Its one year since Brexitland was published! In case you aren't familiar with the arguments @ProfSobolewska and I make, here's the "graph of the day" thread I did summarising some of the key data driven points
@ProfSobolewska Identity divides between graduates and school leavers, ethnic minorities and identity conservative white voters, have continued to reshape our politics since the book came out.
@ProfSobolewska The pattern of swings seen in the English local and mayoral elections this past May maps very strongly onto local demographics - the Conservatives' advance continued in areas where Leave voting, English identifying white school leavers are concentrated continued...
@ProfSobolewska While both Labour and the Greens recovered in areas with the highest shares of graduates and Remain voters
@ProfSobolewska Meanwhile, the Lib Dem victory in the Chesham and Amersham by-election confirmed the Conservatives' vulnerability in "blue wall seats" with large shares of remain leaning, identity liberal university graduates, something we predicted in Brexitland
@ProfSobolewska While the local elections confirmed the continued political salience of education and ethnicity, two years of bumper university intakes following COVID assessment fiascos have accelerated the relentless process of demographic change underling the rise of Brexitland
The share of graduates in the electorate is likely close to 2% higher now than when Johnson won in 2019, and the share of identity liberal ethnic minority voters is also growing fast (something the shift from EU to non-EU immigration may accelerate).
Meanwhile the relentless decline in the share of white school leavers in England and Wales, the post-Brexit Conservatives' core electorate, has continued. The demographic tide runs against the current Conservative coalition, but demographic change is slow.
If this thread has whetted your appetite, you can buy the book here! (other book stores and internet outlets also available):
Good thread. As it is likely impossible to end online anonymity, we need better social and institutional mechanisms to address its disinhibatory effects. That is hard to do, but it needs doing.
I feel this will have to be a collective effort. We need to build a social media "immune system", with multiple lines of defence, to shut out toxic actors and violent, prejudiced and hostile discourse. Ultimately, its going to be a job for all of us.
Of course, social media platforms should reforms systems which promote toxicitiy. But there are also many ways we are users could help marginalise bad actors ourselves. What happens to people who behave offline like bad actors behave online? They are socially shamed & shunned
Voters can recall an MP in the event of a conviction (as happened in Peterborough in June 2019 and Brecon & Radnorshire in August 2019). I expect such a recall petition would be quite likely in Leicester East, and would trigger a v interesting contest 1/?
Webbe's 2019 selection for Leicester East, to replace long serving MP Keith Vaz, one of the first BAME MPs elected in 1987, was very contentious. Half a dozen Indian origin Labour councillors attacked Corbyn, accusing him of a policy of excluding Hindu candidates
The swing against Labour in Leicester East was by far the largest against the party in an ethnically diverse seat, the most plausible explanation being large numbers of Indian origin voters swinging away from the party as Webbe replaced Vaz.
Agree with this - the case for autumn lockdown from past evidence here and elsewhere was overwhelming, and the grim inevitability of disaster was obvious to anyone who understood exponential growth. Yet they delayed, and delayed, and delayed.
I vividly remember a growing feeling of nausea watching all the utter nonsense about "saving Christmas" being put about in the Conservative press (who are also culpable here), eagerly embraced by ministers including the PM. They can't pretend now the risks were not obvious then.
*Particularly* important on this front is what we learned soon after, but many in govt must have known in early autumn - namely that effective vaccines were at most a few months away from delivery. To not lock down given that knowledge was a lethal blunder of major proportions.
There is more I want to say on this topic when I have time (a theme I will return to shortly) but I want to say that I *profoundly* disagree with this kind of "unless you're shouting about it on Twitter, you condone it" argument, which is both illiberal and counterproductive
Firstly, it is patently absurd to claim that you are a proponent of academic freedom while also saying "unless you loudly support this behaviour/campaign/opinion/judgement, you are the enemy". The whole *point* of academic freedom is freedom to *disagree*.
Secondly, there are a whole host of legitimate reasons why academics, with or without "public profiles" might want to refrain from engaging in a particular controversy. Matt, typically, treats the situation as a simplistic black & white morality play. It usually is not.
I don't think I ever argued threats to academic freedom were non-existent. What I in fact argued, which is very different, is that many of those campaigning for academic freedom did so on the basis of evidence which did not stand up to scrutiny.
I did this very specifically, on a case by case basis, using evidence sources that individuals such as @goodwinmj and Eric Kaufmann (who I can't include in this discussion of freedom of academics to disagree on Twitter because he blocked me for disagreeing with him)
@GoodwinMJ Here is one thread where I did that. Readers can judge for themselves whether Matthew's description of my position is fair:
This is also true in Britain - education (and age) polarisation seen now is genuinely new and different. One thing I would add - education polarisation also matters far more because of demographic change. The graduate class has grown drastically in the last 30 years
A generation ago, graduates were still over-represented in politics, but they couldn't bend political discussion towards the issues that exercised them most because doing so would be electorally nonsensical in a country where 85-90% of voters were non-graduates
Now, with the share of graduates approaching 40% (and higher still in younger cohorts, in the Labour electoral coalition etc) graduates have a lot more electoral heft - but not enough heft to win.