I was musing last night on writing a blog on the divisions that Brexit is creating within UK society, only to find Sebastian Payne had touched on the same issue in the FT overnight. He included this chart which I share because of its importance:
This data shows just how divisive the Brexit issue is: the common ground between left and right is much greater than between Remainers and Leavers.
Ipsos Mori data to which he also refers confirms this:
Leavers have a wholly different view of the UK from Remainers, and hold it more strongly.
Some might say, so what? Brexit is just a passing phenomenon in their view and once it has happened these divisions will disappear. I do not think so. As Payne notes, and as I have done, there is remarkably little remorse amongst Leave voters despite the problems that have arisen since June 2016 and whilst there has been an undoubted shift to Remain in opinion polls, suggesting that it would win now, the margin remains small. A deep, and really quite fundamental division within society has been opened by Brexit that I cannot see going away.
I remain hopeful that, whatever happens over the next couple of years, peace will be maintained within the UK, although I would add that I am only hopeful: I am far from confident on this issue so deep are the divisions and so great, therefore, the chance of violence if aspirations, however unrealistic, are not fulfilled. Precisely because those divisions are so deep I think they have the characteristics of a nation that might, or has, suffered civil war. These wars happen when common ground is lost. Violence is resorted to when understanding has gone. I hope that is not true in the UK, but I fear it.
I have referred more than once on this blog to the Irish civil war that happened almost a century ago, which I have studied. I could even refer back to the English civil war, which I have again studied. In both common ground was lost, and the ramifications took many decades to resolve, if they ever have been, at least in the case of Ireland where the shadow of that division still falls on politics now.
I think that this will be the case for Brexit, even with wholly peaceful outcomes. The polarity of the UK has increased. I very strongly suspect that this will be apparent in many families this Christmas. I cannot, as yet, see a way that these tensions may be resolved. And what is very obvious is that current political alignments cannot address them, which partly explains but does not exonerate (in my Remain view) Labour's current dithering on this issue.
My point is that to think about Brexit as a short term issue to resolve is important, but it is far from the only perspective that is required on it. A long term view is also necessary, and what it suggests is that unless there is fairly rapid adaptation within the UK political sphere to the new reality that we face - which might actually result in new polarisations around Brexit and how to manage it after we have left - then we will be left with wholly inadequate mechanisms to channel the stresses that really exist in society, and this is potentially very dangerous for political stability within the country.
Our outdated two party system (with apologies to all the others) and the obvious inadequacies of first-past-the-post are more apparent than ever at present, just when politics needs new ways of reflecting what is happening in society. Unless that happens I am fearful as to whether the new polarities can be contained.
If you thought Brexit was going away anytime soon I think you are wrong in other words. At my age I think it fair to say Brexit and its consequences might be for life now. It's a sobering thought.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I can’t see armies marching down the A1 to fight for an organisation whose main activity is farm subsidies, and which has set up a Customs Union designed to protect the recipients of those subsidies.
I can see those who share your far-right persuasion fighting if they cannot control immigration as they think they must even though those places with most migrants in the UK voted Remain
I think the greatest correlation of all is between Leave voters and the reintroduction of the death penalty so the spread on the Authoritarian/Libertarian axis comes as no surprise.
It would be interesting to the data on some sort of Emotional/Analytic axis or as Daniel Kahneman would put it thinking fast and slow. I’m not sure if or how this analysis could be done
That’s got me thinking
I thought the two strongest predictors of a Leave voter were advancing age, and leaving formal education earlier. (Ditto Remain – younger, longer/higher education.)
Do I need to ask how those two map on to the death penalty / authoritarian axis.
Sadly I fear you may well be right. An avoidable tragedy for the country. And, as with the bankers, those responsible will go unscathed and rewarded. Even before the referendum the UK was one of the most socio-economically divided countries in the OECD. Furthermore, the preoccupation with ‘Brexit’ has taken the focus away from essential domestic reform that has little or nothing to do with the EU.
Maybe the conspiratorialists are on to something – that the Anglo-American Ayn Rand inspired, Alt-right white supremacists want to destabilise western society to the extent that they will be ‘offered’ control in order to restore law & order, national pride, etc. etc. Sounds familiar? I’m not suggesting that this will be the outcome but, as you said, there may be latent violence lurking beneath the surface. And those with ingrained grievances can be readily united under a 3rd party banner.
Trouble is we won’t know until it’s too late. Not a good time for those in the bottom left quadrant.
Indeed
I feel that!
“Even before the referendum the UK was one of the most socio-economically divided countries in the OECD”
Mmmmmm. Socio-economically, maybe, but there are plenty of other countries deeply divided, perhaps on ethnically racially, geographically, linguistically , – and these divisions generally have a socio economic dimension. You only need to cross the channel to Belgium to see a country struggling to maintain its unity in the face of deep, deep divisions. And Canada – not just the Anglo and French split, but the division between Native American populations and the Europeans.? The US with its whites, Hispanics, blacks, the divisions between “flyover country” and the east/west coast. Italy, and the north/south divide. Go to Brazil and decide when you see the stacked favelas of black and Indio populations adjacent to the rich middle class white housing and suburbs whether you are seeing a country where the socio economic divisions are eclipsed by thosee on the UK.
The age of the referendum “voter” is another determining factor… those who can remember (the average age of our group is 76) Britain of the past and compare it with Britain of today (and their perception of Britain in the future) are more likely to vote “leave”.
Maybe this is nostalgia as the passage of time clouds the memory through rose tinted lenses and they hanker after “how things used to be” … even though in reality the “things” may have been far worse than they are today.
On an encouraging note Richard … most of these disillusioned “voters” (of which I am one) will be disappearing over the next 10 years (or so) leaving the field clear for the new progressives and Europeans to gain the controlling ascendency. There will be no civil war.
You forget that opinions change with age….
Can you explain why, after the last 10 years of growing injustice and inequality in the UK, you believe Brexit is “the” divisive issue?
Is there any discomfort in the realisation that there is more common ground between Left and Right than between Remainers and Leavers?
It is for these reasons I chose Brexit. To break up a comfortable cartel of the political class who although “would like” to create more equality, were simply carried along by the tide of inevitability created by the system.
Like you, the Irish Border sensitivity and the vitriol in society make me very nervous. But the inevitability of the current system has been far more toxic all over.
It would have been very easy to “Remain”. Had the Remainers turned around and said “people are demanding change… lets get on with it” and negotiated real change while working to maintain the benefits of Europe… I certainly would have gone full on pro-EU again.
It is the divisive issue because it is social and political
The issue is not capitalism v socialism, or redistribution or not.
It is migrant v not
It is nationalism v internationalism
It is open and closed borders
I think that far more toxic
Whilst reform of the system of corrupt capitalism was possible within the EU I do not see that happening outside it
Just as Trump is proving he will reinforce corruption in the US despite his rhetoric so too will that happen here with Brexit
That is why this is the issue
On the other hand, many who voted leave & now know they’ve been conned will settle for a form of Leave that is uncannily like Remain. But Leave means Leave & they weren’t wrong – no, not at all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB0o3Rq9Vyo
Why?
Psychology. Ask Golda. And opinion polls are beginning to show it.
I think Spain is another sorry example of a country that remains deeply divided after a civil war that happened long ago. And I don’t just mean the Catalan vs. Spanish nationalism issue, the two main and alternatingly dominant parties still largely represent both sides of that conflict of long ago. Luckily true political alternatives (Podemos movement) are finding a footing there and maybe more violent outbursts can be averted.
Spain is not deeply divided … It presently has a democratically elected, right of centre pro-EU government which is carefully steering a conciliatory course between “right” and “left”.
The Catalan issue has been blown out of proportion (sometimes by Brexiters who believe that Catalan is emblematic with their “struggle for independence “ from the EU). There is no provision in the Spanish Constitution for Catalan independence and until the Constitution is rewritten those who use violence in this cause are guilty of sedition. The vast majority of the Spanish people do not want the Constitution re-written – and in this regard there is a problem/ complication.
George Orwell’s “Homage to Catalonia” and the history of Spain leading up to the civil war provides revelatory insight into the mind-set of Catalan. I was fortunate to have known a Spaniard who (through events totally beyond his control) was recruited first by the Republican army and later after recovering from wounds was press-ganged by the Nationalist army. A most interesting and experienced man who would have been contemptuous of the fake news currently peddled.
Not so sure, for many people the PP = Franco’s party. I have family living in Andalusia, they feel the division everyday, some families simply ignore each other because one was pro-Franco and the other not. They live parallel lives in the same village.
I live in Belgium, I’m thirty seven, you’d be surprised how often I’ve heard in my life: “those and those’s (grand)father were ‘wrong’ during the war (=WWII)”, implying obviously “don’t get too close with them”. Belgium has been occupied for about 4 years only, imagine what kind of resentment a 40 year long oppressive regime can cause.
Pessimism is communicable and the success of a nation’s economy is mostly resolved by self-assurance. Unfortunately, the present government prefers discussing its justification measures for Brexit rather than fostering the prospects afforded from reclaiming jurisdiction over considerable number of UK government policies.
While the BBC, Bank of England and remain supporting MPs persist in talking the economy down, there is a real danger of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The problem with this article is, for a start, the FT charts on which it is based. It is not clear what data has been used to create the charts, but the depiction of Conservative supporters as broadly “authoritarian” and Labour supporters as broadly “libertarian” is obviously wrong, or created by a very peculiar way of defining those terms. It is a mirror image of the true position.
Whilst there will be mixtures of “authoritarian” and “libertarian” thinking in both main parties, it is the Conservatives who have always and consistently advanced low regulation, free markets, low taxation and freedom of the individual – hallmarks of libertarianism; whereas the Labour Party has always and consistently advanced the opposite: more public ownership, more state regulation, and high taxation – hallmarks of authoritarianism.
Since the charts have been produced by the FT, and are on the subject of Brexit, it can be safely assumed that they are unreliable and/or have been presented in a particular way in order to advance the FT’s gospel – i.e. that Brexit is always and in every respect a “Bad Thing” – rather than as objective material to support a reasoned analysis.
If defined socially, and it is clear that they are, then the terms make total sense
Your comment does not
And is deeply worrying
Do you really think the world is as black qnd white as you imply?
If so all my fears are justified
Given the axes and the caption it is probable that the data was produced by the political compass test https://www.politicalcompass.org/test/
I know I’m well into the third quadrant, bottom left and a lifelong Social Decocrat
“Richard says: ( December 13 2017 at 10:27 am)
The problem with this article is, for a start, the FT charts on which it is based. It is not clear what data has been used to create the charts, but the depiction of Conservative supporters as broadly “authoritarian” and Labour supporters as broadly “libertarian” is obviously wrong, or created by a very peculiar way of defining those terms. It is a mirror image of the true position.”
I suggest you view https://www.politicalcompass.org/ to get a flavour of the context that these terms are being used in this article. What you are describing as libertarian & authoritarian is really more akin to left – right.
Anyway Richard (Murphy) again I find myself agreeing with you and I’m glad you mentioned FPTP. I suspect that if we didn’t have a FPTP system there would have been a lot fewer disenfranchised people in the country and therefor the protest element of the vote in the referendum would have been lower.
Re you last para: agreed
‘Richard’
Silly me!
I always thought that the hallmarks of authoritarianism were things like military juntas, armed coups, shady arms and trade deals, slave and labour camps, executions and execution pits, disappeared family members, one party states, poverty for the many – riches for the few.
All the sorts things that made Conservative Margaret Thatcher a fan of General Augusto Pinochet of Chile and also neo-liberal economists like Milton Freidman who was also an admirer.
Labour – authoritarian? Hmmm……….
You do know that the Tories have increased VAT since 2010 to 20%? So by your definition they too must be authoritarian. They have taxed people in council houses who have an extra bedroom because there is not enough housing to move to. And they tax people who are late turning up at job interviews for no reason and for being disabled by not giving them any money at all!
And instead of fining the makers of diesel cars and using their authority to put the liars in prison for telling porkies about emissions or putting it right at the makers expense, they’re going to use their authority to tax the already hard pressed owners of said diesels more for owning the cars they were told were cleaner than petrol cars!!
The same Tories move publically accountable services into the private sector – where they become less accountable and where they can then be really authoritarian and do what they did to the Royal Mail and British Steel employees for example and reduce their pensions and working conditions which they originally were contacted to work for (contracted – yes? – just ripped up). The privatised services also express their authoritarianism by putting up prices for services they know people will need – like on the railways, utilities and the mail in order to make money for their shareholders who give them the authority to do this.
And what about regulation – it was the Tories who basically authorised British banking to spend the money it was meant to keep for a rainy day so that when 2008 came (and will come again) the State must bail them out instead whilst telling everyone else there is no money left and use their authority to inflict austerity on people who never did anything wrong in the first place.
I hope that puts you in the picture. If you need any other info – just ask. There’s plenty more to tell you about authoritarianism in the Tory party.
A good summary thank you
Interesting perspective. But rather than causing these divisions, the Brexit vote revealed long-brewing societal changes, and the Brexit process is now bringing them in to sharper relief. Reminds me of the Thatcher period. If similar, it will indeed be with us for decades!
“But rather than causing these divisions, the Brexit vote revealed long-brewing societal changes,…”
Agreed.
And when the citizens of the UK were – for once in their lives -offered a poll in which every vote counted, the majority of voters, many with nothing left to lose, chose to give the comfortable, complacent, liberal establishment one great big kick up the arse.
Brexit hasn’t created division in the UK, it has simply exposed it.
What as a nation we chose to do, post-Brexit, will be the making, or the destruction of us.
Re the last agreed
The tribal division has been clear for some time and was reinforced to an extent by the resurgence of the two-party system at the last election. However, what may be more worrying is the increasing dominance of the extremes in both sides. The Tory party is in thrall to a rump of 35-40 ardent Brexiteers and Labour has been captured by authoritarian, left-wing, neo-Stalinists whose take-over has been concealed by the appeal of the nice but dim Jeremy Corbyn to many idealistic young people. The migration to the extremes has taken place already in Northern Ireland and can be seen clearly when one compares the parties participating in the 1973 Sunningdale agreement with the party representation in the last general election.
It doesn’t take long before one tribe refuses to grant their consent to be governed by representatives of the other tribe. This started in the US in 1992 when many Republican supporters refused to recognise the democratic legitimacy of Bill Clinton’s election victory – mainly because the intervention of Ross Perot meant his popular vote fell far short of 50%. It continued with the concerted undermining of everything the Obama administration did or attenpted to do. We’re heading in that direction in Britain. Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary are well down this path and Austria may be heading there.
However, in most other EU member-states the centre is holding. This was demonstarted most spectacularly in France where a newly re-constituted centre dominates. In many other countries, formal and informal governing arrangements across the centre-right and centre-left tend to dominate. Ireland, Spain, the Netherlands, Italy and Sweden provide a range of examples. The pressure to agree such an arrangement is increasing in Germany. And even where the centre-right or centre-left dominates, policies are moderated to ensure the consent to be governed of those not in power.
We seem to be infected by a peculiarly virulent Anglo-Saxon madness. And it appears it will take a long time to cure it.
I thnk you over simplify with stereotypes that serve little purpose on both sides
One person’s stereotype is another person’s well-defined category. I favour compromises across the centre-left and the centre-right because there are always conflicts between various interest groups that must be squared. These can be complex and messy. But they prove the most effective way of establishing well governed markets and sensible progressive policies. You may not be prepared to acknowledge it, but these kinds of compromises are an anathema to the Lexit-favouring praetorian guard around Jeremy Corbyn. Sooner or later they will have to be confronted and defeated.
The reason why this is important to me is because such division only helps to take people’s minds of other issues such as inequality, fair taxation, the right to work and be decently paid. Also freedom from debt and ill health and adequate help if the latter emerges.
Things like BREXIT just muddy the waters for progressive thinking. It is typical divide and conquer – we Brits built an entire empire on it so now without an empire our rulers practice this at home isntead.
I know of a pensioner who is absolutely loaded and still got her winter fuel payment this year. She didn’t need it.
And yet we have working people going to food banks! Kids being cold at Christmas; an increase in rough sleeping.
Makes you proud doesn’t it?
Hmm … Means testing perhaps? And if the “Winter Fuel Allowance” remains obligatory for ALL elderly people living in the UK should there be a mechanism to allow those who elect to self-certificate themselves as “undeserving” to return it to the government (and hence the tax payer)? Or some means to transfer it to a deserving charity of the elderly person’s choice?
A virtue signaler’s paradise causing even greater division?
Elderly people’s earned entitlement to a welfare benefit should not be quoted as the cause for working people forced to go to food banks, kids being cold at Christmas and an increase in rough sleeping. Maybe, just maybe, these elderly people also suffered the same deprivations when they were young and these acted as an incentive to improve their lives. The great American dream is based on such principles! Although this is now considered highly unfashionable.
We can improve society … but never make it completely fair.
“Elderly people’s earned entitlement to a welfare benefit should not be quoted as the cause for working people forced to go to food banks, kids being cold at Christmas and an increase in rough sleeping”.
Did I say it was a cause?
No. Please do not put words into my mouth.
I am drawing attention to what I think is an injustice and an inconsistency. The money this older person will get in her fuel allowance (and that she does not need) would feed a family for a whole month. An established household is getting money and one that is trying to establish itself is suffering. Oh – and the established household is more likely to vote. Is this the reason I wonder why we can’t make society fairer?
And you think means testing is effective?
It’s costly in its self – one of the costliest parts of delivery any benefit for that matter.
My point is just for the state to be more generous across the board at a time when the economy is still suffering from (1) the after shock of 2008, (2) the destruction of the economy as a result of stupid austerity policies of George Osbourne and David Cameron that saw economic output reduce and (3) the effects on the loss of confidence in the economy as a result of BREXIT.
Too much of our social security system is badly designed – take a look at this. None of this seems aimed at making life fairer:
http://blog.spicker.uk/the-worst-social-security-policy-ever/
The winter fuel payment is a case of its simplicity of administration over the costly grading of fairness that outweighs and costs more than the simple payment to all.
It also seems like a Xmas gift for presents
Very interesting. Been thinking about this myself, and worrying like many posters above about the long-term salience and consequences of the division.
It’s hard to think of parallels but I was particularly struck by some data released earlier this month on views in the Czech and Slovak Republics today on the division of Czechoslovakia in 1993. (It was published by the Institute for Public Affairs (www.ivo.sk), but at a brief glance couldn’t see any mention of it in English.)
Just a reminder that there was no referendum – simply an agreement between Václav Klaus and VladimÃr MeÄiar the then prime ministers of the respective halves of the federation. Opinion polls indicated most people were against it.
Twenty-five years on only 11% of Czechs and Slovaks think it was definitely the right thing to do and 66% would vote against splitting the federation if a referendum were held today. This is despite the fact that living standards have undoubtedly risen (although nothing to do with the divorce) and both republics have strong identities. Young people, i.e. those born after the event, are less bothered by it. This would suggest a trauma of this kind takes several generations to fade.
Other similarities are to be found in the hostile language used at the time: Czechoslovakists (our ‘citizens of nowhere’), traitors, patriots etc. The good news is that those divisions no longer exist. But could be reopened in a different context. And Czech politics is going somewhere very weird and disturbing…
The absolutely worst thing about the May government is that not only has it failed to launch a national dialogue and start the healing process but it has deliberately aggravated the wounds and the tensions between the two sides and between the UK’s constituent parts.
Hope is good but maybe what’s really needed is more effort to bring society (and the UK) together at the grass roots?
The expression “English Civil War” has not worn well; there was not one war, nor is it a term now widely used. The fact that it does not illuminate the history adequately is – ironically perhaps – relevant to today.
I agree it was wars
And I do think it a term still used
But maybe that shows I am not a historian
For those who say that demographics will swing the national opinion back to the EU as fast as the over-60 Leaver voters die off, I would reply with a question:
What of the non-voting under-30’s?
I say ‘non-voting’, but it turns out that they are doing something very political indeed: they are voting with their feet.
Don’t rely on demographics to resolve the democratic deficit.
Also: take a few moments to consider what mass emigration will do to the economics of health care and provision for the elderly.
My ancient 95 year old relative summed it all up quite succinctly.
“The silly buggers have gone and kicked the wrong dog… again”
The overarching viewpoint are always the balance of forces for the common ground vs the forces splitting and dividing society.
Forces dividing
Facebook and googles algorithms are huge forces for dividing as they have no public service mandate and unlimited pages of specialised content.
The big economic driving forces of mass migration, massive trade deficits to China/elsewhere drive splitting and blaming of others.
Youtube replacing national newspapers and even TV news channels encouraging splitting from common editorial views
Economic failure and lack of growth always makes more splitting and wars. History is very clear on that and the normal timescale is about 8 years for peak split.
At the current time period of 8+ years after 2008 we would be at a normal peak divergence time (Brexit not a surprise) however with the EUs desire to force the creation of a US of EU by economic warfare on its citizens is an all pervasive force for splitting society but concentrating power. I think only now is the EU beginning to allow some growth and thus I expect another 3+ years from the normal 8 year timescale.
General efforts undermining trust in the police, politicians, banking, electoral results, news we read or videos we see cause splintering
Forces for common ground/uniting.
Printed newspapers are for the common ground because of their limited space trying to get a broad appeal to readers.
The loss of communal pubs that welcome all including the smokers reduces common ground.
Oddly the electoral FPTP encourages common ground because MPs are to represent all constituents (allowing them to change from their political parties line) although with PR the compromises needed generate some common ground however the politicians compromises make them perceived and actual liars (campaign promise and reality being far apart) and thus a lack of trust in politicians is created which encourages further minority parties. So a balanced view on the different electoral methods of selection. The EU has grown to the extent that now event the countries are outmaneuvered by the EU professional bureaucrats dividing and ruling.
Independent of any party view MPs are also a uniter – not beholden to either party or many single issue opinions.
Economic growth encourages common views as there is more to share out and buy off minority interests such that the rest don’t notice.
National service and conscription are a uniting force as classes mix under a common purpose (professional small armies make a smaller positive difference)
The NHS is a uniter as most citizens are in the same wards and situations available for discussion and the workforce mixes high and lesser intellects.
Balancing up the two sides for me its clear the splitting side is dominant currently and I don’t see much change until either laws on balanced news reporting for google/facebook/the web are implemented (like UK General Election laws) and or the economy grows to allow for the bezel to be covered and smooth over/buy off the tensions.