{"id":610,"date":"2017-04-06T14:52:55","date_gmt":"2017-04-06T14:52:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/voteforpolicies.org.uk\/blog\/?p=610"},"modified":"2023-06-01T11:21:45","modified_gmt":"2023-06-01T11:21:45","slug":"our-methodology","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/voteforpolicies.org.uk\/blog\/our-methodology\/","title":{"rendered":"Our methodology"},"content":{"rendered":"
This page documents our approach to extracting and summarising the policies from the 2017 political manifestos for inclusion in the Vote for Policies 2017 UK general election survey<\/a>.<\/p>\n Our method was discussed with and consulted on by Ben Worthy<\/a> at Birkbeck College<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n For the 2017 survey,\u00a0our objectives were based on improvements we wanted to make after feedback from our 2015 survey. These were:<\/p>\n For each manifesto:<\/p>\n It\u2019s important to make the policies as succinct as possible to reduce the amount of reading required, but without introducing any change to the meaning. Here are the principles we worked to, and some examples.<\/p>\n We had great engagement from all of the political parties. All of them fed back and most had changes. Change requests are only\u00a0be actioned if the proposed new wording or additional policy point satisfies the following:<\/p>\n If these criteria are satisfied, the change is made and a record of the change is kept for auditing and transparency purposes.<\/p>\n Below are the Issues we are covering in the 2017 survey, along with the core issues that we want to compare policies for. We developed our\u00a0list of main issues and sub-issues based on a combination of:<\/p>\n The final list of issues\u00a0and sub-issues\u00a0is as follows:<\/p>\n In order to provide a meaningful comparison across parties, it\u2019s important to be consistent with the issues we include for each party.<\/p>\n For example, although policies for veterans are something we could have included in Retirement, we chose to include pensions, social care, and pensioner benefits as our priorities. Therefore, even if a party\u00a0doesn’t have the maximum of 6 policies for the issues we are covering, (not the maximum of 8), we won’t\u00a0add their policy for Veterans to make it up to six as this could have implied they are the only party to have a policy for\u00a0veterans in their manifesto. The same is also true of \u2018animal cruelty\u2019 in the Environment issue, and also \u2018tax avoidance\u2019 in the Tax & Benefits issue.<\/p>\n The \u2018Erasmus\u2019 (EU student exchange) programme, while being strongly linked to Education, was referenced in the\u00a02017 manifestos in the context of EU \/ Brexit negotiations. Therefore we only placed it in the Europe \/ Brexit issue\u00a0for all parties that had a policy for it.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" This page documents our approach to extracting and summarising the policies from the 2017 political manifestos for inclusion in the Vote for Policies 2017 UK general election survey. Our method was discussed with and consulted on by Ben Worthy at … Read More<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[71],"tags":[],"yoast_head":"\nObjectives<\/h1>\n
\n
Method<\/h1>\n
\n
\nWe now have all policies from all parties in the working document. Take one Issue, and paste the policies from each party into the First Draft<\/em> so they can be seen side by side. For example, the Crime policies from Conservatives are positioned next to the Crime policies for Greens, then for Labour, Lib Dems and so on.<\/li>\n
\nSeveral other organisations and the media publish their own manifesto policy summaries (like these<\/a>). These provide a useful means of double-checking both the meaning \/ wording and the relative priority of each policy. If we decide to make any changes, the Issues<\/a>\u00a0list is updated to reflect this.<\/li>\n
\nCreate a separate document for each party, containing all of their policy summaries. Send to the direct contact for the party, and call to confirm receipt. We only send each party the policies we have summarised from their manifesto, we do not polices from other parties.<\/li>\nHow to edit policies<\/h1>\n
\n
\nFor consistency and ease of reading, all policies are written in the root form of the verb, not the present participle of future tense (e.g. Invest<\/i>, rather than Investing<\/i>, or We will invest<\/i>).<\/li>\n
\nSometime the same meaning can be conveyed in fewer words, so we always attempt to do this in order to reduce the amount of reading for the user and make the survey quicker to do. For example:
\nRecover the cost of medical treatment from people not resident in the UK <\/i>
\ncan be reworded to:
\nRecover the cost of medical treatment from non-UK residents. <\/i>As long as we maintain the points that this applies to those who do not reside<\/i><\/b> in the <\/i>UK<\/i><\/b>, the shorter wording is acceptable as the meaning remains unchanged.<\/li>\n
\nOften, the justification for a policy or the reported impact it will have – is particularly verbose. We have chosen not to include this aspect purely for reasons of brevity, and also to help users focus on the policy.<\/li>\n
\n<\/strong>This isn\u2019t purely about language – sometime technical knowledge about specific policy areas is required when attempting to reduce the word count. For example:
\nComply fully with the 1951 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and honour our obligations to bona fide asylum seekers.<\/i>
\nBecause the second part (and honour our obligations\u2026<\/i>) is essentially an explanation of the first part, we can remove this without remove without fear of being too hard\u2026
\nWe also can provide explanations of some terms via a lexicon feature on the site, so don\u2019t need to add explanations in the policy statements.<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ol>\nFeedback from political parties<\/h1>\n
\n
Issues\u00a0\/ sub-issues<\/h1>\n
\n
\n
\nPolicing, terrorism and extremism, prisons, victim protection.<\/li>\n
\nVoting system, voting age, Scotland independence\u00a0referendum, House of Lords, devolvement.<\/li>\n
\nDeficit strategy, Industrial strategies, R&D, Infrastructure investment, connectivity, airport expansion, banking and finance sector-specific.
\nDo\u00a0not include: Energy tariffs.<\/em><\/li>\n
\nStrategy \/ approach \/ benefits, funding, nursery, school systems, further education, university fees.
\nDo\u00a0not include: Teacher pay \/ benefits.<\/em><\/li>\n
\nStrategy \/ carbon reduction, renewables, clean air, fossil fuels, fracking \/ shale, marine.
\nDo\u00a0not include: Flood defences, bees, animal welfare.<\/em><\/li>\n
\nHuman rights, privacy, discrimination (pay, gender, race, disability, mental health, LGBT).<\/li>\n
\nBrexit deal \/ negotiation points, UK & EU residents’ rights, single market \/ customs union, Erasmus programme, border with Ireland.<\/li>\n
\nStrategic \/ ideological position, Trident, refugee crises, budget for international development \/ aid.
\nWill not include:<\/em>\u00a0Veterans.<\/i><\/li>\n
\nFunding, staff, service standards \/ approach (e.g. primary care), GPs, mental health.<\/li>\n
\nHouse building targets, approach, social housing, buyers, renters, homelessness.<\/li>\n
\nNet migration target (plus how it’s counted), approach \/ integration, asylum.<\/li>\n
\nEmployment targets, quality of jobs, wages (living wage, minimum wage. pay ratios), workers’ rights.<\/li>\n
\nPensions, social care, pensioner benefits.
\nDo not include: Veterans<\/em><\/li>\n
\nTax: Personal allowance, income tax rates, Corporation tax, specific taxes (bedroom tax, then VAT, council tax if maximum not reached).
\nDo\u00a0not include:<\/em> Tax avoidance, HMRC staffing.
\n<\/em>Benefits 4: Strategic \/ funding, Universal Credit, housing benefit, nursery benefits.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\nBeing consistent with\u00a0issues<\/h3>\n