David Cameron and Angela Merkel attend a meeting at the EU headquarters in Brussels on March 21, 2014. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

It's a myth that Britain is sleepwalking towards Brexit

With the young most in favour of EU membership, euroscepticism faces death by demographics.

Britain is sleepwalking towards Brexit. That's increasingly the verdict of the commentariat, anyway. In today's Times, Dominic Cummings argues that "Voters don’t believe the prime minister when he says he’ll get a better deal for Britain in Europe". Last week, Matthew Parris wrote "Have no doubt. We’re heading for an EU exit". Matthew argued that "Britain is heading for the exit. Something seriously impressive has to be achieved to change our course." 

The rationale is simple. As Vernon Bogdanor warned in a recent lecture“Don’t imagine that Mr Cameron can pull off Harold Wilson’s trick a second time.”

Mr Wilson managed to convince the public that he had secured a triumphant renegotiation before the 1975 referendum, when he had done nothing of the sort. With the political class having never been held in more contempt - and the "Yes" camp in any referendum in 2017 certain not to enjoy the nine-to-one funding advantage that the pro-EU forces did 39 years ago - Mr Cameron would face a much more onerous task. Professor Bogdanor notes a Gallup poll in January 1975 showing a narrow majority in favour of leaving, while 71% said they would prefer to stay “If the Government negotiated new terms for Britain’s membership of the Common Market" - something that closely resembled the final result. "People could be greatly influenced by what the political leaders, in particular the leaders of the Labour Party, said". The implication is that the same is not true today.

But here's the thing: even if Professor Bogdanor is right, it won't matter. The polls tell us that Mr Cameron doesn't need to pull off Mr Wilson's trick. A YouGov survey last week, showed support for remaining in the EU at its highest level under the current government. The public suggest they would still listen to the advice of the government - there is a 35% lead in favour of staying in the EU in the event of Mr Cameron recommending that Britain does so. Yet, even without one, staying in is the preferred option: 44% would vote to remain in the EU, compared to 36% who would sooner leave. 

Even if the public were to ignore Mr Cameron's advice, he has already made his greatest contribution to the pro-EU cause. The near five-year gap between his pledge to hold an in-out referendum and the date when this would be amounts to a bump of several points for the "Yes" camp.

That's because of demographics. The generational divide among voters has never been starker than on Europe. The younger they are, the more Europhile they come. Today. only the over 60s support Brexit. Remaining in has an 8% advantage with 40-59-year-olds (even without a recommendation from the PM) - and it rises to 30% among the under-25s. While Britain has an ageing population, this is not, crudely put, enough to make up for the Eurosceptics who are passing away, because those who have been at university, studied abroad and always remember Britain being part of the EU tend to stubbornly cling onto pro European beliefs.

The upshot is simple. Every day that Britain waits for an referendum on its membership of the EU, remaining in becomes a more likely course. Unless opponents of the EU can locate a message that resonates with the young - nay, make that anyone under 60 - euroscepticism faces defeat by demographics. 

Tim Wigmore is a contributing writer to the New Statesman and the author of Second XI: Cricket In Its Outposts.

Cameron in Nuneaton. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Why fewer of us want a long-term relationship ... with a political party

In 2015, 38 per cent of voters backed a different party to the one they supported in 2010. So what does the rise of swing voters mean for British politics?

For decades political parties have competed furiously for one of the great prizes of British politics: the affections of the swing voter. It wasn’t that long ago that there were relatively few political swingers: until the 1990s, fewer than a quarter of voters would switch parties from one election to the next.

Yet that once relatively rare breed is becoming increasingly common, which means party campaigners are going to have to come up with new tactical thinking. The British Election Study survey panels, conducted episodically over the last fifty years, are unique in that they are able to track the same voters from one election to the next, unlike more conventional opinion polls that only look at a snapshot of voters at a given time. Using these studies, you can identify the percentage of voters who switch their vote from one party to another between each pair of elections since 1966 when such data was first collected.

In 1966 only around 13 per cent of voters had changed their minds since the previous election in 1964. Since then, the proportion of swingers has been steadily increasing, and by 2015, 38 per cent of voters backed a different party to the one they supported in 2010.

The increase in swing voters is pretty consistent. The only exceptions are between February and October 1974, when (understandably) fewer voters changed their minds in eight months than switched in the preceding four years, and between 1997 and 2001, when the electoral dominance of New Labour under Tony Blair held back the tide for a time. These two exceptions aside, the increase has been constant election-on-election.

A lot of vote shifting can go on even between elections where the overall result remains stable. In 2001, for example, more people switched votes than in any election before 1997, with a surprising level of turmoil beneath the surface stability. While these largely cancelled out on that occasion, it set the stage for more dramatic changes in the parties’ votes later on.

So British voters now seem more likely than ever to jump from party to party. But who exactly are these swingers? Are they disillusioned former party loyalists? Or have British voters simply stopped getting into a serious relationship with the parties in the first place? We can get some insight into this using data from the yearly British Social Attitudes Survey, looking at the number of respondents who say that they do not identify with any of the political parties (party identifiers tend to switch much less often) when they are asked ‘Generally speaking, do you think of yourself as a supporter of any one political party?’ and then ‘Do you think of yourself as a little closer to one political party than to the others?’ if they say no to the first question. The graph below combines data from 1984 to 2013. Each line represents people who were born in a different year. Higher lines mean that there are more people who do not identify with a political party. So, for instance, voters born in 1955 started with very low levels of non-identification (22 per cent), which have gradually risen to 44 per cent in the latest survey. Most of the lines on the graph go up over time, which shows that almost all generations are falling out of love with the parties.

However, an acquired taste in swinging among the older generations is dwarfed by the promiscuous younger generations – shown by the dashed lines – most of whom never form an attachment to a party at all. Each generation in the data has been less committed to the parties than the previous generation was at the same age, with around 60 per cent of the youngest generation – those born since 1985 – expressing no attachment to any political party.

Since most of this change has been a generational shift, it may be a long road back for the parties. Loyalty to parties is often handed down in families, with children inheriting their parents’ commitment to a party. Now that this process has broken down, and younger generations have lost their attachment to parties, they may in turn pass on this political detachment to their children.

The majority of younger voters have simply never grown up with the idea of getting into a long-term relationship with a political party, so they may never settle down. Many Labour MPs were outraged when it turned out that lots of the new members who joined up to vote for Jeremy Corbyn had voted for the Green Party just a few months before, but this may simply reflect the political approach of a generation who see parties as needing to earn their vote each time rather than commanding lasting, even unconditional loyalty.

If Britain’s newfound taste for swinging isn’t going to disappear any time soon, what does it mean for party competition? In the past most people had settled partisan views, which seldom changed. General elections could be won by attracting the relatively small group of voters who hadn’t made up their minds and could very easily vote for either of the two main parties, so political parties based their strategies around mobilising their core voters and targeting the few waverers. While they worried about traditional loyalists not turning up to the polls, the parties could be assured of their supporters’ votes as long as they got them to the voting booth.

Nowadays, swing voters are no longer a small section of the electorate who are being pulled back and forth by the parties, but a substantial chunk of all voters. This helps to explain why politicians have been so surprised by the sudden rise of new parties competing for groups previously thought to be reliable supporters. The new parties that have entered British politics have also allowed voters to express their views on issues that don’t fall neatly into traditional left– right politics such as immigration (UKIP) or Scottish independence (the SNP). This in turn has posed a dilemma for the traditional parties, who are pulled in multiple directions trying to stop their voters being tempted away.

This may just be the start. If the number of swing voters stays this high, the parties will have to get used to defending themselves on multiple fronts.

This is an extract from More Sex, Lies and the Ballot Box, edited by Philip Cowley and Robert Ford.