Spin is what we expect in such stories – press/parties etc see a study find their own angle in it and report that. This comment on the Tory website is a prime example, not a lie, but a misrepresentation. Not right, we all wish not to see it, but it happens.

Whats sad is that this has come direct from the mouth of a well-respected polling organisation – in effect spinning their own poll. Presumably a bit through disappointment it didn’t show what they wanted it to show (Tories great, Labour councils smell of uncollected rubbish).

It’s sad that the organisation themselves are prepared to bend their truth, either for their own view or simple self-interest. I know I’m being naive here to expect a company to be impartial like that that. But I did of a research company and I’m sad about it!

Have you considered that voters stupid enough to elect a Labour council will also be stupid enough to think it is performing well?

This explanation appears to be supported by the fact that the council that comes out top in this subjective study is Knowsley, which by any objective measure is a complete basket-case.

Last year Knowsley’s secondary schools came bottom of the league table. This year they came second to bottom.

Knowsley has more than twice the national average of people dependent on benefits.

Knowsley has the highest mortality from smoking-related death in England.

In 2007 no fewer than 20,000 crimes were recorded by Knowsley police.

Knowsley council spent millions on new sports and recreation facilities only to find a < 10% take-up.

In Channel 4's 2008 survey, Knowsley was declared 10th worst place to live.

And for as long as voters go on telling IPSOS-MORI how wonderful well their useless council is, no-one will ever fix Knowsley's broken society.

#2

Have you considered that the residents whose council it is might be in the best position to decide how well it is performing?

…contd

Last year Knowsley’s secondary schools came bottom of the league table. This year they came second to bottom.

Knowsley has more than twice the national average of people dependent on benefits.

Knowsley has the highest mortality from smoking-related death in England.

In 2007 no fewer than 20,000 crimes were recorded by Knowsley police.

Tim f @ 3

see five plus:

Knowsley council spent millions on new sports and recreation facilities only to find a < 10% take-up.

In Channel 4's 2008 survey, Knowsley was declared 10th worst place to live.

And for as long as stupid voters go on telling IPSOS-MORI how wonderful well their useless council is, no-one will ever fix Knowsley's broken society.

A simple solution to the problem, and one without any need to cry spin.

There are very few Labour Councils in England. So those that remain are likely to remain for a reason. In some cases, it is because Hell has not yet frozen over (readers of Dante may wish to disagree). But in some cases it may reflect something that is often forgotten – voters are not idiots. If the council has done a good job, people will vote for it, even if they are voting for another party in another election at the same time (anecdotal evidence: an acquitance of mine claims to have voted for Labour, Conservative and the Liberals in the 1979 European/General/Local Elections held at the same time, because the Liberals were doing a good job locally). So the fact that Labour Councils are over-represented may not reflect the lack of aspiration of their voters, but may reflect the fact that they are more likely to be the best councils by the fact they have survived the electoral cull.

This said, I’ll comment on the use of the source in a second…

Note that the report is not listing outright satisfaction, but difference from predicted satisfaction. Or in other words, how far does the measure of satisfaction vary from our pre-conceived notions (based on various measures, nicely described in Appendix A to the report – including some slightly odd things (quite why living in north-east government office region affects things I don’t know), but the weightings are still judgement based) about how satisfied people should be. Not sure this is actually something to commend. For example, for some reason Knowsley is assumed to have a satisfaction level of 40%, but clearly the people there are far more content with their council. But still this is just 62%, less than two thirds of people. Not exactly exemplary in comparison to Wandsworth, Kensington and Chelsea or Westminster.

Also, no word I can find on sample size, which makes working out the reliability of the data awkward. I have no doubt that Knowsley’s council is surprisingly popular (especially considering the facts ranted about above), but I can’t see these very artificial figures meaning anything significant, especially with an unknown margin of error.

Watchman

Sorry about the multiple posts and appearance of rant. Both symptoms of failing to get this wretched thing to publish comments first time.

Your point at 6 is interesting, but your explanation seems to be an unlikely one. The Labour councils that feature here appear not to be ones that perform conspicuously well, nor ones where there is evidence of cross-party voting in different elections.
They are simply so unshakeably core Labour areas that they are effectively mini one party states.

Flowerpower,

Perhaps so. I merely offered a different interpretation. And it should be noted that satisfaction is a rather odd measure (even without trying to say what it should be), in that the people of Knowsley may well be happy with their lot. The report points out the least satisfied areas are outer London, and this is in accord with the impression I get from friends and family living/who have lived in these areas. So perhaps in other areas people are relatively happy with poor services and the like for whatever reason (and this could be as simple as the fact they believe it when they are told they are the best they can get – what have most got to compare the level of service etc to anyway).

[2] It’s called choice.

If I were running the Audit Commission I’d certaInly want to know why Knowsley was popular when it “shouldn’t” be – and no doubt there are Councils in the reverse position.

If I had to speculate I’d suggest that Knowsley has low migration (longer-term residents identify more with their local Council) and a good record of employing local people (i.e. long-standing residents) in an area of otherwise high unemployment. The provision of jobs should never be underestimated in terms of the perceived services Councils supply, particularly by C2/D/E voters.

Err…… Don

Broadly speaking, while Tory authorities stand out in terms of value for money, and overall satisfaction, many Labour-led urban authorities do better than their relative levels of poverty and diversity would predict on feelings of cohesion and influence.

And that is verbatim from the ConHome story. Sounds like an acknowledgement of the Labour councils to me.

Mr Don. Hoffman Gill has not even commented on this post so why include comment 13 at all. Again, if anyone thinks some crime has been committed then go to the police. That is the correct procedure. Otherwise, please, fuck off. Or comment on the particular thread.

Labour, from my experience, which is limited, have been far better at local level politics than national power centralisation. They tend to listen, even though they have taken an absolute hammering at consecutive local elections. Shame the Liberals could not fill the vacuum filled by the Tories.

@George Allwell: The post prior to yours (hopefully to be deleted) is not from Don. Ignore it; to anyone reading George’s post, give him extra karma for not rising to the bait excessively.

On the post: The structure of the “survey” is not about identifying results and cause. It is observational; in many cases, a popular council will be running on the budget and strategy defined by the defeated party at last May’s elections.

The executive summary of the “survey” indicates what to expect inside: “A focus on ‘place-shaping’ lies at the heart of the modern vision for local public services. It looks beyond silo delivery of public services, to the broader impact of services and the spending of tax payers’ money.” I think that I know what it means, but perhaps I am sufficiently misled that I cannot construe that it means something else.

You have to watch this new video about Scott Brown, Its a spoof Circulating on YouTube it is hallarious.!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Uxwp2LGDeE

Folks – i am the “wretched prat” that wrote the article. The finding that a small handful of Tory councils do very well indeed is absolutely right. In general Tory controlled councils have always tended to do better on vfm and satisfaction – partly because they serve more affluent areas, but partly also because they are more interested in it. As the article goes on to say, and as one person points out above, I and the report go on to say that many Labour councils do well on ratings of quality of life and cohesion relative to deprivation and diversity. The opening paragraph was deliberately contentious, but I was trying to be balanced overall. Interesting to see the Tory bloggers slagging off their councils generally on Conservativehome – showing local govts general image problem

As with all these things please read the full report to get the complete picture – but tory councils do tend to do best on satisfaction generally. The surveys are standard postal ones done by all English councils every two years of c1,100 respondents, making it possible to make some comparisons.

best

Ben

[15] Ben, many thanks. I suspect the reason that people are happier with Tory councils generally (to the extent that that is true) is that people who live in those Councils’ areas are happier in general. Having a higher disposable income (up to a certain level) has that effect!

If you want to do a follow-up article (I’m sure Sunny will give you a slot here if you can’t find anywhere else) you might care to look at the impact of

- the size of the social housing stock and./or free school meals
- the incidence of mental health problems

on reported happiness in various local authority areas. Unless I am much mistaken it should be possible to construct a narrative in which Cameron is encouraged to dispose of the poor and the mad in order to increase the happiness of everyone else!

[16] I should add one more thing. For policy purposes what matters is not “Y” where Y is the level of satisfaction of the residents of council X, but the differential dy/dx – is the Council improving or getting worse in the eyes of its residents? In other words you compare Councils not to each other but their current to their past performance. (Incidentally, that’s a much easier sell to the average Council Leader!)

If you’re a Tory you look at dy/dx for all residents, if you’re a social democrat you look dy/dx for the lowest quartile economically, perhaps. Who was that nice man who said that politics is determinant in the last instance?