Centre for Cities data on levels of youth unemployment – percentage of youth workforce claiming Job Seekers Allowance March 2012
10 cities due to have mayor referenda (coloured blue, except Bristol = Green)
4 cities that already have Mayors (coloured red)
Can we have a scale on this graph. This could show that Bristol is a runaway success compared to Doncaster, with around 45% youth unemployment vs. about 85%, or it could show that there’s actually very little variation with huge amounts of space at the top and matching lines at the bottom cut off.
If you’re going to try to blind with science, at least make sure you are showing your working…
Apologies, our mistake.
Scale now added as with other graphs.
I don’t think that these graphs show anything useful about whether Bristol is under-performing or not.
What they show is that post-industrial (mostly) Northern cities have higher levels of unemployment etc than Bristol does. Given Bristol’s historic and geographic advantages, it would be very surprising if they didn’t.
But to what extent are levels of unemployment a result of local government performance?
How does Bristol compare with other cities when national, historical etc factors are taken into account?
How does Bristol compare on things where the local authority has more of a real influence, e.g. satisfaction levels with local transport?
I know these factors may be harder to measure and compare, but they would provide a more accurate picture of how Bristol is performing as a local authority.
We have responded to another commenter who has raised some similar concerns and you might want to read our response there as well as our response here. Here is the link http://bristolsaysno.org/does-bristol-under-perform-pt-2-unemployment/#comment-93
It would indeed be surprising if Bristol, with its historical and geographical advantages did not out-perform post-industrial (mostly) Northern cities in socio-economic measures such as deprivation, adult unemployment and youth unemployment.
But this is exactly what we are being led to believe will happen if we fail to choose to have an elected mayor. The Prime Minister has warned of the city “stagnating”, and some Yes Campaigners have implied that a No vote on Thursday will lead to Bristol being left behind, presumably, by those same post-industrial Northern cities who have chosen to have mayors.
In other words, the implications is that an elected mayor will have an effect that will over-ride those geographical and historic advantages that Bristol has.
This is obviously nonsense. What the charts on this site show, is that those Northern industrial cities that do have mayors do not significantly out-perform even those cities nearby. Doncaster does not out-perform Sheffield, Middlesborough does not out-perform Newcastle.
Yet, if we take the comments of those in favour of a mayor at face-value, Sheffield and Newcastle will out-perform Bristol if they elect a mayor and we don’t.
Whether Bristol with a mayor will perform better than a Bristol without a mayor is a more valid argument – but, again, the evidence to demonstrate that this will certainly be the case is lacking.
The problem is we have only one Bristol, and it is an unique city. All cities are unique of course, but it is possible to draw some broad comparisons between the Yorkshire cities of Sheffield, Bradford and Doncaster, or the North Eastern cities of Newcastle, Sunderland and Middlesbrough, or the East Midlands cities of Nottingham, Derby and Leicester. For Bristol, there is no real comparison – Cardiff?, Plymouth?, Reading? There is nowhere quite like Bristol which is probably why many of us love it so much.
But what the charts on this site do show, is that there doesn’t appear be any real difference in performance between those Northern cities (where it is possible to draw rough comparisons) that do have Mayors and those that do not. The implication is that Bristol with a mayor will not perform significantly better than Bristol without a mayor.
What Bristol does do is out-perform all those other cities and this is unlikely to be affected by whether we choose to have an elected mayor or not.
Will Bristol stagnate without an elected mayor?
No Prime Minister, it won’t.
“What the charts on this site show, is that those Northern industrial cities that do have mayors do not significantly out-perform even those cities nearby.”
To a Bristol resident the charts are clearly meant to show Bristol’s wonderful performance. And, as such, they’re misleading.
“Doncaster does not out-perform Sheffield, Middlesborough does not out-perform Newcastle.”
Comparing Middlesborough and Newcastle is a very rough comparison, and misleading again, as is Doncaster and Sheffield. Both Newcastle and Sheffield have well established universities, for example, that means they attract and retain a better educated population.
“For Bristol, there is no real comparison – Cardiff?, Plymouth?, Reading?”
A less misleading comparison with Bristol could be with the so-called core cities – http://www.corecities.com
There are comparisons to be made but at best these graphs show us nothing useful and at worst they’re misleading.
I’m broadly anti mayor but ‘evidence’ like this makes me wonder – if this is the best we can find to demonstrate the success of Bristol then maybe we do need a mayor.
“A less misleading comparison with Bristol could be with the so-called core cities – http://www.corecities.com”
But the core cities are Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield, Newcastle, Nottingham and Birmingham – and of course Bristol.
All of whom are included in the charts. And all of whom are not under-performed by Bristol on the three measures highlighted.
You appear to be criticising the No campaign for the quality of our evidence which we have at least attempted to provide when responding to claims by the Yes campaign that Bristol is under-performing and will “stagnate” if we don’t vote for a mayor, claims for which they provide no evidence at all.
There are a considerable number of other examples of how well Bristol is performing, for example it is the only one of the core cities whose GVA is considerably above the national average, it has the lowest per capita carbon emissions of any of the core cities, it has the lowest percentage of the workforce with no qualifications, it has one of the best records for successful new business creation, and so on. We chose the three measures above because deprivation and unemployment have a direct impact on the well-being of those residents impacted.
It is, of course, entirely up to you how you choose to vote on Thursday. But please compare how we have tried to provide factual evidence with the utter lack of factual evidence provided elsewhere to support the claim that Bristol is under-performing. Our attempts may not be perfect but we have at least tried.
Bristol is not perfect,by any means, everybody criticises their local council, and Bristol City Council do merit a lot of that criticism. However the Yes campaign should not try to scare people into voting for their Mayor by implying that the city is under-performing and will stagnate if we don’t follow their advice. Especially if they are not prepared to provide any real evidence to demonstrate this is the case.
“How does Bristol compare on things where the local authority has more of a real influence, e.g. satisfaction levels with local transport?”
The New Local Government Network (NLGN) did a study looking at public satisfaction in towns with elected mayors and comparing the results with comparable towns without elected mayors.
It found that in towns with Mayors almost 20% of respondents were dis-satisfied with their towns compared to less than 10% in non-mayoral towns.
The NLGN concluded that this higher level of dis-satisfaction was not because mayors performed badly, but completely the reverse, that it meant that local people were more engaged in their town and thus more likely to express a strong opinion, and thus this meant mayors were performing better than council leaders.
So, twice as many people being dis-satisfied with their towns is a sign that mayors are good for those towns…..
Have you got a chart for education performance over, say, the last 25 years?
No, why? Are the Yes campaign claiming that an elected mayor will resolve our educational problems as well?
They might. It’s the only way I can see the city can move away from its stifling political consensus on education.
Has education even been mentioned during the campaign by any of the prospective candidates?
Hell no. It would involve disagreeing with the current consensus, which would involve a mountain of criticism.
Personally I favour vouchers and free schools but that would put power in the hands of me, a parent, wouldn’t it?