The Guardian has reported on research led by Tim Bale, a professor of politics at Queen Mary, University of London, this morning. As they note, he began tracking the opinions of UK political party members after the 2015 election. The latest figures come from polling of more than 1,000 members of each of the four parties following last June's election. That certainly feels like a sample chosen to be statistically significant.
As they report, what is clear is that the opinion of Conservative Party members is likely to be significantly different to that of members of a Labour, the LibDems and SNP. I presume the Greens and UKIP were not included in the survey. In particular they note:
The study found that the various party members' opinions on leaving the EU were ... divergent ..., with only Conservatives supporting a harder Brexit. Around a quarter of Conservative members support the UK remaining in the EU's single market or customs, while just 14% back a referendum on a final deal.
In contrast, there is overwhelming backing for these options among members of the other parties, even Labour, which under Jeremy Corbyn is occupying the middle ground over Brexit. Among Labour members, 87% want the UK to remain in the single market, 85% in the customs union, and 78% support a new referendum.
I am not very surprised. Nor am I by this:
Similarly, on the economy there is what the authors describe as “a gulf between the Tory grassroots and the rest”: just 11% of Conservative members agree that austerity has been taken too far, against 98% for Labour, 93% in the SNP and 75% among Lib Dems.
And age is not necessarily a factor:
The average age for members was remarkably similar, at 57 for Tories, 53 for Labour, 52 for the Lib Dems and 54 in the SNP.
All have a male bias: it is much more marked in the case of the Conservatives.
Three thoughts. First, if you thought Conservatives were hard to get along with now you know why; to anyone with a socially liberal persuasion they really are from a different planet.
Second, Labour needs to take note on Brexit. I am no great fan of Adonis, but he and others in the Labour centre ground are likely to correctly reflect the mood of the party on this issue and the Labour leadership, who say they pride themselves on reflecting members' views need to take serious note on this one if that claim is to remain credible.
Third, of course there are serious differences of view between Labour, the SNP, LibDems and the Greens too, come to that. If not they would not all need to exist. I do not for a moment wish to dismiss the importance of those differences, because they are real. But equally, the bedrock on which each of these parties is built is not that dissimilar in terms of opinion. Surely there is room for cooperation to ensure that we do not suffer the abuse of the more vulnerable in society that is the hallmark of Conservative policy again? Is that really too much to hope for?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
From the source report:
“Beginning just after the 2015 General
Election, and with funding from the UK’s
social science research council, the ESRC,
we have, with the help of YouGov, been
surveying the members of the country’s
six biggest parties. ”
The two smaller parties you mention were surveyed, just not included in the analysis. But that’s what you get when you don’t read reports just Guardian write-ups.
I’m also troubled by the suggestion that we can use feelings to establish statistical significance.
At 6 this morning I drew attention to the report
You try doing it every morning..
I am more disturbed my people posting using false identities
I wonder why they do that?
‘just 11% of Conservative members agree that austerity has been taken too far’
That tells you all you need to know about the divide in this country. Unfortunately there is a rock solid 40% (or thereabouts) support for the Tories-it will not shift and is largely made up of those over 57 who are white knuckling a world where austerity doesn’t really hit and the death of those harrased by the Work capability Assessment (and the targeting connected with it) is merely ‘unfortunate,’
It is a shame that the Brexit issue is bedevilling Labour because this will play into neo-liberal hands by weakening the labour vote. I know people disagree with me here about this but i say again: Brexit is a decoy, a diversion, a displacement activity based on mis-information and a distraction for the Left which should be focusing on what the UK can do by deficit spending and lifting the country out of debt-peonage.
It is deeply saddening what is going on and what it says about the moral level of many of our citizens – but if Brexit takes up the energy that is required to get acrross to the public what is of CENTRAL importance then it simply means Neo-liberalism has an extended life span.
A lot of sense in that Simon
“i say again: Brexit is a decoy, a diversion, a displacement activity based on mis-information and a distraction for the Left which should be focusing on what the UK can do by deficit spending and lifting the country out of debt-peonage.”
You’re not the only one Simon.
You are right Simon. Richards project is taxation. This he does extremely well. My interest is the study of costs. Not costs measured in pounds sterling, Euros or dollars which are merely tokens, but costs as mathematical and cybernetic objects. My contention is that our present economic system’s cost tranjectory is on a positive exponential cost curve. That is the means by which we can all afford the necessities of life becomes impossible to attain. The present crisis in the NHS is just one example, Housing just another. Although the Brexit issue is important for example, the main focus IMHO should be the the reengineering of our information architecture to set the cost trajectory on a negative exponential cost curve. If we get the science right this is just a walk in the park. However to do so is totally incompatible with Capitalism. By Capitalism I don’t mean private endeavour and reward. I mean exactly what Marx meant. The people who do the work are also the people who decide how how the fruits of their labour should be distributed. Not just a small handful of company directors and shareholders. Only people should have votes, not shares.
John Adams,
“Only people should have votes, not shares.”
I say, that’s a good line, a good meme, one that should be disseminated widely.
Spot on fro me! But it will require an outbreak of rationality -at present we use ‘rationality’ in a localised way (‘I’m prepared to be rational in sphere X’) but we don’t extend it.
It’s both useful and frightening to see my personal experience of speaking/listening to Tories confirmed by research.
There’s no “turning” those people as they are “believers” with massive blind spots.
However the others, all of them bar UKIP, should grow up and unite for the sake of future generations, but will they, as I’m sure there are also ” believers” too among them who will not compromise, also some ambitious characters who think their own persons matter more than the common good.
‘Surely there is room for cooperation to ensure that we do not suffer the abuse of the more vulnerable in society that is the hallmark of Conservative policy again? Is that really too much to hope for?’
Maybe an anti-austerity coalition is the best we can hope for. Possibly, but I can’t see it happening – too much tribalism and poor economic awareness with the Liberals already with 6 years of supporting austerity behind them ( they can go to hell on a hand cart as far as I’m concerned).
In 2015: ‘Nearly 90 people a month are dying after being declared fit for work, according to new data that has prompted campaigners and Labour leadership contenders to call for an overhaul of the government’s welfare regime.’
Yet the austerity agenda carries on with 40% of the electorate still backing it!!! All because economists and politicians are not getting across that the Government is not a household – Gorden Bennett on steroids!
Simon,
Sorry if this seems like nitpicking (it isn’t) but thankfully your “solid” Tory “40% of the electorate” is doubtful because a large part of the electorate still doesn’t vote.
At the last GE Corbyn’s Labour achieved the largest increase in vote share since Clement Attlee and they did that by increasing turnout (engaging those that don’t normally vote).
“The electorate” refers to anyone that is eligible to vote. If 40% of those people were loyal, voting Tories then they would have been in power continuously since Churchill.
If you are going by polls then polls since the last GE suggest that the Tories can barely manage 40% support in total (sometimes they haven’t) with both “solid” and non-solid supporters included.
Furthermore, a large proportion of the electorate probably wouldn’t even know what the “austerity” meant – in or out of context.
Do remember that the last Cameron govt. ruled with the backing of 24% of the electorate – meaning those that are eligible to vote, not just those that voted.
This article has some detailed insights on that point: https://medium.com/@georgetaitedwards/how-david-cameron-s-government-stole-the-2015-general-election-a1ca0d9c1658
Correction: wouldn’t know whqat the word ‘austerity’ meant.
Agreed -but the figure must be indicative of some element of ‘perceptual rigidity’ as it appears consistently and the 37-40% could conceivably be a percentage of those who vote-making the ‘real’ percentage (given a turn out of say 64%) could still be around 24%.
These numbers suggest that in Britain, and in the United States, our voting system is allowing a small minority on the right to take control of policy. Opposition remains spread over a number of political factions, leaving dangerous extremists in charge.
In 2011 I voted against a transferable vote system of PR for fear of perpetual hung parliaments. However, I have now changed my mind. Countries around the world have to deal with coalition government. Today it looks a far better option than leaving extreme politicians to act against the democratic majority.
I agree
I’ve never bought the idea that a hung parliament is an inherently bad thing.
Both Thatcher and Blair in recent history achieved massive parliamentary majorities without commensurate electoral support in terms of votes. Basically they won by default because the oppositions collapsed and had lost credibility.
Large parliamentary majorities on a minority popular vote don’t make for accountable government because they have no need to seek consensus for policy approval even within their own party.
Theresa May’s present government claims a mandate which it was not given by the electorate, (it was bought from the DUP which is representative of a very small constituency concerned with specific, albeit for them, very important issues) but can chose to ignore public opinion as long as the whips can maintain party discipline.
First Past the Post electoral system is only fit for purpose where there is only a binary choice to be made.
The Brexit referendum was falsely presented as a binary choice. Only after the result do we see the variations of possible outcomes, from hard boiled to soft boiled or scrambled.
The likelihood is we will get scrambled by default instead of scrambled by deliberation. And of that’s not a mess it’ll have to do ’til the real thing comes along.
Ooo Feelings (aka Ooo Groping in the Dark) takes issue with the detail of a poll which is showing massive, not marginal, differences of opinion. Of course it’s not precisely accurate. When was the last time an opinion poll produced an accurate result? It isn’t what they are for.
For the future of the nation, this should be the Number 1 project of 2018. If the so-called ‘progressive’ parties put their ‘money where their mouth is’, there could be an immediate and realistic threat to the Tory minority. With such clear cut attitudinal differences thrown up by the research, the leaders of the progressives (I’m generously including the LP here – lol) have a national duty to co-operate formally, offering the electorate a cohesive and distinct alternative to neo-liberalism. I fear tribalism and ‘group ego’ are the principal hurdles to overcome and they are probably stronger within the Labour Party than the others.
Surely the progressive opposition parties share sufficient communality to put aside their tribal differences in the national interest, don’t they? If the voting public was offered a cohesive, rationally articulated & realistic ‘vision for the future’ in which they could have faith – the Tories would be toast. Pragmatically the initiative can only come from the LP, which is depressing as it doesn’t show much sign of currently being an outward-looking, co-operative party.
I routinely read American political commentary and there is a growing fear that the alt-right is increasing its ‘dark’ power via a number of non-governmental institutions (Wall Street, corporates, media, think tanks, education, etc.) which successfully manipulate public opinion. Yet the extreme Right is still significantly outnumbered on a per capita basis. This is not dissimilar to what is going on here in the UK, and elsewhere. What little democracy we have is being slowly undermined by a dangerous neo-fascist minority. To undersestimate its power and ambition would be foolish. It is a master of the Hegelian dialectic (as stated by Heinrich Chalybäus): Problem – Reaction – Solution.
If the status-quo isn’t changed then …. “be afraid, be very afraid!”
Sorry if this sounds a bit melodramatic but current socio-political research suggests the alt-right/neo-liberal agenda is successfully outgunning the fragmented majority which doesn’t support it. As has been stated here many times by you and others – this is the unconscious primrose path to plutocracy, oligarchy and eventually full-blown fascism. It’s not as if there aren’t historical precedents.
Barista – un caffè doppio perfavore. And a belated Happy New Year!
You hit a nail on the head
They are a minority
Why do we tolerate their control?
We ‘tolerate’ it because ‘we’ persist in being more divided than they are and squabbling. Like them, agree with them or not, New Labour and Blair were very good at appealing to a wide group of voters and being consistent in their message. It’s a different world now with new challenges and different policies needed but some of those principles still apply. I gather John O’Farrell has a new book coming out – his last, Things Can Only Get Better, about Labour in South London in the Thatcher years has some telling lessons. And is very entertaining. The SWP and WRP were of course the inspiration for the JPF – or is the PFJ…
After the grubby coalition that May has hatched up with the DUP, (and the LibDem coalition before that – which looks positively centrist compared to today’s), the Tories are in no position to criticise coalition government. It’s the current Labour leadership who appear to be most resistant to any kind of alliance.
For God’s sake, if half of all this defeatist, miserising doom and gloom stuff was actually true then May wouldn’t need the support of the DUP.
Seriously.
Meanwhile back in the Dr No, evil genius fortress of the undivided “alt-right” we have this:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/03/us/politics/trump-bannon.html
Underestimating one’s enemies is foolish. Overestimating them is just plain silly (and probably a bit lame as well).
Just a comment on false identities or, as I prefer to think of mine, noms de plume, or de social media. There are many reasons why people use them, one of them being simply that it’s an old and venerable tradition. I have another, and I’m sure I’m not the only one.
I’m a psychotherapist and do not necessarily want my clients finding me on Facebook, twitter or, come to that, political sites. Not because there’s anything I’m ashamed of, but because the therapeutic relationship is a very particular one and too much (irrelevant) information about your therapist messes it up, rather as white noise messes up radio or phone reception. Clients do not need to know about my politics, religion, family, friends, sexuality, financial or emotional difficulties. If any of these are relevant to our work, they will be raised in the room. I therefore use the name Kate McLaren everywhere on social media. All my friends know who I am, as do most of the sites I visit.
OK
But you’re not trolling
And you are offering an identifiable presence
I’m not too surprised by these findings.
I’ve come to the conclusion a long time ago that British society is ran via some sort martial mode of rule – as though we are perpetually preparing for war – almost like inter war Germany and Japan even.
As we go forward(!!?) in time we are often encouraged to look back at a ‘past glory’ of some sort. All this does is breed (1) a very robust from of nationalism (or is it some form of British exceptionalism?) and (2) creates the perception that things are not as good as they were and this becomes a fertile breeding ground for reactionary thinking.
To me, the pre-eminent reactionary party in this country is not UKIP or the NF but the modern Tory party.
I completely agree that the sentiment of the electorate should be reflected in government policy and the current FPP system doesn’t fairly represent this. What is also very apparent is the electorates desire for “centrist politics”. This may not sit favourably with some on this board. However, given the unpopularity of the Tories the Labour party should have easily won the election and should be miles ahead in the polls. But they didn’t and they aren’t. The electorate is crying out for the Labour Party to go towards centre but it is going further away.
Woah DC!
I have to challenge that I’m afraid.
Is it not possible that by being centrist New Labour (who aped the Tories to get the so-called Tory swing voter) just alienated people whom traditionally they would stand up for? And effectively lost votes to the like of UKIP perhaps?
I think so. Remember that New Labour learnt a lot from the Clinton Democrats – Democrats who then instituted some of the biggest cuts in welfare in American history and also helped the financial sector wreak havoc by deregulating the safety nets that had been set post- Depression.
The fundamental question is this: who speaks for the poor (working and otherwise) ? Who speaks for vulnerable? Who speaks and defends the interests of the majority of those with moderate means?
Not a centrist party in the mould of US Democrats or New Labour in my view – that’s for sure. New Labour was reportedly relaxed about people getting rich. Well – look what happened. Look how it back-fired on them – made them look naïve. And look how they’ve paid for it and therefore how WE continue to pay for it.
Sorry but we are too far to the right to be centrist. The only way back to the centre DC is by going to the Left. I tell you that this is a fundamental truth.
Sorry!
Much to agree with there. So why do people put their faith in Labour, given its record in government and its disarray over important issues such as Brexit (I’m not sure why this catastrophe is being called a “side-show”), Trident, austerity and the rest? I don’t see Labour as a truly radical party. Anthony Barnet nailed them when he said “Corbyn has returned Labour to Labourism”, a term which Ralph Miliband developed: “for the way Labour politics integrated itself into the fundamentals of Westminster, rather than challenge them.” Sclerotic.
As a inveterate pessimist I don’t see much hope of things changing for decades, maybe centuries (if we survive the coming global holocaust of climate change) unless there is some kind of revolution which would rid us professional politicians – people of no particular skills other than an innate ability to toe the party line – and bring about a deliberative people’s democracy.
Agree with most of that PSR.
Hmmm. Maybe time for a reminder that perhaps those Left/Right, Old/New Labour, Corbyn/Blair models are a bit too simplistic as the deeper analyses of the Brexit vote exposed and as was covered in a recent blog in this parish. Drilling down a bit, there is a deep divide between social and economic views.
Are those votes lost to UKIP going to come back to Labour by moving further to the ‘left’? Does that mean being more socially and economically ‘liberal’? Those UKIP voters tend to be very socially conservative. Many are also pretty susceptible to arguments around ‘welfare scroungers’ which makes them economically conservative too. Meanwhile the younger voters are mostly at the other end of the spectrum. Which group does Labour want to prioritise?
When I think back to the 80s/90s, to start with Labour were squabbling and and had no clear proposition that would engage a broad swathe of voters. New Labour succeeded in tackling both of those problems, whatever one might think about what followed. Meanwhile the Tories went from having a clear and coherent vision (even though most of us here deeply disagreed with it), to being disorganised and appealing only to their more extreme followers.
Today’s Tories feel a bit like the dying days of Majors government only much worse. Further to the right both economically and socially and fighting like rats in a sack. But the sack, which is their fear of losing power, is holding them together – just. It is remarkable that their vote seems to be holding up as it is.
I’d suggest that breaking their grip needs a more thoughtful analysis than just ‘moving further to the left’.
That means thinking about those social and economic dimensions and the UKs changed and changing demographics. It also means coming up with policies that are relevant to the challenges we face now and over the next 10 plus years. Not just rehashing old vision and policies from the past which might have been right for different era.. They started to do that, as Richard knows only too well, and then stopped. There is a gap there desperately needing to be filled but it needs to be a lot more nuanced than just further Left or Right. A Progressive Alliance might help…
The 2015 election result disproves your thesis.
Also, if one was to look at an actual spectrum of possible political stances on a range of issues, the current Labour Party is much closer to the ‘centre-ground’ than most people choose to recognize. In most other European countries their policies would be unremarkable, it’s only in Britain’s right-leaning political media are they considered to be notably left-wing.
DC,
Yours was quite possibly the silliest comment that ai have come across here in quite a long time.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-election-result-vote-share-increased-1945-clement-attlee-a7781706.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/election-2017-labour-youth-vote-under-40s-jeremy-corbyn-yougov-poll-a7789151.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/bernie-sanders-most-popular-politician-poll-trump-favorability-a7913306.html
Even with the purchase of DUP votes the Tory part would not have been able to have even a minority government if the Labour party in Scotland had not campaigned on an “anyone but the SNP” ticket. By pushing for tactical voting amongst their own members they helped the Scottish Tories increase their MPs from one to thirteen.
Speaking after GE Nicola Sturgeon said that:
“The SNP “would play its part in finding the right way forward for the whole of the UK,” she said, and would open talks about agreeing some form of progressive coalition at Westminster. “It is needed more than ever,”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/09/nicola-sturgeon-hints-independence-off-agenda-catastrophic-losses
Which will probably now happen one way or another. Lessons learnt. At the risk of being cynical I am in some ways strategically pleased that Labour performed well but fell short of winning. It was a good election to lose. The Brexit mess was always bound to bring enormous problems for the winning side. It is the Tories who created the mess and they who deserve the damage that comes with it. .
“… It is the Tories who created the mess and they who deserve the damage that comes with it. ”
It doesn’t make it any more fun if you’re expecting to be part of the collateral damage though 🙂
Everything has is its cost I suppose. Not much we can do about that.
Not sure what I find more disturbing.
25% of Lib Dems don’t think austerity has gone too far.
7% of SNPers don’t think austerity has gone too far.
I wonder what that 7% think of the SNP’s year-on-year attempts to ameliorate the enforced austerity.
A quick theory Mike,
That 25% of Lib Dems are some sort of libertarian tossers or “socially progressive” neo-liberals that are only Lib-Dem because they can’t bear the thought of being called “conservative” or just economically dumb, don’t really think about that stuff and are mostly motivated by social issues.
That 7% of SNPers are economically dumb, don’t really think about that stuff and are mostly motivated by nationalist issues or genuinely conservative but deeply Scottish nationalist.
I am fairly sure that theory will be right to some extent but what what extent I don’t really know.
Could be worth the Libdems canvassing for your vote then.. You seem a little undecided…… 🙂
mike cassidy says:
January 4 2018 at 7:24 pm
Not sure what I find more disturbing.
“25% of Lib Dems don’t think austerity has gone too far.” That, I find unremarkable – not surprised by that at all.
“7% of SNPers don’t think austerity has gone too far.
I wonder what that 7% think of the SNP’s year-on-year attempts to ameliorate the enforced austerity.”
This I find interesting. It might tell you a couple of things eg
that the SNP has a broader base of support across the left/right spectrum than is generally admitted. (?)
That the efforts to ameliorate enforced austerity have been quite effective so that a significant number of even leftish voters have been sheltered from the pain and are believing the MSM hogwash that austerity is necessary. (?)
That the political climate in Scotland is emphatically different from that in England and Wales (?)
or something else (?)
Perhaps the SNP has been better at balancing the social/economic dimensions, as perceived by the public …and in practice? Being a little flippant, I always felt that the SNP were a bit like the old Scottish LibDems but with added nationalism. And that’s not meant to be pejorative.
I’ve always felt that the overall political climate is different in Scotland, but then it’s profoundly different across the regions of England as I’ve argued before. Come to that, it’s different in the Highlands and Islands to Edinburgh/Glasgow.