The everyday blog of Richard Bartle.
RSS feeds: v0.91; v1.0 (RDF); v2.0; Atom.
3:44pm on Saturday, 25th June, 2016:
In a twist of fate, yesterday evening I found myself standing in the House of Commons in the Palace of Westminster.
A couple of years ago, there was an event organised by the Essex University Alumni organisation for a tour of the Houses of Parliament, which my wife and I took. Another one was organised for last year, which we signed up to so we could take our daughters along and let them look around what is the most important room in the country. That second trip was cancelled because of some parliamentary business, so we signed up for its replacement. Months in advance, the day was selected. That day was yesterday.
Essex University's Department of Government is ranked the highest in the UK, and has been every year since these things were recorded. As yesterday was such a momentous day, in the reception afterwards we were treated to a talk by Prof. Paul Whiteley, one of the senior academics in the Government Department, who is regularly used by media organisations as an expert on UK politics and voting.
When I said "treated" there, I wasn't being sarcastic: he did give a very good talk. His topic was the reason that the UK voted to leave the EU. It was rooted in data from a country-wide survey he'd undertaken 3 days before the vote, from which he had called that the result would be leave (and by roughly the right margin).
For the benefit of people struggling to understand what went on, particularly those in the EU and USA for whom it looks inexplicable, I'll reproduce his basic argument here, along with my take on it.
So, he said when it comes to referenda, people tend to make their decision based on three factors. These factors were indeed all in play in Thursday's event.
Factor 1: Calculation.
This is the cost/benefit analysis that people make regarding the proposition upon which they are to vote. How is it going to affect them, personally? For this referendum, it was an easy decision for people who do well out of the EU (such as most university academics) and for people in affluent areas. They like things the way they are, and don't want to risk what they have for an uncertain future. However, for people who aren't doing well, they're going to need evidence if they're to be persuaded by that argument that if they just wait a while longer then their situation will improve. For working-class voters, there was no such evidence (indeed, in my view there was the opposite, given how little Cameron managed to achieve when he undertook his renegotiation exercise in the months before the referendum). The ordinary person didn't see the EU as even close to being of benefit to them as things stood, and the promise that it would improve in the future seemed wishful thinking.
My take: I think he's right. People in a miserable situation at the bottom of the pile in an economy that's not working for them have nothing to lose by shaking things up. The worst that can happen is that they'll be in the same situation; the best that can happen is that they're in a better one. Telling them that actually the EU brings great benefits to their region is pointless if they don't see those benefits. "Yay, our regional opera house has been saved". Pointing out the risks if EU funding is withdrawn is similarly pointless if it makes no difference to the ordinary person. "Oh no, a quarter of the singers in our regional opera house come from the EU and will be unable to work here if we vote to leave". Using EU funds in ways that the working class either doesn't see or (worse) sees but considers a waste of money isn't going to win approval. This is probably why so many traditionally Labour-voting former industrial towns defied the party line and voted to leave.
I'd also add that those charts showing that the more highly-educated someone is, the more likelyit was they would vote to remain in the EU, are often being misinterpreted. The implication is that people who aren't highly-educated are stupid. They're not. A large number of them are older people who didn't get a chance to go to university (people like my parents, who definitely are not stupid, nor ignorant, nor unenlightened). Another big chunk are younger working-class people who couldn't afford to go to university. That whole paternalistic, poor-dears-they-don't-know-what's-good-for-them attitude coming from an affluent, educated middle class does not play well to this audience, and when acted upon leads to counter-productive results.
Factor 2: Community.
The gist of this point is that people often use a referendum to deliver a verdict on the government of the day. A popular government will get its way (I'd guess that this is how come Wales lumbered itself with its Welsh Assembly); an unpopular government will be given a kicking (as happened in Denmark when ratifying an earlier EU treaty). Popular or unpopular politicians on both sides of the debate will be disproportionately influential in how people make their decisions. Cameron, who used to be popular, had waned in popularity in recent years as the austerity measures the coalition introduced took their toll. Johnson, whose charismatic-buffoon persona brings in large crowds wherever he speaks, is still popular. Also, as he wasn't an MP when the austerity measures were introduced, he's not tarnished by them.
My take: I agree; it seems to me that the vote in industrialised parts of Wales went the way it did because a lot of Welsh voters wanted to stick it to the upper-class English elite. However, there's a little more to it than this. The thing is, Johnson may be popular in the shires, but he isn't popular among working-class Labour voters. Also, the other big-name charismatic speaker on the leave side, Nigel Farage, is very unpopular among liberally-minded Conservative voters. What happened was that the leave side ran two separate campaigns: Farage spoke to his 4,000,000 disenfranchised voters, and Johnson and Gove spoke to the middle classes. This meant that when Johnson said something that Farage's constituency didn't like, Farage could dismiss him as an upper-class toff; if Farage said something that alarmed Johnson and Gove's constituency, it was easy for Gove to distance their campaign from it. With the leave side, Cameron wasn't helped by Osborne's increasingly outlandish claims, but there was no charismatic Labour voice to dismiss him as a toff. Labour was almost irrelevant in this campaign. Bizarrely, Labour's MPs were almost all for remaining in the EU, as were the Labour activists who put Corbyn into power, but Corbyn himself was more in tune with actual Labour voters. He's now being pillioried for his lacklustre participation in the debate, as if it was his job to make the Labour voters reflect the Labour MPs' views, rather than the other way round.
I'd also say that there were some sensationally good speakers on the remain side, but they were in Scotland and didn't step onto the national stage. It's all well and good Sturgeon declaring that Scotland now needs to leave the UK so it can stay in the EU, but she would do well to remember that one of the major reasons Scotland voted to remain was because of the efforts of Ruth Davidson. If Davidson hadn't restricted herself primarily to arguing the remain case in Scotland, it could have been a different story.
Factor 3: Cues.
This is the most interesting point raised by Prof. Whiteley. If you ask people whether they feel more European, British or English, then the areas where the most people say they feel more English were the ones where the leave votes were highest. This meant that identity was an important issue — but one completely missed by politicians and journalists. One of the rallying cries of the leave side was "We want our country back" — an articulation of a feeling that their sense of Englishness was being taken from them. Sense of identity is a very powerful motivator (as I'm sure those who feel more European than British or English will be able to attest in the light of the referendum result). If people feel their culture is under threat, they will act to defend it. This is what happened in vast swathes of England. Scotland voted to leave because the Scots sorted out their identity issues in their independence referendum (as a result of which, far more Scots now identify themselves primarily a Scottish than did before the referendum). The identity of the English was never addressed by parliament, though: no English assembly was promised, the Scots got to vote on English matters but not the reverse, and the English were felt neglected by politicians who were still only thinking at the UK level.
My take: Again, this sounds right. It also suggests that the seeds of the referendum result were sown some time ago, when Scotland got its referendum vote. It was always the case that if Scotland got a better deal than England, England would feel aggrieved: if there's one thing that pretty well everyone in England has, it's a sense of fair play. This was not fair play. It may even have its roots much further back than the Scottish referendum, in the formation of the Irish Republic.
There are a couple of further points I'd add to this. Firstly, this conflict crystalised as the "immigration issue". The left paid it no heed, on the grounds that it was racist; they didn't really learn from Gordon Brown's defining encounter with the "bigoted" voter that this wasn't really the case (although of course plenty of racists attached themselves to it). The right was happy with immigration because it saw the (genuine) positive benefits that it brought to the economy. The centre thought of it as xenophobia that could be fixed by education, rather than a manifestation of something more profound. All the arguments about the issue were therefore couched in these terms. The left were talking about how this was to do with stopping people with brown skins coming into the UK. They didn't listen to people who had brown skins who were telling them they were going to vote leave. If the people of Batley and Spen, whose MP was shot dead by a deranged, right-wing racist, nevertheless voted 54.7% in favour of leave, you have to concede that racism wasn't the issue. As for the right, well it was talking about net migration figures and trying to stop benefit tourists. It should, though, have been looking at gross immigration, not net immigration. Yes, if two thirds of a million people enter the UK every year and a third of a million leave, this means that our infrastructure only has to cope with a third of a million extra people. However, it also means that every year another 1% of the UK's overall population has some culture other than that of the (current) majority. This is where the identity concerns come in, and is what all the commentators missed. I recall a story about Jimmy Carter who, when president of the USA, visited China in 1979. He pressed Deng Xiaoping to allow Chinese people to leave China. There were a number of dissidents in the country who wanted to escape, but at the time the borders were closed. Deng replied something along the lines of "Certainly, how many do you want? Would 50,000,000 be enough to start with?". Like so many things, immigration is fine when you think at the level of the individual but more problematical when you think at the level of statistics.
My second point concerns the EU itself. It exhibits qualities as an entity to which the British don't easily relate. It's bureaucratic, protectionist, elitist, inefficient, arrogant, politically unaccountable and of a bullying temperament. What it did to Greece was (and is) disgraceful. Its immediate response to the Brexit vote (wanting to make an example of the UK in order to prevent any contagion) demonstrates just the kind of organisation it is. I don't know how member of other EU states view this kind of behaviour, but to British eyes it looks misguided and vindictive. Whether it's excusable or not isn't the issue: the question is, if your partner is this kind of person who beats up your puny next-door neighbour, do you really want to keep sleeping with them? Also, it's clear that whatever the people (or even leaders) of the EU want, structurally it's set up to become a European superstate. This is something that the people of other EU countries are more comfortable with than are the people of the UK, mainly for historical (and ultimately geographical) reasons. Assuming this new country was a democracy, it would no longer be dominated by France and Germany, because people in weak economies get just the same vote as people in strong ones. Would the British be happy being part of a federal state dominated by the electors of Italy, Spain, Poland, Romania, and possibly Ukraine and Turkey if they also joined? Well, enough were put off by the thought of this to make a difference.
Some final thoughts.
If the outcome of Britain's leaving the EU is that the EU undergoes a period of soul-searching that leads to the reforms that everyone can see it needs, the EU will finally prosper. Perhaps, in time, it may consider allowing the UK to rejoin. If it doesn't reform, though, then the UK will suffer, sure, but perhaps not quite as much as it would have done had it remained.
Oh, one last point: both sides in a divorce get a better deal if they go to arbitration, rather than waste time scoring petty victories off one another in face-to-face argument. I suggest we approach Norway to act as honest broker, and ask nicely.
6:59am on Friday, 24th June, 2016:
I didn't need my alarm clock this morning: I was awoken by a wailing and gnashing of teeth.
8:38am on Thursday, 23rd June, 2016:
Well I've voted in the referendum. No, I'm not saying which way, as if I did it would annoy the people who wanted me to vote the other way. I will, however, say that I didn't make my mind up until last night. Even that's going to irritate some people, who won't understand why I wasn't fully behind what (to them) is obviously the right position.
The reason I was undecided was that I never heard anyone talk about the long-term future of the EU. Almost everything was about the short-term effect of voting one way or the other on the UK, with occasional overblown statements about the medium-term effects. I didn't see any debate about what the organisation we're voting to remain in or to leave would be like 20, 30, 40 years from now. All the politicians were clear that this was a vote for our children and grandchildren, but then harped on about how it would affect things tomorrow or next year. Even the large, international bodies did this: yes, IMF, I can see for myself that a vote for leave would lead to immediate uncertainty in the financial markets, but why should that affect my view of what the world will look like in 2040 or 2050? Shouldn't you have been explaining why it was necessary for you and the EU to gang up on Greece and condemn its people to decades of penury? That's more of a long-term thing.
This is a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't referendum. Whatever we vote, it'll be wrong. Thanks to having been subjected to relentless streams of myopic propaganda from both sides, I can give strong arguments against either of them. They've both been their own worst enemies.
The right time for a referendum would have been when the Eurozone decides to federalise (assuming that the wheels don't fall off it before it gets to that stage). This is a debate we should have been having 10 or 20 years from now — and if the remain side wins, will indeed probably have again 10 or 20 years from now anyway. The only reason we're having to vote on it today is so that the current Prime Minister could arrange for himself an extra few years in office by fobbing off his eurosceptic back-benchers.
I do have one positive thing to say about the referendum, though: this is the first occasion I've ever voted for which I feel my vote will not only be counted, but will count.
9:29am on Wednesday, 22nd June, 2016:
From the front page of the Colchester Gazette (or the Daily Gazette, as it now insists on calling itself):
I concur: this man shouldn't be allowed anywhere near Clacton.
7:21pm on Tuesday, 21st June, 2016:
Not much to report today as I've spent most of my time looking at student work.
So, here's a picture of a carving in the Munich ratskeller.
The two are not related.
5:30pm on Monday, 20th June, 2016:
Some of the things I learned today:
If you ask two sets of lawyers a simple question, you'll get three contradictory answers.
When you book flights, you should always check that the airport you depart from when leaving the country is the same as the one you arrive at when returning to the country.
The watch batteries in W H Samuel cost a quarter of the price of the watch I want to put them in.
Some of the celebrities Piers Morgan interviews are even more alarming than Piers Morgan.
The friction holding the plastic lid to the packaging for Sown and Grown four-grain muesli exerts less force than gravity does on a half-filled cannister of Sown and Grown four-grain muesli.
There's no such thing as a white, windowless C5 envelope in the Computer Science and Electronic Engineering stationery cupboard.
My wife will rather watch the episode of Game of Thrones she recorded at 2am than an England football match live.
These ads on Facebook trying to make me click on heart-attack medicines are putting me off Facebook.
MMO screenshots do not look good when scaled up 800%.
Baronness Warsi is an opportunist. Hmm, actually I already knew that.
The sooner you can replace gavelkind as a form of inheritance in Crusader Kings II, the better your chance of forming a decent-sized kingdom.
If you're going to buy €1,000, resign yourself to the fact that the pound will thereafter immediately rise 2% on the euro.
You don't need a customs form to send fudge and mustard to Germany from the UK.
No-one really knows where the phrase "put the mockers on it" comes from, but armchair etymologists tend to favour the Australian Jews theory.
You can't believe the sell-by date on Sainsbury's lettuce.
11:22am on Sunday, 19th June, 2016:
Several years ago, my wife planted some foxgloves in the garden. They seemed to like it, and self-seeded. Now, every year, we get more and more of them.
I do like foxgloves, but I wish she'd bought more than two colours.
That's still one colour more than we have with the lilies, though.
11:17am on Saturday, 18th June, 2016:
Every time I drive down the A1 from up north, just beyond Newark I see this view on the left:
Every time, I wonder what that tower is.
This time, I've actually looked it up.
It turns out it's a water tower from a former hospital, built in the 1930s. The village of Fernwood (a modern development, hence the computer-generated name) was built on the site.
The Fernwood tower has some striking similarities with the Jumbo water tower in Colchester: it's in need of costly repairs; the locals want to keep it for sentimental reasons; all the suggested uses for it are feeble except the ones that the locals don't like; and there's a stand-off that will only end when the building falls down.
If I hadn't looked it up, I'd have guessed it was a church.
5:19pm on Friday, 17th June, 2016:
The daisies up near the tennis courts are looking nice.
I took this picture earlier in the week, obviously. If I'd taken it today, they would have been flattened by two inches of torrential rain.
8:08pm on Thursday, 16th June, 2016:
Come on, Holiday Inn Express, make your mind up: are you going to refer to the moving-people-vertically machine using English or American vocabulary?
5:33pm on Wednesday, 15th June, 2016:
I'm in Lincoln today and tomorow, being an external examiner. There were lots of hold-ups on the drive up here this morning, but fortunately they were all in the opposite direction. I'm hoping the same is not true when I go back tomorrow.
One of the duties of an external examiner is to attend the board meeting where marks are approved (or not). This is from 1pm to 5pm tomorrow. Annoyingly, it clashes with the England-Wales football match, so I won't be able to watch that live. Probably just as well, as one of the other board members is Welsh.
Hmm, a number of the Lincoln University members of staff are feeling unwell or off sick. I thought this was because there was some bug going round, but suddenly I'm struck by an alternate possibility...
5:46pm on Tuesday, 14th June, 2016:
Well, I have to say, it's not every day I'm sent a link to a newspaper article about some bloke unexpectedly finding my great-grandparents' gravestone in his garden.
8:47am on Monday, 13th June, 2016:
I went to see the Warcraft movie yesterday.
No way did that movie deserve the bad reviews it received! It was all set up for a sequel, and I'm pretty sure one or more will be forthcoming. Duncan Jones got it spot on, I thought. SF/Fantasy fans are going to lap this up regardless of what critics who don't like the fact that their medium is losing importance to another medium think. My wife, who has no knowledge of Warcraft lore, really enjoyed it.
There were a few subtle nods to the games, for those in the know. A quotation of music from WoW, the use of the sheep CC spell, (my particular favourite) the font used for subtitles. The plot in general followed the lore, but there were some minor differences in the details. Nothing to rant about, though.
All in all, pretty good in my opinion.
I wonder if those people who moved from regular seats to empty premier seats when the movie started were picked up by infra-red cameras and had to pay an excess when they left the cinema?
12:41pm on Sunday, 12th June, 2016:
Here's a list of arguments that I've encountered so far as part of the Brexit referendum campaign. Choose one side to be RIGHT and the other side to be WRONG: it doesn't matter which is which because they're completely interchangeable.
This foreign leader believes the interests of their own country will be best served if you vote RIGHT.
This captain of industry believes their company will make most money if you vote RIGHT.
This politician wants you to vote RIGHT because their future is going to burn in flames otherwise.
These biased, simple figures show why the UK would be better off if you vote RIGHT.
This biased, complex analysis of the WRONG campaign's simple figures show why you should vote RIGHT.
This politician who in the past always supported WRONG now unconvincingly wants you to vote RIGHT.
These terrible things will happen next year only if you vote WRONG.
There wonderful things will happen many years from now only if you vote RIGHT.
You people who distrust establishment figures should vote exactly how these establishment figures tell you to vote.
If you can't see why it's obviously better that you should vote RIGHT, you're just plain stupid.
Possibly the most important vote in your lifetime should be decided based only on how it will affect you right now.
These people you like, shown in flattering photographs, are all in favour of RIGHT.
These people you dislike, shown in unflattering photographs, are all in favour of WRONG.
Because of regulations regarding broadcaster impartiality, we have to pretend these arguments carry equal weight.
All the cool kids are voting RIGHT. You want to be cool? Vote RIGHT!
This remark, made by a leading light of the WRONG campaign, looks really bad when taken out of context.
It will be easier for the UK to trade with the non-EU part of the world if you vote RIGHT.
Three of these eight facts supporting the RIGHT campaign do actually support the RIGHT campaign.
This terrible thing that will happen anyway will happen if you vote WRONG.
The WRONG side is scaremongering.
This organisation that failed to predict financial disaster in 2008 predicts financial disaster if you vote WRONG.
The Queen keeps out of politics, but in private she supports the RIGHT campaign.
If you vote WRONG, the other EU member states will thereafter ignore the UK's views.
Everyone agrees that the EU needs to be reformed, therefore you should vote RIGHT.
This impressive list of trusted professionals who would lose out if you voted WRONG want you to vote RIGHT.
Here is some misinformation about how the WRONG campaign is spreading misinformation.
This shadowy vested interest has given money to the WRONG campaign.
We know you want facts, so here are some facts. We are unaware that these aren't the facts you want.
Listen, people who have already decided to vote RIGHT: this popular entertainer wants you to vote RIGHT!
Most of the speakers of the WRONG campaign are men, therefore every woman should vote RIGHT on principle.
This map of the EU and accompanying pie chart clearly show why you should vote RIGHT.
Readers of this national newspaper: here's why you should vote how you were going to vote anyway.
This group of people who are meant to be impartial want you to vote RIGHT.
Because of negative perceptions about voting RIGHT, lie to pollsters and tell them you're voting WRONG.
1:05pm on Saturday, 11th June, 2016:
I note that the journalists of the Essex County Standard have started over-using their favourite word again.
About this blog.
Copyright © 2016 Richard Bartle (email@example.com).