,
7 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
Lots of extraordinary political polling numbers coming from @MattSingh_ and @roger_scully. Parties ⬆️ and ⬇️ double digits. We are currently in the middle of a phase of extreme political volatility. Best not to construct grand and final narratives in this climate (1/n)
We won’t know the shape of things until the end of October, and probably some time after this. Political commentary should focus on Brexit mechanics, not wildly fluctuating numbers. Since 2014 every triumph has proved shallow, and defeat only temporary. Kipling politics. (2/n)
One of the category errors I think SW1 is currently making - in analysing Brexit - is understanding whether winning politically requires a plurality or a majority. Political strategy flexes wildly depending on whether your cause needs the former or latter (3/n)
Remain 2016 (which I was a part of) was perhaps too finely attuned to first past the post targeting of v.specific voters - this makes sense in a seat based system where there are multiple parties, voter flows and where individual votes can be 0-200x more poweful than others (4/n)
Remain 2016-‘19 mistook parliamentary/party procedure for a referendum - thinking that changing mood music, fired up grass roots campaign can change what’s needed to win in the House of Commons. That’s why ChangeUK was not the solution. Classic case of fighting the last war (5/n)
The Conservatives also in 2017 were caught flat footed by the temporary return of two party politics effectively turning the general into a referendum - in England and Wales. The party was gearing up for the wrong type of fight, wrong message and therefore faulty maths (6/n)
The question on whether the next battle is a pluralist one or majoritarian one is critical to reading the runes. (7/n)
