We have to talk about #Brexit.
It is a fallacy to assume #Bregret is a new thing. It has been a feature of the data for a long time. The data has just been misread by many political commentators, political scientists and media.
This is also a means of #introduction. I am a Professor of Economics at University of Warwick studying the #PoliticalEconomy of #Brexit, among others. My work particularly focuses on understanding the role that #Austerity played in bringing about #Brexit.
Fact 1: Without #austerity and without #FPTP, there would not have been an #EUReferendum to begin with.
Right wing commentators or right leaning political scientists have been attempting to dismiss my work, pushing distracting narratives. The key constituency that drove the #EUReferendum in favor of #Leave was a protest vote - and #austerity induced dislocations were the main driver of that vote.
I summarize my work here https://econtwitter.net/@fetzert/109348821390260124.
And here
https://twitter.com/fetzert/status/1091359096555667461?s=20&t=3gQsgEqILi4L-MtM1xm6mg
Now...
Fact 2: The protest and discontent that #austerity created was crucial to channel the marginal #Leave vote in 2016.
To do that, the disingenuous campaigning of the #Leave side had to really expand making #Brexit appealing for as many people as possible by basically being something different for everybody.
The purpose of the campaign was to tap into discontent. And the 350 million #NHS pledge was most salient as it resonated with peoples perceptions that #austerity had gone too far.
A great example of some quite blatant misreading of data is posted below.
This was in 2019. Rob Ford claimed that classic #Brexit voters and supporters - UKIP voters - wanting more #austerity
This is just false. As I explain at length here (https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2019/10/17/long-read-debunking-myths-on-links-between-austerity-and-brexit/)
#UKIP voters, to a tiny extent disliked #austerity a bit less than the rest.
Misreading data and quick analysis can lead to such wrong conclusions producing noise that benefited those behind #austerity and #Brexit project.
Fact 3: There never was a plurality of die-hard Brexiteers. The vote was carried by a sizable protest vote. Most political science research has characterised the part of the #Brexit vote that is basically dying out.
Its a classic fallacy in data analysis. Looking at levels versus changes. The political scientists have focused on the "levels". Characterising people that would have always voted for #Brexit.
What drove the referendum result was "switchers"... those were mostly protest voters.
Now there is many ways to characterise these protest voters. I do a ton of that in my work on #austerity. But these two graphs point out the most ridiculous #Brexit voters (who probably feel a ton of shame).
This is a tricky one to explain so feedback is appreciated. This is coming from a set of #Tweets from 2019 and uses data from the #BritishElectionStudy (see here https://twitter.com/fetzert/status/1092043111604387841?s=20&t=ffHujApr9L2glhTgYynAxQ).
The #BES asked people prior to the #EUreferendum what do they think is the chance #Leave will win.
This is: they asked the voters their expectation of a #Leave victory. We can break this down by those that actually voted for #Leave by deciles. That is plotted on the vertical axis here.
So in the first decile means 10% of #Leave voters thought the chance of #Leave winning was less than 20% (horizontal axis).
This is data from Wave 7/8.
Now the same people (because I care about switchers) were asked in later waves about #Bregret.
Now there is this interesting group of #Leave voters who disproportionately express #Regret #Bregret among those who did not expect #Leave to win (i.e. those that thought chances of Leave victory were low).
My interpretation is that these are basically people who thought "their vote doesnt matter" but "wanted to send a message".
Some would call this a good definition of a #protestvote.
If this group had not voted or not "protested", #Remain would have won.
Its the "ridiculous" #Brexit.
Fact 4: Fundamental support (the stock/average supporter) of #Brexit is dying out. @simonjhix has a nice write up here https://euideas.eui.eu/2022/12/14/will-support-for-brexit-become-extinct/
But it goes a bit further than this. The main question is "why" has support for "implementing #Brexit" remained high.
Well, there is a lot of people who voted #Remain that wanted to adhere to the democratic principle that the vote should be implemented.
In the second phase of #Brexit - the shape of #Brexit - this group gave the Tories a carte blanche.
Fact 5: Support for #Brexit collapsed quickly after the #EUReferendum.
The protest vote that drove #Brexit (which is the vote that matters) collapsed in a very predictable fashion almost immediately after the #EUReferendum
I wrote a paper about this: Who is NOT voting for #Brexit anymore...
The biggest declines in #Brexit support were coming from the places where the #ProtestVote was highest... not surprisingly.
Here is a short write up
https://ukandeu.ac.uk/is-the-uk-having-a-rethink-on-brexit/
Now it is NOT surprising that support for "implementing #Brexit" is collapsing.
This support was upheld by the #Remain voters who turned to "support #Brexit" out of their wish to adhere to democratic norms.
This is what the YouGov figures reveals as fundamentally #Brexit never had a broad genuine mandate.
It was the political and media shaping of the narrative around #Brexit to which some of my academic peers contributed that enabled #Brexit to be implemented in its current form.
Now what is really important is to understanding the timing.
Why does the "penny" finally drop?
Many protest #Leave voters, as I showed, were ahead of their #Remain peers.
For Leave voting areas we know that this may be because #Brexit is hurting them the hardest.
I have a paper to show that:
"Measuring the Regional Economic Cost of #brexit
https://tinyurl.com/mu3xrcp3
Check out the interactive visualization
(more time/resources would be great to update this)
Speculation: I think the penny is finally dropping on the #Remain voters turned #Brexit implementation supporters that have enabled the hard #Brexit we are seeing.
The pandemic (mis)management, the #Ukraine war, the obvious #austerity-induced fragility of public services & the climate crisis that requires decisive action has exposed the frailty of our democracies. People want to be heard.
And #Brexit, no #austerity, in the UK, is the original sin.
We need to clean up our act at home.
The radicals driving Brexit are also behind attempts to hollow out democratic norms with attempts to bring about #VoterSuppression, the outright #corruption, the undermining of academic freedom, the politicisation of the civil service, and the undermining of the #ruleoflaw
The penny is dropping on those "good meaning people" that voted Remain that supported #Brexit to be implemented to adhere to democratic norms when the very same are being eroded from within.
Solutions: The UK's root problems are deep. There are no quick fixes. Quick fixes can produce huge levels of instability.
The UK requires an institutional overhaul that should involve
a) smart decentralisation with more funding for last mile delivery but open shared platforms
b) more transparency
c) proportional representation possibly using a voting mechanism similar to the German one.
d) financial sector reform to encourage more long term investments
e) more immigration
My opinion: The Brexit experiment never made sense and wont make sense. Life is tough.
The current geopolitical context is one that forces the US to becoming more European, while the EU is becoming more American.
The UK was the classical interlocutor and is now being sidelined. They are starting to feel it.
A tilt to Asia may have longer term benefits but raises huge concerns from a geopolitical dimension and the UK is just small fry in all this.
The UK is between a rock and a hard place.
Now I should add -- as this adds to the dodgy -- that UK #opinionpolls are a bit strange, especially the YouGov surveys...
I just leave this here:
http://www.trfetzer.com/opinion-polling-and-biases/
Its a bit techy but important IMO.
Just adding: the other swing most likely is bots or instructed users not knowing what to respond on questions that are “more complicated”
Interesting analysis.
I'm currently #reading Empire by Niall Ferguson.
Astonished [and mortified] by how the major Euro powers sliced and diced the developing world, driven by a megalomaniacal sense of exceptionalism.
During the Malvinas/Falklands War, it became clear to me just how far we had diminished as a super power - even though some people remember it nostalgically, as some sort of high point.
#Borges called it: Two bald men, fighting over a comb.
Thiemo
You asked for feedback on your excellent thread.
On this chart (decomposing leave voters by regret and certainty of Remain winning) two expository suggestions.
1. The decile breakdown chart highlights but does not quantify the aggregate conclusion. I suggest you add another chart showing the total referendum results had protest remainers voted remain or abstained, ie, total results had only the most regretting leavers voted remain, then total if most and second most etc.
2. Then some further interpretation of your regret v outcome certainty chart is needed.
While you highlight by helpfully circling the protest block, the other end of the results curve is equally interesting. Why does it bend back … so that as certainty of Remain winning falls to its lowest, the share of leave regretters starts rising again ?
@retepelyod Thanks a lot this is really useful. This was work I did in 2018 so its a while back and I am wondering whether its worth revisiting. Now the issue is that the data is from YouGov BES panels and I wrote about this here
http://www.trfetzer.com/opinion-polling-and-biases/
Basically, I dont trust their data as it seems vulnerable to an extreme form of selection bias.
Well, Im very sorry that I missed your work when you originally published it in 2018, but better late to the party than never. Let me read your attatched link questioning the data and revert if I have anything to offer having done so.
@retepelyod No worries at all, the problem is that I did not have a platform and the messaging, well, was being skewed by the spinmasters -- plus I didnt know how to communicate.
I now found some people through whom I can talk and am also "getting better" at explaining. And this feedback is really important and valuable, so thank you very much for this.
OK.
Now Ive read the link you sent, and clearly there is severe selection bias in the polls.
So my question to you is whether there is merit in using the actual detailed referendum results to “correct” the selection bias in the polling data you use, and then to rerun your calculations and charts on those selection bias corrected data ?
@retepelyod yes, that would be good but time is too short... I do think the selection bias may not be an accident btw., its endogenous selection on political interest/preferences which is making this worse. And this is where the benign may turn into malign as YouGov has a bit of a "history".
Yes absolutely. There comes a point where there isn’t much gained from further analysing why someone, in this case a country, comitted suicide; they decided to do themselves in and that’s that.
@retepelyod But this is really appreciated and I agree with the points you raise. I have learned a fair bit over the last years. If only there was more time or if only I was better at working with people there is so much more that could be done.
@fetzert I guess, populist political movements are generally driven by fear and uncertainty about the personal living conditions? In a similar way, I would assume that the AfD benefits from the feeling of stagnation and decline in Germany? If this is the case, migrants are just a valve and scapegoat? Hence, a tougher approach towards migrants will not actually tackle the root problem that has driven voters towards the AfD? If you want to do something against the political polarisation, you would rather have to improve the subjective and objective living conditions of those, who feel unsettled? Reducing migration will not change a thing, because people will still be unhappy if their economic situation does not change?