On Sunday it will be two years since Boris Johnson's Conservatives achieved the largest majority since Margaret Thatcher's 1987 landslide. To mark the approach milestone, I'll be putting together a thread of graphs and quotes of the day from "The British General Election of 2019"
The first BGE19 graph of the day reminds us that the polls in 2017-19 were very stable, until they weren't. When the public turns against a government, the collapse can be rapid and savage
The first BGE19 quote of the day offers @philipjcowley 's assessment of Boris Johnson, on his ascent to Number 10
@philipjcowley Today's BGE19 quote of the day offers @philipjcowley 's case in favour of Boris Johnson's elevation to PM - which came when the Conservatives were in a deep hole after the comprehensive failure of Theresa May's Brexit approach...
@philipjcowley ...while today's graph of the day illustrates the immediate impact Johnson's elevation had - with the new Conservative leader gaining a 15 point bump over his predecessor on the "best Prime Minister" Q. Notice also Corbyn's steady decline on this question over the Parliament
@philipjcowley If these graphical and lexical vol-au-vents whet your appetite, then why not secure the full 700 page electoral banquet for yourself or that special political nerd in your life? amazon.co.uk/British-Genera…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
In the market for an Xmas present for the politics obsessive in your life? I have a couple of humble suggestions to offer. First, the definitive guide to the 2019 election - learn how the Boris-Brexit Con majority came to be. More on that here:
Or maybe a book that takes a broader view? Perhaps check out Brexitland, described by @LRB as "sweeping and rigorous", where @ProfSobolewska and I unpack how fifty years of social change have set the stage for the politics of today. More on that here:
Today's Politics Live featured a heated arg over Channel crossings, with Paul Mason accusing Cons of racism, and 2 Con panellists angrily rejecting the accusation. As @ProfSobolewska & I explain in Brexitland this is a classic example of a polarised "politics of racism" argument
@ProfSobolewska The charge of racism is incredibly polarising because (1) There is a very broad social consensus on rejecting racism and stigmatisin racists (2) There is no such consensus over the definition of racism
@ProfSobolewska Thus we repeatedly see arguments like today, when identity liberals like Mason seek to attach the stigma of racism to policies they dislike, while identity conservatives contest the charge, arguing it is unfair and politically motivated
This is doing the rounds but I'm really not sure we can conclude much/anything from it. People aren't good at estimating large numbers, or proportions of large numbers. It is a task that requires some thought, and survey respondents don't have an incentive to think hard 1/?
2/? If you give people a hard question and no incentive to do the work, they will substitute an easy question. In this case, "what am I aware of that the government spends money on?" People are aware of the NHS, net zero and MPs' pay, so they score high
Pensions and benefits are low salience in debate, so that scores low. Also, note how many things average around 10% - a low effort heuristic number probably used to convey "I think they spend quite a lot on this, but no idea how much precisely".
Old Bexley and Sidcup by-election today. Labour would need a 21 point swing to take the seat. Some historical context:
Lab Con by-elec loss - Chesham & Amersham - swing 25.2 pts
Last Lab by-elec gain from Con - Corby (2012) - swing 12.7 pts
Other swings in post Brexit Con defences:
Brecon & Radnorshire (2019) - 12 pts (lost)
Sleaford & N Hykeham (2016): -0.3pts (won)
Richmond Park (2016): 21.7 pts (lost)
Witney (2016): 19.3pts (won)
Average swing against Con across all post-Brexit by-election defences: 15.6 pts
There were also huge swings against the Cons in 3 2014 by-elecs, the last defences before Brexit:
Rochester & Strood - 28.3 pts (lost)
Clacton - 44.1 pts (lost)
Newark - 15.5 pts (won)
Couple of interesting things about this: 1. Con MPs discriminate by region of origin much more than public do - more positive about Aus imms than voters, more negative about Pakistan imms than voters
2. Lab MPs systematically more favourable towards imms from every region than the public are, except Aus. But gaps vary:
Poland +27
Pakistan +20
France +19
Aus -2
Pakistan
3. There is a tendency to favour groups but the strength of this tendency varies and the groups preferred also vary a bit:
Cons: Aus 73, Fra/Pol 29, Pak 3 (diff 70 pts)
Lab: Fra 57, Pol 50, Pak 35, Aus 33 (diff 24 pts)
Public: Aus 35 Fra 28 Pol 23 Pak 15 (diff 20 pts)
Will have to check but I think last time we had this pattern - Labour narrowly ahead on imm, but most voters thinking neither party good on the issue - was in 1960s pre-Enoch Powell. Cons had massive lead on the issue from Powell to Cameron, May's net imm target destroyed that
Cons then remained ahead, but by narrower margin, because Labour figures were extremely low having fallen from a low base during new Labour years (when imm rose to the top of the agenda). Cons return to govt, and fading of Brexit, looks to have finally ended that advantage.
But this is not a return to 1960s, pre-Powell immigration politics because several things have changed fundamentally, making the issue v different now: 1. For first time ever,many people see *not enough* imm/overly restrictive controls as a problem (never before seen in polling)