5 Johnson to Truss in ten weeks; social choice
THIS NEEDS MORE WORK … TO BE CONTINUED
Contents
5.1 The process
5.2 Choosing Boris Johnson in 2019
5.3 The first stage, 2022: Conservative MPs
5.4 Two dimensions and Remain base scores … social choice theory
5.5 The second stage: Conservative party members
5.6 How it was looking, end of July and into August
5.7 Low-value? The leadership debate?
5.8 The value of the two candidates
5.9 An IPSOS poll on the Conservative leadership contest, July 20-21
Overview
This is the second of the four chapters about the political turmoil in the UK in 2022. In Chapter 4 we discussed the events which led to the downfall of Boris Johnson. His resignation as leader of the Conservative party on July 7th prompted the start of a process of choosing the next prime minister.
In general, the process of choosing a prime minister is not straightforward. What happened in this case is that Boris Johnson continued to be prime minister while the Conservative party engaged in the process of choosing a new leader of the party. Some had wanted a different process. Some wanted Boris Johnson to stand down immediately as prime minister and to be immediately replaced by a temporary caretaker prime minister. Some wanted the next prime minister to be determined by the outcome of a general election.
The selection of a new party leader involves three stages. The first stage is the nomination of candidates and the acceptance of their nomination. If only one candidate is nominated then that candidate becomes leader – see Chapter 8. Otherwise there are then two further stages. There is a stage where Conservative MPs vote; and then there is a stage where Conservative party members vote.
Elsewhere I have discussed the process which selected Boris Johnson as party leader in 2019 (a link is provided). Links are also provided to two leadership elections for the Labour Party: Jeremy Corbyn in 2015 and Keir Starmers in 2020.
In 2022 there were many candidates nominated to succeed Boris Johnson. Some failed to obtain the requisite number of supporters. Conservative MPs then voted over five rounds, gradually eliminating candidates until just two were left: Sunak with 137 votes and Truss with 113 votes – Mordaunt being eliminated with 105 votes; and the other five candidates having been eliminated in the four previous rounds.
Through the summer there were several debates between the two candidates. Then the results of the votes of Conservative party members were announced. As anticipated, Liz Truss defeated Rishi Sunak and was elected leader of the
Conservative party on Monday 6th September 2022. Party members voted 57% for Truss and 43% for Sunak.
5.1 The process
The Queen invites a person to become the prime minister, namely to form a government which has the support of parliament. By convention she invites the person who is leader of the party which has the majority in the parliament. (Parliament consists of the House of Commons and the House of Lords, the former having been elected by the people.)
The party with the majority in the Commons is determined by a general election and any subsequent by-elections. The selection of the leader of the Conservative Party is a two-stage process. In the first stage Conservative MPs choose; and in the second stage members of the Conservative party choose – from the top two candidates in the first stage.
5.2 Choosing Boris Johnson in 2019
See pages 33-62 in:
Brexit: the impact on UK politics
“The next Prime Minister: Conservatives in political space
7 Party leaders
7.1 Changing leaders
7.2 The Tory leadership contest
7.2.1 Introduction
7.2.2 Conceptual issues
7.2.3 The contest
7.2.4 The candidates’ proposals for solving Brexit
7.2.5 Conservative party members
7.2.6 The general public”
5.3 The first stage, 2022: Conservative MPs
Who will replace Boris Johnson?
‘Stop Sunak!’ … ‘Sunak versus Truss’
“Surge for Mordaunt”
Conservative MPs: nominatins and first round voting
Penny Mordaunt and social choice theory
Brexit … Remain base scores for Truss, Mordaunt and Sunak
Opinions: party and public
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Conservative_Party_leadership_election_(UK)
Who will replace Boris Johnson?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-60037657
‘Stop Sunak!’ … ‘Sunak versus Truss’
The contest has been portrayed as ‘Stop Sunak!’ or as ‘Sunak versus Truss’:
“Sunak and Truss lead race … cabinet ministers fall in behind rivals.” 13, 1.
Cartoon: Sunak saying “I’m the one to beat!” 13, 27.
“Surge for Mordaunt”
“Grassroots Tories back surprise stars Mordaunt and Badenoch.” 13, 10-11.
Conservative MPs: nominations and first round voting
“Surge for Mordaunt in race to be Tory leader. Grassroots support gives edge over Sunak. Truss trailing after first round vote.” 14, 1.
Indeed Mordaunt had the second highest number of public declarations of support from Conservative MPs. The table below gives the number of Conservative MPs making public declaration of their support and the number of Conservative MPs
Table Declarations of support and first ballot voting
Rishi Sunak 47 then 88 (+41)
Penny Mordaunt 26 then 67 (+41) … more than doubling (x 2.6)
Liz Truss 21 then 50 (+29) … more than doubling (x 2.4)
Tom Tugendhat 20 then 37 (+17)
Kemi Badenoch 18 then 40 (+12) … more than doubling (x 2.2)
Nadhim Zahawi 14 then 25* (+11) *eliminated because less than 30
Jeremy Hunt 14 then 18* (+4) *eliminated because less than 30
Suella Braverman 12 then 32 (+20) … more than doubling (x 2.7)
[Sajiv Javid, Grant Schapps and Rehman Chishti did not go forward.]
[Fourteen other MPs declined to be nominated.]
Tuesday July 12 (13, 8); Wednesday July 13 (14, -).
Mordaunt in the middle: an overview of the five rounds of voting
For reasons that will be given in the following sections, we can think of Mordaunt as being in the middle, with some candidates on one side of her (A) and other candidates on the other side of her (B). The grouping of candidates as ‘Mordaunt’, ‘A’ and ‘B’ provides us with a quick overview of the five rounds of voting by MPs. The vote for Mordaunt grows over the five rounds, whereas the right of Mordaunt decreases by 9 votes and the left of Mordaunt decreases by 31 votes.
Table Number of MPs nominating or voting for Mordaunt, ‘A’ candidates and ‘B’ candidates over the five rounds.
. A Mord B
Nominations 51 26 95
First round 122 67 168
Second round 140 83 133
Third round 129 82 146
Fourth round 145 92 118
Fifth round 113 105 137
Mordaunt wins all pairwise contests
One reason for thinking of Mordaunt as being in the middle is based on an opinion poll of Conservative party members. In this poll Mordaunt wins all pairwise contests. In particular she wins against Sunak and she wins against Truss. We can imagine Mordaunt as being between Truss and Sunak.
In one poll, Mordaunt beat Sunak 67% to 28% and beat Truss 55% to 37% amongst Conservative party members, in pairwise all-play-all preferences (YouGov opinion poll, 12-13 July).
The YouGov figures show 28% prefer Sunak to Mordaunt and 37% prefer Truss to Mordaunt. This leaves 35% and, by hypothesis they prefer Mordaunt to both other candidates.
One possible explanation is that there is a Sunak versus Truss political ordering: Sunak on the left, Mordaunt in the centre and Truss on the right … with voters displaying ‘single-peaked preferences’: either Sunak then Mordaunt then Truss; or Truss then Mordaunt then Sunak; or Mordaunt then Sunak then Truss; or Mordaunt then Truss then Sunak.
. Sunak 28% Mordaunt 35% Truss 37%
The voters are placed along this ordering and the median voter votes for Mordaunt. A celebrated theorem in social choice theory is that the Condorcet winner (all-play-all winner) is the candidate supported by the median voter.
The procedures being used might prevent this theoretical ‘best’ outcome happening.
Penny Mordaunt and social choice theory
Social choice theory indicates ‘good’ procedures for choosing the winning candidate. The procedures which are actually used may not be good procedures in this sense – and the current contest for leader of the Conservative party is an example of this. Specifically the gradual elimination of candidates may lose the candidate that is ‘best’ in terms of certain social choice criteria.
Brexit: the ‘Remain base score’ for Mordaunt is in the middle
“It is one of the main ironies of this leadership election so far that Rishi Sunak, who voted to leave the EU in 2016, has become the ‘centrist’ or establishment candidate, whereas Liz Truss, a vocal Remainer, is the main candidate of Brexiteers.” 14, 10.
This will not end well, according to Daniel Finkelstein:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-tory-right-favours-betrayal-over-reality-btfwrhhh6
Another reason for thinking of Mordaunt as being in the middle is based on ‘Remain base scores, R. Mordaunt is between Sunak and Truss in terms of R score and also just slightly closer to the R score for the sample as a whole.
Conservative party members, the Remain ratio for the supporters of each candidate,
[R=%Remain/(%Remain+%Leave) x 100]
R scores:
Hunt 55 (55% of Hunt’s supporters voted Remain in 2016)
Tugendhat 38
Sunak 34
Zahawi 29
ALL 17 all the sample
Mordaunt 12
Truss 10
(None) 9
(Don’t know) 9
Badenoch 7
Braverman 3 (3% of Braverman’s supporters voted Remain in 2016)
https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/6shnrhfen6/ConservativePartyMembers_LeadershipContenders_220713_w.pdf
…
Opinions: party and public
Public (opinion polls)
Rishi Sunak 13%, others 4% etc.
…
Conservative party members, preferred leader (opinion polls)
Penny Mordaunt 27%, Rishi Sunak 13%, Liz Truss 13%
…
Conservative party members, pairwise all-play-all (opinion polls)
Penny Mordaunt always has an absolute majority over all contenders except Rishi Sunak and Liz Truss. Mordaunt beats Sunak on two occasions 40% to 38% and more recently 67% to 28%. Mordaunt lost to Liz Truss by 34% to 40% but more recently beat Truss 55% to 37%.
Rishi Sunak lost to Liz Truss by 35% to 59%.
…
Reflections on the first stage
This section looks at the process of appointing a successor to Johnson as leader of the Conservative Party and as prime minister. How good is the procedure being used? Is it good that both Conservative MPs and Conservative party members have a say? Should either have more of a say? Should parliament, should the electorate have a say (more than an indirect say)?
In particular looking at the first stage involving MPs, is a succession of eliminations a good method?
How do the criteria used related to the discussion of different criteria in social choice theory?
How does the voting relate to the notion of single-peaked value functions in political space?
5.4 Two dimensions and Remain base scores … social choice theory
…
The two dimensions: Brexit and right wing
The contest has been framed in terms of the Brexit-Remain dimension and also the left-right dimension. The outgoing prime minister and the contenders framed it thus:
“Boris’ message to next PM: you must finish the job on Brexit.”
Daily Express, July 16, 2022, 1.
“Sunak … asked Truss which she regretted more being a former Liberal Democrat or a Remainer.” 18, 1.
“Sunak attacks ‘socialist’ Truss.” 18, 1.
It was noted that:
“It is one of the main ironies of this leadership election so far that Rishi Sunak, who voted to leave the EU in 2016, has become the ‘centrist’ or establishment candidate, whereas Liz Truss, a vocal Remainer, is the main candidate of Brexiteers.” 14, 10.
Centrist commentators in The Times were critical of the Tory right. This will not end well, according to Daniel Finkelstein:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-tory-right-favours-betrayal-over-reality-btfwrhhh6
…
Remain base scores for the candidates
Because the contest has been framed in this way it is useful to locate the candidates on the Leave-Remain Brexit dimension. Looking at who supports each candidate (the candidate’s support ‘base’), a ‘Remain base score’ R can be calculated.
R=%Remain/(%Remain+%Leave) x 100]
%Remain
= the percentage of the supporters of the candidate who voted Remain in 2016
%Leave
= the percentage of the supporters of the candidate who voted Leave in 2016
The following R scores are calculated using a YouGov survey of Conservative Party members, reported on 13th July 2022.
https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/6shnrhfen6/ConservativePartyMembers_LeadershipContenders_220713_w.pdf
…
Table The R scores for the eight candidates:
Hunt 55
Tugendhat 38
Sunak 34
Zahawi 29
ALL 17 all the sample
Mordaunt 12
Truss 10
None 9
Don’t know 9
Badenoch 7
Braverman 3
…
The R score for the whole sample, ‘ALL’, is R=17 (17% of the sample voted Remain in 2016). The R score ranges from R=3 (3% of Braverman’s supporters voted Remain in 2016) to R=55 (55% of Hunt’s supporters voted Remain in 2016).
Braverman, Badenoch, Truss and Mordant are below the sample R=17; and Zahawi, Sunak, Tugendhat and Hunt are above the sample R=17. Truss and Mordaunt are both just a little below R=17, whereas Sunak is well above R=17. Mordaunt is just above Truss and is the candidate closest to the sample R=17. One might refer to her as the middle or mean candidate.
‘Don’t know’ and ‘None’ are below the sample R=17.
…
The distribution of the Remain base scores
We can now consider the distribution of candidates and the distribution of voters on this dimension.
The distribution of the candidates in terms of the Remain base scores is that the four candidates below the sample R are quite close to one another whereas the four candidates above the sample R are quite spread out. In other words the distribution is skewed.
We now turn to the distribution of the sample in terms of the Remain base scores. See note below. It too is skewed. The four candidates below the sample R have 60% support and the four candidates above the sample R have 26% support; and (‘don’t know’ and ‘none’ have 14%).
Looking at the 86% substantive voters, the median voter is at the 43/44 percentile. So the median voter supports Mordaunt. The three candidates below Mordaunt have 33% support; Mordaunt has 27% support; and the four candidates above Mordaunt have 26% support.
…
Note
Listing the candidates in terms of increasing R and giving the sample percentage for each candidate gives the distribution.
The distribution is: Braverman 5, Badenoch 15, (don’t know 8), (none 6), Truss 13, Mordant 27; Zahawi 1, Sunak 13, Tugendhat 8, and Hunt 4.
[The cumulative distribution is 0 5 20 28 34 47 :74: 75 88 96 100.]
[The reverse cumulative distribution is 100 95 80 72 66 53 :26: 25 12 4 0.]
…
…
There seems to be an alternation of high and low scores for ‘below M’ and for ‘above M’. The details for individual candidates have puzzled observers: “Riddle over MPs switching votes to decide last two” (27, 11).
Opinion polls of Conservative party members
…
The all-play-all Condorcet winner - Conservative party members
The Condorcet winner is an important notion in social choice theory. It is that individual which defeats all other individuals in a pairwise contests. YouGov have asked a sample of Conservative party members about this on a number of occasions, most recently earlier this week. The results are that Badenoch is the Condorcet winner, defeating each of the other three candidates. Truss beats the other two; and Mordaunt beats Sunak. However the contests between the first three are very close and only Sunak is the clear loser.
[In an earlier survey YouGov found that Mordaunt was he Condorcet winner.]
…
Table all-play-all pairwise contests; party members; YouGov, 18-19 July
. Baden Truss Mord Sunak
Badenoch - 46 48 56
Truss 43 - 48 54
Mordaunt 43 42 - 51
Sunak 34 35 37 -
…
Conservative Home has also carried out similar surveys:
…
The Condorcet winner and the median voter
The ordering for the pairwise contests - Badenoch beats Truss beats Mordaunt beats Sunak – is the same ordering as the ordering according to R scores.
…
Incomplete preferences, polarisation and the middle – Onepoll
“‘Marmite’ Rishi could lose by default to Penny. … [Penny Mordaunt] could come through the middle …” Daily Express, July 16, 2022: 8-9.
[Onepoll survey of 2,095 UK residents.]
Seldom does a survey ask people for their complete set of preferences and so I welcomed the Daily Express report of a Onepoll survey which gave partial incomplete preferences but more than what is normally provided. It gave for each candidate the percentage of people who would most like to see that candidate win (B, best); and the percentage of people who would least like to see that candidate win (W, worst); and by inference the percentage of people who were middling in their preferences about that candidate (M, middling). It noted the difference between the first two percentages, D=(B-W), which is a rough measure of mean preference, akin to the Borda count.
[Note: one can assign +1 to most preferred; and -1 to least preferred; and 0 to middling preference. So mean=B(+1)+M(0)+ W(-1)=(B-W)=D.]
The article refers to Rishi Sunak as the Marmite candidate – in other words he is polarising. One measure of the polarisation of a candidate is the product of their ‘most liked’ and ‘least liked’ percentages: P=BW. Sunak does indeed have the highest polarisation score P.
Mordaunt and Sunak had much higher B scores (‘most liked’) than the other candidates; and had positive D scores (mean preference) - unlike the other candidates:
…
Mordaunt B23 W15 D=+8 P=345
Sunak B26 W25 D=+1 P=650
Tugendhat B9 W13 D=-4 P=117
Badenoch B6 W14 D=-8 P= 84
Truss B12 W25 D=-13 P=300
[Don’t know B24 W8]
…
This case illustrates how different social choice criteria can give different best options. Most liked (B) is Sunak. Highest mean preference (D) is Mordaunt. Least ‘most disliked’ (W) is Tugendhat. Least polarising (P) is Badenoch. There is no criterion on which Truss us the best.
Let us now consider the comment “[Penny Mordaunt] could come through the middle”. This may arise as follows. Suppose there is some political dimension along which Truss, Mordaunt and Sunak are located – with Mordaunt in the middle. Suppose individual preferences are single-peaked. Then the 26 who most like Sunak will also least like Truss (in fact for Truss W=25). The 12 who most like Truss will also least like Sunak (in fact for Sunak W=25).
…
Conservative voters
…
TV debates
5.5 The second stage: Conservative party members
Where we are at today, Thursday 20th July
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62247115
The first stage is now over. Conservative MPs have had their say and now it is the turn of the Conservative party members. Yesterday Conservative MPs had their final vote. Rishi Sunak came first and Liz Truss came second. Penny Mordaunt came third and so was eliminated. Sunak and Truss will now go forward and campaign for the vote of the party members. In recent opinion polls of party members Truss beats Sunak and so it is likely that Truss will become prime minister.
…
MPs and members frustrating each other’s preferences?
This outcome is despite the fact that Sunak had more of the MPs’ votes than Truss in the final stage. Thus the second stage vote by party members might be seen as members frustrating the preferences of MPs …
– although this was a three-way contest and Truss would possibly have won a head-to-head contest, Truss v Sunak, amongst MPs.
[There is no decider sixth vote. Truss is 24 below Sunak and to defeat Sunak she would need to win over 65 of Mordaunt’s (105) votes with just 40 of Mordaunt’s votes going to Sunak.]
By eliminating Mordaunt the MPs have frustrated what was once the preference of party members for Mordaunt as PM. And by their earlier elimination of Badenoch the MPs have frustrated what was more recently the preference of party members for Badenoch as PM.
But who should decide? MPs? – or party members? Daniel Finkelstein says: “Time to cut members out of Tory leadership.” 20, 29.
5.6 How it was looking, end of July and into August
The story up till the end of July
June 23: The Conservatives are defeated by Labour in one by-election and by Liberal Democrats in another by-election. (16-18)
July 6: 59% of Conservative MPs vote for Johnson to continue as party leader and hence as prime minister – and 41% vote for him to leave. (16-18)
July 7: Boris Johnson resigns as party leader, staying on in the meanwhile as prime minister. (20)
July 14: Conservative party members prefer Penny Mordaunt (17%) to either Rishi Sunak (13%) or Liz Truss (13%). The pubic prefers Sunak (13%) to several others (each 4%). (21)
July 21: Five rounds of voting by Conservative MPs: Mordaunt in the middle. (22)
July 22: Final round of voting by Conservative MPs: It’s close. Sunak ahead of Truss who is ahead of Mordaunt who now drops out.
The end of the first stage: Conservative MPs have had their say.
The second stage: Conservative party members will now decide.
July 25: First televised debate between Sunak and Truss. (23)
…
A new poll is very different from the old poll
On Monday, August 1st:
The leader in The Times was downbeat about Sunak’s chances:
“Leadership Blues. Though he trails in endorsements, Rishi Sunak remains the safer and better choice for prime minister. He should not shirk exposing the gaps in Liz Truss’s message.” (1,31)
Sunak’s latest policy initiatives “have failed to turn around his deficit in the polls … a last-ditch attempt to claw back some ground from Truss, whom he is trailing in the polls”. (1,12)
On Tuesday:
“Sunak trails by five points in new Tory leadership poll.” (2,2)
The poll is in contrast to the last YouGov survey carried out at the end of the knockout stages which suggested that Truss had a 24-point lead over Sunak. …
… [sources said this] reflected feedback they had been getting, suggesting the race was much closer than had been thought … Sunak is getting very good feedback and an awful lot of people are still making up their minds … Liz’s support feels very soft” John Curtice observes that there has been one poll of the people who vote and that YouGov poll put Truss well ahead … But that poll is now nearly a fortnight old.” (2,2) https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/aug/02/sunak-closing-gap-truss-tory-leadership-contest-poll-shows
So what is really the current situation? Who is right? The polls or sources in the campaign teams? The old YouGov poll or the new poll?
Earlier a poll of Conservative councillors had put Sunak just 2% behind Truss.
…
“A new poll is very different from the old poll” – one hour later!
Wednesday:
I wrote the previous section an hour ago. I then went downstairs to have my breakfast and get the newspaper at the front door …
“60% of Tory membership prefer Truss for next PM. … lead grows over Sunak.” (3,1)
This latest poll by YouGov was conducted over the last five days – July 29 to August 2. John Curtice comments: “Truss is winning this contest by appealing to the right of her party. However they will expect her to deliver on her policy agenda and that may make it more difficult for her to win the crucial centre ground when a general election day does come.
So what is really the current situation? Who is right? The polls or sources in the campaign teams? The old YouGov poll or the new poll? … or the new YouGov poll?
Is opinion really changing? Or are differences due to aspects of the survey method?
…
YouGov report: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/08/02/truss-leads-sunak-69-31-latest-tory-members-poll
YouGov tables I: https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/ip67fqf4n8/YouGov%20Times%20-%20Con%20members%2029%20Jul%202%20Aug%202022.pdf
YouGov tables II: promised “tomorrow”!
…
And now:
Thursday morning:
Conservative Home website gives: Truss 58%; Sunak 26%; ? 16%. 4, 2.
…
Is there a Brexit discrepancy between the weighted samples in the two YouGov surveys?
YouGov conducted two polls of Conservative Party members.
First:
https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/6shnrhfen6/ConservativePartyMembers_LeadershipContenders_220713_w.pdf
Second:
In the first survey they contacted a sample of 879 Conservative Party members, the fieldwork being carried out on 12th to 13th July 2022. There were 563 males and 316 females (adding to 879). There were 183 who voted Remain in the 2016 EU referendum; and 669 who voted leave (adding to 852, somewhat short of 879). After the sample was weighted, there were 144 who voted Remain in the 2016 EU referendum; and 696 who voted leave (adding to 840, again somewhat short of 879). The Remain percentage in the unweighted sample was 21%; and the Leave percentage in the weighted sample was 17%.
In the second survey they contacted a sample of 1043 Conservative Party members, the fieldwork being carried out on 29th to 2nd August 2022. There were 229 who voted Remain in the 2016 EU referendum; and 775 who voted leave (adding to 1004, somewhat short of 1043). After the sample was weighted, there were 323 who voted Remain in the 2016 EU referendum; and 668 who voted leave (adding to 991, again somewhat short of 1043). The Remain percentage in the unweighted sample was 23%; and the Remain percentage in the weighted sample was 33%.
There would appear to be a discrepancy between the 17% in the first survey and the 33% in the second survey.
In the next section we shall use the unweighted figures in both surveys.
5.7 Low-value? The leadership debate?
The leadership debate in the UK has exhibited low-level discourse about important topics. Low-level discourse can involve inappropriately strong statements. Some inappropriately strong statements relate to differences.
Conflict can start because of, or can be made worse by, low-quality discourse – in particular by low-quality discourse about differences. What is needed is high-quality discourse about differences. These remarks can apply to conflict between individuals, or to conflict between groups.
A simple extreme hypothesis is that the ‘self’ is unitary, and totally distinctive from the ‘other’. The alternative hypothesis is that the ‘self’ is more varied and less distinctive from the ‘other’. These ideas can apply to an individual ‘self’, or to a group ‘self’.
Discourse seeks … power? value? truth?
On Monday night the BBC hosted the first debate between Rishi Sunak and Liz Truss.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62300513
In a quite explicit way this was discourse seeking power.
Was it seeking power at the expense of truth? BBC fact check:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/62296191
Was it seeking power at the expense of the value of civility, thus producing nastiness?
“Bitter Tory rivals get personal. Sunak and Truss ignore plea from party grandees to end ‘blue on blue’ hostilities in TV debate.” 26, 1 2.
“Rivals clash over scare tactics and ‘credit card’ economics.” 26, 6 7.
“Arrogant hectoring from Sunak, vapid nonsense from Truss.” 26, 6. Tweet.
“Cut the bile or we’ll be nasty party again, say Tory grandees.” 26, 8.
“‘Just me then?’ Sunak calls on Truss to face Neil too.” 26, 8.
“No room for nuance as the mud is slung.” 26, 8 9.
“Lots of fake smiles, but this was no Love Island.” 26, 7.
“Leadership race fit for the land of Lilliputians.” 26, 24.
“Rivals’ posturing over China and migration,.” 26, 26. Letters.
“Truss wants change at the Treasury, but how radical and will it stick?” 26, 37. Editorial.
“Caustic contest. The descent of the Conservative leadership election into barbed animosity was exemplified in last night’s debate. Voters deserve better answers to the nation’s crisis.” 26, 27. Editorial.
But, although the Monday Editorial bemoans the descent into animosity, two days earlier on the Saturday The Times had run a Comment piece by Matthew Parris: “To win this fight, Sunak must make it personal. If the former chancellor’s ‘sound money’ message is to prevail he’ll need to drop the courtesy and rip Liz Truss apart. … Truss’s approach to economic management is daft and dangerous.” 23, 25.
…
The quality of ideas and discourse
There is a notion of high-value ideas and discourse; and low-value ideas and discourse. The debate it would appear was low-level discourse – it lacked the high value possessed by nuance.
The contrast between low value and high value also appears strongly in a recent article by Clare Foges:
“Alas for Rishi Sunak, he is still attached to the truth. Against Ms Clickbait he Mr 8,000-Word Essay, patiently explaining why tax cuts don’t come for free and why excessive borrowing is reckless … too long and too slow.” 25, 23.
Foges is surely correct in making a distinction between low-value clickbait and high value 8,000-word essays – and that is the distinction I am keen to make in this section …
… however in drawing such a sharp contrast between Truss and Sunak, she is going against my hypothesis in this report that entities are more varied (within themselves) and less distinctive (in comparison with others).
In the debate Sunak sought to discredit Truss’s plans by invoking academic opinion – by implication of high value.
In the next section we have Times’ journalists recommending reading – by implication of high value.
…
Summer reading for the UK’s next prime minister
Nine journalists at The Times have selected sixteen books as relevant summer reading for Rishi Sunak and Liz Truss, the two candidates for Conservative party leadership and hence for prime minister of the UK. (16 July, Sat Rev 18).
Two of the books cover qualitative and quantitative technological change (1, 14). Also covered are the economy (4, 6) and the rule of law (7). Looking at social aspects there are books on money, class and power (5) and anti-meritocracy (12). Relationships with USA, China and Russia are noted (9, 3, 15) … in particular the role of the military and secret services (9) … and also Anti-Westernism (11). It is suggested that decisions matter, history is not inevitable (13). However policy success can be elusive (2). Plans can be frustrated by government machinery (8). There is party failure and attempts at renewal/reinvention (10). Myth and reality are both present (16).
.(1) Technology is growing at its fastest in history [as usual], with impact on many aspects of society and Britain must compete for as good a place as possible in the international ranking.
[William Hague on Kissinger et al: The Age of AI and our Human Future.]
.(2) The recent social, economic and political history (1956-1982) of Britain shows how successive governments produced many failures despite being run by clever people with good ideas.
[William Hague on Sandbrook: Never Had It So Good: A History of Britain From Suez to the Beatles.]
.(3) The current state and the future of the relationship between China and the West with its many aspects is a central issue in geopolitics. A leader needs to be prepared for good and bad scenarios “while thinking creatively about how to avoid all-out conflict”.
[William Hague on Rudd: The Avoidable War.]
.(4) The economy is a major problem. “Interest rates are lower than they have ever been, and that has driven up inflation and asset prices.” Throughout history “excessively loose monetary policy has led to disaster”.
[Emma Duncan on Chancellor: The Price of Time: The Real Story of Interest.]
.(5) “Money, class and power in Britain in the late 19th century … a fraudster who buys his way into high society and the House of Commons …not much has changed.”
[Emma Duncan on Trollope: The Way We Live Now.]
.(6) A supply-side revolution: cutting taxes and reducing regulation produces prosperity, growing the economy and eliminating any initial deficit. David Stockman tried it as Reagan’s budget director. Today: Sunak v Truss.
[Daniel Finkelstein on Stockman: The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed.]
.(7) The rule of law, the principles and their importance … “the constitution they are there to preserve”.
[Daniel Finkelstein on Bingham: The Rule of Law.]
.(8) The government machinery … how to govern it. “The limits of a bold agenda when it hits the constraints of a cautious civil service and leaders eager to be popular.” Recommended by Dominic Cummings. The perspective of a chief adviser to a prime minister?
[Ryan Bourne on Hoskyns: Just in Time: Inside the Thatcher Revolution.]
.(9) Secret Services: UK and US cooperation. “What keeps us on an even keel is the extraordinary connections between the military establishments, the CIA and MI6, between the pentagon and the MoD, and above all between the code-breakers and eaves-droppers at the National Security Agency and the GCHQ.”
[Roger Boyes on Smith: The Real Special Relationship: the True Story of How the British and US Services Work Together.]
.(10) Party failure and renewal / reinvention. The necessary self-delusion of standing for high office. “Our party has lost its soul, we no longer stand for anything, years of power corrupted us.” Canada’s Liberal Party, 2008.
[Roger Boyes on Ignatieff: Fire and Ashes: Success and Failure in Politics.]
.(11) Anti-Westernism. “To its detractors the West is decadent, alienated, soulless and greedy … a world increasingly hostile to a fading western dominance.”
[James Marriott on Buruma and Margalit: Occidentalism: A Short History of Anti-Westernism.]
.(12) Anti-meritocracy. “… the ideal of meritocracy is to make society fairer but it actually has the opposite effect, driving inequality, fuelling populism and endangering democracy – it has been corrupted by wealthy elites cementing their positions by using their wealth to buy educations for their children, thus steamrollering them into positions at the top of society. … Their children believe they are running things because of their intellectual (and moral) superiority, not because of their parents’ cash.”
[James Marriott on Markovits: The Meritocracy Trap.]
.(13) Is history deterministic? Might things have turned out differently? What effect would different choices have had?
[James Forsyth on Ferguson et al: Virtual History: Alternatives and Counterfactuals.]
(14) Technology makes things go faster [as usual]. How to take advantage of this and also how to avoid the downsides.
[James Forsyth on Colville: The Great Acceleration: How the World is Getting Faster, Faster.]
Comment: acceleration means getting faster – so is the title an error?
(15) The young Putin. “… “astonishingly frank self-portrait(?)” … puff job … turns the stereotyped tyrant into flesh and blood, no matter how the years have warped him … Dangerous in the face of temptation? He hasn’t changed much.”
[Quentin Letts on Putin: First Person.]
(16) Masque and reality. The prince holds a masque during a pandemic …
[David Aaronovitch on Poe: The Masque of the Red Death.]
…
A woman recommends books written by women
Eight of the nine journalists are men and all the books that were recommended are by men. This provokes Sarah Ditum “No women for our next PM to read? I can name plenty” (26, 24).
(17) “Men are treated as the default human and women end up at best as an afterthought in all areas of policy. … This misses the action from half the polity.”
Perez: Invisible Women.
(18) Labour’s Barbara Castle took on the unions but the party resisted her plans.
Castle: Fighting all the Way.
(19) Our bereaved country is scarred by the pandemic. An unsparing look at the injuries left by loss.
Adichie: Notes on Grief
(18) Applebaum: Twilight of Democracy
(19) MacMillan: War: How Conflict Shaped Us
(20) Michelle Obama: Becoming
…
Liz Truss and The Daily Telegraph … Financial Times … John Curtice
In my reports I usually cite The Times or The Observer, quality papers of the right and of the left, respectively. Both papers have usually been highly critical of Boris Johnson, and both are now more critical of Liz Truss than of Rishi Sunak. For example today’s Editorial regrets “the bad blood” in Monday’s debate saying that “Ms Truss bears the greater blame, owing to the wishful thinking that characterises her campaign message.” (26, 27).
In particular, in book (6) in the above list, Daniel Finkelstein recommends Stockman: The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed. [A supply-side revolution: cutting taxes and reducing regulation produces prosperity, growing the economy and eliminating any initial deficit.]
It is high time therefore that I cite The Daily Telegraph:
Liz Truss tax plans …
… backed by leading economists:
… make complete sense. Here’s why:
Liz Truss is already upending Gordon Brown’s economic legacy:
“I want the biggest change in economic policy for 30 years”:
… our economic orthodoxies must be challenged:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2022/07/21/economic-orthodoxies-must-challenged/
On the other hand …
… Liz Truss “poses the greatest risk to UK economy”:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/07/18/liz-truss-poses-greatest-risk-uk-economy/
Financial Times, 22 July 2022:
“How big a deal is the hole in the Bank of England’s balance sheet?”
https://www.ft.com/content/42fde84b-24d7-4b67-81ea-7df4a0a8287c
John Curtice, 22 July 2022 :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QehMohJsDEs
…
Patrick Minford, the economist cited by Truss
Patrick Minford, the economist cited by Truss, tells The Times that it attributed views wrongly to him. He has not said that “interest rates would rise as high as 7% as a result of Liz Truss’s proposed tax cuts” nor that “this would be a desirable outcome”. “Neither statement represents my views.” (16, 26).
“The Bank of England needs to raise rates to bring down inflation by re-establishing its credibility and anchoring expectations. The Truss fiscal package would head off recession, as well as reducing inflation by raising supply; this would make it easier for the bank to carry out its interest rate agenda. The new normal would probably be about 3 per cent, but we cannot know yet exactly where it would settle. As I made clear in the interview, the return of normal interest rates would be good for the economy, because savers get a recent return and borrowers pay a proper price for capital.” (16, 26). Patrick Minford.
Patrick Minford interview:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXNrIqgJtA4
…
Sunak’s Mais Lecture, 24 February 2022:
“As a Conservative Chancellor, I am often urged to follow Thatcher and Lawson’s legacy. They are sound lodestars to navigate by. But we sometimes only hear a partial account of their approach. Observers are quick to highlight the downward trajectory of the tax burden during the 1980s – which was, clearly, a historic and necessary achievement. But they are perhaps less quick to remember, that only once the deficit was under control, did they begin cutting taxes.”
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/chancellor-rishi-sunaks-mais-lecture-2022
cited in:
“Truss wants change at the Treasury, but how radical and will it stick?” 26, 37.
…
Truss’s Mansion House speech, 29 April 2022
Liz Truss said that geopolitics is back, and argued for a reboot in the free world’s approach to tackling global aggressors in the wake of the Ukraine crisis.
5.8 The value of the two candidates
This section starts with some general remarks about value and preference:
Value and preference
Opinion surveys and elections: value and preference
Value is more informative than preference
We then consider a value question asking the public whether particular politicians would make a good job as prime minister. The averages for three politicians – Truss, Sunak and Stammers - are compared in terms of the distributions, modes, medians, percentages and means. In this particular case the distributions are similar and hence the averages for the three politicians are much the same.
Which candidate is best?
Finally we compare the value of Sunak and Truss on multiple dimensions
Value and preference
Value and preference are two fundamental concepts - distinct but related concepts. We suppose each object is assigned an amount of value, positive or negative. If object A has greater value than object B then object A is preferred to object B. Although this seems straightforward enough, there is a sizable literature about how to conceptualise these concepts.
Opinion surveys and elections: value and preference
Some questions in an opinion survey ask about amount of value and some questions ask about preference. In contrast the questions in an election are always (?) about preference. This might appear obvious since the aim of an election is to choose between candidates to indicate a preference between them. On the other hand, might not there be a social preference for the candidate with the highest mean value?
Value is more informative than preference
We may know that a certain voter prefers Truss to Sunak but we cannot deduce from this how much value the voter places on each candidate. However if we know how much value the voter places on each candidate then we can immediately deduce which candidate the voter prefers. Note that this assumes that the voter is applying the same criterion to preference and to value.
Value: making a good job as prime minister (the public) …
An illustration of a value question (rather than a preference question) is the following:
“To what extent, if at all, do you think each of the following would do a good job or bad job as Prime Minister? If you do not know who the person is, then please say so.
Very good job; fairly good; neither bad nor good; fairly bad; very bad; don’t know;
I don’t know who this person is.”
(IPSOS poll, summer 2022)
The table below shows the results. Note that it is not an all or none phenomenon, there are degrees of how much a person is at being good as a prime minister. For each politician, people differ - there is a distribution in how good a job they think the politician will do as prime minister.
Table 5 How good job or bad a job as Prime Minister?
. very g fair. g neither fair. b very b don’t know
Keir Starmer 15 20 21 15 19 4
Rishi Sunak 13 25 23 13 16 4
Liz Truss 12 18 24 13 15 9
Which person is best?
In general the results depend on which options are selected to be the criterion.
Distributions … modes
The distributions are fairly flat, but there are in fact two modes, a major mode somewhere in the middle and a somewhat lesser minor mode, at the extreme corresponding to ‘very bad’. One might say that people who are positive are moderate and people who are negative are extreme – but these are only slight tendencies.
The major mode for Starmer and Truss is the middle option, ‘neither good nor bad’. The major mode for Sunak is the middle option, ‘neither good nor bad’.
Medians
The three medians are the same: ‘neither good nor bad’.
Percentages
The results in tables such as Table 5 are sometimes reported in terms of percentages. The differences between the candidates is very slight.
.(1) Looking at the percentage saying ‘very good’:
Starmer with 15% is just ahead of Sunak with 13% - who is just ahead of Truss with 12%;
.(2) Looking at the percentage saying ‘very good’ or fairly good’ and adding:
Starmer with 35% is now just behind Sunak with 38% - who is still ahead of Truss with 30%;
On the other hand:
.(3) Looking at the percentage saying ‘very bad’:
Starmer is the worst with 19%, Sunak is not so bad with 16% - and (by a tiny margin) least bad is Truss with 15%.
It seems better to make use of all the percentages. A commonly used measure is:
.(4) the difference between the positive percentages and the negative percentages.
Starmer has a score of +1 (=15+20-15-19); Sunak has +9; and Truss has +2.
Means
Note: the following reasoning is a bit pernickety. I need to sort it.
An alternative is to calculate the mean scores. This requires attaching values to each of the options.
.(5) If we attach scores of +1 to the positive options and -1 to the negative options and 0 to the neither and the don’t know option, then we get exactly what we got in (4)
Starmer has a score of +1 (=15+20-15-19); Sunak has +9; and Truss has +2.
.(6) In (5), strictly speaking we should divide by 100:
Starmer has a score of +0.01 (0.15+0.20-0.15-0.19); Sunak has +0.09; and Truss has +0.02.
Note that the maximum possible score is +1 and the minimum possible score is -1. So all three mean scores are very close to zero.
.(7) If we attach scores of +2 and +1 to the positive options and -1 and -2 to the negative options and 0 to the neither and the don’t know options, then we get
Starmer has a score of -3 (=15+20-15-19); Sunak has +6; and Truss has -1.
.(8) In (7), strictly speaking we should divide by 100:
Starmer has a score of -0.03; Sunak has +0.06; and Truss has -0.01.
Note that the maximum possible score is +2 and the minimum possible score is -2. So all three mean scores are very close to zero.
.(9) Standardised means. Noting that in (8) scores range between +2 and -2, we can standardise the scores so that they range between +1 and -1.
Starmer has a score of -0.015; Sunak has +0.030; and Truss has -0.005.
.(10) Underlying standardised means. If we think of the underlying continuum then ‘very good’ corresponds to the range [0.75,1] and so, reducing the score by a factor of 0.75 we obtain:
Starmer has a score of -0.011; Sunak has +0.023; and Truss has -0.038.
In this case also all three mean scores are very close to zero.
The value of Sunak and Truss on multiple dimensions
We now turn to a set of questions asked about Sunak and Truss. Here we shall consider the net agree-minus-disagree percentages (this is quite often used in the media when reporting surveys), and to present the two numbers, Sunak’s (S=) and Truss’s (T=), side by side. Finally I have listed the items in order according to the decreasing score for Sunak.
“To what extent do you agree or disagree that Sunak (S) … that Truss (T) …
[net agree-minus-disagree percentages]
… gets things done: S+6; T+4;
… is competent: S+4; T-2;
… is principled: S-8; T+4;
… looks like a prime minister in waiting: S-10; T-8;
… is compassionate: S-22; T-6;
… is trustworthy: S-25; T-7;
… has similar views to my own: S-35; T-18;
… is in touch with ordinary people: S-44; T-14;
[in decreasing order of S]
In what follows I have now made things more complicated. I give the sum (S+T); and the difference (S-T). The sum can be considered as referring to the average of the two candidates (indeed the sum divided by two is the average). The difference can be thought of as the Sunak advantage over Truss.
“To what extent do you agree or disagree that Sunak (S) … that Truss (T) …
[net agree-minus-disagree percentages]
… gets things done: S+6; T+4; (sum=+10; difference=+2)
… is competent: S+4; T-2; (sum=+2; difference=+6)
… is principled: S-8; T+4; (sum=-4; difference=-12)
… looks like a prime minister in waiting: S-10; T-8; (sum= -18; difference=-2)
… is compassionate: S-22; T-6; (sum= -28; difference=-16)
… is trustworthy: S-25; T-7; (sum= -35; difference=-18)
… has similar views to my own: S-35; T-18; (sum= -53; difference=-17)
… is in touch with ordinary people: S-44; T-14; (sum= -58; difference=-30)
[in decreasing order of S; also in order of decreasing sum]
What does the average person think of the average candidate? The items are ordered according to decreasing sum. (It turns out that this is the same as ordering according to decreasing Sunak score). A sum of zero corresponds to indifference: neither agreeing nor disagreeing that the candidate has that virtue. In fact people are indifferent about the competence of the average candidate (sum=+2). They are slightly positive about the average candidate getting things done (sum=+10). All other virtues are negative. Being principled is scarcely negative (sum=-4); and looking like a prime minister in waiting is not that much more negative (sum=-18). More negative is compassionate (sum=-28); and trustworthy (sum=-35). Most negative is
similar views to my own (sum=-53); and in touch with ordinary people (sum=-58).
How does Truss differ from Sunak? For most items Truss has a higher score (less negative) than Sunak. However for just two items, competence and getting things done, Sunak has a very slightly higher score. The Truss advantage for ‘in touch with ordinary people’ is particularly high. (In the debate it became Sunak’s expensive shoes and Truss’s cheap earrings.) In general the more negative the score for the average candidate, the greater the Truss advantage.
All four scores, S, T, sum and difference order the items in much the same way. The items might be thought of as relating to effectiveness, niceness and self-similarity.
[The measure I have used here is readily understood and easy to calculate from the raw percentages. However I think a more accurate measure would be the mean score on a scale that gave a lower weight to the less extreme options. The option scores would be -2, -1, 0, +1 and +2. When applied to ‘similar views to my own’, the mean scores would be -66 for Sunak and -38 for Truss.
I would then standardise to make the range of scores from -1 to +1. Dividing by 2, we obtain -33 for Sunak and -19 for Truss. (This is not all that different from the previous numbers, S-35; T-18).
A different approach would be to assign notional mid-interval scores, -0.75, -0.25, 0, +0.25 And +0.75. This gives -0.24 for Sunak and -0.14 for Truss.]
The Observer – paper or online? difficult-to-read tables?
The Observer is available in two versions. I get the paper delivered to my front door. And sometimes I put in the headline in a search to obtain the online version.
Today, August 8th, I was struck by the table on pages 4 and 5, giving the poll ratings for Sunak and Truss. I looked up the online version where the same information was presented in a different way.
“The Public has little appetite for promised tax cuts, poll reveals” 7, 4-5.
In general I am critical of the presentation of tables and figures in the media. One prejudice I have is that I feel that visual attractiveness is given priority over ease of extracting the precise important information …
The paper version had the full set of percentages whereas the online version presented lengths along a continuum without the actual numbers. The Sunak numbers were separate from the Truss numbers, making comparison difficult. In the paper version it was very useful to have all the percentages but this made it difficult to obtain an overall impression. My own approach is given in the next section …
…
5.9 An IPSOS poll on the Conservative leadership contest, July 20-21
Last week IPSOS conducted a poll of the general public which we shall analyse in the sections which follow. The base was all adults aged 18-75 in Great Britain.
“London, UK. New research by Ipsos, taken July 20th-21st, asked the public how closely they were following the Conservative leadership contest, how much they knew about the final two candidates, whether each would be a good or bad Prime Minister, who would be most likely to win a General Election and whether they would do a better job in government than Boris Johnson’s Conservative government. Similar questions were asked about Labour leader Keir Starmer too.”.
36% think Sunak more likely to win an election, 19% say Truss
But almost half (45%) think both equally as likely to win or say they don’t
know
More Britons think Liz Truss would make a good Prime Minister than earlier
this month
Report 1
Report 2 with links to Presented Tables and Original Tables
…
The two types of tables: distributions and subgroup medians … the two key points
In what follows there are two types of tables.
Each of Tables 1, 2, 3 and 5 display the percentage of responses to each of the options for one of the questions in the survey. In other words they give the distribution of responses. The key point I wish to emphasise here is that the responses are spread across the options. This spread demonstrates that responses are more varied than is sometimes implied by low-level discourse.
Each of Tables 4, 6, 7 and 8 report the medians for the thirty-one subgroups in the survey sample. The key point I wish to emphasise here is that the medians for the different subgroups are not spread across all the options. This reduced spread demonstrates that subgroups are less distinctive from one another than is sometimes implied by low-level discourse.
…
Participation in society: following the topics in the news …
In society people participate in a variety of activities, including following the topics in the news.
The IPSOS poll asked:
“How closely, if at all, have you been following stories about…?
Very closely; fairly closely; not very closely; not following at all; don’t know”
The table below shows the results.
For each topic, people differ - there is a distribution in how close they have followed the topic – note that it is not an all or none phenomenon, there are degrees of closeness.
The median of the distribution is noted by *. The distributions are with one exception unipolar (not: all or none of it), with just one distribution being bipolar (almost: all or none of it).
Between topics, people differ – the distributions differ. In particular the medians differ. Very closely followed is the rising cost of living. Fairly closely followed are the very hot weather; the Conservative leader contest; Ukraine; and future employees’ strikes in the UK. Not very closely followed is women’s football. Finally not at all followed (in terms of the median) is TV show, Love Island.
Overall then several of these topics are fairly closely followed but just a few topics are either more closely or less closely followed.
In the mean, 1.96 topics are very closely followed; 2.15 topics are fairly closely followed; 1.34 topics are not very closely followed; and 1.44 topics are not followed at all. (Don’t know 0.08).
…
Table 1 How closely, if at all, have you been following stories about…?
. very fairly not v. not don’t know percentages
Rising cost of living 50* 34 13 2 1
The very hot weather 46 38* 12 3 1
Tory leader contest 30 35* 22 10 2
Ukraine 22 45* 23 8 1
Future strikes 19 38* 29 13 1
Women’s football 15 16 26* 42 1
TV Love Island 14 9 9 66* 1 (bipolar)
* median
…
Thus the structure of participation is quite complex. In particular it shows that the two simplest possibilities are false:
Case 1. All the people are very closely following the Tory leader contest – and no other topic.
Case 2. People belong to two groups: one group very closely following the Tory leader contest, and no other topic; and another group very closely following TV Love Island, and no other topic.
“Are you Love Island or leadership? The two summer viewing tribes.” It was of course just a harmless bit of good fun - however this front page headline for The Times, Times 2 supplement implied Case 2 was the reality. Trivial – but a good illustration of how discourse can construct two exhaustive and exclusive tribes.
…
… knowing about the politicians
The IPSOS poll asked:
“How much, if anything, do you know about each of the following politicians?
A great deal; a fair amount; not very much; heard of them but know nothing of them; never heard of them.”
The table below shows the results.
…
For each topic, people differ - there is a distribution in how much they know about the person – note that it is not an all or none phenomenon, there are degrees of knowledge.
The median of the distribution is noted by *. The distributions are unipolar (not: all or none of it).
Between topics, people differ – the distributions differ. In particular the medians differ. Fairly well known are Starmer and Sunak; not very well known is Truss.
Overall then two of the politicians are well known and one not very well known.
…
Table 2 How much, if anything, do you know about each of the following politicians?
. great fair [little] heard never
Keir Starmer 11 40* 34 11 4
Rishi Sunak 12 44* 31 9 4
Liz Truss 9 26 38* 17 10
* median
…
Now consider subgroups of the sample. We choose to look at the response to the question about how much they know about Liz Truss. The table below shows the results.
For each subgroup, people differ - there is a distribution in how much they know about the person – note that it is not an all or none phenomenon, there are degrees of knowledge.
The median of the distribution is noted by *. The distributions are unipolar (not: all or none of it).
Between subgroups, people differ – the distributions differ. In particular the medians differ:
The median graduate knows a fair amount but the median non-graduate knows not very much about Liz Truss.
The median Londoner knows a fair amount but the median Scot knows not very much about Liz Truss.
The median close news follower knows not very much (as is the case for all the sample) but the median not-close news follower knows not very much about Liz Truss.
…
Within groups and between groups: more varied and less distinctive. Within each group people vary across all five options: between ‘never heard of them’ and ‘a fair amount’ (or ‘a great deal’). Between groups, the medians vary across just the three internal options: ‘heard of them but …’ and ‘not very much’ and ‘fair amount’. Within-group variation is more than between-group variation.
So this variable would not be a strong basis for defining any putative group ‘identity’.
; and indeed the relevance of the notion of the group may not be strong.
…
Table 3 How much, if anything, do you know about Liz Truss? Subgroups
. great fair [little] heard never
graduates 21 33* 30 11 5
non-graduates 4 22 42* 20 13
Greater Lond. 29 34* 20 12 4
Scotland 0 28 27* 30 15
follow closely 14 33 39* 11 3
not … 0 9 37 29* 25
* median
…
Looking in greater detail at variation between groups, the medians vary across just the three internal options: ‘heard of them but …’ and ‘not very much’ and ‘fair amount’.
As noted earlier the median for the whole group is ‘not very much’. Subgroups do differ from the whole group; and there are differences between subgroups. However these differences are seldom large. Most of the subgroups (24 subgroups) have medians in the same category as the whole group, namely ‘not very much’. A few of the subgroups (6 subgroups) have medians in the next higher category as the whole group, namely ‘fair amount’. Just one subgroup has a median in the next lower category as the whole group, namely ‘heard of’.
…
Table 4 The medians for different subgroups; knowing about Liz Truss
‘fair amount’:
Region: Greater London. Education: Graduates. News following: close. Familiar with Stammer: yes. Familiar with Sunak: yes. Familiar with Truss: yes.
‘not very much’:
Total. Gender: male, female. Age: 18-34; 35-44; 45-54; 55-75. Region: North, Mids, South, Wales, Scotland. Social Grade: ABC1, C2DE. Education: Non-Graduates. GE2019: Cons, Lab, Lib Dem, Other. EU Ref: Remain, Leave. News following: not close. Familiar with Stammer: no. Familiar with Sunak: no. Familiar with Truss: no.
‘heard of’:
News following: not close.
…
Making a good job as prime minister
The IPSOS poll asked:
“To what extent, if at all, do you think each of the following would do a good job or bad job as Prime Minister? If you do not know who the person is, then please say so.
Very good job; fairly good; neither bad nor good; fairly bad; very bad; don’t know;
I don’t know who this person is.”
The table below shows the results.
…
For each politician, people differ - there is a distribution in how good a job they think the politician will do as prime minister – note that it is not an all or none phenomenon, there are degrees of how much a person is at being good as a prime minister.
The median of the distribution is noted by *. The distributions are unipolar (not: all or none of it).
Between politicians, people differ – the distributions differ. However the difference is not large and the three medians are the same: ‘neither good nor bad’.
…
Table 5 How good job or bad a job as Prime Minister?
. very g fair. g neither fair. b very b don’t know
Keir Starmer 15 20 21* 15 19 4
Rishi Sunak 13 25 23* 13 16 4
Liz Truss 12 18 24* 13 15 9
* median
…
… Keir Starmer
As noted above the median for the whole group is ‘neither bad nor good’. Subgroups do differ from the whole group; and there are differences between subgroups. However these differences are seldom large. Most of the subgroups (17 subgroups) have medians in the same category as the whole group, namely ‘neither bad nor good’. A few of the subgroups (6 subgroups) have medians in the next higher category as the whole group, namely ‘fairly good’. A number of the subgroups (8 subgroups) have medians in the next lower category as the whole group, namely ‘fairly bad’.
…
Table 6 The medians for different subgroups; Keir Starmer as prime minister
Fairly good: (6 subgroups)
Region: Greater London. Education: Graduates.
GE 2019 vote: Lab, Lib Dems. Familiar Starmer: yes. Familiar Truss: yes.
Neither good nor bad: (17 subgroups; whole group)
Fairly bad: (8 subgroups)
Age: 45-64; 55-75. Region: South. Social Grade: C2DE. Education: Non-Graduates.
GE 2019 vote: Cons. EU Ref Vote: Leave.
Familiar Sunak: no.
Number of subgroups N=31.
…
… Rishi Sunak
As noted above the median for the whole group is ‘neither bad nor good’. Subgroups do differ from the whole group; and there are differences between subgroups. However these differences are seldom large. Almost all the subgroups (28 subgroups) have medians in the same category as the whole group, namely ‘neither bad nor good’. A few of the subgroups (2 subgroups) have medians in the next higher category as the whole group, namely ‘fairly good’. Just one subgroup has a median in the next lower category as the whole group, namely ‘fairly bad’.
…
Table 7 The medians for different subgroups; Rishi Sunak as prime minister
Fairly good: (2 subgroups)
GE 2019 vote: Cons. Familiar Truss: yes.
Neither good nor bad: (28 subgroups; whole group)
Fairly bad: (1 subgroup)
Region: Scotland.
Number of subgroups N=31.
…
… Liz Truss
As noted above the median for the whole group is ‘neither bad nor good’. Subgroups do differ from the whole group; and there are differences between subgroups. However these differences are seldom large. Most of the subgroups (23 subgroups) have medians in the same category as the whole group, namely ‘neither bad nor good’. A few of the subgroups (2 subgroups) have medians in the next higher category as the whole group, namely ‘fairly good’. A number of the subgroups (6 subgroups) have medians in the next lower category as the whole group, namely ‘fairly bad’.
…
Table 8 The medians for different subgroups; Liz Truss as prime minister
Fairly good: (2 subgroups)
Region: Greater London. Familiar Truss: yes.
Neither good nor bad: (28 subgroups; whole group)
Fairly bad: (1 subgroups)
Gender: female. Region: Scotland. GE 2019: Lab. EU Ref: Remain. Familiar Stammer: not. Familiar Sunak: not.
Number of subgroups N=31.
…
THIS NEEDS MORE WORK … TO BE CONTINUED