Read on Twitter
Going to tackle this one sentence at a time: truly bizarre analysis from a leading political scientist. https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1287678627144966147
"What unites Johnson's voters is not so much their economic experience, as their values".
This is true of almost any political group. You could say exactly the same about Corbyn's supporters, but commentators prefer to dismiss these "shared values" as "wokeism".
This is true of almost any political group. You could say exactly the same about Corbyn's supporters, but commentators prefer to dismiss these "shared values" as "wokeism".
"They prioritise the nation".
Again - it isn't clear why this applies to Johnson's supporters. Every party *claims* to do this, but Johnson clearly prefers a kind of rugged individualism to collectivist politics. It is not clear that "the nation" was prioritised in March.
Again - it isn't clear why this applies to Johnson's supporters. Every party *claims* to do this, but Johnson clearly prefers a kind of rugged individualism to collectivist politics. It is not clear that "the nation" was prioritised in March.
The phrase "national community" is at best nebulous, and at worst, worryingly fascistic.
"They prefer stability over change"
In other words, they are conservatives. Why? Because the evidence suggests that Johnson's supporters are more likely to be older homeowners, with secure employment & a generous pension. This is driven not by "values" but by self-interest.
In other words, they are conservatives. Why? Because the evidence suggests that Johnson's supporters are more likely to be older homeowners, with secure employment & a generous pension. This is driven not by "values" but by self-interest.
"They favour continuity over disruption and discontinuity".
As others have pointed out, Brexit gives the lie to this claim. Goodwin doesn't engage with the selective nature of this preference for "continuity", as to do so would destroy his thesis.
As others have pointed out, Brexit gives the lie to this claim. Goodwin doesn't engage with the selective nature of this preference for "continuity", as to do so would destroy his thesis.
"This is why they cherish Britain's history, heritage and collective memory"
Note the weasel words here. The voters Goodwin is talking about "cherish" an historical fantasy. It's as if historians are being told of for telling voters that Santa Claus isn't real.
Note the weasel words here. The voters Goodwin is talking about "cherish" an historical fantasy. It's as if historians are being told of for telling voters that Santa Claus isn't real.
"More sensitive to attempts to deconstruct them"
Naughty historians! Don't go analysing the reality of Britain's past or pointing out its legacy for many modern British citizens - can't you see that Boris Johnson's supporters feel "sensitive"!
Naughty historians! Don't go analysing the reality of Britain's past or pointing out its legacy for many modern British citizens - can't you see that Boris Johnson's supporters feel "sensitive"!
"And while they acknowledge that this history is complex..."
Again, a weasel word here. British history isn't just "complex" - it is a history of racism, exploitation and greed. & it has shaped the world we live in now - so if you acknowledge this, then you should act on it.
Again, a weasel word here. British history isn't just "complex" - it is a history of racism, exploitation and greed. & it has shaped the world we live in now - so if you acknowledge this, then you should act on it.
"They believe that, on the whole, it was positive, and that Britain has been a force for good in the world".
This was also exactly what British people have *always* believed about the empire, enabling the slave trade, the brutal treatment of colonial rebellions & Irish famine.
This was also exactly what British people have *always* believed about the empire, enabling the slave trade, the brutal treatment of colonial rebellions & Irish famine.
"In short, they believe in their country. They are proud of it. They are proud of their fellow citizens."
Remember, this is supposed to be detached analysis from a leading political scientist, not the conclusion to a party political broadcast.
Remember, this is supposed to be detached analysis from a leading political scientist, not the conclusion to a party political broadcast.
