities infrastructure assistance. Having a Tory MP alone increases a
constituency's chance of getting money from the Towns Fund by twelve percentage
points while shifting from a completely uncompetitive seat to one that was
essentially even electorally accounts for an increase of 14 percentage points
in the chances of getting money from the Fund. Similarly, moving from the least
deprived constituency to the most deprived constituency increases a
constituency's chances by 21 percentage points. In other words, having a Tory
MP has the single largest effect on whether a community received a Towns Fund
grant.

To illustrate how these
factors work in tandem on the probability of a constituency receiving financial
assistance from the Towns Fund, I've created a few scenarios.

Let's assume, first, a
constituency where the winning party won by only 5 percentage points that is
ranked 100th in deprivation. This constituency is represented by a
Labour MP. The probability that constituency receives a grant is only 7 percent,
which I calculated using Stata's margins command based upon the logit results
reported above.

If we simply drop a
Conservative MP into that constituency, the probability of getting a grant
increases to 33 percent (with the point estimates outside the confidence
intervals).

If we take the same
scenario above but make the constituency more deprived—moving from 100th
in deprivation to 50th—there is scant change in the probabilities:
10 percent if a Labour MP represents the constituency, and 40 percent if a
Conservative MP does (again, the confidence intervals do not overlap).

Finally, marginality has
important effects as well. Again, looking at a Labour represented constituency
that's 100th in deprivation where the MP won by 15 percentage
points, the probability of receiving a grant is only 6 percent. With a Tory MP,
that increases to 28 percent.  Compare
that to the first set of probabilities. The probability of receiving a grant
hardly moves at all for the Labour represented constituency. It declines for
the Conservative represented constituency by 5 percentage points, however.

Taking all of this
together and the patterns are clear: The Department of Treasury seems to have made
its grant allocation decisions based primarily on political factors and not on the
clear social needs of communities. Tory MPs in marginal constituencies were far
more likely to benefit from the Towns Fund scheme than Labour MPs representing
areas with higher levels of deprivation.