,
12 tweets,
4 min read
Read on Twitter
Some interesting findings from the @ukonward poll, but we should be wary about jumping to conclusions… (Thread)
(1) You cannot conclude that there has been a “sea change” in attitudes unless you have time series data, asking the same questions over time.
(2) Polling on specific social issues – rather than abstractions like “freedom” and “security” – finds attitudes have changed in the direction of freedom over the last 50 years. Some British Social Attitudes time series data: 
(3) There is a mismatch between some of the commentary and the actual questions and findings. There was no question about individualism, taxes, size of the state or public service funding.
(4) The key question about the role of govt was not used in the report. It found about 50-50 on guaranteeing a standard of living v.s. determined by hard work, with Cons (63%) & Brexit (59%) leaning hard work, Lib Dems (47%) & Labour (41%) less so.
(5) This graph weirdly leaves out that a majority (53%) said “neither closer nor further away” from own views.
(6) It is not a shocking finding that people like “security”, “family values,” etc. But political and policy implications are unclear, particularly when you don’t ask about them.
(7) We tried Mayism. It didn’t work. The role of politicians – and think tanks – is to lead, not to just slavishly follow current public opinion.
(8) A narrative around aspiration, opportunity, and prosperity delivered by lower taxes, quality services and security has proven politically effective.
@ThreadReaderApp unroll please
p.s. The questions are based on the false premise that you can have either X or Y, not both. This is obviously not true. Freedom and security are not contradictory: We need security to exercise freedom. There is no point in having security if you don’t have freedom.
In another question there’s a supposed trade-off between economic growth and inequality. In fact economic growth raises all boats, and is necessary to have resources to redistribute.
