How do views of UK MPs on climate change compare to the public? In short, there's a few alarming gaps.
A quick thread on new polling with @ECIU_UK, plus a few thoughts (some hope and some despair!) #ukclimate#cop27egypt 👇🧵
Methodology: two polls via @YouGov in October 2022:
- one poll of 103 MPs, weighted to be representative of party, region, length of service etc
- one poll of 1,800 UK adults
MP surveys are never perfect methodologically, but YouGov do a really good job of them.
Firstly, the good news is there's broad agreement between MPs of all parties and voters on the problem of climate change and support for Net Zero.
They all want to see UK global leadership - one for the UK team at #COP27!
On issue salience, climate is voters' third biggest issue.
MPs aren't far off this. But immigration (for Cons), housing and crime (for Lab MPs) punching above its weight wrongly pushes it down the ranking of what MPs think voters prioritise.
Con MPs view the threat of climate change as less proximate, but do still see it as a threat to the world and future generations.
(NB i can't break out SNP or Lib Dem MPs because the sub-samples are too small, pls don't shout at me)
Where worrying gaps start to open up is on energy sources, especially onshore wind.
Offshore, hydro and nuclear enjoy net support among MPs of both main parties and the public.
But Con MPs are net negative to onshore wind (-2%), while the public are +61%. Why?
Well, in part because Con MPs quite significantly misjudge even their own party voters' attitudes to onshore wind.
Con MPs estimate Con '19 voters to have a net favourability of -41% towards onshore wind.
It's actually +50%!
This makes 64% of Conservative MPs feel that a majority of their constituents would oppose a new local onshore wind project.
But we know this isn't true! It's supported by massive majorities.
As we've seen, this misperception leads to harmful policy outcomes.
It also likely bleeds into the gap between some Con MPs and the public when you force a choice on the energy security debate.
(btw the lead the 'green' argument has v.s the fossil fuel case has grown month-on-month this year, with voters of all parties)
TL;DR on this + other myths eg 'Red Wall voters don't care about climate': the problem's not voter attitudes to climate action. There's been big shifts. Idk what else we can reasonably ask of the public.
The problem is elite perceptions of voter attitudes haven't caught up.
Clearly some MPs *are* out of touch.
But it's not worth being partisan about it. There's many excellent Con MPs on climate & @CEN_HQ do a superb job.
Ultimately as campaigners we have to shift this dynamic. I love polling obviously but it only goes so far.
An idea its worth funders looking at on renewables: infrastructure to mobilise those in favour of onshore wind, to at least even-out the mailbags of MPs/Cllrs.
Very lastly, just as an aside, it was good to have my suspicions confirmed on the messaging divide.
Co-benefit climate messages do best with elites, while broader themes do best with voters.
(Respondents saw a sentence or two on each message. Higher score = more convincing)
Anyway, many thanks to @politico for covering the wind angle of this today, and @AnushkaAsthana for mentioning it briefly in her onshore package for ITV too.
YouGov will publish the tables but if anyone wants them before then do DM me.
A thread of some random polling bits and bobs which tell us a few interesting things about voters in this election campaign.
All from a survey I ran recently with @OpiniumResearch, - leaving here mostly for posterity! 🧵 #GE2024
On tax cuts vs public services, even when you spell out what tax cuts mean for people and make them *big*, ppl still prefer spend it on public services.
(Suggests to me Lab had more space to run on 'investment vs spending cuts', but that's a bigger argument !)
Where are key voters going to be learning about the campaign, at least if we believe what they say when asked?
Television, mostly.
It blows everything else out the water with older groups especially.
As someone who obsesses over public attitudes to climate/Net Zero as a day job, fwiw a quick thread summarising my take on the electoral politics of Sunak's announcements yesterday. 🧵
Swing voters hold 2 things in their heads concurrently:
1. They have some sympathy (albeit variable/soft) for *some* of govt’s individual policy positions yesterday.
2. They're strongly pro-NZ/environment and don't like anti-green politicians. This is too often under-estimated
How Sunak's positioning plays is determined by which wins out. You can see from his speech he understands the balance.
The problem is the way this gets excitedly pitch rolled as a 'culture war' or anti-green generally. That's also the more interesting angle for media - see BBC
Some new polling to try and get at this "voters support Net Zero but won’t pay for it" zombie take running wild in recent days.
via @focaldataHQ
(apologies for yet another thread on this but it's been annoying me and, more importantly, is now actively shaping Govt policy!) 🧵
Firstly some new numbers to back up an old point: people's willingness to pay for Net Zero is no worse than most other major policy areas. (actually for some its better, incl among swing voters)
It's only the NHS which clear majorities are actively willing to take a hit for.
Yet nobody walks around SW1 sagely stroking their chin, “ah yes people *say* they care about schools/crime but are they willing to pay for it?”
Because we've absorbed the idea NZ simply must = cost + inconvenience. But it needn't.
An ongoing thread on the risk - to both parties - of reading way too much from Uxbridge/ULEZ into wider voter attitudes on the environment and climate change.
Posting it here not least for posterity. 🧵
Whatever your view of ULEZ, it’s always been far more contentious than other green policy. Here's it's the only one in negative territory nationally.
It’s joined btw by fracking + North Sea drilling - policies pushed by NZ sceptics. So no lectures from them on public opinion.
Also should be noted ULEZ is far more popular in Khan’s electorate (albeit depends bit how you ask Q, and intensity of antis usually > pros)
But politics makes more sense in LDN, and tbf it matters: it has already significantly reduced toxic air in LDN standard.co.uk/news/london/sa…