Paz on 24/3/2006 at 23:43
I don't honestly know if 10,000 people is a large enough group for a study of this kind (though from a population of 66 million, it doesn't really look like one - maybe it is, HELP ME OUT STATS GEEKS). However, the weakness of the research is something which may normally contribute strength to a stats study - the period of time it spans.
Voting for the Labour Party of 1991, you would most likely be a lefty loon. However, voting for the Labour Party of 2004, you could very well be a well-to-do middle class chap with a fabulous job and as many concerns about taxation and soforth as the average Tory. To classify a vote for Labour in 1991 as the same 'political leaning' as a vote for Labour in 2004 is pretty sloppy.
This applies to the Lib Dems too. In 1991 they were emerging from their merger with the Social Democrats (1988) and cut a somewhat different political hue to the one they express today.
So, what I want to know (and what the article doesn't make clear - so perhaps this did actually occur) is whether the research made allowances for the dramatic political shifts of the 13 years covered. A jump from Tory voting to Labour voting in the climate of 2001 does not necessarily indicate a leftward shift. A change from Tory to Lib Dem probably would. However, this situation would not have been the same in the early 90s.
This is without even getting into what definition of 'left' was used. Or whether, when asked about voting intentions, participants were quizzed on which specific issues were driving their choices. In some cases, these may have been fairly apolitical (they simply preferred the dude in charge of Party X, or their local MP had been rude to them .. whatever).
Convict on 24/3/2006 at 23:51
N.B. my edit simultaneous to your post Paz.
The study took into account income and education for one thing, also I would suggest that the study would have said "people with sons mostly voted ... and people with daughters mostly voted..." for each election or perhaps did they get the voting intentions of parents when the children were infants and see how voting intentions changed over time? So anyway amongst all that maybe for "A jump from Tory voting to Labour voting in the climate of 2001 does not necessarily indicate a leftward shift" they found that families with sons didn't go to Labor from Tory as much as families with daughters. Or something.
Paz on 25/3/2006 at 00:10
My point is partly that I'm being asked to fill in quite a few gaps and make various assumptions about the research. Which isn't great, if the research is trying to convince me of something.
However, an example! Which I'm obviously fitting around my objections, but let's see ...
Family A have three sons and hypothetically vote like this:
1992 - Tory
1997 - Labour
2001 - Labour
2005 - Labour
Family B have three daughters and etc
1992 - Liberal Democrat
1997 - Liberal Democrat
2001 - Labour
2005 - Labour
I would argue that the shift from Tory-Labour voting in Family A is a slight leftward shift; also influenced by HUGE numbers of factors surrounding that particular election (exhaustion with the Tory administration, Labour rebranding and a fuckload of others I probably can't go into in less than 2,000 words or more). But yes, a leftward shift. Nothing too controversial there.
Family B appear to be sat in the lefty train all the way to Communist Central Station from 1992-2005. From what the article suggests, the study would happily plop them in the lefty box. But there's more going on here .. because a switch from Lib Dem voting in 1997 to Labour voting in 2001 is actually (I would strongly suggest) a rightward move. Nothing too controversial there either.
However, both are valid data interpretations which I feel may run counter to the findings of the research - due to the way THEY have interpreted the data (also, perhaps, in a pretty valid way .. just a different one).
The idea that people are influenced politically by the gender of their children basically seems pretty silly to me. Yes, people do, indeed, vote for a particular Party or personality for any number of ridiculous reasons. But it's precisely this kind of weird, fickle inconsitency (along with all the interpretation of data/semantic definition/political shift gubbins) which makes me doubt the whole thing.
Convict on 25/3/2006 at 00:24
Yes, I can see the point that if the study lumped Labour and Lib Dem together then Family B's right shift would go unnoticed. I guess we can't see the study so we can only guess whether they considered them separate or not (I would hope they did though).
I think the study would have used the same baseline for comparison if it was worth it's salt - Family A starts with a Tory vote (for the first couple of elections say) and so should Family B. Is there a trend for Family B's to shift left more often than Family A's? - I suspect that's how it would be done.
Convict on 25/3/2006 at 06:42
For the non-Americans, NOW = National Organization for Women.
One thing from that study - does having sons actually shift the parents' voting TOWARDS the right, or merely hold it steady? I might think it shifts it to the right, otherwise we'd all end up lefties! :eek:
Paz on 25/3/2006 at 12:52
Quote Posted by Jennie&Tim
Politicians with daughters are more likely to vote in favor of the issues NOW supports ..
See, this actually makes some kind of sense - and it doesn't get bogged down in a tiresome left-right dichotomy.
TheGreatGodPan on 25/3/2006 at 23:38
Quote Posted by Rug Burn Junky
TGGP: Quit whining.
WAAAAAAHHHHHH!
