Two pieces of work looking at the current constituency political environment in the past couple of days. Both interesting analyses, but I'm not really convinced by either. 1/?
First is this piece in the Guardian claiming 100 seats have switched from "Leave" to "Remain". That seems perfectly plausible given (a) modest national swing that way since 2016 (b) Lots of constituencies closely divided. But so what? theguardian.com/politics/2018/…
Arguing this is politically consequential requires showing that the switch will actually affect the party choices people would make, or their views about *current* Brexit policy, or that this affects the coalition of support currently backing the local MP. 3/?
The shift matters most, in short, if shifting voters are also switching parties based on this, are opposed to current Brexit policy, and are pivotal to re-election prospects of the local MP. Maybe in some cases one or more of these are true, but I'm sceptical & want evidence.
Perhaps the most significant impact of work like this may be to get MPs on both sides of aisle who say they back Brexit to "respect will of their constituents" to reconsider. If this is their reason for backing Brexit, then they should take seriously change in "local will"
But we don't know whether those who have switched to "Remain" are in the "reverse Brexit" camp or in the "Brexit is wrong but we have to do it anyway camp" (latter is larger than many remainers seem aware of or acknowledge).
Second piece is this analysis in the Sun from @GoodwinMJ thesun.co.uk/news/7000186/c…
@GoodwinMJ Its an interesting piece on what the recent shift in polling might mean in constituency terms, but I think it is rather limited by comparing reactions to May's current plan to an idealised world in which she somehow holds on to all the 2017 Con voters. Not tenable IMO 7/?
@GoodwinMJ In short, in assessing cost of Chequers one needs to ask - "relative to what?" Status quo is not an option given A50. So it has to be relative to some other Brexit deal, and every possible Brexit deal is also likely to bring significant political costs. 8/?
@GoodwinMJ Chequers relative to a softer "Norway" Brexit that will be easier to bring EU on board with - Cons probably lose even more UKIP-py Leave voters but retain moderate/Remain-y voters, probably have easier time convincing middle class professionals they're better than Corbyn Lab
@GoodwinMJ Chequers relative to "no deal" Brexit: Cons *may* retain UKIP-py voters but given likely high economic and social disruption, that will be like bailing out a boat with a tea cup. Everyone else will be angry at the disruption and will blame Cons.
@GoodwinMJ Those are really the two most plausible options on offer at this point. Comparing Chequers to imaginary deal which is not feasible to get at this time doesn't strike me as v enlightening - "Cons would do better if they could have cake and eat it too." Well, yes, but they can't.
@GoodwinMJ Broader problem IMO with both studies is that I don't really see much point in projecting current public opinion forward to election given that (a) high current Brexit uncertainty (b) Key decisions which will reshape landscape politically and electorally coming shortly
@GoodwinMJ In other words, why project forward from current public opinion when we all know that big decisions with the capacity to reshape everything are coming in the next couple of months? Whatever happens, we won't be going to the polls based on situation right now /ends/
