The next few days are going to be a hot mess, COVID comms wise, as the irresistable force of motivated reasoning hits the immovable object of Christmas/New Year's reporting schedules
Expect to see a lot of alarmist reporting of large numbers, with caveats about how they lump together several days' figures missing/ignored. Countered by a lot of overconfident reporting of small numbers, with caveats about Xmas/NY under-reporting missing/ignored.
For researchers of confirmation bias, its the Most Wonderful Time of The Year
(incidentally, in case it wasn't clear, @ganeshran is on the side of the angels, and would never make such basic errors - hence the caveats in his tweet and its follow up)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
It also puts Labour firmly on the side of public opinion, which as always through the pandemic supports restrictions to combat an emerging threat. Con rebels are adopting a position most of their voters - and in particular their older voters - reject.
The broader problem for Cons this reflects is that many of the strongest ideological convictions of their more vocal & rebellious backbenchers - small state market liberalism, libertarian opposition to COVID restrictions - don't really have any electoral market at all.
These positions are also particularly toxic with the Leave voting (once UKIP voting) "red wall" type supporters Cons picked up in 2017-19, who tend to have exactly the opposite combination of views - favouring big state interventionism and authoritarianism on most things
We literally are a "papers, please" society - the whole and explicit point of the "Hostile Environment" policies introduced by this government's predecessors, and still in force, is to make a wide range of service providers demand papers of every not-citizen resident here.
What to study here? "Papers, please" (every month of your course)
Want to work here? "Papers, please"
Want to rent a flat here? "Papers, please"
Get sick and need healthcare? "Papers, please"
The Windrush scandal, which Mr Fysh may remember, was a"papers, please" scandal. The government imposed these bureaucratic demands, without foresight or forethought, on people who had lived here for decades, perfectly legally. Then wrecked their lives.
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
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".