tag:theconversation.com,2011:/africa/topics/uk-elections-2017-37907/articlesUK elections 2017 – The Conversation2019-04-04T12:12:39Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1149392019-04-04T12:12:39Z2019-04-04T12:12:39ZIf the Conservatives want to win the next election, they should avoid a hard Brexit leader – here’s why<p>The social media campaigns <a href="https://twitter.com/readyforraab?lang=en">have begun</a>. Some are limbering up by <a href="https://news.sky.com/video/michael-gove-takes-a-jog-around-the-streets-of-london-11677149">going for a jog</a>. Boris Johnson has even had a haircut. The Tory leadership race is on.</p>
<p>With the prime minister telling her backbenchers she’ll step down if they support her Brexit deal, behind the scenes, Conservative MPs are getting ready to throw their hat in the ring to replace her. But what type of candidate should they choose?</p>
<p>The transport secretary, Chris Grayling, <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/03/31/tories-need-experience-helm-says-cabinet-minister/">has said</a> the next leader must be a senior eurosceptic. There’s certainly some logic to that: whoever the candidate is, they will need to win over the relatively small group of around 100,000 Conservative party members who are overwhelmingly to the right of the public and favour a hard Brexit. But while such a figure is likely to claim the top job, they might not be able to keep it for long, let alone govern effectively while they have it.</p>
<p>We’ve seen over the past weeks and months how important a stable majority in the House of Commons is, yet if May is ousted before the withdrawal agreement is passed, a new leader who is more committed to Brexit at any cost is unlikely to fare much better in uniting the House and overcoming the legislative logjam.</p>
<p>If May somehow gets her deal through and then voluntarily steps aside for a new leader, there are no guarantees that the leadership drama will end there. That will only have been phase one of the Brexit negotiations; the second phase is likely to be far trickier and take far longer to navigate. A general election to break another, currently unforeseen impasse in the process is therefore plausible.</p>
<h2>Key demographics</h2>
<p>If that leader does then go to the country, they may be in trouble. Analysis of the 2017 general election shows that the Conservatives under May had a problem with several rather large constituencies of voters, namely younger people (and we can be quite loose with the term “young” here), <a href="http://www.britishfuture.org/articles/ethnic-minority-vote-cost-theresa-may-majority/">ethnic minorities</a> and <a href="https://www.britishelectionstudy.com/bes-findings/women-men-and-the-2017-general-election-by-jane-green-and-chris-prosser/#.XKXdcetKh0s">women</a>.</p>
<p>While the alleged “youthquake” in turnout in 2017 was found to actually be more of a <a href="https://www.britishelectionstudy.com/bes-impact/the-myth-of-the-2017-youthquake-election/#.XKShaJhKg2w">tremor</a>, the relationship between age and party of vote was seismic. The authoritative British Election Study validated the vote data and revealed that the Labour party secured a greater proportion of the votes of every age group from 18 to 45 – and the younger the age group, the greater the advantage to Labour.</p>
<p>Age is now one the <a href="https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2017/06/13/how-britain-voted-2017-general-election">most significant</a> predictors of party support, playing a greater role than social class. If this is a cohort rather than a life cycle effect, and the size of the difference between older and younger generations suggests it might well be, then we can expect to see the Conservatives’ support slip further, as new cohorts replace older generations in the electorate. The party’s contemporary problem with younger voters would most likely be exacerbated by a hard Brexiteer prime minister – according to political scientist <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45098550">John Curtice</a>, the stark age difference in the referendum vote itself is even greater now than it was in 2016.</p>
<p>A new, more eurosceptic Conservative leader would also be a failure of strategy if the party wants to win more support among black and ethnic minority voters. And if the Conservatives want to remain a party of government, this is a section of the electorate that they can ill afford to ignore.</p>
<p>In 2017, <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45765496">76% of non-white voters</a> backed Labour, while just 17% voted for the Conservative candidate. The proportion of constituencies where the votes of ethnic minority communities are critical is growing as the demographics of the country change. While there is <a href="https://ukandeu.ac.uk/minority-ethnic-attitudes-and-the-2016-eu-referendum/">variation</a> within ethnic minority communities, the <a href="https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2016-eu-referendum">overwhelming majority</a> of BAME voters opted to stay in the EU in 2016.</p>
<p>And what about women, who make up the majority of the electorate? For the past six decades, the Tories have not had a problem with female voters. But at the last election, <a href="https://www.britishelectionstudy.com/bes-findings/women-men-and-the-2017-general-election-by-jane-green-and-chris-prosser/#.XKSsP5hKg2w">a smaller proportion of women voted Conservative than men</a> for the first time ever, reversing the historic advantage the party had among this group.</p>
<p>Despite some myths to the contrary, women are <a href="https://www.britishelectionstudy.com/bes-resources/following-the-pink-battle-bus-where-are-the-women-voters-in-2015-by-dr-rosie-campbell/#.XKSsbphKg2x">just as likely</a> to turn out and vote as men, and there was not a significant difference in how men and women voted in the EU referendum. But women are less likely to be fervently anti-European.</p>
<p>In 2017, the gender gap that emerged was in a large part due to the movement of men from UKIP to the Conservative party (two thirds of UKIP voters were men in the 2015 election). Should Tory party members opt for a leader who aligns with their politics on the EU, they might find that they lose even more women voters.</p>
<p>In order to secure a workable majority in the House of Commons, the Conservatives have to make gains among all these groups. But the party is in danger of overcorrecting in response to the message delivered by Brexit.</p>
<p>David Cameron’s failure to secure a majority in 2010 might have led party members to believe they should have stuck to their guns and resisted his calls for modernisation. But to secure a stable majority the Conservatives need to take more of the centre ground – moderate Remainers as well as moderate Brexiteers. A strategy that focuses on a hard Brexit approach from the right of the party won’t win the coalition of voters from diverse communities, across the sexes and generations that is needed to govern.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/114939/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rosie Campbell has received research funding from the ESRC, The Leverhulme Trust and The British Academy. She has co-authored reports for the Fawcett Society, The Welsh Assembly, The EHRC among others. </span></em></p>The party is in deep trouble among several key demographic groups. A Brexit enthusiast at the helm could make that worse.Rosie Campbell, Director of the Global Institute for Women’s Leadership & Professor of Politics, King's College LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/909702018-01-31T11:40:01Z2018-01-31T11:40:01ZYouthquake was real – here’s how we know it was more than a myth<p>Academics from the British Election Study have labelled the 2017 youthquake in British politics a <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42747342">“myth”</a>. <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3111839">They</a> argue that when adjusting for “demographic imbalances”, there is no evidence of a substantial change in the relationship between age and turnout between the 2015 and 2017 UK general elections.</p>
<p>This conclusion certainly differs from a number of other findings. Figures from <a href="https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2017-election">Ipsos MORI</a>, for example, suggest turnout among 18-24-year-olds for last year’s general election represented a 21 percentage-point increase from 2015. </p>
<p>This figure is derived using Ipsos MORI’s pre-2017 methodology; their newer methodology estimates an increase of 16 percentage points.</p>
<p>To consider (and dismiss) the idea of a youthquake solely on the basis of turnout is rather narrow. Indeed, according to the <a href="https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/word-of-the-year/word-of-the-year-2017">Oxford dictionary definition</a>, youthquake is a multi-faceted phenomenon involving fundamental social, political and cultural shifts. Turnout is only one part of it.</p>
<h2>Labour’s year</h2>
<p><a href="http://www.if.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Youth-Quake_Final.pdf">The Labour Party was emphatically ahead</a> of all other parties among 18-24-year-olds in the last election. Putting forward a radical “youth-oriented” socioeconomic agenda, Labour effectively neutralised the threat posed by its progressive rivals such as the Green party and the Liberal Democrats. </p>
<p>Labour took a 62% vote share among 18-24-year-olds. Such a large vote share is unprecedented when looking at party support among young people in previous elections. In 2010, the two major parties were locked together in terms of support among this age group. The importance of age as an individual-level predictor for vote choice in 2017 should not be downplayed. </p>
<h2>University-led youth revolt</h2>
<p>A fascinating part of the youthquake was the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/09/students-inspired-by-corbyn-played-big-role-in-labour-surge">swathe of young people supporting Labour in university towns and cities</a>. No doubt spurred on by the promise to abolish tuition fees, young people in these areas voted for Labour in their droves. </p>
<p>The constituency of <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/constituencies/E14000619">Canterbury</a>, with a high concentration of students which include those who attend the University of Kent, elected a Labour MP for the first time since the seat’s creation in 1918 – removing its 30-year Conservative MP Julian Brazier in the process. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, former deputy prime minister Nick Clegg – vilified by many for his u-turn on tuition fees while in government – was unceremoniously dumped out of his student-loaded Sheffield Hallam seat by <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/politics/cleggsit-nick-clegg-fell-full-force-britains-youthquake/">Labour</a>. </p>
<p>Despite this being a crucial element of the youthquake, <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3111839">the BES paper</a> does not deeply engage with levels of turnout and Labour support among young people in university towns and cities.</p>
<h2>Young women</h2>
<p>The role of younger female voters in the youthquake must also be noted. <a href="http://www.if.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Youth-Quake_Final.pdf">There was an unexpected gap</a> in participation between young women and men aged 18-24 (66% to 62%). Younger women were also more likely to vote Labour than their male counterparts by some margin. </p>
<p>In the UK, a country which voted Brexit when the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42308551">majority of young people wished to Remain</a>, inequalities continue to persist. But it has witnessed the emergence of a progressive, well-educated, cosmopolitan youth movement – one which challenges both neoliberal economic orthodoxy and traditional conceptions of nationhood. And it appears young women lie at the heart of this social phenomenon. </p>
<h2>The rise of online political communication</h2>
<p>Another key aspect of the youthquake phenomenon is how the modernisation of communication has seriously shaped Britain’s political culture. </p>
<p>Young people are not only more likely to digest political information online – they are also more likely to trust such information <a href="http://www.if.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Youth-Quake_Final.pdf">in comparison to more traditional forms of media</a>. </p>
<p>This was the election where online political communication and “clicktivism” truly made their mark. Labour, along with affiliate bodies such as Momentum, not only engaged with many young people through social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter – but also encouraged them to “share the message”. </p>
<p>Labour – in particular Jeremy Corbyn – has come to dominate the British social media space. A cyber-political marketplace where the main consumers are young people. </p>
<h2>Parties shaken</h2>
<p>Youthquake is not just about quantifiable participation trends, but also the shifting attitudes and behaviours of formal political actors.</p>
<p>The aftermath of the 2017 election saw the Conservatives enter a period of introspection. Losing its parliamentary majority when it was widely expected to increase it, a general consensus was reached within the party – it needed to do more to win over young voters. </p>
<p>Response to the youthquake included calls for the creation of a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/aug/29/activate-tories-mimic-momentum-with-grassroots-campaign">Tory-affiliated rival to Momentum</a> and the reestablishment of a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/15/conservative-party-review-youth-wing-eric-pickles-young-people">healthy youth wing of the party</a>. In her new year reshuffle, prime minister Theresa May appointed new Mansfield MP, 28-year-old Ben Bradley, as <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/42615154/young-mp-ben-bradley-wants-to-fix-tory-image-problem">the vice chair for youth at Conservative Campaigns HQ</a>. </p>
<p>These moves are a formal political acknowledgement of the youthquake as a real phenomenon by a party in government. </p>
<h2>Who is young?</h2>
<p>It’s also important to acknowledge that both levels of turnout and Labour support increased for all age groups up to 40 years of age. Recent young people’s literature has <a href="http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.916.4539&rep=rep1&type=pdf">debated what constitutes “youth”</a> and whether it ought to be <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-42732442">based on life circumstances as opposed to arbitrary and fixed age-based boundaries</a>.</p>
<p>The shifts in party support for age groups up to 40 suggest that new perspectives on what “youth” constitutes in Britain need to be developed. Especially in an age of delayed home ownership, unsettled employment status for new graduates and high university-related debt. </p>
<p>Youthquake, at its heart, involved the mass support for Labour among young people, with the intergenerational gap in party choice being starker than ever. With Labour enjoying particularly high support among full-time students – including those from more economically secure backgrounds – traditional class cleavages gave way to the importance of age in determining voter choice. </p>
<p>To dismiss youthquake as a “myth” does not only neglect these realities. It also threatens to undermine meaningful strides in political participation made by young people. It sustains a long-standing myth that young people are not interested in politics and <a href="https://theconversation.com/young-voters-are-pulling-their-weight-politicians-can-no-longer-ignore-them-79515">not bothered</a> when it comes to getting involved in the workings of their country.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/90970/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rakib Ehsan has received funding from the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) for his PhD.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Matt Henn has previously received funding from the Economic and Social Research Council</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>James Sloam does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour managed something huge in 2017, even if turnout hasn’t proved to be as high as expected.Rakib Ehsan, Doctoral Researcher in Political Science, Royal Holloway University of LondonJames Sloam, Co-Director of Centre for European Politics, Co-ordinator of Youth Politics Unit, Royal Holloway University of LondonMatt Henn, Professor of Social Research, Nottingham Trent UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/847482017-10-05T13:06:33Z2017-10-05T13:06:33ZYoung voters are on the march – here’s how to keep them coming back for more<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/189000/original/file-20171005-9774-1blx9h5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption"></span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">PA/Yui Mok</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>I have two messages for you. The first is familiar. Believe the hype. The Youthquake is real. Young people are changing British politics.</p>
<p>For the second, I want to confess an unpopular opinion. I feel like I have to whisper it.</p>
<p>Here goes. Young turnout at the 2017 election was not that high. Our best guess is about 54% of 18-24s voted.</p>
<p>If you’re disappointed, don’t be. The excitement is real. The change is real. It’s just that it is not over yet. There is more work to do. Here is why you should be motivated.</p>
<p>It might not seem like it but <a href="https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2017-election">54% of 18- to 24-year-olds</a> is a decent turnout. The 2015 election saw just 43% of this group vote. That’s a significant rise. But something has happened that is bigger than electoral turnout statistics. In 12 months, the perception of the young person has been turned on its head. We are imagining them differently. After at least 20 years, we are beginning to acknowledge them as fellow citizens.</p>
<p>Let’s look at a before-and-after account of the young person in UK politics. Rewind two years and watch <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDZm9_uKtyo">Russell Brand meet Ed Miliband</a>, for a younger audience, on YouTube ahead of the 2015 general election. The first topic of discussion is engagement – apathy, the history of the vote, the Suffragettes, and so on. </p>
<p>The old politics of youth tells young people they are the problem. It says: the election is ready for you. You just aren’t doing it right. We will give you politicians to hear your voice. They are in Westminster. Vote for them. If you don’t, you’re not doing your bit as citizens, so you deserve everything you get.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/RDZm9_uKtyo?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Ed meets Russell forever ago.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Fast forward to 2017 and watch grime artist <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-rxp_QwjmQ">JME meet Jeremy Corbyn</a>. The first question in their interview is actually for JME from the Labour leader: “Are you vegan?” Their political talk builds out of that everyday perspective.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/A-rxp_QwjmQ?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">JME talks veganism (and other stuff) with JC.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The new politics of youth puts real life first. It’s not about whether you wear a red tie or a blue tie. It’s about whether you have a home to live in and what you believe in. And what you love. Jeremy Corbyn and JME speak about education as creativity, not just something for your CV. </p>
<p>And most of all, the new politics of youth recognises austerity. It says: we left you out in the cold in the crisis. But we realise it. And we know we must make you part of reconstruction. </p>
<h2>The survivor generation</h2>
<p>This approach speaks to today’s young people because they are a generation of survivors. This is the first generation who can expect worse living conditions than their parents since World War II. They were hit worst by the economic crash and yet not consulted about the recovery. Even if you speak to the most “engaged” young people – party activists, youth council members, and so on – <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1369148117728666?journalCode=bpia">they tend to feel that politics leaves them out</a> and that what they do is get by in their everyday lives.</p>
<p>Our young survivors think differently about the vote. Older generations have long been deeply cynical about British politicians but they’ve always been more willing to vote for one they didn’t trust. During the years of the Iraq war, the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/17/mps-expenses-martin-williams-parliament-ltd">expenses scandals</a>, the broken pledge on <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19646731">tuition fees</a> and the long crunch of austerity, older generations were reluctant, but they kept voting. Young people stayed away from the ballot box.</p>
<p>A lot of people will remember Labour’s campaign in 2017 for the bells and whistles. The rallies and the singing at Glastonbury. But the big change, and the most influential part of the campaign was the shift in policy towards reconstruction after austerity. This was a campaign that came out with solutions: reform to housing policy, rolling back tuition fees, nationalisation and rebuilding. </p>
<p>Labour’s campaign also started to bring young people back into democracy as movers and shakers. It recognised them as survivors and invited them not just to support the recovery, but made them a headline part of it. <a href="https://secondreading.uk/elections/diversity-in-the-2017-parliament/">We see that in the diversity of Labour candidates</a>, the representation of young people by young candidates, and the resurgence of young activism driving party policy, not just handing out pamphlets. Two thirds of Labour MPs attended a comprehensive school. 45% of Labour MPs are women, and 12% are identified by <a href="http://www.obv.org.uk/">Operation Black Vote</a> as of black or minority ethnicity.</p>
<h2>Hope and reconstruction</h2>
<p>Whether you perceive a young turnout of 54% as a large rise or a small one, it was a surprise to everyone except those of us who said young people were waiting for something more than a celebrity endorsement and a cringeworthy slogan. They wanted more than a voice. They wanted <a href="https://theconversation.com/we-must-seize-this-chance-to-bring-young-people-into-the-heart-of-british-democracy-62756">recognition</a> of the economic crash they had survived, the precarious contracts and poor working conditions they endure, and a recovery that included them. </p>
<p>Young people are surviving an economic crisis, one which coincides with durable inequalities like those of gender and race. These should be driving democracy towards what young people need, which is hope, recovery and reconstruction.</p>
<p>A surge to 54% shows potential. The next step is about organising and mobilising that potential. One success of the Conservatives in government has been their neighbourhood plans for local democracy. Are young people enabled to take the lead? How do we empower young people to make a change in the process and politics of Brexit? Are cities involving young people in their budgets? Are unions organising young workers?</p>
<p>I think the youthquake at the ballot box is here to stay. Political parties will, after all, be hunting their votes. Real change, though, requires more than a cross in a box from our young generation.</p>
<p>We can expect some of their work to be familiar: it will be social entrepreneurship, or through parties and unions, through faith groups or charities. Some will be surprising or unfamiliar, like the <a href="https://theconversation.com/grime-launches-a-revolution-in-youth-politics-79236">Grime4Corbyn</a> campaign or the direct representation of young people in politics by young candidates. </p>
<p>For too long, the youngest citizens have been left out. Now is the time to put democratic power back in their hands.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>Benjamin Bowman is speaking at <a href="https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/youthquake-2017-can-young-voters-transform-the-uks-political-landscape-tickets-37599161103?aff=ehomecard">Youthquake 2017! Can young voters transform the UK’s political landscape?</a> a joint event between The Conversation and The British Academy on October 9, 2017.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/84748/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Benjamin Bowman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Labour has recognised young people as survivors of the economic crash, which has helped fuel a surge in support for Labour.Benjamin Bowman, Teaching Fellow in Comparative Politics, University of BathLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/837082017-09-14T19:35:51Z2017-09-14T19:35:51ZThe year of living ineffectually: 2017 proves shaky for the centre-left<p>For political junkies, 2017 has provided a bumper crop of elections, particularly across Europe. This year, we have already seen key elections in <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/19/dutch-election-rutte-wilders-good-populism-bad-">the Netherlands</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/french-presidential-election-2017-29814">France</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/uk-election-2017-37907">the UK</a>. Before the year is out, elections will take place in Norway, New Zealand, Germany and Austria. If we add the 2016 US Presidential result to these – we might see something of a pattern emerging – mostly (but not always), the major centre-left parties are failing to take office. </p>
<p>In the Netherlands, the concerns about the populist challenge of Geert Wilders tended to mask the Dutch Labour party’s (PvDA) <a href="https://theconversation.com/dutch-election-why-geert-wilders-failed-to-destroy-the-mainstream-government-74710">disastrous result</a> where it lost 29 seats and secured just 5.7% of the vote. In France, the phenomenal rise of Emmanuel Macron to the presidency was striking because neither of the two major established parties made the second round. Moreover, Benoït Hamon, the Socialist Party candidate, secured <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/04/france-socialist-hamon-macron-le-pen-melenchon-election/524085/">a historic low</a> for the centre-left with just 6% of the vote.</p>
<p>In the UK, the centre-left is in uncharted territory since the surprising elevation of Jeremy Corbyn. In June, Corbyn’s Labour <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/election/2017/results">secured 40% of the vote</a>, increased the number of its MPs by 32 - even some of his harshest critics <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2016/s4693461.htm">were surprised by his performance</a>. Yet, Labour has lost three elections on the trot since 2005, and has been unable to take full advantage of the carnage wrought by the Brexit referendum. </p>
<p>In the recent and upcoming Norwegian, New Zealand, German and Austrian elections, the fortunes of the major centre-left parties looked mixed at best. In Norway this week, despite a close contest, the centre-right Coalition <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/11/norways-rightwing-coalition-set-to-retain-power-by-slender-margin">looks set to govern</a> for another four years after defeating Jonas Gahr Støre’s Labour party.</p>
<p>In Germany, the so-called “<a href="https://theconversation.com/2017-could-be-a-turning-point-for-european-integration-but-not-in-the-way-you-think-72524">Schulz effect</a>” - in which the Socialist Democratic Party’s Martin Schulz was once on the march against incumbent Chancellor Angela Merkel - has dissipated and Merkel seems set to win her fourth straight election. While Schulz has been the SPD’s strongest candidate in years, and the SPD has been in “grand coalition” with Merkel’s CDU on occasion, it has rarely been able to dominate German politics since the heyday of Gerhard Schröder in the 1990s. </p>
<p>In Austria, the centre-left social democrats (SPÖ) and the centre-right (ÖVP) have dominated, but the politics of the far-right pose <a href="http://in.reuters.com/article/austria-politics-farright/analysis-win-or-lose-austrian-far-rights-views-have-entered-government-idINKBN1A1081?il%3D0">new and awkward dilemmas</a>
– especially from the far-right Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ). Reflecting a new, harsh reality, the SPÖ under the leadership of Christian Kern (also Austria’s current chancellor), has lifted the party’s 30-year, self-imposed, ban on entering into a coalition with the far-right FPÖ. In Austria, as elsewhere around the world, the old party system is fragmenting. </p>
<p>The brightest hope for the centre-Left has been the political earthquake of Jacindra Ardern, who might just become Labour Prime Minister of New Zealand at the September poll. Until “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/08/jacindamania-soars-anew-as-new-zealand-pm-sprinkles-stardust-on-rival">Jacindra-mania</a>” took off, New Zealand Labour lost three straight elections, and was last in office in 2005. Ardern, however, is just one exception to the general malaise confronting the centre-left.</p>
<h2>Why is the left losing?</h2>
<p>From this brief survey, it is clear that <a href="https://www.socialeurope.eu/6-new-norm-progressive-left">the centre-left</a> is <a href="http://euap.hkbu.edu.hk/main/decline-of-the-centre-left/">either losing</a>, or can’t win outright. This is a vast shift since the early 1990s, when the centre-left led 15 out of then 17 EC states. <a href="https://policypress.co.uk/why-the-left-loses">In a forthcoming volume</a> with my colleague Paul Kennedy, we explore the reasons for why the left are losing. We identify some common problems, but also some specific ones. </p>
<p>First, it’s worth pointing out that while the state of the centre-left is poor, we should be careful in claiming it signals the <a href="https://www.routledge.com/The-Death-of-Social-Democracy-Political-Consequences-in-the-21st-Century/Lavelle/p/book/9780754670148">“death” of social democracy</a>. Liberal democracy depends on parties winning, and also losing office. In many cases, such as in the UK, the electoral record of the left has been patchy at best. And recent results also belie the fragility of the mainstream centre-right (such as in France and the UK). </p>
<p>In our analysis, we focus on three broad themes – the role of individuals (especially leadership), the role of ideas, and the influence of <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/05/22/world/europe/europe-right-wing-austria-hungary.html?mcubz=1">institutional or structural factors</a>. </p>
<p>Politics, to some extent, has become increasingly personalised – which means that political leaders face new and additional pressures. In many places, the centre-left has not done a great job in finding credible or convincing leaders (such as in Sweden and Germany). Ardern seems to offer a dynamic form of leadership, but as Martin Schulz discovered, this can be short-lived. </p>
<p>Yet poor leadership only offers partial insights. The centre-left has been unable to deal with a range of structural problems. Most crucially, the centre-left is in a state of existential crisis. It remains far from clear what the centre-left stands for. In the 1990s, the “<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/458626.stm">Third Way</a>”, for all its problems, was a seemingly winning formula for the reinvention of the centre-left.</p>
<p>But since then, in many places, it remains a hangover, and nothing significant has taken its place. The left has struggled to reformulate its political economy, and especially the issue of immigration. The centre-left has also suffered in structural terms with populist parties being a particular threat, both from the right (Austria), and also the left (Spain). </p>
<p>Ardern and NZ Labour might well be a hope for the centre-left, but it remains far from clear how it, and its sister parties, including Australia’s Labor Party, are dealing with the wider identity crisis.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/83708/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rob Manwaring is affiliated with the Australian Fabians Inc. </span></em></p>The centre-left has had a torrid year, particularly in Europe, but there are glimmers of hope on the horizon and hope for it to regroup.Rob Manwaring, Senior Lecturer, Politics and Public Policy, Flinders UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/826132017-08-21T05:13:43Z2017-08-21T05:13:43ZWasted votes, hyper-marginals and disillusion: reform group issues damning report on election 2017<p>A <a href="https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/2017-UK-General-Election-Report.pdf">report</a> by the Electoral Reform Society claims that the outcome of the 2017 UK general election adds weight to the argument that British democracy needs a dramatic overhaul.</p>
<p>The report offers a damning analysis on the <a href="https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/voting-systems/types-of-voting-system/first-past-the-post/">first-past-the-post electoral system</a> (FPTP), concluding that it is archaic, ineffective and undemocratic. It argues that an electoral system created in the early 1800s at a time of two-party politics during the UK’s democratic formation cannot cope with the dynamics of a modern, multi-party political system. </p>
<p>This is not a sudden or new phenomenon. The report notes that the system has been creaking under the strains of the UK’s party-political dynamics for some time. Indeed, it cites the 2017 result as the “third strike” in quick succession for the Westminster electoral system. Its failings were evident in the elections held in 2010 and 2015 before the latest vote resulted in a hung parliament.</p>
<p>All three votes, it argues, have significantly undermined the traditional claim that FPTP provides stable, single-party government and generally prevents the perceived negativity and instability of coalition or minority administrations. </p>
<p>Indeed, in 2010 the system produced the first coalition government since 1945. In <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/uk-general-election-2015-12635">2015</a> it led to the most disproportionate result ever, with a majority government achieved on only 37% of the national vote.</p>
<p>In <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/uk-election-2017-37907">2017</a> a minority Conservative government was the outcome. Somewhat curiously, this was despite a surge in support for the two biggest parties to the highest levels since 1970. Even the revival of two-party politics in terms of vote share (to a collective 82.4%) failed to translate into a decisive outcome.</p>
<h2>Tactics and waste</h2>
<p>The report claims that the reasons for this are varied and complex. A key factor is that the UK is increasingly multi-party in nature, and specifically so in certain parts of the country. A multitude of smaller parties generate significant votes in specific regions or areas but generally struggle to translate that support into MPs.</p>
<p>The report also finds that tactical voting – a longstanding trend under FPTP – was more significant than ever in 2017. This went alongside formalised <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2017/jun/02/tactical-voting-guide-how-to-make-your-vote-count-in-the-2017-election">vote-swapping deals</a> promoted via social media. It also highlights how many small parties such as the Greens and UKIP withdrew their candidates to assist a bigger party of their preference in some key marginal seats.</p>
<p>The conclusion, therefore, is that the surge for the two major parties was often linked to people using their vote tactically rather than strongly supporting either. </p>
<p>“<a href="https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news/politics/owen-winter-campaign-electoral-reform/">Wasted votes</a>” were also calculated to be a staggering 68% of all those cast. Too many citizens turn up on polling day only to see their decision have no impact whatsoever on the final outcome.</p>
<p>Marginal and safe seats are highlighted as recurring failings of FPTP. Disproportionate campaigning efforts are poured into a relatively small number of seats because so many of the results are predictable. Only 70 of 650 seats changed hands between the parties in 2017.</p>
<p>That said, the numbers of marginal seats increased in 2017. There are now 11 “hyper-marginal” seats, which were won with majorities of fewer than 100 votes.</p>
<p>The Conservatives could in fact have won an overall majority if they had gained a further 533 votes in the nine most marginal seats, such are the narrow margins that determine the electoral outcome under first past the post. How a party targets and uses its national vote is therefore crucial under this system – and at times this appears almost random in nature.</p>
<p>As a further example, the report also highlights that, despite increasing its national vote by almost 10%, Labour ultimately failed to target seats effectively and instead built up huge majorities in safe seats. The party now holds 34 of the 35 safest seats in the UK – representing an inefficient spread of its overall support. </p>
<p>The UK is now the only democracy in Europe to use the FPTP electoral system. According to the Electoral Reform Society, this only exacerbates the sense that “politics is failing people”. As a reflection of this, the report also claims that 2017 was the most “volatile” result ever, with huge swings in support between a range of parties recorded in some seats. </p>
<p>For these reasons, the society is calling for an alternative electoral system to be considered for future general elections, and the <a href="https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/voting-systems/types-of-voting-system/single-transferable-vote/">single transferable vote</a> is highlighted as the most proportional option. However, time will tell whether the political will exists to embrace such reform, particularly in the wake of the failed <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13297573">alternative vote</a> referendum in 2011.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/82613/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ben Williams is a member of the Higher Education Academy, the Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL) and the Labour Party. </span></em></p>For the third time in a row, first past the post has delivered confusion rather than stability.Ben Williams, Tutor in Politics and Political Theory, University of SalfordLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/815772017-07-31T09:52:16Z2017-07-31T09:52:16ZRuth Davidson as Conservative leader? She’d have to clear these hurdles<p>Theresa May has just recorded the worst <a href="https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/theresa-mays-leadership-satisfaction-ratings-fall-further-after-general-election">opinion poll</a> rating for public satisfaction with a British prime minister the month following a national election. </p>
<p>No fewer than 57% of voters think May should <a href="http://opinium.co.uk/political-polling-11th-july-2017/">resign</a> before the 2022 general election and 33% think she should resign now. And while a leadership contest is unlikely in the immediate future, views are already circulating about who might like the job. Among the names being discussed is Ruth Davidson, leader of the party in Scotland. </p>
<p>May’s spectacular decline has coincided with Davidson’s stellar rise. Davidson recently wrote an article in a newly-launched Conservative website, entitled <a href="http://unherd.com/2017/07/ctrl-alt-del-conservatives-must-reboot-capitalism/">Ctrl + Alt + Del. Conservatives must reboot capitalism</a>. In it she cited the work of Adam Smith, the great Scottish political economist and “father of capitalism”, to show how he advocated intervention and regulation by government to ensure “basic fairness for the little guy”.</p>
<p>Since business failed to put its house in order after the 2008 financial crisis, Davidson’s thesis was that it’s now time for “governments to take the initiative”. They must reform corporate governance, break up monopolies, restrict tax avoidance and lower entry barriers to market competitors to address “the creeping cronyism that is making free market capitalism an unfree and anti-competitive capitalism”. In short, “nationally and internationally, capitalism needs a reboot”. Or more precisely, the governance of capitalism needs a reboot – and Davidson is proposing a bold, Conservative blueprint for the task.</p>
<p>Critically, Davidson argues that it’s “not enough for government to facilitate a discussion about where next for Britain, it has to actually lead”. In so stating, she was implicitly criticising May’s own recent relaunch <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/we-have-to-invest-in-good-work-theresa-mays-speech-at-taylor-review-launch">speech</a> in which she had called upon other political parties “to come forward with your own views and ideas about how we can tackle these challenges as a country”.</p>
<h2>A contender</h2>
<p>Could Davidson yet be the “where have you been all my life?” candidate to reboot the Conservative Party? After all, under her leadership in 2016 the Scottish Conservatives more than doubled their ranks of MSPs at Holyrood (from 15 in 2011 to 31).</p>
<p>Then, in 2017 the Scottish Conservative ranks at Westminster swelled from one to 13 MPs. This after nearly doubling the party’s share of the vote in Scotland (from 14.9% in 2015 to 28.6% in 2017). In the process, Davidson’s team unseated both former SNP first minister Alex Salmond and SNP leader at Westminster, Angus Robertson. Indeed, nine of the ten largest overturned majorities were in Scotland, and six of the top seven involved Scottish Conservative MPs <a href="http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7979#fullreport">replacing SNP incumbents</a>. </p>
<p>On top of these successes, Davidson is an enticing proposition for Conservative modernisers, keen to end their enduring reputation as the “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2002/oct/07/conservatives2002.conservatives1">nasty party</a>” (a phrase first coined by May herself at the 2002 Conservative Party Conference). As a young, openly gay woman, she would enable the Conservatives to demonstrate their connection with a plural, diverse Britain.</p>
<h2>Flies in the ointment</h2>
<p>However, there remain major obstacles to Davidson’s candidacy. Having only joined the Conservatives in 2009, her rise has been forged almost entirely in Scotland, in the forum of the Scottish parliament. Davidson’s value to the Conservative and Unionist Party has lain – and continues to reside – in her capacity to sustain a Conservative revival in Scotland, displacing Labour as the authentic voice of the union. Were Davidson to bail out of that role, it could deal a fatal blow to that Conservative momentum.</p>
<p>What’s more, Davidson does not have a seat at Westminster, nor any personal democratic mandate in England. Her political career has been forged exclusively in Scotland.</p>
<p>If Davidson was to be elected to Westminster via a Scottish constituency, her status as a political outsider would be cemented. Every time a piece of legislation affecting England passed through the House of Commons, Davidson’s opponents would be able to highlight her lack of a democratic mandate in England.</p>
<p>To lead the Conservative Party, Davidson needs a parliamentary seat (preferably a safe one) in England. Should death or personal tragedy create just such a vacancy, some Conservative local associations might rail against Davidson parachuting in from Scotland to stand in a by-election and constituency with which she had no previous personal connection.</p>
<p>But even then, doubt remains. After 40 years of ideological commitment to a smaller state, would Conservative Brexiteers, intent on wholesale repeal of laws and regulations rally to the cause of a prominent Remainer, who claims that, in pursuit of fairer markets both at home and abroad, “Boldness of the kind we don’t see from government is going to be necessary”? They too might just press Ctrl+Alt+Del.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/81577/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Simon Lee does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>After monumental successes in the 2017 general election, the Scottish Conservative leader could be a real threat to Theresa May. Then again…Simon Lee, Senior Lecturer in Politics, University of HullLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/807812017-07-17T13:18:00Z2017-07-17T13:18:00ZAbuse of women MPs is not just a scandal – it’s a threat to democracy<p>Following the intense election campaign of 2017, Labour shadow home secretary Diane Abbott spoke out about the racist and misogynistic abuse she received online. </p>
<p>Abbott revealed that she was subject to a litany of abuse on Twitter. In a recent Westminster Hall debate, she described the comments she received as “characteristically racist and sexist”.</p>
<p>Abbott’s experiences are not just depressing on a personal level – they pose a threat to democracy. </p>
<p>The BBC recently reported that a huge number of women MPs are experiencing <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38736729">abuse</a> on social media. The problem was so bad during the 2017 election, with several MPs making complaints to the government, that Number 10 asked the Committee on Standards in Public Life to <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/review-into-abuse-and-intimidation-in-elections">investigate</a> the abuse of MPs during election campaigns.</p>
<p>Comments during the 2017 campaign included: “<a href="https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/conservative-party/theresa-may/news/87252/theresa-may-pledges-crackdown">stab the c*nt</a>”; “<a href="https://twitter.com/nick_scales/status/880019359745404929">nazi witch</a>” and “<a href="https://twitter.com/AMohnke1488/status/876955008658493440">repatriate the b***h back to Africa</a>”. The prime minister herself was called a “<a href="https://twitter.com/NivenJ1/status/873146226425856000">whore</a>” by some Twitter users.</p>
<p>In Australia, the former prime minister Julia Gillard was subjected to twice as many abusive online comments as her Labor party rival <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/datablog/ng-interactive/2016/jun/27/from-julia-gillard-to-hillary-clinton-online-abuse-of-politicians-around-the-world">Kevin Rudd</a> between 2010 and 2014. Many of these statements were of a sexual nature.</p>
<p>Similarly, in the Democratic presidential primaries in the US, Hillary Clinton received almost twice as many abusive comments as her Democratic rival, Bernie <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/datablog/ng-interactive/2016/jun/27/from-julia-gillard-to-hillary-clinton-online-abuse-of-politicians-around-the-world">Sanders</a>.</p>
<p>These types of comments have started to become the norm for women politicians. Gillard has <a href="http://juliagillard.com.au/articles/julia-gillard-speaks-in-memory-of-jo-cox-mp/">said</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>As a woman in public life, the violent threats take on another sicking dimension. Threats of violent abuse, of rape, are far too common. A woman in public view may expect to receive them almost daily.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>With <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/25/yvette-cooper-leads-cross-party-campaign-against-online-abuse">so many people</a> subject to online abuse, many are choosing to withdraw themselves from social media. In fact, a campaigner I recently interviewed about the online abuse she received was advised by the police to shut down her social media accounts.</p>
<p>But advising a woman to remove her online presence if she doesn’t want to be abused is akin to telling a woman that she needs to <a href="https://slutwalkdiscussion.wordpress.com/a-feminist-redefinition-of-rape-and-sexual-assault-historical-foundations-and-change/">behave a certain way</a> if she doesn’t want to be raped.</p>
<p>Rather than engaging in victim blaming, we should be tackling the behaviour of abusers. We need to be sending stronger messages to individuals that online abuse will not be tolerated. A full, in-depth inquiry is needed to establish if social media companies need to take more responsibly for what is posted on their platforms; or, if in fact, we need more specific legislation to govern social media. The likelihood is that we are now at a point where the law itself needs changing.</p>
<h2>Who’d be a woman politician?</h2>
<p>Online abuse may be seen as an everyday part of being a politician, but it’s a threat to <a href="http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/01/president-obama-warns-social-media-is-becoming-a-threat-to-democracy">democracy</a>. Constant abuse aimed at politicians, especially female politicians, threatens to reduce the plurality of voices essential for a modern democracy. As conservative MP Sarah Wollaston recently said, online abuse is “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/05/conservative-mp-sarah-wollaston-tells-of-abuse-during-election">designed to intimidate</a>”. If that intimidation is successful, women will be dissuaded from becoming politicians. Already, only <a href="http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/world.htm">23.3%</a> of politicians worldwide are women.</p>
<p>Abbott has <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/14/racism-misogyny-politics-online-abuse-minorities">said</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Other women look at how those of us in the public space are treated and think twice about speaking up publicly let alone getting involved in political activity.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>If we want to live in a world of true equality, we need to start tackling online abuse. Simply concluding that such abuse is an everyday part of life is clearly a threat to the political system.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/80781/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Laura Higson-Bliss does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Faced with the prospect of constant online attack, why would anyone want to get into politics?Laura Higson-Bliss, Graduate Teaching Assistant in Law, Edge Hill UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/802352017-07-04T10:47:18Z2017-07-04T10:47:18ZSurveys from 38 years apart reveal changing face of student vote<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/176648/original/file-20170703-10704-12mqx7x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The Conservatives have traditionally won Exeter's student vote, but those days may be over. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/dijitali/3347212989/in/photolist-66MkNM-nHaZnB-dmRqEC-bo3KRC-aVg3Ge-3fd4H1-cFQMwy-bAXBs6-bpNhhy-cLzkWJ-dYMRAJ-2CW8SW-9im8Ac-axgyUW-bAXBy8-cCsNam-dnam6F-bSMQ1i-aVg45P-duKW5e-cFQMcq-bo4jKA-cvGW5s-bDT73Q-cCt26J-bSMPXX-bSeXie-bSzJdD-broRjW-duKZbx-bCqfhz-bow33L-dmQGxb-bAX74D-n2dUW-bpvjCf-66MkQc-bDT83E-bpvhC7-dna5Nq-bF4BAg-duSoPq-duKEiT-dmQZUG-bSzehF-duKB2t-dmQQQe-dnb3Dh-bo3uLb-duKYzR">Ieuan Jenkins</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The surprising results of the 2017 election were strongly related to both age and education, with university students one of most heavily Labour-leaning groups. According to <a href="https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/06/13/how-britain-voted-2017-general-election/">YouGov’s national data</a>, some 64% of students voted for the Labour party compared to only 19% for the Conservatives.</p>
<p>Surveys of this kind give a good impression of the national distribution of student votes. However, there is little detailed evidence about students’ voting preferences and how these have changed over time. But a recent discovery at the University of Exeter, our own institution, provided a rare opportunity to do just that – at least at the local level. </p>
<p>In 1979, Exeter’s politics department conducted a survey of the university’s students about the election in May of that year. We found a copy of the research produced from that survey in the university library. This document, as well as the preservation of the original data by the UK Data Service, allowed us to repeat the survey this year for the 2017 election. </p>
<p>These two surveys, conducted 38 years apart, offer an insight into the changing student vote at Exeter. They capture a shift from a campus that largely supported the Conservatives to one backing Labour.</p>
<p>Exeter has long had an anecdotal reputation as a bastion for student Conservatism. Several prominent Conservative political figures are Exeter alumni, including the communities secretary Sajid Javid and Tim Montgomerie, former editor of <a href="http://www.conservativehome.com/">ConservativeHome</a>.</p>
<p>Indeed, the paper produced after the 1979 survey described the campus as “a haven for those from public schools and higher social groups”. Yet while this may have led to more votes for the Conservatives at Exeter in the past, our new survey shows that this is no longer the case.</p>
<h2>Shifting support</h2>
<p>In 1979 the Conservative party won the Exeter student vote by a wide margin, with an absolute majority of 56.4%. Labour was in third place on only 15.4%, behind the Liberal party on 21.4%.</p>
<p><strong>Party Vote Share among Exeter Students in 1979</strong></p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/176631/original/file-20170703-2293-d22v7r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/176631/original/file-20170703-2293-d22v7r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=481&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176631/original/file-20170703-2293-d22v7r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=481&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176631/original/file-20170703-2293-d22v7r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=481&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176631/original/file-20170703-2293-d22v7r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=604&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176631/original/file-20170703-2293-d22v7r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=604&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176631/original/file-20170703-2293-d22v7r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=604&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Based on 117 responses (Target=298)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>By 2017, the situation had completely changed. We found that it was instead the Labour party which won a landslide at Exeter, garnering 59.2% of the vote against the Conservatives on 20.9%. The Liberal Democrats took just 14.4% of the vote. </p>
<p><strong>Party Vote Share among Exeter Students in 2017</strong></p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/176633/original/file-20170703-7743-siddre.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/176633/original/file-20170703-7743-siddre.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=480&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176633/original/file-20170703-7743-siddre.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=480&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176633/original/file-20170703-7743-siddre.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=480&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176633/original/file-20170703-7743-siddre.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=604&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176633/original/file-20170703-7743-siddre.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=604&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176633/original/file-20170703-7743-siddre.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=604&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Based on 295 responses (Target = 30-40,000)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>A large part of this shift appears to have occurred very recently. When we asked our 2017 respondents how they had voted in 2015, Labour was not dominant at Exeter. In fact, the Conservatives narrowly won the vote. This in an election in which Labour won 18 24-year-olds by about <a href="https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2015">16% points nationwide</a>. Exeter’s Conservative image may therefore have held at least in part until quite recently.</p>
<p><strong>Party Vote Share among Exeter Students in 2015 (Estimate)</strong></p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/176635/original/file-20170703-15991-weziv5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/176635/original/file-20170703-15991-weziv5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=481&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176635/original/file-20170703-15991-weziv5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=481&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176635/original/file-20170703-15991-weziv5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=481&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176635/original/file-20170703-15991-weziv5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=604&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176635/original/file-20170703-15991-weziv5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=604&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176635/original/file-20170703-15991-weziv5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=604&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Based on recalled 2015 vote in the 2017 sample excluding non-voters (n = 210)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The surveys also contained a number of questions which offer some insight into why this shift has occurred.</p>
<p>The Labour vote appears to be unrelated to the family backgrounds of modern Exeter students. In 1979, students overwhelmingly reported that their parents were also Conservative voters. In 2017, while a greater share of parents were now Labour voters, the Conservatives were still the plurality choice among Exeter parents.</p>
<p>Our survey also showed that although most students voting Labour expressed confidence in Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, they were less enthusiastic about aspects of the Labour manifesto – including <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-labour-govenrment-trade-union-general-election-legislation-repeal-conservatives-bill-a7698596.html">relaxing restrictions on trade unions</a> and <a href="http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/right-buy-scrapped-temporarily-labour-8911648">stopping the sale of council houses</a>.</p>
<p>The decline of student Conservatism at Exeter seemed primarily related to other factors. Labour was particularly successful among women, for example. This reversed the pattern shown in the 1979 survey, in which the Conservatives were significantly ahead with women.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/176735/original/file-20170704-32624-1fng3e6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/176735/original/file-20170704-32624-1fng3e6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176735/original/file-20170704-32624-1fng3e6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176735/original/file-20170704-32624-1fng3e6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176735/original/file-20170704-32624-1fng3e6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176735/original/file-20170704-32624-1fng3e6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176735/original/file-20170704-32624-1fng3e6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Exeter in 1979.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">David Cornforth–Exeter Memories</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The Labour campaign also appears to have been quite effective. Labour voters on average decided later than Conservatives during the campaign, and Labour dominated among the most active users of political social media – in particular on Twitter.</p>
<p>However, the most significant factor appeared to be the 2016 EU referendum. Brexit split the country but united students, with <a href="https://www.youthsight.com/ys-news-open-britain-poll-students-brexit-regret/">84% backing Remain nationally</a>. Likewise, according to our data, Exeter students voted 79% to 13.2% to remain, including 75.4% of those who had voted Conservative in 2015. Consequently, almost half (48.6%) of the Exeter students who voted Conservative in 2015 had switched to Labour or the Liberal Democrats in 2017.</p>
<p>While our survey only shows a small part of the national picture in terms student voting, it demonstrates clearly the damage done to the Conservative brand among students, even at institutions at which the party has traditionally done well. To win back student voters, the Conservative party must find a way to repair the damage done by Brexit. If it fails, it risks losing a generation of educated young people, and particularly young women, who might otherwise have formed the next generation of Conservative candidates, activists and voters.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/80235/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nicholas Dickinson receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council via a doctoral training studentship provided through the South West Doctoral Training Partnership (SWDTC)</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Felix-Christopher von Nostitz received the Strategic (Departmental) Ph.D. Studentship, College of Social Science and International Studies for the Department of Politics (2013-2016) to conduct his PhD.</span></em></p>A rare find in an Exeter library helps explain why the local student vote switched from the Conservatives to Labour.Nicholas Dickinson, Doctoral Researcher in Political Science, University of ExeterFelix-Christopher von Nostitz, Research and Teaching Assistant in Political Science, University of ExeterLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/803332017-07-03T12:47:52Z2017-07-03T12:47:52ZUnderstanding Labour’s ‘youthquake’<p>The result of the June 8 general election has been widely described as a “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/20/youthquake-behind-labour-election-surge-divides-generations">youthquake</a>”. According to this popular narrative, the votes of millions of young people were responsible for Labour’s surprisingly strong showing and the accompanying failure of the Conservatives to secure a widely anticipated majority government. The story has much to recommend it.</p>
<p>Data gathered in our Essex Continuous Monitoring Survey (ECMS) show that 63% of voters between 18 and 29 voted Labour. That dropped to just 23% for voters over 65.</p>
<p>This pattern, also documented in other post-election surveys, is important because turnout among young people in 2017 was much greater than in had been in the preceding general election in 2015. Our estimates indicate that only 42% of those under 30 voted in 2015 but that 61% did in 2017. The turnout surge among the young had a major payoff for Labour. The probability that Labour would win a constituency (expressed from 0 to 1 with 1 representing a certainty) climbed from 0.10 to 0.69 as the percentage of residents in the constituency under 30 increased. In contrast, the probability that the Conservatives would win fell from 0.89 to only 0.07. Labour clearly benefited handsomely from young people’s support in 2017.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/176397/original/file-20170630-8210-k06uwf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/176397/original/file-20170630-8210-k06uwf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/176397/original/file-20170630-8210-k06uwf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=368&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176397/original/file-20170630-8210-k06uwf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=368&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176397/original/file-20170630-8210-k06uwf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=368&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176397/original/file-20170630-8210-k06uwf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=463&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176397/original/file-20170630-8210-k06uwf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=463&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176397/original/file-20170630-8210-k06uwf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=463&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">When young people deliver seats.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Why did youth rally so strongly to Labour? Evidence from our ECMS pre- and post-election surveys helps answer this question. Some observers have speculated that young people were attracted to Labour on the issues, especially Brexit and education. We do <a href="http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/brexit-why-britain-voted-leave-european-union#qxq6CvRXIMZu628C.97">know</a> that a large majority of young people voted Remain in the EU referendum. Labour’s election manifesto pledge to abolish university tuition fees presumably also had a powerful appeal among youth.</p>
<p>The ECMS survey shows that those under 30 years of age were indeed more likely than older people to mention education as one of the top three most important issues to them. But that’s not to say an overwhelming majority of them did so. In fact, only 23% of them cited education in their top three. And the percentage citing <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/eu-referendum-2016">Brexit</a> as a top three issue was actually greater among older people than younger ones. </p>
<p>More generally, except for immigration and the environment, the mix of issues identified as especially important was quite similar across all age categories, with Brexit and the <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/nhs-5512">NHS</a> being the most widely cited by all groups. And, no matter what issue was at the top of their list, young people tended to think Labour was best able to handle it.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/176398/original/file-20170630-8242-awnu4f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/176398/original/file-20170630-8242-awnu4f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/176398/original/file-20170630-8242-awnu4f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176398/original/file-20170630-8242-awnu4f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176398/original/file-20170630-8242-awnu4f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176398/original/file-20170630-8242-awnu4f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176398/original/file-20170630-8242-awnu4f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176398/original/file-20170630-8242-awnu4f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Jez he can.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>A second explanation for Labour’s appeal among young people concerns party leaders. Leader images have strong effects on voters and the ECMS data reveal that Jeremy Corbyn was much more warmly received among young people than Theresa May. The percentage of ECMS respondents scoring Corbyn 6 or more on a 0 (dislike) to 10 (like) scale falls from 58% among those under 30 to 24% among those 65 or older.</p>
<p>Similar patterns emerge when voters were asked about leaders’ traits. Young people were much more likely than older ones to see Corbyn as competent, caring, trustworthy and strong. Young people also were much more likely to have negative perceptions of May’s leadership traits and to indicate that they did not regard her positively. Echoing Bernie Sander’s strong appeal among young people in the Democratic primaries in the 2016 US presidential election, Corbyn’s appeal to British youth was massive in 2017.</p>
<p>The importance of these patterns is confirmed when we conduct statistical analyses that control for a wide range of factors affecting voting. As is typical in such analyses, judgements about party performance on key issues and images of the party leaders have very strong effects on voters’ decisions to opt for Labour versus the Conservatives. And as we’ve seen, issue judgements and leader images differed widely across age groups in 2017, giving Labour a strong advantage among young people.</p>
<p>In fully 34,944 separate analyses with controls for several predictors traditionally used in voting studies (partisanship, education, gender, country/region of residence and social class) membership in the 18 to 29 age group always has a significant direct or indirect effect on the likelihood of voting Labour. The party’s appeal to youth in 2017 was powerful and multifaceted.</p>
<h2>Labour for life?</h2>
<p>Relationships between age and voting behaviour at any point in time are ambiguous. It may be that we are witnessing the emergence of distinct “political generation” and, as they age, today’s youth will continue to support Labour strongly in future elections. However, it may be that Labour’s youthquake was what social scientists call a “period effect” specific to the 2017 election. </p>
<p>Although we cannot be sure, there is circumstantial evidence in favour of the latter interpretation. Most of the 18 to 29-year-olds analysed here were eligible to vote in the 2015 general election. As observed above, far fewer of them went to the polls and, of those that did, only 37% voted Labour. The party’s attractiveness to young people changed markedly in only two years.</p>
<p>Why? Numerous observers have emphasised the sharp contrast in the campaigns mounted by two major parties in 2017. Labour’s campaign was characterised by appealing manifesto pledges, positive packaging and innovative social media techniques for reaching voters – particularly young people. Corbyn showed that he was an adept retail politician, capable of parrying Conservative attacks on his competence and character with surprising ease.</p>
<p>In sharp contrast, the Conservatives’ manifesto has been widely criticised as a “dark document” that did little to excite young people while frightening their elders with widely publicised threats of dementia taxes and other public service cutbacks. For her part, May demonstrated precious little aptitude for electioneering and failed to make a convincing case that she would provide “strong and stable” leadership as the head of a Conservative majority government. </p>
<p>In the end, the two parties’ contrasting campaigns helped to resurrect the Conservatives’ reputation as “the nasty party” – a term May herself had famously coined 15 years earlier as she appealed to Conservatives to adopt a warmer image. In 2017, it did much to weaken her party’s appeal to a restive electorate fatigued by years of austerity and ready for change. Young people were especially receptive.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/80333/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Paul Whiteley receives funding from the British Academy. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Harold D Clarke receives funding from National Science Foundation (US)</span></em></p>What drove young people to turnout in such high numbers to back Corbyn? And will they stick with him?Paul Whiteley, Professor, Department of Government, University of EssexHarold D Clarke, Ashbel Smith Professor, University of Texas at DallasLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/801592017-06-29T14:27:37Z2017-06-29T14:27:37ZTory humiliation down to campaign length and cult of May – Norman Tebbit Q&A<p><em>The following interview with Lord Tebbit took place at the House of Lords on June 28, 2017. He was interviewed by Tim Bale, professor of politics, Queen Mary University of London. Norman Tebbit was Conservative MP for Epping (1970-1974) and Chingford (1974-1992) and served as a junior minister in both the Department of Trade and the Department of Industry. In the Cabinet, he was the secretary of state for employment, trade and industry, and chairman of the Conservative party from 1985 to 1987. He now sits in the House of Lords as Baron Tebbit of Chingford.</em></p>
<hr>
<p><strong>Tim Bale: You ran the Tory <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/politics97/background/pastelec/ge87.shtml">election campaign in 1987</a>. And if the story is accurate, you were grabbed by Lord Young and told “Norman, listen to me, we’re about to lose this fucking election” – an election you went on to win handsomely. Is that story true? And what do you think went wrong with the Tory election campaign this time around?</strong></p>
<p><strong>Norman Tebbit:</strong> Well, first of all: yes, that’s broadly true. There was one bum poll, which frightened David Young to death because he’d never done anything like this before and he panicked. And if you read the account of it in his autobiography, he admits that later, when he saw the next poll coming out, he realised it was alright, as indeed it was. </p>
<p>The lessons for this [2017] election are that if you’re going to have a snap election, it should be a snap – not a long, drawn out whine. Seven weeks for a snap is a long time. It should have been four weeks. Second, you need to have got everything organised and ready. You need to have a manifesto which has been thought through and which has been cleared with the relevant cabinet ministers. So they were the two enormous mistakes. The local elections were a Conservative triumph. And then, a few weeks later, there was a humiliation, frankly. </p>
<p>The other mistake was the cult of “me”. Postal voters received alongside their postal vote stuff, a letter from Mrs May, which started off, in the constituency where I live: “Dear Mr or Mrs Bloggs, I want you to vote for me and my candidate, Joe Churchill.” And it goes on in that way: vote for “me”. Well, she wasn’t standing in Bury St Edmunds and the word “Conservative” was not mentioned. So she fought without the Conservative party in that sense.</p>
<p><strong>It’s interesting you say that because most people remember Margaret Thatcher being a presidential leader, someone campaigns focused on. But you’re saying that back in the 1980s, it was very much about the party as well?</strong></p>
<p>It was very much about the party. It was our job to make sure that the manifesto was neat, organised, and that there was not going to be any confusion about what was in or out. We then decided, in conditions of considerable secrecy, what were the option dates for it and which was the best one. I remember in 1987, we had to convince the prime minister of the right date. She said she’d got this meeting with President Reagan and she couldn’t stand him up, so we said, “No, but there’s Concorde, you can go there and back in a day.” There was a professionalism about it. </p>
<p>The party was much stronger and the grassroots were much stronger then. Of course, we didn’t have to deal with social media – the “social disease” in my view – either. This time, we didn’t go to war using social media in the way that the Labour party did and particularly through the use of Momentum.</p>
<p><strong>Were you surprised by the general election result?</strong></p>
<p>I had been misled by the polls, as we almost all were. But I had my worries about it because of this campaign which was about “me” as opposed to the Conservative government.</p>
<p><strong>Interestingly, in the 1980s, those campaigns were run by elected politicians. But if you look at the 2017 campaign, it’s very much about outside consultants running it. Is that a problem?</strong></p>
<p>Yes. We would not have expected somebody from Australia or America to come and run it. We would have listened to what they might want to tell us about their experience, but it would be very clear who was “running” it. </p>
<p>But we were up to our tricks. The one I most enjoyed in 1987 was when I deliberately left it right up to the deadline for sending the BBC and ITV our party political broadcast. This party political broadcast had subtitles for the deaf, something that had never been done before. The BBC panicked because the Labour party hadn’t thought of that. They said they couldn’t carry it without the agreement of the Labour party. So I said all right, we’ll just screen a blank which says the BBC declined to carry this broadcast because it had subtitles for the deaf. </p>
<p>They gave up quite quickly after that. That sort of thing has translated now into the tactics of using social media. You can have a lot of fun and we didn’t have any in our [recent] campaign. </p>
<p><strong>You were often touted as a successor to Thatcher, but through force of circumstance and what happened with the <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/12/newsid_2531000/2531583.stm">Brighton bombing</a>, you never competed. Do you now see an obvious successor to Theresa May?</strong></p>
<p>Not obvious, but there are a few possibles. Some of it will depend on when that time comes, but I think it’s quite probable that it will not be one of the well-known, current leading politicians. It is more likely to go down to a generation like <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/people/priti-patel">Priti Patel</a>, like <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/people/sajid-javid">Sajid Javid</a>, people of that kind who will make their mark over the next months and years and will come with fresh ideas, having learned from some of the mistakes.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/176254/original/file-20170629-16069-1me5tu0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/176254/original/file-20170629-16069-1me5tu0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/176254/original/file-20170629-16069-1me5tu0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=796&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176254/original/file-20170629-16069-1me5tu0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=796&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176254/original/file-20170629-16069-1me5tu0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=796&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176254/original/file-20170629-16069-1me5tu0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1000&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176254/original/file-20170629-16069-1me5tu0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1000&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176254/original/file-20170629-16069-1me5tu0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1000&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Priti Patel: a future Tory leader?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/london-oct-16-2016-priti-patel-522883207?src=uDgFiJA6bYnvaZBRcIYLaQ-1-17">Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>If Mrs May fails then those close to her will carry some of that failure. I think it would be easier to sell, in marketing terms, someone who was not broadly associated with that.</p>
<p><strong>Do you think it’s time for May to go?</strong></p>
<p>I think that will depend, as Harold Macmillan said, on events, dear boy, events. But we should remember Thatcher’s great dictum that every prime minister <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/uk_politics/04/thatchers_government/html/whitelaw.stm">needs a Willie</a>. May needs somebody as <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-theresa-may-should-appoint-a-deputy-prime-minister-79268">deputy prime minister</a> in the Lords, not a departmental minister, but doing what Willie Whitelaw did, dealing with all the awkward things, to sort them in a cabinet committee and then present that back to the cabinet. </p>
<p>The cabinet is now too big anyway and government is chaotically organised. We have people in more than one department, which is just silly. And then exotic titles. I ran the department of trade and industry – that is now spread over half a dozen departments. There are people trying to do things like produce an “industrial strategy”. An industrial strategy should comprise a government keeping out of the way as far as possible, but ensuring that there is an ample supply of well-educated people leaving school and university for jobs which actually exist. </p>
<p>We still have a dreadful shortage here of people in the building trades, and with high-tech skills. Meanwhile, there is an ample supply of sociologists. Kids are being conned into going to university and taught sociology because that’s what their lecturers want to teach. They come away thousands in debt with no real qualifications for work.</p>
<p><strong>So who is that Willie?</strong></p>
<p>One good candidate would be <a href="https://www.parliament.uk/biographies/lords/lord-king-of-bridgwater/254">Tom King</a>, who also knows Northern Ireland, having done that job. </p>
<h2>On Ireland</h2>
<p><strong>What do you think of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/conservatives-strike-deal-with-the-dup-experts-react-80101">deal the government has done with the DUP</a>? And given your view on public spending, do you think it’s a good use of £1 billion of taxpayers’ money?</strong></p>
<p>I don’t think it was necessary to pay anything. The idea that the DUP would precipitate another general election in which they might have the friends of the IRA like Jeremy Corbyn in charge? No, they wouldn’t have done it. </p>
<p><strong>So you would have counselled May not to pay that money?</strong></p>
<p>Yes. It should just have been an understanding. “We will do lots of things to be nice to you and helpful to you because we appreciate the difficult circumstances of Northern Ireland. As we always have done. We are the Unionist party. And one thing we do not want is to let those pro-IRA people get into office.” </p>
<p><strong>Do you think the deal could disrupt the peace process in Northern Ireland?</strong></p>
<p>I don’t think so. The most likely interruption to that process would be a Marxist government here, which would favour the IRA. The IRA haven’t gone away. They’ve all been given free passes and things like that. They haven’t been brought to justice. </p>
<p><strong>That seems to indicate that you think we now take the peace for granted?</strong></p>
<p>I think we do take it for granted a bit, because given the chance the IRA would be back again for more. They learnt that violence paid. And, of course, [Tony] Blair surrendered to them. Had Airey Neave not been murdered, he would have been secretary of state for Northern Ireland. And I know what he would have done, I’m sure, because I was very close to him. His view was that the first thing you must do is lock, bolt and slam shut the door to union [with the Republic of Ireland]. You have to make people believe that they’re not going to get what they are being asked to fight for. And second, you have to destroy the IRA. And if he’d been in office when somebody came to him and said the IRA wanted a cease fire, I’m pretty sure he would have said: “They will have one, before long.” </p>
<p><strong>So do you think the peace process pursued since the early 1990s by John Major was a failure?</strong></p>
<p>It’s not altogether a failure, but John Major started to pursue it after they landed a hand grenade on the roof of Number 10 … I have the advantage of having seen ceilings come down before – the one in the Grand Hotel. When you’ve dusted yourself down a bit like that as a kid at school and been expected nonetheless to present your homework the following morning, you have a different view of these things.</p>
<h2>On Brexit</h2>
<p><strong>It has been reported that the Cabinet is badly split over Brexit. Do you think these are teething problems and turf wars, or that the government doesn’t really know what it wants?</strong></p>
<p>Well, there are still <a href="https://theconversation.com/shout-loud-remainers-democracy-means-giving-the-majority-a-hard-time-67020">Remoaners</a>, moaning away. I don’t like referenda. I think they’re alien to our system, but it was an escape route which [David] Cameron took because he was always looking for an escape route, even if it wasn’t going the way that he wanted to go. But having had it, and had the verdict given by the people, then it has to be carried through. And that means we need to be a bit <a href="https://theconversation.com/this-will-of-the-people-talk-must-stop-we-need-a-better-democracy-than-that-72018">robust</a>. </p>
<p>We need to tell our friends in Brussels that Brexit means Brexit and that means that we will no longer be subject in any way to the jurisdiction of their <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-churchill-would-have-disagreed-with-theresa-mays-stance-on-european-human-rights-78579">courts</a>. We accept of course that we have some obligation to help pay for policies which we’ve launched. But we also have a right to part of the freehold of all the premises which are occupied by the European Commission in Brussels and things of that kind. Otherwise, we might put the bailiffs in. </p>
<p>We just need to get robust about these things: you can’t have a <a href="https://theconversation.com/theresa-mays-hard-brexit-hinges-on-a-dated-vision-of-global-trade-71442">half-and-half Brexit</a>. The image that comes to me is the cat in the cat flap, with one end outside in the cold and the other in the kitchen. It’s an undignified and unworkable position in which to be. </p>
<p>My view is quite simple and goes back a long time. Henry VIII rescued the church in England from Rome. Elizabeth I rescued Europe from Philip of Spain. The Duke of Wellington rescued Europe from Bonaparte. Lloyd George and co. rescued us and Europe from the Kaiser. Churchill and Attlee rescued us from Hitler. When did they [the EU] ever <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-the-eu-played-a-key-role-in-smoothing-relations-between-london-and-dublin-60657">rescue us</a>? </p>
<p><strong>You sit in the House of Lords. It’s often criticised as out of touch and undemocratic. But it’s going to have a say in Brexit. Do you think the Lords will play games with the government over Brexit?</strong></p>
<p>They would be very unwise to do so. We know that if the new Labour party came into office, they would have short shrift for the House of Lords. So they should think a little bit about that. The public also voted overwhelmingly for parties who declared themselves in favour of Brexit. So, hold on, fellas. You may be signing your own death warrants. </p>
<p>Brexit is actually terribly simple: we go. I do not envisage that when the guy comes from Singapore Airlines to Toulouse and says he’d like to buy an Airbus, that the French would say: “Yes, you can have one, but it will have no wings, no engines and no landing gear because we don’t do business with the British.” </p>
<h2>On industrial action</h2>
<p><strong>You famously piloted through the Commons the trade union legislation which is seen as a flagship of the Thatcher government and certainly helped reduce the number of days lost to strikes over time. But as anyone who is a regular commuter on <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-40430429">Southern Rail knows</a>, the unions still have the power to make peoples’ lives a misery. Do you think that means that what you did back in the 1980s needs to be taken further?</strong></p>
<p>There might be a marginal case for increasing the ballot turnout to make a strike lawful, but I think the prime issues at Southern Rail are the problems of a botched privatisation. This system simply doesn’t work because the interests of the company which owns the track freeholds is fundamentally opposed to that of the operator of the trains. And if the management doesn’t work, there is an opportunity for nasty-minded people to foment grievance. And that’s what happened. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/176252/original/file-20170629-16075-1r9vdow.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/176252/original/file-20170629-16075-1r9vdow.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176252/original/file-20170629-16075-1r9vdow.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176252/original/file-20170629-16075-1r9vdow.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176252/original/file-20170629-16075-1r9vdow.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176252/original/file-20170629-16075-1r9vdow.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176252/original/file-20170629-16075-1r9vdow.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Southern Rail: bad news for commuters.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/london-england-march-31-2017-southern-612338060?src=KiWxQxBGujcqATxLQhdPbg-1-4">Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><strong>So you don’t think that that’s a problem with privatisation, per se, but a problem with the way it was privatised?</strong></p>
<p>Yes. After all, the railways worked rather well from the late 19th century until they were nationalised. Part of the problem had arisen because during the war there was no investment in them so they were in a poor state and they needed a lot of investment. But the last thing to do with a business that needs investment is to nationalise it, because then it comes to a choice between putting money into the railways or putting money into the national health or defence or overseas aid or something.</p>
<p>That legislation which I took through on trade union law … rested on the assumption that the chaps on the shop floor were not strike happy and eager to get out on strike. As I explained to the prime minister, being on strike is a miserable business: your wife curses you because you’re about the house and there’s no money for groceries. And even if you get a fairly good deal out of it, it’s a long time before you’ve made up what you’ve lost. </p>
<p>So why were they on strike so often? Well, they were on strike so often because, of course, they didn’t have a right to a fair ballot because the trade unionists, many of whom had links with Moscow, were selling the idea that only they could stop these mad, strike happy buggers from going out on strike, and that we’d have to deal with them. I just simply disproved that.</p>
<h2>On populism and political bubbles</h2>
<p><strong>Politics now seems to have become very much a graduate profession in which people start pretty early. It tends to attract middle-class rather than working-class people. Now you’re somebody who didn’t go to university. You come from a working-class background and you did some things before you got into politics: you were a pilot, for example. Do you think something’s gone wrong with the way that we recruit politicians now?</strong></p>
<p>We’ve slipped into the idea that politics is a career option, that you go from school to university and from there to a job at Conservative Central Office and then, if you’re lucky, you become a bag carrier, a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_advisers_(UK_government)">spad</a> or some ridiculous thing to a member of parliament. And then you go on until eventually you become a member of parliament. You then hope to be a minister and so it goes on. We’ve got a lot of members who are uniquely disqualified from any knowledge of the wider world.</p>
<p><strong>Do you think that damages politics?</strong></p>
<p>Yes. You mentioned my own background before I came into this house. I had indeed been both a military pilot and a civil pilot and air navigator. So I travelled very widely. And I knew the places that we were talking about. That was enormously helpful to me. In those days, we had in the house a lot of people who had no desire for office and therefore were extremely difficult to bribe – or influence, shall we say. </p>
<p>And I think it accounts for part of the public attitude of disenchantment with the Westminster bubble.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/176251/original/file-20170629-16091-1smybgu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/176251/original/file-20170629-16091-1smybgu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=426&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176251/original/file-20170629-16091-1smybgu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=426&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176251/original/file-20170629-16091-1smybgu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=426&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176251/original/file-20170629-16091-1smybgu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=535&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176251/original/file-20170629-16091-1smybgu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=535&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176251/original/file-20170629-16091-1smybgu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=535&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Nigel Farage: beneficiary of the Westminster bubble.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/download/confirm/536718256?src=m45YZufZVLt-sHaML6v6tA-1-10&size=medium_jpg">Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><strong>Did it help UKIP, for example, when it saw a surge in popularity before the Brexit vote?</strong></p>
<p>Yes. Because UKIP was a very anti-establishment party. I think that it [UKIP] has now served its purpose, or I hope it has, because I hope within two years we shall be a free country again.</p>
<p><strong>Some argue that the grass roots of the Conservative party have withered. Why is that?</strong></p>
<p>One reason is that in the 1970s, the local Conservative Association dinner and dance was quite a social occasion. Not so now – and we haven’t devised other ways of binding people into membership. </p>
<p>The other aspect is that in those days the associations had much stronger say in selecting their candidate. Nowadays, they tend to be the five star, central office-approved, young person dumped on them.</p>
<h2>On integration and modern Britain</h2>
<p><strong>You famously have expressed your concerns not just about immigration but about integration. How well do you think the country is doing now at integrating new arrivals?</strong></p>
<p>To some extent, we’re doing pretty well. But the pace of those coming in is now greater than we can cope with.</p>
<p>In general, clearly there are some people who do not accept our social structure. That is a major difficulty. Previous waves of immigrants have done so and the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/aug/11/race.world">Ugandan Asians</a>, I was wrong about. I didn’t think they would integrate quickly, but in fact they not only integrated quickly but proved themselves to be an extremely talented group of people. So that’s not a problem. But those who deride me for being a Christian and refer to me as a “kafir” [derogatory term for a non-believer], I find that difficult to accept. </p>
<p><strong>We’ve seen a lot of change since you were in the Commons, one being attitudes to, and legislation affecting, gay people. Have you grown more comfortable with those changes?</strong></p>
<p>I share the same view as <a href="http://news.sky.com/story/tim-farron-resigns-as-leader-of-liberal-democrats-10915873">Tim Farron</a>, which is that to be a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/02/tim-farron-again-refuses-to-say-whether-homosexuality-is-a-sin-lgbt-rights">homosexual cannot be a sin</a> because that is what God has created. </p>
<p>But it is perfectly sensible to argue that a homosexual act is a sin because that is what the Bible has said from the time of the Old Testament through the New Testament. So therefore, as a Christian, should you dump all that and still call yourself a Christian? It’s a bit doubtful. </p>
<p>I opposed gay marriage because it is fundamentally not what marriage was set out to be. And I don’t like this way of proceeding by simply changing the meaning of a word. We’re doing too much of that. </p>
<p><strong>Politicians often get associated with one phrase and one that is often associated with you, even though you never actually said it so directly, is your telling the unemployed to “get on their bikes”. Is it something you just accept now, or do you feel it’s unfair?</strong></p>
<p>It may be unfair, but I had the advantage of growing up through a hard schooling. I celebrate next month my 70th anniversary of being at work. I started work when I was 16, at the Financial Times at a time when 16-year-olds like me were given enormously greater opportunities than they would be now. </p>
<p>One day, the markets editor came into the office and I was the only one sitting there. And he said: “Have you noticed the gold share index recently. It’s a nonsense isn’t it?” During the war years, nothing was done to compensate for the fact that a lot of the companies in it were going out of business and new ones were coming into the market. And so a lot of the shares in it were dead weight. So I recast the gold index. Now how many 16-year-olds would be offered an opportunity like that today?</p>
<p><strong>You now do a lot of journalism. Do you ever wish that you’d taken a different route, like George Osborne, and returned to newspapers earlier?</strong></p>
<p>George Osborne is not a journalist. He’s the manager of a giveaway newspaper no one would buy. And he is possessed by some sense of grievance. So I think it would serve him right if people went around collecting copies of the paper en masse and dumping them in the river.</p>
<p><strong>Would you still advise a young person to go into politics these days and what advice would have for them?</strong></p>
<p>[They should wait until they’re] in their late thirties or early forties. I’d also say do something else first. Do not become constrained by the boundaries of the Westminster bubble.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/80159/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tim Bale does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>An exclusive interview with Norman Tebbit on Thatcher, Brexit, Theresa May’s potential successors … and a certain former chancellor.Tim Bale, Professor of Politics, Queen Mary University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/801012017-06-26T15:26:23Z2017-06-26T15:26:23ZConservatives strike deal with the DUP: experts react<p>After more than two weeks of negotiating, Theresa May, the UK prime minister, has reached a confidence and supply deal with Northern Ireland’s Democratic Unionist Party (DUP). In exchange for parliamentary support for her minority government, May has pledged to invest around an extra £1 billion in Northern Ireland, largely to be spent on health, education and infrastructure. Below, our experts respond to the development.</p>
<h2>The view from Belfast</h2>
<p><strong>John Garry, professor of political behaviour, Queen’s University Belfast.</strong></p>
<p>“Our aim in these negotiations has been to deliver for <em>all</em> of the people of Northern Ireland.” DUP leader Arlene Foster’s heavy emphasis on the word “all” when announcing her <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/621794/Confidence_and_Supply_Agreement_between_the_Conservative_Party_and_the_DUP.pdf">deal with the Conservative government</a> illustrates the way her party will sell this deal as a victory for Northern Ireland rather than a victory for the DUP or for unionism.</p>
<p>Everyone is in favour of great wads of cash, after all, and the DUP is bringing it home by the bucket load from London. The figure of <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/621797/UK_Govt__financial_support_for_Northern_Ireland.pdf">£1 billion</a> has a very nice round and rosy look to it and the DUP will quite rightly be able to boast that it has played a blinder at the negotiation poker table. There are promises of investments in Northern Ireland’s hospitals, roads and schools. It’s hard to knock that, whatever your community background.</p>
<p>And, right on script, the Welsh and the Scots are hopping mad with envy, which is fantastic news for the DUP. The greater their incandescence, the more savvy a political player Foster looks. Even the English are bemoaning the greater resources going to Northern Ireland. It’s very hard for political opponents to caricature Foster as primarily driven by a unionist agenda if she has managed to annoy the entire rest of the UK by redirecting British gold to Belfast. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"879316612905660419"}"></div></p>
<p>It’s crucial for the DUP that the coverage of this deal is about money for Northern Ireland as it will facilitate a story of ruthlessly effective engagement by the DUP at Westminster to improve the everyday lives of everyone in Northern Ireland – in contrast, the DUP will argue, to Sinn Féin’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/fighting-an-election-only-to-refuse-a-seat-sinn-fein-and-westminster-abstention-76963">policy of abstention</a>. The greater challenge for the party is to convince people that this deal is completely separate from any emerging deal to re-establish a <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-a-tory-dup-deal-could-bring-even-stormier-waters-to-northern-ireland-79235?sr=2">power sharing government</a> in Northern Ireland.</p>
<h2>The magic money tree blossoms</h2>
<p><strong>Stuart McAnulla, associate professor in politics, University of Leeds</strong></p>
<p>The money involved in this deal is much less likely to worry the Conservatives than the political cost. Many will ask why the Conservatives’ election manifesto didn’t contain more of the kind of pledges now being made for Northern Ireland in this deal.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"879293511098667008"}"></div></p>
<p>Having attacked Labour for offering endless funds from a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/06/magic-money-tree-theresa-may-banks-nurses">“magic money tree”</a>, the Conservatives will now be asked why money can seemingly be quickly found when it is politically expedient for them.</p>
<p>By no means were all Conservatives on board with this deal. Former prime minister <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/election-2017-john-major-theresa-may-conservatives-dup-deal-violence-northern-ireland-a7787681.html">John Major</a> warned it could destabilise the Northern Ireland peace process. Others argued the Conservatives could have governed as a minority without a formal deal, as the DUP would have been unlikely to vote against them in a confidence vote and risk the Republican-sympathetic Jeremy Corbyn becoming prime minister.</p>
<p>However, the deal does have clear benefits for the Conservatives. DUP backing is guaranteed on the issues of Brexit and security, and this could prove invaluable when controversial aspects of British withdrawal for the EU are debated. The deal offers May the possibility, however daunting, of leading Britain through Brexit, with the hope that successful leadership can turn around her fortunes. However in the short-to-medium term this arrangement will give ammunition to her opponents inside and outside the Conservative party.</p>
<h2>Understanding the political play</h2>
<p><strong>Katy Hayward, senior lecturer in sociology, Queen’s University Belfast</strong></p>
<p>The deal will please the party’s supporters in both style and content. The DUP’s statement emphasises the “shared priorities” of the two parties when it comes to national security and Brexit. The security aspect of the deal is really an opportunity to draw parallels between the threat of terrorism in the UK and the NI experience, which the DUP does not wish to be forgotten. The focus on Brexit is an attempt to show that DUP party interests are the same as “national” ones – even where they apparently conflict with the regional interests of Northern Ireland.</p>
<p>The 56% Remain vote in Northern Ireland and the consistent evidence of the economic dangers posed to NI by a hard Brexit are made subservient here to the greater ideological cause. DUP leaders want to present themselves as dedicated evangelists for exiting the EU.</p>
<p>In terms of the details of the financial plan, there is no sense here of the future development of the UK or Northern Ireland’s place within it. The DUP wish list is made up of very local concerns (such as Belfast’s York Street interchange) and some rather vague demands (enhanced promotion of NI through UK embassies). Together, these demands fall far short of meeting the financial challenges that already exist in Northern Ireland, or that are bound to come as a result of Brexit. </p>
<h2>A corporation tax sweetener</h2>
<p><strong>Grahame Steven, lecturer in accounting, Edinburgh Napier University</strong></p>
<p>The UK currently has a single corporation tax rate – but this is apparently going to change. The agreement between the Tories and the DUP states that one of their first tasks is to devolve control of corporation tax rates to Northern Ireland.</p>
<p>If Stormont sets the Northern Irish tax rate lower than the rest of the UK, some companies will naturally be tempted to be taxed there. While this wouldn’t be practical for many companies – manufacturers, say, or retailers with face-to-face businesses – it could open up opportunities for plenty of others, in particular e-businesses. Still, if the rates were significantly lower, manufacturers could be tempted to set up marketing and research development activities in Northern Ireland to gain a tax advantage, <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-ireland-managed-to-keep-investment-flowing-during-the-tough-times-44379">as many companies have done</a> in the Republic of Ireland.</p>
<p>So how does this work? The internet allows businesses to deal directly with their customers wherever they’re located. <a href="http://www.seqlegal.com/blog/offer-and-acceptance-online">Legally speaking</a>, websites that display products are “invitations to treat”; an invitation is “accepted” when a confirmation email is sent to a customer from the country where the order is accepted. So provided they accept orders via the internet, companies can choose where they want to be taxed. Perhaps Amazon, Apple, Google and so on will start looking for office space in Belfast.</p>
<p>Still, this could be just the beginning. If the corporation tax promise is fulfilled, the Scottish government will surely consider seeking the same power. Should Wales enter the fray, the UK could end up with four tax jurisdictions competing for business by reducing tax rates. May’s government might just have kick-started a new race to the bottom.</p>
<h2>Historical precedent</h2>
<p><strong>Conor Mulvagh, lecturer in Irish history, University College Dublin</strong></p>
<p>It’s useful to consider some historical precedents for this deal. Between two major seat redistributions in the <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1983/2">Representation of the People Acts</a> of 1884 and 1918, Irish MPs managed to hold the balance of power in no less than four of the eight general elections held: 1885, 1892, and twice in 1910. Since the south of Ireland gained independence in 1922 and ceased to send MPs to Westminster, Northern Irish Westminster MPs have had occasion to call the shots when UK governments were clinging to power – but never before have they secured a position as commanding as that now held by the DUP.</p>
<p>The 1885 general election was the first time that British electors were rudely awakened to the fact that Irish MPs could seize the balance of power at Westminster and dictate the terms of their support. <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/parnell_charles.shtml">Charles Stewart Parnell</a>, leader of the Irish Nationalist Home Rule party, was in a manifestly better position than that which DUP leader Arlene Foster occupies today. His party’s 86 seats could either grant Gladstone’s Liberal party a comfortable majority or he could combine with the Conservatives to produce a dead even split: 335 seats apiece. Parnell was not ashamed to entertain overtures from both parties. He extracted major concessions from Gladstone which ultimately split the British Liberal party over home rule in 1886. Foster does not have such a strong hand today. She can either prop up the government with a tight margin or she can send the entire country back to the polls.</p>
<p>In 1886, home rule was the price Parnell charged for his support, and all players knew in advance that would be the demand on the table. In 2017, the mainstay of the DUP deal with the Conservative party is cold hard cash. Only time will tell what impact an additional £1 billion in government spending will have for communities across Northern Ireland.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/80101/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Garry is the Principal Investigator on the ESRC funded ‘Northern Ireland Assembly Election Study 2016’ and the Principal Investigator on the ESRC funded ‘The UK/Ireland Border and the Stability of Peace and Security in Northern Ireland’ study focusing on Brexit and Northern Ireland.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Katy Hayward has received funding from the ESRC and is on the Board of the Centre for Cross Border Studies.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Conor Mulvagh, Grahame Steven, and Stuart McAnulla do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The unionists have pledged to back up the Conservative government in exchange for an extra £1 billion for Northern IrelandJohn Garry, School of History, Anthropology, Philosohy and Politics, Queen's University BelfastConor Mulvagh, Lecturer in Irish History, University College DublinGrahame Steven, Lecturer in Accounting, Edinburgh Napier UniversityKaty Hayward, Reader in Sociology, Queen's University BelfastStuart McAnulla, Associate Professor in Politics, University of LeedsLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/800242017-06-26T11:58:59Z2017-06-26T11:58:59ZCorbyn’s Brexit strategy may have paid off after all in 2017 election<p>The 2017 general election was billed as the “Brexit election”. Set against the backdrop of the 2016 <a href="http://ukandeu.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/One-year-on.pdf">EU referendum</a>, the prime minister, Theresa May, framed the vote as a way of “strengthening her hand” ahead of the negotiations with the EU and ensuring stability. But, in the end, she achieved neither.</p>
<p>While the Conservative party attracted a <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32624405">42.4% share of the national vote</a> – its highest share since 1979 and an increase of more than 5% on 2015 – the party failed to increase its number of seats. At 318, the Conservatives won 13 fewer seats than in 2015 and were left eight short of a majority. A working majority of 17 made way for a hung parliament and negotiations with the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), which if successful will leave May, now a greatly diminished figure, with a working majority of just 13.</p>
<p>Jeremy Corbyn, meanwhile, had a better night than expected. The Labour party polled 40% of the national vote – its highest share since 2001 and a 9.5-point increase since 2015. It came away with 262 seats – 30 more than in 2015.</p>
<p>Can the election result be attributed to a Brexit effect? Initial <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/11/brexit-lite-back-on-table-as-britain-rethinks-options-after-election">reactions</a> to the result certainly focused on the Brexit realignment. The shock Labour win in <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-40212652">Canterbury</a> came to epitomise this. Labour’s vote increased over 20 percentage points in this traditionally Conservative seat, which is home to two university campuses and where 55% of voters were estimated to have voted Remain. The constituency has voted Conservative since it was created in 1918.</p>
<h2>The Brexit effect</h2>
<p>Figure 1 illustrates the changes in English and Welsh constituencies by their estimated support for Leave in the 2016 EU referendum, based on figures provided by <a href="https://medium.com/@chrishanretty/">Chris Hanretty</a>. The Conservatives stagnated or fell back in Remain areas, gaining the most ground in the strongest Brexit seats, which also saw the biggest collapse of UKIP support. This fits with much of the pre-election polling showing large-scale switching from UKIP to the Conservatives.</p>
<p>The surprise comes on the Labour side. The party’s surge was greatest in the strongest Remain areas, but Labour surged everywhere else, too. Corbyn’s party was up by nearly 13 points on 2015 in seats where less than 35% voted Leave; and rose a still hefty 7.4 points in seats where more than 65% did so.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/175396/original/file-20170623-25170-gqzzi8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/175396/original/file-20170623-25170-gqzzi8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/175396/original/file-20170623-25170-gqzzi8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=279&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175396/original/file-20170623-25170-gqzzi8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=279&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175396/original/file-20170623-25170-gqzzi8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=279&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175396/original/file-20170623-25170-gqzzi8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=351&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175396/original/file-20170623-25170-gqzzi8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=351&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175396/original/file-20170623-25170-gqzzi8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=351&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Brexit election.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This had two important effects. First, the fall in Conservative support combined with the surge in Labour support was sufficient to topple huge majorities in Conservative-held Remain seats. This was particularly the case in London, where Labour overturned large majorities in Battersea, Kensington and Enfield Southgate. It also slashed Conservative majorities in previously safe seats such as Putney and the cities of London and Westminster. Big swings in Remain seats have created a new swathe of marginal seats for Labour to target in the next election.</p>
<p>Second, Labour’s resilience in Leave areas thwarted Conservative attempts to turn traditional working class Labour heartlands blue by consolidating UKIP support. The Conservatives increased their vote in such areas, often dramatically, and usually at UKIP’s expense. Yet, Labour also bounced back in these areas, so the net Labour to Conservative swing was weak, even in the strongest Leave seats. The Conservatives made just six gains from Labour in Leave areas of England and Wales. Most MPs representing heavily Leave seats such as Derby North, Bolsover and Stoke North held on with reduced majorities.</p>
<h2>Party strategies</h2>
<p>May expected her embrace of Brexit to fundamentally change the electoral map in her favour, by holding Remain voting heartlands while expanding into Leave-voting Labour strongholds. Instead the opposite occurred: Labour held firm in its Leave-leaning seats, and achieved often stunning advances in previously true-blue Remain seats.</p>
<p>One possible reason is that in the “Brexit election”, Corbyn’s position on the EU was better aligned with the electorate than May’s. The prime minister’s ever more strident and inflexible language on Brexit alarmed Remain-leaning voters in traditionally Conservative areas and put her reputation as a competent steward of negotiations at risk. She looked like a leader determined to appease the most vocal and ideological Brexiteers at any cost.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/175426/original/file-20170623-12648-c1y7tk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/175426/original/file-20170623-12648-c1y7tk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175426/original/file-20170623-12648-c1y7tk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175426/original/file-20170623-12648-c1y7tk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175426/original/file-20170623-12648-c1y7tk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175426/original/file-20170623-12648-c1y7tk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175426/original/file-20170623-12648-c1y7tk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Jez we can, and will, win over Leavers and Remainers alike.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">PA</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Corbyn’s strategy, by contrast, moved Labour towards the mildly eurosceptic centre. Faced with a complex issue where his party’s traditional position was a long way from the median voter’s, Corbyn embraced the pro-Brexit position of the median voter, even at the risk of antagonising the strongly pro-EU segments of the Labour coalition. It was a move reminiscent of one made by an earlier Labour leader. In 1997, Tony Blair gambled that he could pitch to the centre ground on economic issues while retaining the loyalties of working-class left wingers.</p>
<p>On Brexit, Corbyn pitched to the eurosceptic centre ground by voting to invoke Article 50 and accepting the end of freedom of movement. He gambled that Remain voters, alarmed by May’s rhetoric and hard Brexit policy, would recognise Labour as the only viable alternative. This Brexit Blairism helped blunt the Conservatives’ appeal in Leave areas, while allowing Labour to capitalise on alarm about May’s UKIP tribute act in Remain areas.</p>
<p>Of course, Brexit was not the only factor driving the results. Leave and Remain voting patterns capture a range of other fundamental differences between people and places: in identity attachments, social class, education levels, ethnic diversity and views of immigration, among others.</p>
<p>Yet this may be another reason Brexit Blairism proved a smart strategy. Labour’s decision to embrace departure from the EU in some form may have helped them reframe the election around other issues such as austerity and public services, and remind voters in Leave areas of their traditional suspicions about the Conservatives. Meanwhile in Remain areas, the party could advance by promising a “softer” alternative approach to “hard” Brexit. The Conservatives went into this election eager to paint Labour as out of touch and extreme, but failed to realise that, in their own heartlands, they were vulnerable to the same charge.</p>
<p><em>This article was co-published with <a href="http://ukandeu.ac.uk/">The UK in a Changing Europe</a></em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/80024/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Matthew Goodwin receives funding from the ESRC and the UK in a Changing Europe.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Maria Sobolewska receives funding from the ESRC and the UK in a Changing Europe. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Robert Ford receives funding from the ESRC and the UK in a Changing Europe. </span></em></p>Jeremy Corbyn was criticised for his unclear position on Brexit, but it may actually have been the smarter move.Matthew Goodwin, Associate Professor, University of KentMaria Sobolewska, Senior Lecturer in Politics, University of ManchesterRobert Ford, Senior Lecturer in Politics, University of ManchesterLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/800342017-06-23T16:16:24Z2017-06-23T16:16:24ZDaily Mail vs The Guardian: why did editor Paul Dacre lose his rag?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/175405/original/file-20170623-17502-sxq983.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=5%2C0%2C771%2C495&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Tweet by Liz Gerrard juxtaposing Martin Rowson's Guardian cartoon with the Daily Mail editorial..
</span> </figcaption></figure><p>“Words have consequences. They lead to actions.” So <a href="http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/time-tory-right-709511774">wrote</a> Peter Oborne, the maverick right-leaning Daily Mail columnist about the shocking events in <a href="https://theconversation.com/finsbury-park-attack-shows-the-harm-islamophobia-continues-to-inflict-on-muslim-communities-79682?sr=2">north London</a> recently when a white van deliberately ran into a crowd of Muslims outside a mosque, killing one and injuring several others.</p>
<p>Oborne did not write this for his weekly column (it was in the online journal Middle East Eye) nor did he mention the Mail by name. He did, however, conclude a powerful piece by saying that “the moment has come for some of my colleagues (and, in some cases, friends) in the conservative press to ask some deep, searching questions about their own use of language about Muslims and Islam”.</p>
<p>A day later, the Guardian featured a cartoon by Martin Rowson which mocked up a picture of the van and superimposed on its side: “Read the Sun & the Daily Mail” using the easily recognisable logos of both newspapers.</p>
<p>It was a brilliantly simple and satirical means of delivering exactly the same message as Oborne: that the right-wing press – and particularly the two daily papers with the highest circulations in Britain – must take responsibility for the barrage of anti-Muslim propaganda which both papers have been peddling through their news and editorial columns for years.</p>
<p>This was too much for the Mail’s editor-in-chief Paul Dacre and the paper responded with a furious tirade directed at the Guardian. Taking a whole page of Thursday’s Daily Mail, in an editorial dominated by a headline which screamed “Fake news, the fascist Left and the REAL purveyors of hatred”, the editorial aimed both barrels at the newspaper – and its left-liberal readership – which Dacre has <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/12/left-daily-mail-paul-dacre">made no secret of despising</a>.</p>
<h2>Two competing voices</h2>
<p>The sheer visceral ferocity of this editorial broadside took even some seasoned observers by surprise. But it can be understood in the context of two opposing visions of post-Brexit Britain. The Guardian – which has tried with <a href="https://www.buzzfeed.com/stevenperlberg/how-the-guardian-lost-america?utm_term=.oxlqOn8VQe#.hhxVM462GZ">varying degrees of success</a> to export its news brand to Australia and the US – represents Britain’s liberal conscience, embracing causes such as greater redistribution of wealth and Britain’s place in Europe, while campaigning against human rights abuses and climate change.</p>
<p>The Mail is the complete antithesis, ferociously anti-Europe with a long history of supporting right-wing causes including – famously – the <a href="http://archive.spectator.co.uk/article/19th-january-1934/6/lord-rothermeres-hurrah-for-the-blackshirts-articl">Hitler-supporting blackshirts</a> during the 1930s. It claims to speak for “Middle England”, an amorphous construct which is better described as a traditional, older and predominantly white readership.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/175410/original/file-20170623-17477-ebyq02.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/175410/original/file-20170623-17477-ebyq02.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/175410/original/file-20170623-17477-ebyq02.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=449&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175410/original/file-20170623-17477-ebyq02.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=449&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175410/original/file-20170623-17477-ebyq02.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=449&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175410/original/file-20170623-17477-ebyq02.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=565&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175410/original/file-20170623-17477-ebyq02.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=565&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175410/original/file-20170623-17477-ebyq02.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=565&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">In retrospect, not a particularly good idea fron the Mail’s owner.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>It was this readership which Dacre’s savage attack purported to defend, arguing that the Guardian’s cartoon was sick, disgusting and “so deranged and offensive to the 4m decent, humane and responsible people who read us that we owe it to every one [of them] to lay to rest this malicious smear”.</p>
<h2>Confusing claim</h2>
<p>Apart from its ferocity, Dacre’s editorial was remarkable for two things. First, it attempted to argue that the Mail newspaper was completely separate from Mail Online which “has its own publisher, its own readership, different content and a very different world view”. He was keen to distance the paper, in particular, from the right-wing columnist Katie Hopkins and her deliberately provocative commentary following the Manchester and London terrorist attacks (including one tweet, since deleted, calling for a “final solution”).</p>
<p>This sleight of hand was very quickly demolished by, among others, LBC presenter James O’Brien, who asked how this apparent separation can be reconciled with Dacre’s apparent receipt of a performance-related £263,388 bonus for continuing to invest in digital consumer media, particularly Mail Online. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/7oSAYF44GwQ?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>And as many others pointed out, the Mail Online site states explicitly: “Published by Associated Newspapers Ltd Part of the Daily Mail, The Mail on Sunday and Metro Media Group.”</p>
<p>Second, Dacre also insisted that there was “not a shred of evidence” for the Guardian’s implicit claim that the Mail was encouraging Islamophobia. He declared confidently that “we harbour not the faintest animosity towards others on account of their colour or creed”. Others, however, were very quick to provide the evidence from Dacre’s own paper.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"877827848702013440"}"></div></p>
<p>Influential blogger Liz Gerard <a href="https://twitter.com/gameoldgirl/status/877819902739881984">tweeted</a> out a choice selection from the Mail’s Mac cartoons, including one infamous example which showed an outline of sinister-looking people, quite clearly caricature Muslims, crossing into Europe accompanied by scurrying rats. Others posted <a href="https://twitter.com/KeepUsInTheEU/status/877917247049793540">links</a> to headlines – particularly numerous in the run-up to last year’s referendum – with inflammatory headlines such as “Fury over plot to let 1.5m Turks into Britain” and “PM: UK Muslims helping jihadis”.</p>
<p>What explains this sudden outburst of rage which had several observers – not only on the left – scratching their heads? A simple explanation may be the general election result. Not only had Dacre <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/mar/30/paul-dacre-theresa-may-private-dinner-daily-mail-editor-no-10">hitched the paper’s wagon</a> firmly to Theresa May, but he had orchestrated a series of <a href="http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/daily-mail-and-sun-launch-front-page-attacks-on-corbyn-as-fleet-street-lines-up-behind-theresa-may/">attacks on Jeremy Corbyn</a>, warning of everything from national bankruptcy to freedom for terrorists should Labour be elected.</p>
<p>It was a rude awakening when the Conservatives snatched defeat from the jaws of certain victory, and quite possible a defeat that Dacre felt personally. I have argued <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/professor-steven-barnett/dont-underestimate-the-po_b_17121064.html">elsewhere</a> that we should beware simplistic assumptions about the declining power of Britain’s tabloid press. </p>
<p>But this editorial suggests that Dacre at least feels that allegations of barely concealed racism in his newspaper are more potent – and that its “middle-England” values are more vulnerable – than they were just three weeks ago. For him personally it seems an uncomfortable – and possibly permanent – shift in the political centre of gravity.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/80034/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Steven Barnett does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Journalism is the first casualty as two UK newspapers with competing world views go to war.Steven Barnett, Professor of Communications, University of WestminsterLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/799402017-06-23T13:24:33Z2017-06-23T13:24:33ZFrom cat gifs to serious political clout: Buzzfeed and the 2017 UK election<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/175194/original/file-20170622-11958-1ozpowx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Roman Tiraspolsky via Shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>When it comes to explaining Jeremy Corbyn’s success at the British general election, much attention is paid to the rise of alt-left news sites such as <a href="https://www.thecanary.co/">The Canary</a> and <a href="http://evolvepolitics.com/">Evolve Politics</a>. Some commentators <a href="http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/june2017/2017/06/labour-s-success-shows-political-hegemony-right-wing-press-ending">have even concluded</a> that the power of the right-wing press is over as young people increasingly turn to online and social media platforms for their news. </p>
<p>Buzzfeed’s Jim Waterson published a <a href="https://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/how-newspapers-lost-their-monopoly-on-the-political-agenda?utm_term=.jiN2kGK85X#.tdVrL8Rm0G">widely shared article</a>: “This Was The Election Where The Newspapers Lost Their Monopoly On The Political News Agenda”, highlighting the reach of new alt-left blogs and their new role in the fast-changing media ecosystem.</p>
<p>But while new partisan blogs have been connected to Labour’s electoral success, the role of Buzzfeed itself – which began life little more than ten years ago – has received far less attention. There was for a while some debate about whether Buzzfeed was a <a href="https://www.themediabriefing.com/article/vox-and-buzzfeed-brands-building-on-storytelling">tech company or a media organisation</a>, but the brand has in recent years established itself as a major news destination, particularly for young people. </p>
<p>It now has a <a href="http://www.digitalnewsreport.org/survey/2017/united-kingdom-2017/">weekly reach</a> similar to some of the largest online newspaper and broadcast platforms. And, while traditionally the battle over election night in the UK has been between BBC and ITV, Buzzfeed’s live coverage on Facebook <a href="https://digiday.com/media/buzzfeeds-live-uk-election-shows-facebook-draw-2-million-views/">attracted 2m viewers</a>. According to the latest <a href="http://www.digitalnewsreport.org/">Reuters 2017 Digital News Report</a>, Buzzfeed now has “strong political coverage aimed at millennials”.</p>
<p>But why did Buzzfeed became so popular, particularly with young people?
According to <a href="http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2015/06/25/digital-journalism-next-generation/">Michael Massing</a> (former editor of the the <a href="https://www.cjr.org/">Columbia Journalism Review</a>), Buzzfeed first became famous for “lightweight listicles … jaunty GIFs … teasing headlines, and, most of all, cute cats and dogs” and its advertisement for an “associate editor for animals” suggested a preference for reporting kittens in trees rather than politicians – like Theresa May – in kitten heels. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"877849383173316608"}"></div></p>
<p>But over the past couple of years, Buzzfeed has been investing in serious journalism, recruiting more staff – and it is beginning to be recognised as a key player. In 2017, for example, it received a <a href="http://www.poynter.org/2017/buzzfeed-news-gets-its-first-pulitzer-citation/455406/">nomination</a> for the Pulitzer Prize in international reporting and, in the UK, <a href="http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/buzzfeed-uk-expands-news-team-with-hires-from-politico-and-the-independent/">hired</a> Politico’s Alex Spence and former Independent journalist Emily Dugan (who was <a href="http://www.pressawards.org.uk/page-view.php?pagename=Shortlist-2015">shortlisted for the News Reporter of the Year award</a> at the 2015 British Press Awards). It has also attracted senior editors, including Janine Gibson, Stuart Millar and James Ball, all previously at <a href="http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/guardian-head-news-stuart-millar-follows-janine-gibson-and-james-ball-buzzfeed/">the Guardian</a>.</p>
<p>Although Buzzfeed has retained its original quirkiness, its news agenda serves audiences often not regularly exposed to political information. As Susana Sampaio-Dias and James Dennis of Portsmouth University <a href="http://www.electionanalysis.uk/uk-election-analysis-2017/section-3-news-and-journalism/not-just-swearing-and-loathing-on-the-internet-analysing-buzzfeed-and-vice-during-ge2017/">pointed out</a>, Buzzfeed still used “quizzes, dank memes, and cute photos of dogs at polling stations” in coverage of the election, but now such elements can act “as an important entry point for younger citizens into a range of complex political stories”. </p>
<h2>Changing style</h2>
<p>As part of an ongoing research project, we examined Buzzfeed during the 2015 and 2017 general election campaigns and found the tone, style and agenda has changed markedly. In 2017, coverage was more serious and informative, with more investigative and agenda-setting articles. More than one in four election articles were light hearted in nature in 2015, whereas during the 2017 campaign just over 5% had a comedic tone. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/175174/original/file-20170622-11958-i1l03c.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/175174/original/file-20170622-11958-i1l03c.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/175174/original/file-20170622-11958-i1l03c.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=370&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175174/original/file-20170622-11958-i1l03c.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=370&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175174/original/file-20170622-11958-i1l03c.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=370&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175174/original/file-20170622-11958-i1l03c.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=466&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175174/original/file-20170622-11958-i1l03c.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=466&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175174/original/file-20170622-11958-i1l03c.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=466&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Buzzfeed changes its outlook between 2015 and 2017.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In 2015, headlines such as “David Cameron Says He’s Learned ‘Frozen’ Off By Heart” and “This Woman Has Tattooed Alex Salmond’s Face On Her Leg” represented a large part of Buzzfeed’s agenda. But in 2017 the agenda became more policy-driven, including articles such as: “Labour Wants To Scrap Tuition Fees, Renationalise The Railways, And Give More Cash To The NHS” and “The Majority Of Tory MPs Will Still Be White And Male After The General Election”.</p>
<p>Overall, we found nearly three times more policy items in 2017 than 2015, with less emphasis on campaign process and the personalities of leaders. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/175176/original/file-20170622-11976-1kowscl.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/175176/original/file-20170622-11976-1kowscl.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/175176/original/file-20170622-11976-1kowscl.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=356&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175176/original/file-20170622-11976-1kowscl.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=356&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175176/original/file-20170622-11976-1kowscl.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=356&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175176/original/file-20170622-11976-1kowscl.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=447&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175176/original/file-20170622-11976-1kowscl.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=447&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175176/original/file-20170622-11976-1kowscl.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=447&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Focusing more on policy.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>However, in 2015 coverage of the parties was more diverse, prominently including articles about UKIP, the Greens and the SNP. In 2017 Buzzfeed focused on the two-horse race – Labour and the Conservatives – and the leadership battle between May and Corbyn. This follows the pattern of coverage in <a href="http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/june2017/2017/06/were-broadcasters-biased-against-jeremy-corbyn-its-details-count">broadcast news</a> and <a href="http://blog.lboro.ac.uk/crcc/general-election/media-coverage-of-the-2017-general-election-campaign-report-4/">the press</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/175177/original/file-20170622-11976-pxjnes.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/175177/original/file-20170622-11976-pxjnes.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/175177/original/file-20170622-11976-pxjnes.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=352&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175177/original/file-20170622-11976-pxjnes.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=352&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175177/original/file-20170622-11976-pxjnes.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=352&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175177/original/file-20170622-11976-pxjnes.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=442&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175177/original/file-20170622-11976-pxjnes.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=442&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175177/original/file-20170622-11976-pxjnes.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=442&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Reporting a two-horse race in 2017.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Partisan press</h2>
<p>Broadcasters, of course, have to remain impartial, whereas the UK national press are well known for their partisan coverage. In both 2015 and 2017 general election campaigns, a <a href="https://theconversation.com/conservatives-dominate-in-the-election-media-battle-77648?sr=2">Loughborough University study</a> found Labour overwhelmingly received negative coverage from newspapers while coverage of the Conservatives was largely positive. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/175387/original/file-20170623-27915-1kskfj7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/175387/original/file-20170623-27915-1kskfj7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/175387/original/file-20170623-27915-1kskfj7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=367&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175387/original/file-20170623-27915-1kskfj7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=367&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175387/original/file-20170623-27915-1kskfj7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=367&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175387/original/file-20170623-27915-1kskfj7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=462&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175387/original/file-20170623-27915-1kskfj7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=462&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175387/original/file-20170623-27915-1kskfj7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=462&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Buzzfeeed’s negative coverage form 2015 to 2017.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>By contrast, we found Labour received far more positive coverage and less negative framing in Buzzfeed news during the 2017 election campaign.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/175388/original/file-20170623-27895-gmymk8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/175388/original/file-20170623-27895-gmymk8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/175388/original/file-20170623-27895-gmymk8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=367&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175388/original/file-20170623-27895-gmymk8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=367&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175388/original/file-20170623-27895-gmymk8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=367&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175388/original/file-20170623-27895-gmymk8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=462&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175388/original/file-20170623-27895-gmymk8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=462&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175388/original/file-20170623-27895-gmymk8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=462&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Buzzfeed positive coverage from 2015 to 2017.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Buzzfeed was not, however, averse to publishing articles critical of Labour. Take, for example “Here’s Diane Abbott’s Absolute Car Crash Of An Interview About Hiring More Police Officers” and “This Town Has Been Labour Since 1919. It’s About To Switch To The Tories”. </p>
<p>At the same time, articles such as “People Are Getting Fed Up With Theresa May’s Campaign Being So Stage-Managed” and “How The Tories’ Decision To Buy Google Ads About The ‘Dementia Tax’ Backfired” were negative stories unlikely to be reported by much of the national press who supported the Conservative Party.</p>
<p>While more sympathetic to Labour, Buzzfeed is not as one-sided as partisan blogs like <a href="http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/">Another Angry Voice</a>. It adopts a more objective approach while remaining distinctive from the mainstream media. Over the last few years some of its journalists, including <a href="https://www.buzzfeed.com/emilyashton">Emily Ashton</a> and <a href="https://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson">Waterson</a>, have become established figures, reviewing newspapers on news channels and helping to set the Westminster agenda on programmes such as The Andrew Marr Show.</p>
<p>Given its expanding reach and more policy-driven agenda, it is now time Buzzfeed’s journalism was taken even more seriously.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/79940/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Richard Thomas has previously received funding from the ESRC.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stephen Cushion has received funding from the BBC Trust and ESRC.</span></em></p>Despite a reputation for cuddly kittens and listicles, the site has been hiring big names and is establishing itself as an influential voice in UK news.Richard Thomas, Lecturer, School of Arts and Communication, Leeds Trinity UniversityStephen Cushion, Reader, School of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies, Cardiff UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/795152017-06-21T12:23:14Z2017-06-21T12:23:14ZYoung voters are pulling their weight – politicians can no longer ignore them<p>At the start of the 2017 election campaign, there were indications that turnout among young voters <a href="https://theconversation.com/britains-young-people-are-getting-back-into-politics-at-last-76682">might rise</a> – and happily, they proved to be correct. On the day, 64% of 18- to 24-year-olds on the electoral roll turned out to vote, a 21-point increase from the 2015 general election. This was predominantly to Labour’s advantage, with 62% of young people who voted opting for the party of Jeremy Corbyn.</p>
<p>Leaving aside any judgements about Corbyn, his manifesto or his party, these numbers are unambiguously a cause for celebration. Britain’s young people have proven they are neither apathetic nor lazy, two stereotypes long used to dismiss them despite evidence to the contrary. <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13676261.2013.830704">Research</a> shows that younger voters’ previous non-participation was largely a conscious opt-out; they felt that Westminster politics was largely irrelevant to their lives, the province of self-serving and elitist politicians whose policies simply weren’t designed with them in mind. </p>
<p>The 2017 election has for now dispelled the myth of the uncaring young non-voter. But depressingly, one set of paternalistic assumptions seems to have been replaced by another: instead of tuned-out layabouts, the young are now being dismissed as misguided and naive.</p>
<hr>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/7qist/4/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="458"></iframe>
<hr>
<p>No sooner was the exit poll released than this new misrepresentation began to circulate. Conservative MP Margot James <a href="http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2017/06/margot-james-we-need-to-make-the-case-for-wealth-creation-to-a-new-generation-of-young-people.html">wrote</a> that young people had been too easily tempted by Labour’s promised “handouts”; Sir Alan Sugar put it even more bluntly, <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/election-results-lord-alan-sugar-opinion-jeremy-corbyn-labour-voters-minority-government-a7781421.html">saying</a> the young don’t have enough life experience to cast informed votes: “I’m not sure if they really knew what they were voting for.”</p>
<p>Young people are sadly accustomed to such elitist views, these perspectives ignore what motivated this generation to turn out in considerably higher numbers in 2017 than has been the case in recent elections.</p>
<h2>Making politics matter</h2>
<p>A great many young people are deeply concerned about their future. They struggle to control the direction of their lives, and many of them face more difficult socioeconomic conditions than their parents did: housing is <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/27/house-prices-force-1m-young-people-live-with-parents">extremely expensive</a>, employment is often <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/young-peoples-earning-power-scarred-by-older-workers-staying-longer-in-same-job-10419256.html">insecure</a>, and state support is being withdrawn and transferred to older cohorts. </p>
<p>Frustratingly, some of these problems are byproducts of successive governments’ electoral politicking. The Institute for Public Policy <a href="http://www.ippr.org/publications/divided-democracy-political-inequality-in-the-uk-and-why-it-matters">argues</a> that government spending allocations have been directed to reward groups who reliably vote in numbers while ignoring groups who don’t. </p>
<p>Unsurprising then that young people might want to vote for a party which seems to understand their experiences, and which proposes to improve their financial outlook by abolishing university tuition fees, increasing wages, and improving employment protections.</p>
<hr>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/F9x4D/2/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="330"></iframe>
<hr>
<p>Young people are also unhappy that the political establishment disdains direct engagement with voters in favour of coordinated messages from centralised party hierarchies. So again, small wonder that they were more inspired by Labour’s campaign, a far more direct and low-level strategy than the Conservatives’ slogan-dependent strategy, which kept Theresa May away from the public as much as possible. </p>
<p>Labour’s digitally savvy party activists were able to target young people through social media in ways that the Conservative party couldn’t, using positive messages that contrasted favourably with the Conservatives’ thoroughly negative lines against Corbyn.</p>
<p>Something else also happened during the campaign, and not just thanks to Labour: young people’s issues for once enjoyed genuine prominence. All major parties bar the Conservatives and UKIP promised to <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/39921090/will-the-voting-age-ever-be-lowered-to-16">lower the voting age to 16</a>. The Labour and Green manifestos made pledges that were specifically aimed at improving young people’s circumstances, while the Liberal Democrats created a specific <a href="http://www.libdems.org.uk/ypmanifesto">Young People’s Manifesto</a>. And as the campaign wore on, it became apparent that <a href="https://theconversation.com/election-pollsters-put-their-methods-to-the-test-and-turnout-is-the-key-78778">youth turnout could decide</a> which party went into government – a message that for once seems to have cut through to young voters themselves.</p>
<p>Everyone invested in the future of British democracy should be celebrating both the fact that they embraced this opportunity, and lauding their ability to provide astute reasoning for their choices. Politicians should make the effort to understand why young people voted the way they did; if they want to retain or attract their support, mutual understanding is the only serious way to go about it.</p>
<p>As for the commentators who dismiss young people as naive or patronise them as <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4590356/11billion-tuition-fee-bribe-saw-young-vote-Labour.html">victims of bribery</a>, it’s clear they simply don’t understand the complicated reality of being a young person in the UK today. They now face a reckoning. The best place for young people to dispel the stereotypes used against them is in the voting booth – and it seems that they are at last inclined to do so.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/79515/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Matt Henn receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>James Hart does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Before the 2017 election, young voters were dismissed as lazy; now they’ve started voting in numbers, they’re being stereotyped as naive.James Hart, PhD Candidate in Youth Political Engagement, Nottingham Trent UniversityMatt Henn, Professor of Social Research, Nottingham Trent UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/797792017-06-21T09:58:15Z2017-06-21T09:58:15ZPolitical bots are poisoning democracy – so, off with their heads<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/174761/original/file-20170620-32369-5r3xnj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Bottery and aggravated assault. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/robot-typing-on-computer-keyboard-automation-400106332?src=OFoZqT_-z1pUokCzwqNNew-1-7">Mopic</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Propaganda bots posing as people are increasingly being used on social media to sway public opinion around the world. So says <a href="http://comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk/2017/06/19/computational-propaganda-worldwide-executive-summary/">new research</a> from the University of Oxford’s Internet Institute, which found automated accounts and other forms of social media propaganda are rife in Russia, the US and Germany among other countries. </p>
<p>This follows a flurry of material about bots and the UK election. One <a href="http://comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk/2017/05/31/junk-news-and-bots-during-the-2017-uk-general-election/">seminal work</a>, which came from the same institute, showed that Twitter traffic had been dominated by material related to Labour and that automated accounts were predominantly using hashtags associated with the party. The research did not look at whether they were for or against Labour. </p>
<p>Bots were also at work in last year’s <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/11/election-bots/506072/">US presidential election</a>, and <a href="https://ig.ft.com/social-bots-of-brexit/">during</a> the Brexit referendum – with some of the automated accounts in question graduating to pump out thousands more messages in the UK election. </p>
<p>A <a href="https://ig.ft.com/social-bots-of-brexit/">study by the FT</a> reported that during the referendum campaign, “the 20 most prolific accounts … displayed indications of high levels of automation”. This supported research last year, again from Oxford, that <a href="http://comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/89/2016/06/COMPROP-2016-1.pdf">found that</a> “on average 12.3% of traffic about UK politics is generated by highly automated accounts”. </p>
<h2>Bot seriously …</h2>
<p>That digital media would emerge as a tool for political campaigning is a no-brainer. At no point in history have candidates and parties had such a remarkable opportunity to reach out to such a wide audience so effectively. </p>
<p>Leaders can relay their messages in the most cost-effective manner with real evidence of interaction. Better still, social media provides a platform for two-way engagement. The average voter can boo, applaud, vent and taunt politicians and policies on their smartphones with a flick of a finger. </p>
<p>But politics is a game of one-upmanship – and not just among parties but also over the public. For all the windows of expression that digital media has opened up for people, it now threatens to make fools of them. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/174762/original/file-20170620-32355-qjg8lu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/174762/original/file-20170620-32355-qjg8lu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/174762/original/file-20170620-32355-qjg8lu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=395&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/174762/original/file-20170620-32355-qjg8lu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=395&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/174762/original/file-20170620-32355-qjg8lu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=395&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/174762/original/file-20170620-32355-qjg8lu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=497&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/174762/original/file-20170620-32355-qjg8lu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=497&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/174762/original/file-20170620-32355-qjg8lu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=497&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Drip ‘til you drop.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/internet-social-networks-brainwashing-vector-concept-496014847?src=U4EdZfOYfwMVUH_scjA4JA-1-57">MJ Graphics</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Bots with large numbers of followers are the ideal conduits for disinformation, sharing fake news within the echo chambers that have grown out of the content display logic of social media algorithms. Some of this news will be crafted specifically for political gain, but even this doesn’t always necessarily follow. </p>
<p>The US media reported, for example, <a href="http://nymag.com/selectall/2016/11/can-facebook-solve-its-macedonian-fake-news-problem.html">that</a> an army of Macedonian teenagers had been operating US political sites peddling made-up conservative news to make a quick buck on Facebook. With 44% of Americans <a href="http://nymag.com/selectall/2016/11/donald-trump-won-because-of-facebook.html">getting their news</a> from Facebook, and Donald Trump elected president, we may be paying a hefty price for such enterprises. </p>
<p>As one <a href="https://datasociety.net/pubs/oh/DataAndSociety_MediaManipulationAndDisinformationOnline.pdf">detailed report</a> put it, media manipulators trade their stories by “using the power of networked collaboration and the reach of influencers”. Even “when the misinformation is debunked, it continues to shape people’s attitudes”. Such overt mind manipulation can “ruin democracy”, warned the report.</p>
<p>Speaking of ruining democracy, algorithms are also opening the door to another kind of Facebook manipulation. During the UK election, there <a href="https://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/conservative-election-adverts?utm_term=.eheYVWjJn#.hp5bkJREw">were reports</a> of “paid-for attack advertising” targeting specific voters in specific constituencies. The Conservatives have been particularly identified with this so-called “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/27/conservatives-facebook-dark-ads-data-protection-election">dark advertising</a>”. It <a href="https://theconversation.com/election-laws-cant-cope-with-data-harvesting-which-suits-politicians-fine-78044?sr=4">threatens to</a> break fundamental rules about campaign transparency and voter targeting. It also undermines the UK’s longstanding ban on political parties buying TV and radio space. </p>
<h2>Not OK, computer</h2>
<p>From radio to TV to the internet, every new medium has disrupted the political space. Each has served as a new tool to expand the audience and sharpen the dialogue. With social media, however, we find ourselves in unique territory. </p>
<p>The public has to wake up to the very real reality that fake news, junk news and automated tweets are almost certainly muddling political discourse and making different factions more and more polarised. Rhetoric and sloganeering are giving way to digital subterfuge and guerilla assaults on the public psyche. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/174758/original/file-20170620-32381-1yq0tga.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/174758/original/file-20170620-32381-1yq0tga.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/174758/original/file-20170620-32381-1yq0tga.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/174758/original/file-20170620-32381-1yq0tga.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/174758/original/file-20170620-32381-1yq0tga.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/174758/original/file-20170620-32381-1yq0tga.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/174758/original/file-20170620-32381-1yq0tga.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/174758/original/file-20170620-32381-1yq0tga.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Guerillas in the midst.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/hands-holding-political-signboards-message-social-639163210">lazyllama</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>People in the UK could console themselves <a href="http://comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk/2017/05/31/junk-news-and-bots-during-the-2017-uk-general-election/">that they</a> are sharing “better quality information” than many US counterparts, but equally they compare poorly next to the French and Germans. In any case, favourable comparisons are beside the point.</p>
<p>It is time for a proper debate about how we respond to these developments. There is a clear argument for a system reboot, including a digital media code of conduct for political parties and campaigners. Bots need to be banned under this code and the system needs to be policed in real time during campaigns – the money it would cost would be well spent. The reality is that social media campaigning is rendering our democracy unfit for purpose. We need to do something about it quickly. </p>
<p><em>Correction: the original article said that political bots predominantly favoured Labour in the election. In fact, the Oxford research this was based on did not show whether tweets from automated accounts were promoting or criticising a particular party.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/79779/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Hadley Newman is Managing Director of Omobono, a specialist digital communications agency that works with global corporate brands. The company does not work in the field of politics, with political brands, parties or politicians so neither they nor their clients stand to benefit from this article.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kevin O'Gorman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Our whole system of political campaigning needs a reboot.Hadley Newman, Doctoral Researcher, Heriot-Watt UniversityKevin O'Gorman, Professor of Management and Business History, Heriot-Watt UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/795832017-06-16T13:40:18Z2017-06-16T13:40:18ZHow international law could scupper a Tory deal with the DUP<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/174175/original/file-20170616-505-1lb3j1v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.paimages.co.uk/image-details/2.31680911">PA</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In a case of political bad timing, still recovering from her electoral battering, Theresa May met with Northern Ireland’s <a href="https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news/politics/general-election-2017-northern-ireland-political-parties/">five main political parties</a> at Downing Street on Thursday June 15. This was an attempt to resolve the deadlock in forming a governing executive that has existed since the elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly on March 2. As the current prime minister, May has a role in overseeing this process under the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/events/good_friday_agreement">Good Friday Agreement</a> signed in 1998.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/northern-ireland-power-sharing-latest-collapse-end-sinn-fein-refuse-stormont-dup-martin-mcguinness-a7529111.html">breakdown</a> of the devolved assembly in late 2016 over the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/19/northern-ireland-first-minister-arlene-foster-urged-resign-fuel-subsidy-scheme">green fuels subsidy scheme</a> led to the March elections. This means that Northern Ireland is facing one of its longest and deepest crises of the past 20 years.</p>
<p>However, at exactly the same time, the Conservative Party was attempting to come to a political agreement with the <a href="http://www.mydup.com/about-us">Democratic Unionist Party</a> (one of those five political parties) to allow it to function as a minority government within the UK. DUP leader <a href="http://arlenefoster.org.uk/biography/">Arlene Foster</a>, currently the ex-first minister of Northern Ireland, has said: “The talks are going well.”</p>
<p>It would seem that the prime minister is trying to manage two incompatible situations. But does it go even deeper than that? What are the legal implications of a proposed DUP/Conservative deal for the Good Friday Agreement?</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/174176/original/file-20170616-505-1vk2gru.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/174176/original/file-20170616-505-1vk2gru.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/174176/original/file-20170616-505-1vk2gru.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/174176/original/file-20170616-505-1vk2gru.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/174176/original/file-20170616-505-1vk2gru.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=423&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/174176/original/file-20170616-505-1vk2gru.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=423&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/174176/original/file-20170616-505-1vk2gru.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=423&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Theresa May needs the co-operation of Arlene Foster’s DUP to shore up her Commons majority.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.paimages.co.uk/image-details/2.31677724">PA</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Back to the 1990s</h2>
<p>Politicians of a 1990s vintage have appeared attacking the UK government for giving up their ostensible “independence” in reaching agreements in Northern Ireland. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.peterhain.uk/about-peter/">Peter Hain</a>, the New Labour Northern Ireland secretary for two years from 2005 to 2007, stated the UK government is <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/12/tory-dup-deal-painful-theresa-may-peace-process-northern-ireland-peter-hain">giving up</a> its appearance to “act in good faith” to any party outside the DUP in Northern Ireland.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.alastaircampbell.org/about/">Alastair Campbell</a> – Tony Blair’s “enforcer” throughout his time of government – has outlined his <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/election-dup-theresa-may-tories-alastair-campbell-sordid-comments-peace-process-a7782956.html">outrage</a>, asking: “How can they (the goverment) be the mediators” of the current political crisis?</p>
<p>Even former Conservative prime minister <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/history/past-prime-ministers/john-major">John Major</a> has emerged from retirement in a <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-40264053/sir-john-major-the-ni-peace-process-is-fragile">BBC interview</a> to urge his party to resist entering a deal as it would threaten the entire peace process by “exaggerating the differences” between the Northern Ireland parties and ending the UK government’s “honest broker” role.</p>
<p>These are political issues, though. Meanwhile there could be a deeper significance, as the Good Friday Agreement has legal status within international law as a <a href="http://peacemaker.un.org/uk-ireland-good-friday98">treaty lodged with the United Nations</a>. In formal language, the Good Friday Agreement is a bilateral agreement between the UK and the Republic of Ireland. It created the devolved settlement and a number of cross-national and cross-border institutions to oversee the new structures. Clearly, when these break down, both governments have to play a role in getting them back on track.</p>
<p>The Agreement in Article 1(v) states:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The power of the sovereign government with jurisdiction there shall be exercised with rigorous impartiality on behalf of all the people. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>The treaty was brought into legal enforceability with the <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/47/contents">Northern Ireland Act 1998</a>. It is this law that makes it a legal obligation for the UK government to facilitate a political solution when the government there breaks down – as is occurring now. So, if a political agreement is made with the DUP, could this be seen as legally breaching the Good Friday Agreement and, indirectly, the 1998 legislation? One of the immediate difficulties is the enforceability of any legal claims.</p>
<h2>International courts</h2>
<p>The most high-profile institution with jurisdiction would seem to be the <a href="http://www.icj-cij.org/court/index.php?p1=1">International Court of Justice</a> which regulates treaties. However, each country that signs up to the ICJ can make a declaration on to what extent they recognise the court. Ireland in its declaration states that it recognises the jurisdiction of the ICJ “with the exception of any legal dispute with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in regard to Northern Ireland”. So this explicitly prevents the Good Friday Agreement being discussed in the International Court of Justice.</p>
<p>As a notable aside, the UK recently revised its recognition of the ICJ to exclude judgments on nuclear weapons following a lengthy and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/06/marshall-islands-nuclear-arms-lawsuit-thrown-out-by-uns-top-court">controversial case</a> brought by the Marshall Islands against the UK on nuclear proliferation in 2016.</p>
<p>With the ICJ ruled out, there would be a possibility of using another international institution, the <a href="https://pca-cpa.org/en/home/">Permanent Court of Arbitration</a> (PCA) which has existed since 1899. Based in the Hague, this body can intervene in bilateral disputes between states over treaties if there is a disagreement and both sides agree to the hearing. In 2015, the PCA ruled against the UK over the controversial <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/19/un-ruling-raises-hope-of-return-for-exiled-chagos-islanders">Chagos Islands case</a> after Mauritius brought an action. This has led to further negotiations over the status of the displaced islanders and their potential return.</p>
<p>Such a legal route seems remote though given the need for mutual agreement to go to arbitration. So far the Irish Government has not raised the possibility of legal action. </p>
<p>The legal debate on the DUP/Conservative deal breaching the Good Friday Agreement is an echo of the discussion in the past couple of years of the Conservatives’ planned scrapping of the <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/22/new-british-bill-of-rights-will-not-be-scrapped-insists-liz-trus/">Human Rights Act 1998</a> which could be seen to breach the Good Friday Agreement. This possibility now seems remote, given the current minority government, but even in the human rights context, raising a legal action would also be difficult.</p>
<p>So in the short term, although there are potential legal structures to deal with inter-state disputes which a challenge to the Gould Friday Agreement could provoke, they look unlikely to be accessed.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/174177/original/file-20170616-545-1onsnpl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/174177/original/file-20170616-545-1onsnpl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=366&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/174177/original/file-20170616-545-1onsnpl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=366&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/174177/original/file-20170616-545-1onsnpl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=366&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/174177/original/file-20170616-545-1onsnpl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=460&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/174177/original/file-20170616-545-1onsnpl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=460&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/174177/original/file-20170616-545-1onsnpl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=460&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Sinn Fein president Gerry Adams voices party concerns in front of Downing Street that any DUP deal would undermine the Good Friday Agreement.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.paimages.co.uk/image-details/2.31707799">PA</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>It is unclear what legal action an individual citizen or one of the political parties in Northern Ireland could take to challenge any potential breach of the GFA although <a href="http://www.sinnfein.ie/?no-splash=true">Sinn Fein</a> have not ruled this out.</p>
<p>After meeting with May at Downing Street, Sinn Fein president <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-27238602">Gerry Adams</a> said his party would oppose any deal between the government and the DUP as he believed it would undermine the Good Friday Agreement. More likely is a political challenge to the prime minister to help restore power sharing in Northern Ireland rather than draw up a secret agreement with only one of the parties.</p>
<p>Strangely, the most internal domestic matter for any state – the democratic formation of its government – in the UK now could have implications in international law. Just one of the many unforeseen consequences of the 2017 general election.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/79583/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nick McKerrell does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The Good Friday Agreement’s UN treaty status means that any compromise of the rigorous impartiality it demands of the Government could be legally challengedNick McKerrell, Lecturer in Law, Glasgow Caledonian UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/795312017-06-15T15:57:42Z2017-06-15T15:57:42ZHow Corbyn cut through: exclusive interview with a senior Labour strategist<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/174026/original/file-20170615-23537-18aq0k6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Cutting through: Jeremy Corbyn's Facebook page.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Facebook</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The combined <a href="http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/how-jeremy-corbyn-beat-theresa-may-in-the-social-media-election-war-a3564746.html">impact of social media</a> and the obligation on broadcasters to give fair coverage were the major factors in Labour’s unexpected strong showing in the UK general election, according to a key member of leader Jeremy Corbyn’s communications team.</p>
<p>In his first interview since the poll, Steve Howell – Corbyn’s deputy director of strategy and communications – said Fleet Street’s “smear campaign” had backfired. </p>
<p>Howell, who joined Corbyn’s team in February, believes the election has exposed a fundamental mismatch between most of the London-based press and the views of the electorate. He said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>They switched into gear, thinking they could destroy Jeremy Corbyn and Labour with their usual tactics. It was an extraordinary smear campaign and they thought it would work.</p>
<p>I think the political spectrum of the national press is way to the right of the political thinking of the people of Britain. Our national press is not representative at all of public opinion and can no longer shape it in the way it used to do.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The fact that broadcasters are obliged to give equal – and fair – coverage to political parties during election campaigns gave Corbyn the first real chance to put his views across to the wider public, according to Howell. This was recognised by researchers from Cardiff and Loughborough universities who found Labour receiving <a href="https://theconversation.com/broadcast-impartiality-rule-has-helped-labour-to-achieve-biggest-poll-shift-since-1945-78949">roughly equal broadcast coverage</a> from week two of the campaign – the week that saw Labour’s biggest poll surge. Howell explained:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>We knew that once people are exposed to him, they like him. People had not been exposed to him, because they were just getting this very filtered impression of him through 10 second clips on broadcast media – and a very distorted picture through print media. With the election, we had an opportunity to correct that, because broadcast media has an obligation to be more balanced.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Reaching out</h2>
<p>Broadcast coverage was the first key part of the party’s media strategy for Corbyn. The second was the use of social media, including expenditure of £1.3m on digital advertising on Facebook, Snapchat and Google (including “pre-roll” adverts that are shown before videos play on YouTube). The aim was to get beyond Corbyn’s – and Labour’s – <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/09/digital-strategists-give-victory-to-labour-in-social-media-election-facebook-twitter">own social media footprint</a> and talk not only to the converted.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/wjrTAE4cJDI?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Before the election, Corbyn had 800,000 <a href="https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn">followers on Twitter</a>, a figure which has now risen to 1.25m – compared to <a href="https://twitter.com/theresa_may">356,000 for Theresa May</a>. His Facebook page is <a href="https://www.facebook.com/JeremyCorbynMP/">liked by 1.2m</a>, compared to <a href="https://www.facebook.com/TheresaMayOfficial/?ref=br_rs">427,000 for May</a>. According to Howell, Corbyn’s Facebook page had a weekly reach of 29m in the final week of the campaign. He said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Having a budget [for digital advertising] complimented this massive “organic” reach. Some posts were seen by 15m people – meaning they came up on their Facebook page.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Taking risks</h2>
<p>Beyond the emphasis on broadcast and social media, Howell believes Labour’s team succeeded in turning Corbyn’s perceived weaknesses in some areas into strengths:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Conventional wisdom says if you’ve got a perceived weakness, you try to deflect and go onto something else. We took the view that some of these things that were perceived as weaknesses were actually strengths and that we were prepared to take them head-on. Some people [in the Labour campaign team] thought this was risky – and it probably was. But I think it’s proven to be the right thing to do.</p>
</blockquote>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/V3n5Mdn2NUE?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>A key decision for the party was regarding how to resume campaigning after the Manchester terrorist attack. Howell says some in the Labour team thought they should focus on domestic issues, such as the NHS. But they chose to make a speech about terrorism and British foreign policy, which led to a backlash in the press, attacking Corbyn’s <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40111329">record on opposing terrorism</a>. Howell said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>We couldn’t know it in advance, but it turned out that what he was saying chimed with what many people felt, that public opinion shared that view that some of the foreign policy decisions have not actually made us safer.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Behind everything was the awareness that the Labour leader was likely to be attacked as an extremist. It was <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/21/labour-ruled-tories-real-extremists-slogan-amid-fears-could/?WT.mc_id=tmg_share_em">reported by the Daily Telegraph</a> that Howell had proposed the slogan “The Tories are the real extremists” to a campaign meeting, but had been overruled. He denies that the proposal was to use the slogan in campaigning:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>There was a slide that talked about the Tories as the real extremists. The point of the slide was to say that we did need an element of attack in our campaign – and the Tory campaign was almost all attack. So all I was saying in my presentation was that we needed to show that if they were going to attack us as extremists, many of the things that they were doing were pretty extreme.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>With the election over, Howell says Labour’s campaigning strategy will be maintained: “We definitely don’t want to lose the momentum – but a degree of focus moves back to parliament, [so] it has to dovetail with campaigning. We keep momentum on both fronts – they have to complement each other.”</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/79531/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>James Stewart does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Steve Howell believes that broadcasting regulations to ensure balance and a mastery of social media allowed people to see the Labour leader as he really is.James Stewart, Lecturer, Cardiff UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/795132017-06-15T14:02:21Z2017-06-15T14:02:21ZWhy 2017 UK election polls underestimated Labour<p>For pollsters, the British general election of 2017 goes down as another uncomfortable experience. While, on average, the final polls of those companies that belong to the British Polling Council were spot on in their estimate of Conservative support across Great Britain as a whole (44%), they underestimated Labour support by as much as five points.</p>
<p>As a result, on average the final polls put the Conservatives eight points ahead – implying that the party would secure at least a modest overall majority. In the event, the party was ahead by just three points, a lead that proved inadequate for the party to retain a majority at all.</p>
<p>Still, at least it was not the mistake that pollsters usually make. At recent elections, including in 2015, the polls have typically underestimated Conservative support and overestimated Labour’s strength. This time around it was Labour support that was underestimated – and by a bigger margin than ever before.</p>
<h2>Ghosts of 2015</h2>
<p>Meanwhile, also in contrast to 2015, not every company made the same mistake. One BPC member, <a href="http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-election-poll-survation-idUKKBN18W2SX">Survation</a>, actually slightly underestimated the Conservative lead. It put it at one point, doing so in part because the poll underestimated the Conservative tally by between two and three points.</p>
<p>In addition, US company <a href="https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3659489/tories-set-to-increase-majority-as-sun-poll-shows-them-with-eight-point-lead-over-labour-because-voters-want-may-as-pm/">SurveyMonkey</a> only put the Tory lead at four points (but again slightly underestimated the Conservative share). The same was true of a <a href="https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/05/31/how-yougov-model-2017-general-election-works/">novel exercise</a> conducted by YouGov, which used big data to forecast the outcome in seats rather than just the countrywide share of the vote.</p>
<p>So, why might the polls have suddenly moved from overestimating Labour to, for the most part if not always, underestimating it?</p>
<p>The past two years have seen the polling companies undertake substantial methodological changes, as they have tried to learn the lessons of 2015. They have focused particularly on estimating demographic differences in turnout more accurately. If a party is relatively strong within a demographic group whose members tend to turn out in low numbers, that party’s vote share can all too easily be overestimated if the poll overestimates the level of turnout in that group.</p>
<p>This became a particular concern in 2015 as Labour grew in popularity among younger people. They are usually less likely to vote, but in 2015 the polls overestimated their likelihood of doing so. To address this problem, some companies have made efforts to recruit less politically engaged people into their samples, while others have used information about the relationship between demographic background and turnout in 2015 in an attempt to model the likely pattern of turnout in 2017.</p>
<p>Still, a question that inevitably arises is whether these and various other changes that were made by the pollsters ended up overcompensating for the mistakes that were apparent in 2015. Perhaps adjusting the data made the projections less, rather than more, reflective of the public mood? </p>
<p>One way to assess whether that might be the case is to look at the underlying unweighted numbers in the polls, that is, simply, the total number of people who said they were going to vote Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat etc.</p>
<p>One striking feature of the final polls in 2015 was that, on average, across all the companies, these unweighted numbers pointed to exactly the same outcome as the headline figures that were reported after the data had been weighted to look more demographically and politically representative. </p>
<p>It appeared that the principal problem was that the polls had simply interviewed too many Labour voters – an imbalance that the pollsters’ various adjustments failed overall to correct. This is one reason why an <a href="http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/3789/1/Report_final_revised.pdf">independent inquiry</a> into the performance of the polls in 2015 concluded that the principal reason why the polls overestimated Labour’s strength relative to that of the Conservatives was because their underlying samples were biased towards Labour.</p>
<h2>An adjustment too far?</h2>
<p>A look at the unweighted data in the polls this time around suggests, however, that the underestimation of Labour’s strength was not simply occasioned by poor samples. Looking at the detailed tables produced by the pollsters, it appears that, on average, the total Labour tally in the raw unweighted data was just one point less than that for the Conservatives. In short, the polls’ unweighted data were actually slightly underestimating the Tory lead over Labour (in line with the historical record of the polls), not substantially overestimating it as in the figures that were headlined.</p>
<p>Now, no one would suggest that polling companies should be reporting as their headline figure their raw unweighted data. Polls are often clearly demographically unrepresentative, for example typically containing too few younger people and too few in a working-class occupation. Indeed, in at least one final poll the underlying design oversampled voters living in some parts of Britain and thus could not possibly be regarded as representative without some downweighting of those living in the areas that had been oversampled.</p>
<p>However, the sharp contrast in most polls between the small Tory lead in the unweighted polling data and the lead in the reported headline figure suggests that the companies’ principal problem this time was not that their samples were unrepresentative. Indeed, a number of companies had tried to improve the quality of their samples. Rather, it seems the attempts made to adjust the data often proved to be a step too far.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.britishpollingcouncil.org/general-election-8-june-2017/">British Polling Council</a> has decided not to hold an inquiry into the performance of the polls this year. In the end, at least some polls more or less got it right, and so not all of the industry was in error in the way that it had been in 2015. Instead, each company has been asked to review their work and report on what they think went wrong (and right) with their polls. These reports will be presented at a conference before Christmas. But it looks as though a good place for most companies to start will be with the merits of their various adjustments.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/79513/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Curtice is Professor of Politics, University of Strathclyde and Senior Research Fellow, NatCen Social Research. He is also President of the British Polling Council but is here writing in a personal capacity.
</span></em></p>The pollsters have had another bad year – and it may be because they were so worried about repeating the mistakes of 2015.John Curtice, Professor of Politics, University of Strathclyde Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/794482017-06-15T12:32:16Z2017-06-15T12:32:16ZHow will Conservative deal with the DUP work?<p>In the hope of operating as a minority government after failing to win the UK general election, Theresa May’s Conservative party plans to rely on the support of Northern Ireland’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/dup-9208">Democratic Unionist Party</a>. And while the content of this deal is the subject of great interest, the day-to-day practicalities of how the arrangement will work are equally important.</p>
<p>It is important to note that the deal between the Conservatives and the DUP is not a formal coalition. No DUP MPs will be in government and the DUP will not be sitting on the government benches in the House of Commons. The party won’t receive official support from the civil service either. In fact, it will still receive <a href="http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN01663">short money</a> – funding provided to the opposition parties in parliament. </p>
<p>The first test of the agreement will be the <a href="https://theconversation.com/my-government-might-the-queens-speech-is-more-of-a-wish-list-these-days-59571?sa=google&sq=queens+speech&sr=2">Queen’s speech</a>, in which the government sets out its legislative plans for the year ahead. MPs then vote on the speech. While this is not an official vote of confidence, May must secure the support of the House of Commons in this vote to remain in office.</p>
<p>Assuming this first test is passed, the agreement with the DUP then moves on to the more substantive stage – dealing with legislation brought before the House of Commons.</p>
<p>The longer-term objective of the deal is to allow the timely passage of government legislation through the House of Commons as painlessly as possible for the Conservative party. May is in a precarious position here. Even if the Conservatives make an offer good enough to secure the DUP’s backing, the combined majority of the two parties is still only six.</p>
<p>Unless it can keep the SNP and Liberal Democrats on side in votes, the government will be under constant threat of losing votes on the floor of the house and will have even more difficulties in select committees.</p>
<h2>Channels of communication</h2>
<p>In many ways, the agreement is simply a more formalised version of “the usual channels” – the informal mechanism whereby parties agree the timetable of parliamentary business. In normal times, these discussions would be conducted through the chief whips of the government and opposition parties. These processes will still be in place but the Con-DUP interactions will take priority. A government majority will need to be guaranteed before other parties can be brought into the discussion.</p>
<p>Trust between the two parties’ go-betweens will have to be quickly established. Key players in this will be the Leader of the House, Andrea Leadsom and the chief whip, Gavin Williamson. Together they organise government business.</p>
<p>The government will also need a formidable team in the whips office to avoid the ignominy of retaining the support of the DUP but not securing that of all Tory party MPs. If the agreement falters, expect to hear about government whips haranguing Tory MPs in the precincts of parliament and forcing them through the voting lobbies.</p>
<p>Nigel Dodds, leader of the DUP in the House of Commons will be a formidable leader on this deal (Arlene Foster, leader of the DUP, is not an MP and so will not been directly involved). Jeffery Donaldson, chief whip of the DUP, is also known as a shrewd operator, so Leadsom will need to be on her mettle in her dealings with him.</p>
<h2>The committee option</h2>
<p>To avoid dramas turning into crises, a Con-DUP consultative committee may be established. That could perhaps be chaired by the new first secretary of state, Damian Green, with a quad of negotiators made up of Leadsom, Williamson, Dodds and Donaldson. Some government ministers and DUP spokespeople could attend, depending on the policy area under discussion. Their aim would be to discuss possible areas of conflict and find amicable solutions – this might be easier said than done, especially as the <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-great-repeal-bill-why-you-should-keep-an-eye-on-the-legal-side-of-brexit-66419">great repeal bill</a> makes its way through the house.</p>
<p>Given the delicate status of the talks taking place in Stormont to restore power-sharing this “consultation process” might evolve rather be announced on day one. Both parties will wish to avoid the DUP being seen as too closely allied with the government. That would jeapordise the government’s commitment to “rigorous impartiality” towards the political parties of Northern Ireland, as set out in the Good Friday Agreement. It will nonetheless be necessary to have Con-DUP meetings in some form to avoid a crisis developing.</p>
<p>The Conservatives may also seek to establish a corresponding consultation committee with their own backbenchers. Here Graham Brady, chairman of the backbenchers’ <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/everything-need-know-backbench-1922-committee/">1922 committee</a>, will be a key player, again with Damian Green as de facto deputy prime minister probably playing a role in retaining the support of backbenchers.</p>
<h2>What will the opposition get up to?</h2>
<p>In the first few weeks of the new parliament, opposition parties will almost certainly look to expose divisions between the government, its own backbenchers and the DUP. However, it is not in their interest to force a crisis on every vote. The Conservative-DUP agreement could be sustained for a surprisingly long period, while the Labour party waits for the almost inevitable crisis to develop and then looks to exploit it.</p>
<p>Personal relationships matter in such an agreement. Whether May can work effectively with Dodds, Donaldson and Foster and retain the support of all of her own troops is perhaps open to question.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/79448/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jonathan Kirkup does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>What happens behind the scenes when one party props up another’s minority government.Jonathan Kirkup, Lecturer in Politics, Cardiff UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/794462017-06-15T08:39:54Z2017-06-15T08:39:54ZDon’t believe the pundits: it’s too soon to dismiss the power of the red tops<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/173805/original/file-20170614-718-j061yp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption"></span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Hadrian via Shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In the aftermath of the UK elections, there has been much <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/09/tabloids-crush-corbyn-power-politics-sun-mail-labour">speculation</a> that the power of the Tory supporting tabloids is on the wane, diminished by social media and a youth surge to the left. This would be a very sudden demise. After all, it was those very same tabloids that, just a year ago, were credited with pulling off their greatest political coup by convincing large numbers of their working-class readers to vote Brexit.</p>
<p>A closer look at the analysis of exit polls, media coverage and Twitter hashtags tell a rather more complicated story. Analysis <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/dac3a3b2-4ad7-11e7-919a-1e14ce4af89b?mhq5j=e3">in the Financial Times</a>, using a number of different exit polls, finds that the question of Brexit was the biggest factor for 70% of those people voting Conservative. And just as expected, the Conservatives did indeed make inroads into Labour territory in the Brexit-leaning constituencies of the North. These are the places the tabloids call home. Their key win was in the ex-mining town of <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/22/mansfield-miners-strike-general-election-brexit">Mansfield</a> in Nottinghamshire, where nearly 71% of people voted Leave, and which the Conservatives took with an 18% swing by just over 1,000 votes.</p>
<p>Such Conservative swings were not enough to deliver many knockout blows in heavily Labour-supporting areas – but they do show a direction of travel. Poverty, poor health and a sense of powerlessness seem to have favoured poll swings to the Tories, while the young and issues around education favoured Labour. This was not just a newly energised student vote (though that certainly helped), the surge to Labour was high among anyone younger than 45. The biggest swings towards Labour were seen in <a href="https://medium.com/@psurridge/britains-divide-diversity-key-to-turnout-rises-a51626d5c969">multi-ethnic neighbourhoods</a> with younger populations and higher levels of education. This is a demographic that is currently under-served by all British print media, not just the red tops. </p>
<p>To be sure, the right-wing tabloids called the election wrong – but they have been on the wrong side of history in the past. In 1997, when the Conservatives were last imploding over Europe and were totally out of step with cultural change, it was only The Sun that felt which way the wind was blowing. </p>
<p>Murdoch managed to get behind Labour just in time to catch the Labour landslide. Had he not switched direction, the “Soaraway Sun” would have looked as out of touch then as its front page did on election day last week when it was the only tabloid to feature an anti-Corbyn front page. The others were all strangely muted. They supported May but without the strident conviction that had won the Brexit vote.</p>
<h2>May feels the heat</h2>
<p>The red tops did nothing to help Corbyn win but they may well have been responsible for May’s losses. Far from attacking Corbyn and supporting the Conservatives, according to <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-the-conservatives-media-strategy-collapsed-during-the-election-campaign-79291">Loughborough University’s content analysis</a>, the newspapers almost all changed direction halfway through the campaign. The number of anti-Corbyn stories dropped in the second fortnight and the number of stories critical of Theresa May soared. </p>
<p>This was a direct response to the publication of the Conservative manifesto, which contained pledges that would negatively affect the elderly and people who own their own home. These newspapers are commercial operations – they may have political axes to grind but, in straightened times, they also need readers and May was clearly attacking the very home-owning, hard-working families that they depend on. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/173800/original/file-20170614-15456-pty3j4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/173800/original/file-20170614-15456-pty3j4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=381&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173800/original/file-20170614-15456-pty3j4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=381&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173800/original/file-20170614-15456-pty3j4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=381&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173800/original/file-20170614-15456-pty3j4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=479&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173800/original/file-20170614-15456-pty3j4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=479&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173800/original/file-20170614-15456-pty3j4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=479&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Hard to defend: how The Sun reported the ‘dementia tax’.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">The Sun</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Not every editor changed tack. The Daily Mail stuck with May, just as in 1997 it stuck with the Tories. The Labour win didn’t stop the paper then and it is unlikely to dent its confidence now. It is the <a href="http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/nrs-daily-mail-most-popular-uk-newspaper-print-and-online-23m-readers-month/">largest circulation newspaper online</a>, with 15m daily browsers, and only just behind The Sun offline with a <a href="http://www.newsworks.org.uk/daily-mail">print circulation of 1.5m</a>. It may be bruised by its support for May, but it remains unbowed.</p>
<h2>Nothing for young eyes</h2>
<p>Talk of the end of the tabloids assumes that millions of young voters are consuming material from a variety of new information sources. But social media is mainly a means of distributing material and comment on stories that have been produced by existing, mainstream news sources and by political parties (propaganda). It functions by separating audiences into tightly bound groups, all cheerleading for the same cause – Daily Mail stories, which are optimised for sharing, slip easily into the right-wing social media bubble they helped to create around the EU referendum.</p>
<p>It is hard to analyse what is happening on Facebook without access to secret Facebook data, but Twitter is more transparent. A study of Twitter links by academics at <a href="http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:jCM4qJjd5_gJ:comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/89/2017/06/Social-Media-and-News-Sources-during-the-2017-UK-General-Election.pdf+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&client=firefox-b">Oxford</a> University, during the election period, found that Labour was the main subject of Twitter conversation. </p>
<p>During the referendum, however, <a href="http://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/24337/1/EU%20Referendum%20Analysis%202016%20-%20Jackson%20Thorsen%20and%20Wring%20v1.pdf">pro-Brexit discussions predominated</a> and the most-shared post came from the Daily Express. The Oxford research also found that 56% of relevant pre-election content shared on Twitter came from professional sources. The BBC predominantly, followed by The Guardian. Junk news also figured, as did links generated automatically by Bots – which also favoured Labour.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"874351284148719618"}"></div></p>
<p>But the predominance of The Guardian on Twitter may turn out to be a mixed blessing for the news organisation as many of the links may have negatively framed Guardian articles. The newspaper did change course and backed Labour <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/ng-interactive/2017/jun/02/the-guardian-view-on-our-vote-its-labour">at the last minute</a>, but Corbyn supporters are still furious at the attacks on their leader over the past two years. Indeed, it could be argued that it is The Guardian that has had the tin ear when it comes to hearing the needs of its readers. </p>
<p>Even Corbyn’s detractors (disclosure: I was one of them) couldn’t fail to feel uneasy about the way in which The Guardian blindly followed the right-wing news agenda – helping to demonise, rather than understand. If there is something missing in the UK media scene, it is a serious news organisation that fulfils the needs of the vast army of ethnically-mixed under-45s who saw something positive in a Labour manifesto that dared to put them first.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/79446/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Angela Phillips is a member of the Labour Party and the Media Reform Coalition. Her jointly authored book: Misunderstanding the News Audience, will be published by Routledge later this year.</span></em></p>The demise of the UK’s tabloids has been exaggerated in the aftermath of the recent election.Angela Phillips, Professor, Goldsmiths, University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/792912017-06-14T11:10:52Z2017-06-14T11:10:52ZHow the Conservatives’ media strategy collapsed during the election campaign<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/173753/original/file-20170614-21319-1483fcz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption"></span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Claudio Divizia via Shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Did Theresa May’s failure to achieve an enhanced majority in the 2017 UK general election underline the dwindling power of the so-called Tory press and mainstream news media in general? Even The Sun seemed to experience a rare moment of self-doubt, running an item after the vote that essentially argued: “<a href="https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3767326/facebook-theresa-may-majority-general-election-voters-pro-labour-posts/">It was Facebook wot won it</a>.”</p>
<p>There is no question that the surprising result occurred despite <a href="http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/daily-mail-and-sun-launch-front-page-attacks-on-corbyn-as-fleet-street-lines-up-behind-theresa-may/">excoriating criticism of the main opposition party</a> from the right-wing press. However, <a href="http://blog.lboro.ac.uk/crcc/general-election/media-coverage-of-the-2017-general-election-campaign-report-4/">detailed analysis of mainstream news coverage</a> by Loughborough University shows there were plenty of signs that the Conservative Party was losing control of the media election as the campaign unfolded. </p>
<p>The first sign was the Tories’ failure to manage the issue agenda. Table 1, below, shows the main issues in mainstream news coverage during the campaign. As is found with most elections, discussion of the electoral process itself was the most prominent aspect in reporting. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/173774/original/file-20170614-21331-1sre3b3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/173774/original/file-20170614-21331-1sre3b3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/173774/original/file-20170614-21331-1sre3b3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=374&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173774/original/file-20170614-21331-1sre3b3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=374&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173774/original/file-20170614-21331-1sre3b3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=374&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173774/original/file-20170614-21331-1sre3b3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=471&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173774/original/file-20170614-21331-1sre3b3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=471&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173774/original/file-20170614-21331-1sre3b3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=471&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Main issues discussed in all media.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">University of Loughborough</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But the amount of “process coverage” in 2017 was far lower than in the 2015 general election, revealing a greater level of engagement with policy content this time round. There were several potential reasons for this. Process coverage thrives on conflict but at least one of the main protagonists was unwilling to play ball. </p>
<p>Jeremy Corbyn has long expressed his distaste for PR, spin and the “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/11/jeremy-corbyn-aims-to-throw-out-theatrical-abuse-in-parliament">theatrical abuse</a>” that characterises so much mainstream political discourse. The coverage of process rather than policy can also be stimulated by the prospect of a close contest – but it was widely assumed the 2017 campaign was going to be a one-horse race until some shock late polls suggested otherwise. </p>
<p>Interestingly, it was two big campaigning blunders, one each on the part of each main party: the leaking of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/be-it-bold-or-foolish-the-labour-manifesto-at-least-offers-voters-a-real-choice-77829">Labour manifesto</a> and the Conservatives’ <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-theresa-may-cant-escape-the-fallout-from-her-social-care-u-turn-78146">U-turn on their social care policy</a>, which also invited greater attention to the detail of manifesto commitments. </p>
<h2>Talking about policy</h2>
<p>Whatever the reasons, the increased focus on policy did not fit well with the Conservatives’ preferred campaigning agenda – which was to emphasise Theresa May’s “strong and stable” leadership qualities and to treat the manifestos as <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/09/tories-say-theresa-may-must-sack-advisers-fiona-hill-nick-timothy-monsters-sunk-party">a sideshow</a>. By contrast, Corbyn’s team was keen to promote policies over personalities.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/173755/original/file-20170614-21345-1y0m8u1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/173755/original/file-20170614-21345-1y0m8u1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/173755/original/file-20170614-21345-1y0m8u1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=392&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173755/original/file-20170614-21345-1y0m8u1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=392&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173755/original/file-20170614-21345-1y0m8u1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=392&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173755/original/file-20170614-21345-1y0m8u1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=493&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173755/original/file-20170614-21345-1y0m8u1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=493&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173755/original/file-20170614-21345-1y0m8u1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=493&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Figure 2: How coverage of issues changed during the campaign.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">University of Loughborough</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In terms of substantive policy issues, things also worked to the Conservatives’ disadvantage. The party’s strategy was built around foregrounding Brexit. And while the UK’s departure from the EU was the most prominent and substantive issue overall, its presence on the news agenda varied considerably over the five weeks of campaigning. Analysis of coverage shows it dominated for only two of the five weeks of the campaign (as Figure 1 above shows). </p>
<p>Across all media, more coverage was given to health and healthcare than the economy and taxation – which fitted more closely with Labour’s preferred agenda than it did with the Conservatives’. Defence and security issues came to the fore in the latter stages of the election – in part because of a debate over Labour’s stance on Trident, but mainly as a consequence of the terrorist attacks in Manchester and London. Ordinarily, defence and security would offer safer ground for the Conservatives politically, but Labour’s attack on Theresa May for cutting police numbers in her previous role as home secretary caused some discomfort to the government.</p>
<h2>Fourth estate</h2>
<p>Throughout the campaign, the Conservatives could count on the vociferous support of a Tory press keen to bury Labour’s campaign <a href="https://www.pressreader.com/uk/daily-mail/20170607/281479276384940">in ordure</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/173756/original/file-20170614-21315-rjbvlt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/173756/original/file-20170614-21315-rjbvlt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/173756/original/file-20170614-21315-rjbvlt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=351&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173756/original/file-20170614-21315-rjbvlt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=351&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173756/original/file-20170614-21315-rjbvlt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=351&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173756/original/file-20170614-21315-rjbvlt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=441&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173756/original/file-20170614-21315-rjbvlt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=441&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173756/original/file-20170614-21315-rjbvlt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=441&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Figure 3: how the papers rated the parties during the campaign.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">University of Loughborough</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Figure 3, above, compares the cumulative amount of positive to negative party coverage in the national daily newspaper coverage achieved across the five weeks of the campaign. Figure 4, below, weights these figures by circulation and thereby demonstrates the scale of negative coverage of Labour. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/173759/original/file-20170614-21338-100jcbf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/173759/original/file-20170614-21338-100jcbf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/173759/original/file-20170614-21338-100jcbf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173759/original/file-20170614-21338-100jcbf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173759/original/file-20170614-21338-100jcbf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173759/original/file-20170614-21338-100jcbf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=500&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173759/original/file-20170614-21338-100jcbf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=500&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173759/original/file-20170614-21338-100jcbf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=500&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Figure 4: how the weight of circulation rated parties.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">University of Loughborough</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>However, they also show that this opprobrium was interrupted. Following the Conservatives’ <a href="http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/theresa-may-in-uturn-on-social-care-after-facing-tory-backlash-a3545026.html">U-turn on their social care policy</a> in week three, aggregate coverage of the Tories became negative. This remained so even when factoring in the high circulation of pro-Conservative titles such as the Daily Mail and The Sun.</p>
<h2>Two parties, two leaders</h2>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/173762/original/file-20170614-21355-176bx5o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/173762/original/file-20170614-21355-176bx5o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/173762/original/file-20170614-21355-176bx5o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173762/original/file-20170614-21355-176bx5o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173762/original/file-20170614-21355-176bx5o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173762/original/file-20170614-21355-176bx5o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173762/original/file-20170614-21355-176bx5o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173762/original/file-20170614-21355-176bx5o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Figure 5: increasing dominance of the ‘two-party squeeze’.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">University of Loughborough</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>A major difference between the reporting of the 2017 general election compared with 2015 was the “two-party squeeze” in coverage (see figures 4-5). In 2015, 56% of all TV appearances by politicians were by identities from the two main parties. In 2017, this increased to 67%. The dominance of the main parties was even more accentuated in terms of press coverage – increasing from 70% in 2015 to 84% in 2017. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/173765/original/file-20170614-21363-qooob0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/173765/original/file-20170614-21363-qooob0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/173765/original/file-20170614-21363-qooob0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=357&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173765/original/file-20170614-21363-qooob0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=357&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173765/original/file-20170614-21363-qooob0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=357&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173765/original/file-20170614-21363-qooob0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=449&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173765/original/file-20170614-21363-qooob0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=449&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173765/original/file-20170614-21363-qooob0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=449&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Figure 6: how the press favoured the parties.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">University of Loughborough</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Moreover, as the campaign progressed, coverage became increasingly “presidentialised” – May and Corbyn’s combined presence broadly increased from 30% in week one to a peak of 39% in week four. Until the third week, May was more prominent than Corbyn, but in week four, coverage of the Labour leader exceeded that of the prime minister. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/173767/original/file-20170614-21345-14vakdb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/173767/original/file-20170614-21345-14vakdb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/173767/original/file-20170614-21345-14vakdb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=415&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173767/original/file-20170614-21345-14vakdb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=415&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173767/original/file-20170614-21345-14vakdb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=415&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173767/original/file-20170614-21345-14vakdb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=522&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173767/original/file-20170614-21345-14vakdb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=522&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173767/original/file-20170614-21345-14vakdb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=522&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Figure 7: how May and Corbyn vied for media attention during campaign.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">University of Loughborough</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In the final week, their media profiles were nearly equivalent, in what was arguably a portent of what was to come in terms of the dramatic conclusion to a remarkable campaign. </p>
<hr>
<p><em>John Downey, James Stanyer and Dominic Wring from the Centre for Research in Communication and Culture also contributed to the research featured in this article.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/79291/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Deacon receives funding from The Leverrhulme Trust, The British Academy, the Economic and Social Research Council and the BBC Trust</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Smith does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>If you are looking for an in-depth analysis of how the pre-election media campaign went for the two main parties, here is the data.David Deacon, Professor of Communication and Media Analysis, Loughborough UniversityDavid Smith, University Teacher in Social Sciences, Loughborough UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/793602017-06-13T13:26:39Z2017-06-13T13:26:39ZLabour’s resurgence must in part be due to its bold membership experiment<p>Labour’s surprise surge in the 2017 general election has been credited to party leader Jeremy Corbyn’s unexpectedly dynamic campaigning. But it also owes a lot to Ed Miliband. Corbyn’s predecessor took a gamble on a new model of political organising that changed the shape of the party.</p>
<p>Behind Corbyn’s electoral turnaround is an army of over half a million party members and more supporters. Many were attracted by the opportunity to take part in the leadership elections of 2015 and 2016. By extending <a href="http://www.labour.org.uk/blog/entry/how-to-vote-in-the-labour-leadership-election">democracy within the party</a>, the Labour party pulled off an incredible balancing act. It has attracted new supporters without alienating or losing its loyal and active membership base.</p>
<p>Opening up internal party decision-making to non-members has changed the party beyond imagining. Introduced in 2013 with very little fanfare, the change to the rules put the party at the extreme end of open party democracy. Non-members were given equal right to vote in the party’s leadership election if they signed up and paid £3. The first outing of these new rules saw the party engage in a frantic vetting process amid concerns of infiltration both by Conservatives and far-left supporters. </p>
<p>Only six other parties across Western democracies have introduced rules that formally include non-members in party decisions. This model of political organising is not widespread for a good reason. Sharing members’ voting rights with those who have less connection or commitment to the party clearly creates a potential conflict. Yet it would appear that Labour’s experiment has worked. There was a <a href="https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/trickle-becomes-flood-as-another-1-000-members-quit-labour-tnjflfkp9">reported drop in membership</a> after 2015 but that was due primarily to members who had joined for the leadership or general election failing to renew their membership. Only 992 members actively resigned in the same period.</p>
<h2>New vs old party members</h2>
<p><a href="http://www.renewal.org.uk/articles/a-new-politics-the-challenges-of-multi-speed-party-membership">Research</a> with Labour party members during this period suggests this has been possible because active longstanding members are not primarily motivated to stay involved in party activity by the opportunity to vote in leadership elections. They are willing to sacrifice individual benefits of this kind for the greater good of the party.</p>
<p>In interviews with Labour party members during and after the leadership election in 2015, very few wholly opposed extending leadership voting rights to non-members. They instead tended to take the view that the wider benefits of such a move for the party superseded their own preferences: “I personally feel discomforted by it but actually I think it’s probably, as a strategy, the right thing to be doing at this time,” one said.</p>
<p>This response was typical among those who supported Corbyn and those who didn’t. Active members were also not primarily motivated by these voting rights. Typically active members relish opportunities for active participation and the benefits that may bring. They joined the party to learn new skills, meet new people (“I thought this is probably quite a good opportunity to practice my leadership skills”). Sharing voting opportunities with non-members has little impact on these activities. </p>
<p>Yet while Labour appeared to have survived this move to a more open style of political organising, a question remained as to whether those attracted to the party in order to vote in leadership elections could also be persuaded to engage in traditional campaigning activities.</p>
<p>It seems that new supporters and members can and do become more involved but they appear <a href="https://esrcpartymembersproject.org/2016/07/06/jezzas-bezzas-labours-new-members/#more-685">more inclined to online activity</a> and signing petitions than campaigning on the doorstep.</p>
<p>But that in itself is significant given how this election campaign ultimately played out. The widespread use and impact of <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/09/digital-strategists-give-victory-to-labour-in-social-media-election-facebook-twitter">social media</a> gives new weight to these activities.</p>
<p>Different kinds of people may have been encouraged to get involved with Labour when the rules changed but to be able to mobilise half a million old and new members and supporters in both traditional and online campaigning activity is an example of <a href="http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199661862.001.0001/acprof-9780199661862-chapter-6">“multi-speed membership”</a> organising at its most effective.</p>
<p>Much has been made of the message of hope at the heart of Labour’s campaign, but a message is only useful if you have a campaigning machine to carry it. Labour’s gamble of opening up the party has provided it with a new army to deliver that message, and it is a gamble that for now seems to have paid off.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/79360/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jess Garland receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council and is a member of the Labour Party. This article does not reflect the views of the research councils.</span></em></p>The gamble to open up party decisions to non-members may have helped Labour extend their base of active members and supporters.Jess Garland, Politics PhD, University of SussexLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/793202017-06-13T11:53:41Z2017-06-13T11:53:41ZSurprised at the election? Not if you were listening to radio phone-in shows<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/173571/original/file-20170613-20125-bdf0yu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption"></span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">dubassy via Shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Here’s a frightening thought: I have been involved in covering general elections for the past 40 years. In 1979 I was a gofer on ITN’s then innovative phone-in segment on their general election results programme and in 2015 I was one of ITN’s editors responsible for getting the results on to the screen as quickly and accurately as possible – a role I was supposed to fulfil this time round, until a bad fall confined me to bed for the duration of the campaign with a ruptured tendon in my leg.</p>
<p>There are many ways of following an election – through the newspapers, the TV bulletins, online or any combination of the three. But my lack of mobility meant I was giving perhaps more attention than is healthy to the phone-ins on the talk radio shows. Whatever negative effects I might have incurred as a result of all this radio listening, it did give me two insights about the media, the polls and politics that until now had alluded me.</p>
<p>It was a very different way for an old political hack-turned-academic to follow a campaign but it suddenly assumed a greater significance following the <a href="https://theconversation.com/tory-manifestos-nhs-and-social-care-promises-do-they-add-up-77991">launch of the Conservatives’ manifesto</a>. It contained a series of measures that, to put it at its mildest, were unlikely to appeal to their core older demographic – reducing the worth of their old age pension, means-testing their winter fuel allowance and most importantly of all the <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-theresa-may-cant-escape-the-fallout-from-her-social-care-u-turn-78146">so-called dementia tax</a>, on social care.</p>
<p>Listening in the wee small hours to Veronica in Stockton or Edward in Stourbridge, I was genuinely taken aback by the ferocity of the backlash, particularly about the dementia tax, among older people who described themselves as “life-long Conservatives”. I thought this would be a very big story the following day and very soon the polls would start to shift – in the immediate aftermath of the manifesto launch, however, nothing much appeared to change.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"866065673616846848"}"></div></p>
<p>But I thought I knew better, so I tweeted about Veronica and Edward and predicted that the undergrowth was stirring – only to receive a series of gentle rebukes from my fellow academics and journalists reminding me that phone-in contributors were anything but typical of the population at large. They might not be but there is a well-established theory of media effects – the “<a href="https://www.utwente.nl/en/bms/communication-theories/sorted-by-cluster/Mass%20Media/Two_Step_Flow_Theory-1/">two-step flow</a>” – that suggests that Veronica and Edward’s views should be taken more seriously than is the case.</p>
<h2>Loudest voice in the room</h2>
<p>This theory, first developed by Paul Lazarsfeld in his landmark study of the 1944 US presidential election, <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/000271624926100137">The People’s Choice</a>, suggests that one mechanism of media influence on voting behaviour can be found by looking at so-called opinion-formers in society. They monitor political news more closely than most and the convey their version of events and their opinions to whoever is available to listen.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/fRgvSR1Y1oc?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>These opinion-formers might be the obvious people in positions of community leadership – local politicians, teachers, for example – but can also be the person in the bar or staff room who speaks most authoritatively, or simply most loudly – today, perhaps their ilk is the phone-in contributor. They might not be particularly knowledgeable about politics but it is not what they know that counts but their determination that everyone else should also know what they know that is the decisive factor.</p>
<p>And sure enough, after two or three days, as the full import of the Conservatives’ proposals sank in the and media picked up on the story, the polls began to shift and then, five days later, so did Theresa May.</p>
<h2>The approved narrative</h2>
<p>The second “insight” I gained was the relevance of other media theories - the notions of dominant narratives, framing and indexing.</p>
<p>During the campaign, I heard countless radio and TV vox pops of “staunch Labour voters” in what were considered to be safe seats in the Midlands and the north, saying that they couldn’t vote for a Corbyn-led Labour party. Presumably these packages had been based on editors responding to the dominant narrative that Corbyn was “unelectable” and assigning journalists to head out into these constituencies to produce radio and TV packages along these lines.</p>
<p>The basis of framing is, as defined by the <a href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=US+media+scholar+Robert+Entman&oq=US+media+scholar+Robert+Entman&aqs=chrome..69i57.589j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8">US media scholar Robert Entman</a>, that the media “select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation for the item described”. In this case the overall frame was that the Labour vote was “soft” in its safer seats and this was due to the Corbyn effect.</p>
<p>It takes a courageous journalist, sent out to cover one story, to come back saying: “It’s not like that, I’ve done a different story.” Occasionally it happens but in the main it doesn’t – and hence we avid radio listeners and television viewers were left with the impression that Labour was collapsing in its core seats.</p>
<p>Dominant narratives come to dominate, sometimes because they reflect a reality but sometimes because they reflect something else: prejudice, political bias or just plain ignorance. Echo chambers can affect not just “them out there” but journalists, politicians, even pollsters (as they agonise over their weighting factors). This is the so-called <a href="http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199756841/obo-9780199756841-0090.xml">Indexing Hypothesis</a>, which argues that the narratives of the more elite groups in society, politicians, journalists and pollsters for example, will tend to dominate conversations within the public sphere.</p>
<p>When I heard these packages I took what they were telling me seriously because of what appeared to be the overwhelming consensus – but, along with my fellow pundits, I was wrong. I should have put more faith in the phone-ins, because it was rare indeed to hear contributors insisting that: “I’m a staunch Labour voter but I cannot vote for it while led by Corbyn.”</p>
<p>So, the lesson of my election campaign monitoring is that the wisdom of the crowds can’t always be divined via three-minute online poll – and a little listening can go a long way. Long live the wisdom of the phone-in crowd.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/79320/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ivor Gaber does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Phone-in shows are among the only media options that give you the unfiltered views of the public.Ivor Gaber, Professor of Journalism, University of SussexLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/792922017-06-12T15:14:09Z2017-06-12T15:14:09ZFor Jeremy Corbyn, the hard part of being Labour leader has only just begun<p>Suddenly, the Labour party is in a much stronger position than even many of Jeremy Corbyn’s supporters believed possible. Only a few weeks ago, Unite leader Len McCluskey said if the party ended up with just <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/16/success-for-labour-in-election-would-be-200-seats-says-mccluskey">200 seats</a> that was good enough for him. Others argued that if Labour only slightly improved on the 30.4% of the vote it received in 2015 Corbyn should remain leader. It wasn’t just the media predicting disaster for the party when Theresa May called an election.</p>
<p>But having added a remarkable 9.5% to its 2015 share and with 30 more MPs, what should Labour do now? For while Corbyn campaigned unexpectedly well, Labour remains 64 seats short of a House of Commons majority.</p>
<p>Some Corbyn supporters believe Jeremy should keep on being Jeremy. Had the campaign lasted a few more weeks, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/11/two-more-weeks-labour-would-have-been-in-power-shadow-chancellor">John McDonnell claims, Labour would have won</a>. To such Corbynite ultras one more heave is all that is necessary. And the likes of commentator Paul Mason remain convinced Labour has to be transformed from a conventional social democratic electoral organisation into a radical social movement. That means the “Blairite” saboteurs should be <a href="https://twitter.com/paulmasonnews/status/873802503523110913">chased out</a> of the party while Momentum, the body set up to advance Corbynism, needs to redouble its efforts to agitate for internal change.</p>
<p>Not much has actually changed organisationally under Corbyn. The threatened <a href="http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/labour-mps-not-face-any-10251735">de-selection of disloyal MPs</a> never happened, meaning the parliamentary Labour party (PLP) remains very much the same group that tried to unseat Corbyn in 2016. Moreover, for the ultras, Labour’s manifesto – however transformative Corbyn said it was – was a necessary compromise, especially on the renewal of <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/11/leaker-draft-manifesto-jeremy-corbyn-labour-trident">Trident</a>. They will be keen to revisit such matters.</p>
<p>Mirroring this perspective, some of Corbyn’s critics in the PLP remain implacably opposed to his leadership. Labour MP Chris Leslie has stated that <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/10/chris-leslie-labour-should-have-won-against-theresa-may-open-goal">Labour missed an “open goal”</a> against May, arguing the party should have beaten what turned out to be a poor opponent. This is a view other MPs hold but are currently unwilling to express in public. But, like Leslie, they consider that many voters still regard Corbyn as lacking credibility as a potential prime minister; and many MPs remain sceptical of the wisdom of turning Labour back into a “tax and spend” party. If Labour is to ever win office they believe Corbynism has, at the very least, to be pinned back.</p>
<h2>Toeing the line</h2>
<p>Some of Leslie’s colleagues responded to the election result in a different way. They praised Corbyn’s unexpected ability to mobilise younger voters and conceded they underestimated his campaigning skills. Having eaten a slice of humble pie, former shadow business secretary Chuka Umunna, in particular, has <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/10/yvette-cooper-would-consider-serving-jeremy-corbyns-shadow-cabinet/">said</a> he is now willing to serve in a Corbyn shadow cabinet.</p>
<p>Corbyn’s ultras remain uneasy about allowing any “Blairites” back into the fold. It is certainly unlikely that Umunna will have been converted to Corbynism: he may have decided that having tried to challenge Corbyn from without he might do better from within. But if that brings a risk, the likes of Umunna, Yvette Cooper and others will bring competence to the Corbyn team, something that has been notably missing, and which might prove the difference between another glorious defeat and actual victory.</p>
<p>Labour will certainly need seasoned parliamentarians on its front bench in the years ahead now that, thanks to the election, the fate of Brexit is back in the hands of the House of Commons. The next shadow cabinet reshuffle will provide an important insight into Corbyn’s thinking about his party’s future direction.</p>
<h2>Now for the difficult bit</h2>
<p>If peace does break out it will however be likely to be an uneasy one. The first test will come in the autumn, when the Labour conference debates the “McDonnell amendment”. This proposes to reduce the percentage of MPs and MEPs required to nominate a candidate for leader, from its current <a href="https://theconversation.com/labour-leadership-contest-rules-explained-61721">15% to 5%</a>. Should it be passed, the amendment makes it much more likely that when Corbyn stands down – unlikely though that might seem just now – someone who shares his radicalism will find their way on the ballot and so likely be elected leader by what remains a very left-wing membership. The McDonnell amendment seeks to entrench Corbynism, which is why so many – and not just MPs – oppose it.</p>
<p>It is unlikely that Labour’s unexpectedly good performance in the 2017 election will create the basis for a perfect or permanent peace. The party contains fundamentally different visions of how to do politics for that to be possible. That, however, is not exactly news. Previous Labour leaders have kept the party’s inherent ideological divisions in check and won power. It is up to Corbyn to show that he is such a leader. Addressing thousands of cheering supporters during a campaign nobody expects you to win is the easy part of being a leader. The hard part starts now.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/79292/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Steven Fielding is a member of the Labour party.</span></em></p>Sceptical MPs are already agreeing to return to the fold.Steven Fielding, Professor of Political History, University of NottinghamLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.