This comes from this morning's CapX email. It's written by Oliver Wiseman, and is published by the Centre for Policy Studies, a Thatcherite think tank:
If the Conservatives learnt anything last year, it was that pitching yourselves as the party of Brexit and deriding 'citizens of nowhere' comes at a price: namely, that you cannot win over the Somewheres without alienating a lot of Anywheres.
Nowhere was that more obvious than in London, where the party's vote share fell by 1.8 percentage points even as its national support rose by 5.5 points.
But, as he notes, things aren't going well for the Tories in the run up to the May elections. Basing his comments on polling by Lord Ashcroft he says:
Last month, a YouGov poll put Conservative support in the capital at just 28 per cent and forecast the loss of control of three flagship boroughs in the upcoming council elections: Barnet, Wandsworth and Westminster. Wandsworth has been in Conservative hands since 1978; Westminster has been Conservative-controlled since it was created in 1965. If the results are in line with this poll, Labour's performance would be the strongest of any party in London since 1968.
And adds:
The most interesting part of Ashcroft's research isn't the headline numbers, but his categorisation of the capital's electoral battlegrounds. He sorts London's 630 wards into demographically similar areas that offer a revealing picture of the city's political tribes. There are emphatically Labour areas such as wards he describes as 'stuck in the capital', with high levels of deprivation and semi-skilled, unskilled and unemployed residents. Or the 'Barista belt', where the population is mostly young, single people in professional occupations, and people in social housing.
It is no shock that such areas — which contain 39 per cent of London's electors — are solidly Labour. What is surprising is the lack of a Conservative equivalent. Yes, there is the outer ring of suburban voters who are older, whiter and more likely to have voted Leave than the average Londoner. But the capital is one of the most prosperous places on the planet. Labour's national leadership team oppose more or less every known ingredient of the city's success. And yet, even among the city's winners — the 'liberally affluent' and residents of 'village London', to use Ashcroft's language — the party of Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell has real appeal.
Before concluding:
More generally, if the only party with a credible claim to be trusted to promote and preserve prosperity cannot win support in the capital, then it is not winning that all-important economic argument. And that is a sure sign that something is wrong with the party's pitch to voters not just in London, but across the country.
Four thoughts. First, it would seem that voters in London do not think that the Tories are making the credible claim that Oliver Wiseman thinks they offer.
Second, he's right to believe that where London leads much of England follows: I am not extrapolating further.
Third, with any remaining confidence knocked out of the Tories, and with the EU noting their failure to convince the country of the merit of their case for Brexit, what then for those negotiations that now dominate too much of our national life?
Fourth, none of this encourages Labour to be more specific as to an alternative, and I am not sure that helps the political life of the country.
What can be said with some confidence is that the turbulence is not over yet.
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:
My neighbours in London, in Westminster, are almost all Conservatives. It’s a Tory safe seat. They are unhappy about Brexit, and unhappier still about the brextremists, and will be voting Labour this time (even two who work in the city who are about as averse to Corbyn as one could be), and I suspect LibDem in the next general election. I share their feelings but have left the country so will not be voting.
Paul,
I realise you and your friends are never going to be happy with Corbyn but maybe you could answer me this:
If the Tories tear themselves apart and Labour win the next GE with Corbyn as PM, what are his most problematic policies for you and how would you like to see them modified to make you less unhappy?
Would you be more or less happy about a Corbyn government if they announced they were taking on some MMT economists in addition to more mainstream advisers with the intention of gradually testing out some of their MMT inspired policies (JG, functional finance, stricter banking regulation, 0% interest rates)?
Would a disorderly hard Brexit under the Tories followed, a few years later, by a Corbyn government make you any more likely to feel more favourable about taking a punt on the policies advocated by MMT?
I feel like it is possible for Corbyn to try his ideas, hopefully adopt some MMT stuff and try that too, all in a controlled and measured way and just see how it goes. Don’t change everything at once, give stuff time to bed in before launching the next thing and take a step back if anything has undesired side effects or doesn’t work as expected.
I don’t know why people are so vehemently opposed to something different. I’ve disagreed with everything UK leaders have done my entire life but I haven’t gone off on one about it, I’ve always given the benefit of the doubt to each new plan. Even though I’ve thought they’d all be awful I’ve tried to think positively and give them a chance. Is it unreasonable, after 40 years of slightly different but mostly similar centre-right free-market policies, to expect to be allowed to try something new for a bit?
Doesn’t it seem hypocritical and ironic for the media and much of the Tory party to be wailing about the terrible doom that’ll befall us if Corbyn gets in even though nothing he does will be sudden or irreversible and yet at the same time be joyfully pushing Brexit, a sudden cliff edge transition with no chance of going back?
Hi Adam,
I generally agree with your post but please don’t mention “0% interest rates” on its own in a context such as this. It needs some serious explanation. With or without that the trolls (and just about everyone else) could go crazy.
As an objective 0% real rates make sense
I am not concerned if Corbyn is elected. I accept the principle of democracy even if proves personally costly, as I expect it may (if there’s a large fall in property values). I think the concern my former neighbours have is that he is keen to return the UK to the 1970s. His attitude to the EU seems either dishonest (trying to have his cake and eat it, being in favour in London and skeptical outside) or not properly informed (repeated tripe about restrictions on state ownership that are simply untrue). His latest demonisation of foreign workers was barrel scraping stuff that cannot fail to alienate anyone who checks facts. It was pure Trumpism. Unacceptable even if insincere.
The only way this is heading, it seems to me, is toward break-up of the UK by the Tories, and the English will blame the EU for their own actions and take a generation or three to come to terms with it. I would like to be wrong.
I think three generations is optimistic
Paul,
Fair enough, I share your fear that the UK is going to break up as a result of Brexit. I’m also personally concerned about some aspects of Corbyn’s approach (even though I’m a member of Momentum!). Also all my wealth is tied up in property so I too stand to lose if property prices decline.
So why the hell do I support Labour? I blame first past the post. It gives me no option but to pick the least bad of the two main parties in the hope of minimising harm. I also have a hope (quite possibly foolish!) that my belief the Labour Leadership intend to help everyone is founded in reality and that it may, in time, be possible for the grassroots to push up the ideas that will enable them to do so.
What I fear most even beyond the UK breaking up is a permanent fracturing of society itself. I’d happily bet you a large amount of money that you (Paul) and I have vastly more in common in our philosophical outlook and our beliefs about our nation than we have differences. Yet 40 years of divisive ideas in the media and divisive policy from governments have succeeded in building walls between us.
I see it all the time. I count myself a patriot and yet I have been accused of being a traitor on the street and even threatened with violence (while campaigning) by people who consider themselves “true patriots” in one breath but announce they intend emigrating at retirement “because the country has gone to the dogs”. When I look at what troubles them about our nation the underlying reasons for dissatisfaction are the same as mine.
The sooner we all wake up to the fact we’ve all been played for fools for a long, long time the better. Maybe if that happens soon we can prevent the break up of our nation and put the pieces of our fractured society back together.
Marco,
I agree mentioning MMTers’ preferred policies in isolation can cause an adverse reaction. It’s difficult not to though. What I’ve learned from MMT economists is that their policies are each an essential part of a whole. The whole amounts to a significant realignment of policies, regulations and institutional organisation. I have slowly come to believe that such a realignment is necessary to enable us to take full advantage of the underlying logic of our existing money system and thereby make full and best use of our real resources.
The trouble is it takes people time and effort to get their heads around this. MMT turns most of the beliefs we have about the economy on their heads. I’m open-minded and was highly motivated to “find another way” plus I have time on my hands. Despite that it has taken me years to reach my still limited understanding!
I see no feasible way of getting this stuff into the public consciousness other than sparking interest with carefully worded explanations of individual MMT observations and individual MMT policies. You’ve got to gain some sort of traction in someone’s imagination before they’ll be willing to put in time and effort learning more.
At the same time I think deliberately inflammatory and shocking claims like “taxes don’t fund anything” can put as many people off as they attract.
It’s a bit of a Catch-22.
My feeling is that we have to initially use the observations with the most “wow, that’s completely different to how I thought about it…” factor AND the least “OMG! WTF! Ridiculous nonsense!” factor. Then, having gained interest without repelling we can try to sell the rest of the ideas in order of escalating repulsion factor such that the most difficult to accept come last.
The problem with that is all the information is out there already and we have no control over which idea any given person will discover first.
One possible solution to that is to produce material aimed at the layman which builds up the idea in an interesting but maximally acceptable fashion and, importantly; market it heavily.
Then significant numbers of people will come to first hear of MMT in the way that is most conducive to learning enough to be able to fairly consider the viability of the whole package.
Marco Fante says:
“I generally agree with your post but please don’t mention “0% interest rates” ..”
Don’t see why not. It would be an improvement on the negative real interest rates we’ve got now, and had for much of the last decade.
Despite being a notorious extrapolator I am more tempted to simplify this one down to 2 brief points:
1. Londoners voted heavily against Brexit in the referendum and at this point in time they will be feeling more than vindicated on that point so a party pitching themselves as “the party of Brexit” should get what they deserve in that town.
2. It was recently noted in this blog that the budget deficit had been reduced to the level that former Chancellor, Osborne had targeted when he set out on his austerity campaign. And what beneficial effects have we to show for that now – collectively or individually? Nothing (or less than nothing). No doubt there will be many in London and elsewhere that have come to the same conclusion.
The Tories’ identity has become one that is defined by Brexit and Austerity and those two pillars have now been now decisively exposed as the ill-conceived calamaties they are. There is no need to go around analysing little voter groups and giving them quaint names. This one comes down to the basics.
I have to agree…
Londoners see the implications of what the Tories have done all over their city, and throughout its life
According to Paul Johnson of the IFS (a crypto-Finance-Minister?) recently in the Guardian, ‘We are nowhere near out of austerity’.
I do not see Paul Johnson in the way manybdo I.e. I consider the IFS very constrained in its thinking
On this he is right though
What we did not hear is his condemnation of that
N Dyson says:
“According to Paul Johnson of the IFS (a crypto-Finance-Minister?) recently in the Guardian, ‘We are nowhere near out of austerity’.”
The current government has no intention of unwinding austerity. It wasn’t introduced as a remedial policy for its stated aim of deficit reduction, it was setting in concrete a shift in wealth distribution.
Highly effective it has been too. Don’t let anyone tell you it has ‘failed’. It has done exactly what was intended to do and continues to do it.
This sums up where we are: https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=Ycuw9Cvh6W4
The same neoliberal forces that brought us Trump is responsible also for Brexit, and arguably Putin — a foreshadowing of what may await the UK.
Resistance is essential.
It’s a speech by Chris Hedges a former NYT foreign correspondent who opposed the Iraq war. Best and most moral thing I’ve heard in a very long time. Give it 5mins, I think you will see it through (1:09).
This discussion between Noam Chomsky, Bruno della Chiesa, and Howard Gardner about the book The Pedagogy of the Oppressed by Paolo Freire describes how we are not educated to critique either our educatio, or those who rule over us. I think it explaines why, and fits neatly into what Chris Hedges is stating as obvious to many of us.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ll6M0cXV54
Paul says:
This sums up where we are: https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=Ycuw9Cvh6W4
Resistance is essential.
Excellent. Thanks for the link Paul.
If the local elections in London go Labour’s way as predicted I think it says something about Corbyn’s strategy of taking his time to formulate a Brexit stance while being careful not to alienate either side.
I think it also will show that despite London’s massive wealth – its sky-high living costs and massive inequality prevent it being as strongly Tory as it perhaps should be.
In a democracy there is only so far you can push up inequality before you fail at the polling station. Maybe we’re soon to arrive at that point?
I wonder if, without the distraction and divide-and-rule nature of Brexit whether the Tories would have already failed? Much has been made of Brexit’s impact on the last election but I wonder how much better Corbyn’s message would be being received now in the traditionally labour voting but strongly pro-brexit areas in the absence of Brexit and with a couple of years to the next election (assuming 2017 didn’t happen without Brexit). What’ll happen when Brexit’s happened (or is aborted) and the Tories no longer have that divisive wedge driven between Labour’s traditional northern heartlands and the southern urban centres?
Adam Sawyer says:
“If the local elections in London go Labour’s way as predicted I think it says something about Corbyn’s strategy of taking his time to formulate a Brexit stance…..
Interesting….. you think it’s Brexit that is causing the swing rather than just desperation at the domestic policy neglect and incompetence of the incumbent government ?
I’m not arguing. I’m wondering.
It may not be as big a problem for the Conservatives as it appears. If compulsory voter ID is introduced, a swathe of predominantly Labour voters will be disenfranchised. If you can barely afford to feed your family, you are unlikely to be able to afford the cost of obtaining acceptable ID.
If gerrymandering is the answer the wrong question is being asked
It reminds me of the good old days back in Northern Ireland. Gerrymandering is a far easier option than reasoned argument.
“If gerrymandering is the answer the wrong question is being asked”
If we’ve got gerrymandering we’ve got the wrong people in power.
Why did I bother to say ‘if’ ?
What’s interesting about Tory voters is they may dislike the effects of their party’s Austerity programme and even disparage MMT but they can’t come up with an alternative model of how the UK monetary system creates the country’s currency (money). If Corbyn was smart he’d keep pressuring the Tory government to come up with that rational and workable model that justifies imposing Austerity on the country. To keep hammering away at the notion there must be a full working and coherent model somewhere to justify it!
Regarding Jeremy Corbyn
A radically different leader is elected under new rules little more than 2 years ago. Since then he has prevailed against massive hostile, resistance from inside and outside his party, consolidated his position at a G.E. a few months ago and done so in turbulent times.
Given the circumstances and time-frame, are some of levels of expectation seen in this blog not unrealistically high? Seriously.
I would say no
Marco Fante says:
“Regarding Jeremy Corbyn
Given the circumstances and time-frame, are some of levels of expectation seen in this blog not unrealistically high? Seriously.”
Richard says no. I say yes….. and no.
It’s a matter of priorities. Corbyn, in common with May, has a very divided party with no consensus position. Both, therefore, fight with one hand tied behind their back.
How they choose to occupy (or mis-occupy) the hand they have still available determines whether they can do anything useful. Both know their most lethal opponents sit on the benches behind them.
Agreed Andy,
Yours is quite a good summary
On further thought Corbyn should be saying we know there’s a Modern Money Model but where’s your complete and logical Austerity Money Model it appears to be missing! Isn’t a democratic nation like the UK entitled to know what it is!
I wish….
And now he could quote Redwood…
Unlike Bernie Sanders, Corbyn seems unable to go into direct attack mode convincingly. Maybe it’s just a personality trait. However, I have a sneaking suspicion that he’s not 100% convinced within himself – unlike he is on some social justice issues about which he comes across more passionately. Or else, perhaps, he feels less sure-footed on economics. Of course I’m only speculating.
Theresa May strikes me as such a shallow, pragmatic politician, trying so hard to be all things to all people, constantly ducking and diving to hold her party together, that she should be relatively easy to outshine (I don’t underestimate her political antennae as she’s been in the front-line for a long time). As stated above, the Tories must be on the back-foot on austerity, as well as a raft of other key issues. It’s pretty much an open goal.
The negative impact of Austerity is not so difficult to explain, because millions of people are suffering every day in so many different ways as a result. So Corbyn can afford to be passionately and relentlessly uncompromising in his criticism of the Conservatives. I hope he will ratchet up his rhetoric a notch or three. What’s he got to lose?
“Unlike Bernie Sanders, Corbyn seems unable to go into direct attack mode convincingly. Maybe it’s just a personality trait.”
Well maybe it is and it may also be one of the reasons why he is popular. He does not fit into the high-handed, adversarial, autocratic “strong leader” cliche that is (was?) previously considered appropriate.
His softer, consultative style to some, seems quite refreshing. Or so it would appear.
If it was really refreshing the polls would be much further apart than they are
His failure to make clear policy and the vague feeling (based on fact given the opinion of many of his advisers, who I am acquainted with) that the private sector is a problem is hindering progress considerably and does not portend well for when he has power in my opinion.
Yes, fair enough but I still think that a lot of people like the fact that he is not outwardly aggressive.
I, for one, am among those that really appreciate the way that he has beaten the Blairites and thereby broken the neo-liberal ‘consensus’, which is no mean feat. I think that some on the left are too quick to take that for granted.
Sure, there is room for improvement but he has come a long way in a short time.
BTW I was surprised that you didn’t blog the speech where he committed to a customs union (admittedly at Starmer’s urging). I though that would be in your area of interest and it makes that (difficult) area of policy a bit clearer for their part.
I am finite!
And if I am teaching on a day that makes doing this whole blog even harder
And this term I teach, and am still travelling quite a lot too
Just one more thing:
Regarding “the polls”, since Brexit and the G.E.. I now (justifiably) allow for a very wide margin of error. The polls are probably more reliable on issues than they are on voting intention where decisions are more likely to shift. Its hard to know I suppose.
Marco Fante says:
Following: “Unlike Bernie Sanders, Corbyn seems unable to go into direct attack mode convincingly. Maybe it’s just a personality trait.”
“Well maybe it is and it may also be one of the reasons why he is popular………”
Agreed. We have got used to the aberration of the ‘presidential style’ displayed by Thatcher and Blair and that has distorted our perception of what leaders look like and how they should behave.
At the RIC conference in Edinburgh yesterday one of the speakers made the point that Corbyn has always been an opposition politician, even when his own government has held power. He’s having to learn a very different way of behaving and thinking.
Andy says:
“We have got used to the aberration of the ‘presidential style’ displayed by Thatcher and Blair”
Them and everyone else from Churchill onward with the notable exceptions being Attlee (interesting) and Major (who was specifically chosen as someone who was not like Thatcher).
I suppose where Major was Thatcher Ultra Mild, Corbyn is the Anti-Thatcher in policy and style.
Richard Murphy says:
“I am finite!”
Feet of clay, Richard. They’re showing again. You need thicker socks 🙂
I am reading the discussion of the Labour Party here and must confess that I am at a loss to understand what the Labour Party is for. I confess I do not feel part of the argument, in any case; the politics of Britain seems to me now completely detached from reality, and I have declining sympathy for the mess.
In Scotland,which is after all a foundation stone of the Labour Party, Corbyn has just had a bungling and inept conference, that – as far as I can tell – is not being well received in Scotland. It is not helped by the fact that the deeper problem is beautifully, publicly and powerfully revealed and encapsulated in Corbyn’s Theresa May conference-speech moment with the set (yes, really).
Scotland discovered that the Labour Party can no longer even spell Keir Hardie’s name (Keir Hardy), in big letters, centre-set. Really. Here is ‘The Scotsman’ take, with video.
https://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/scottish-labour-misspell-party-founder-s-name-in-major-embarrassment-1-4703065
This is much more telling than you may think. It chimes with the times. It chimes with the utter, incompetent inanity and ineptitude of the whole Westminster political class.
John S Warren says:
“I am reading the discussion of the Labour Party here and must confess that I am at a loss to understand what the Labour Party is for…..”
Scrapping Clause 4 created that question, and the answer was to make ‘New Labour’ acceptable to an English middle class. I’m not sure ‘Pyrrhic’ quite describes that type of victory, there is maybe a more apposite adjective.
You and I share the benefit of having a government here in Scotland which despite the budgetary depredations of Westminster is is so far ahead of where a Corbyn government would be starting from (if they get the chance) that they do seem to be entirely irrelevant.
The picture south of the border is rather different and Corbyn is, not so much their best hope, as their only hope of salvation.
I wish he’d stay in his own patch; he’s got more than enough work to do there. He manages to look stupid, narrowly tribal and out of touch every time he steps over the border. How are we supposed to take him seriously when he has both feet in his mouth ?
I’m not convinced a Labour landslide in London would be positive. Mr Corbyn & his cabinet will find themselves inclined to speak increasingly to the people of London & the more they do so, the more they will alienate Labour voters in other parts of the country.
This is not a tactical point, saying it will be good news for the Conservatives, I just think it’ll be bad news for everyone. One of the many truly depressing points about Brexit is the extent to which it has revealed a country not so much divided as fractured. Put simply, we HATE each other & it isn’t getting better but worse .
I don’t have much time, TPIM, for Justin Webb but he recently made a point I thought v perceptive. In the 1960s if you had asked someone whether they hunted (& lots of Americans do) it would have told you v little about their voting preference. Now, it would tell you they were at least 90% likely to be a Republican.
We’ve moved from politics being about ideas to being about lifestyle ‘choices’ (of course most people don’t have much choice).
This matters because it is relatively easy to be persuaded that an idea you hold is wrong, but if the other side hold you in contempt for being a city-dwelling, metrosexual who rides a bike, or, v/v for being a suburban, Jeremy Clarkson-lite in a 4×4, it is v hard to admit you’re wrong & much easier to “double down” & push into your own interior & exterior bunkers. This way cannot end well, seriously!
“We’ve moved from politics being about ideas to being about lifestyle ‘choices’”
Interesting observation, Eriugenus.
Lesley Riddoch makes a similar point about ‘working class’ Scots eschewing the activities of the landowning ‘posh’ class. On principle as it were, though of course affordability and sour grapes always enters the equation.
Where this runs to eschewing education it becomes very damaging to society and it was not ever thus. The WEA was a powerful movement in the past.
The (unnecessary) 4×4 (Chelsea tractor, or ‘truck’,as I call them) is probably a good indicator of voting preference. Especially in the urban environments where its only function is to be able to mount the pavement outside the pre-school nursery.