‘Politics is gambling for high stakes with other people’s money… Politics is a job that can be compared with navigation in uncharted waters. One has no idea how the weather or the currents will be or what storms one is in for. In politics, there is the added fact that one is largely dependent on the decisions of others, decisions on which one was counting and which then do not materialise; one’s actions are never completely one’s own. And if the friends on whose support one is relying change their minds, which is something that one cannot vouch for, the whole plan miscarries… One’s enemies one can count on – but one’s friends!’ Bismarck.
‘The most important thing is not to fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.’ Feynman.
‘He lies like an eyewitness.’ Russian proverb.
In January 2014 I left the Department for Education and spent the next 18 months away from politics. A few days after the 2015 election I wrote a blog about Michael Gove’s new job touching on the referendum. When I wrote it I assumed I would carry on studying and would not be involved in it. About ten days later I was asked by an assortment of MPs, rich businessmen, and campaigners including Matthew Elliott to help put together an organisation that could fight the referendum. I was very reluctant and prevaricated but ended up agreeing. I left my happy life away from SW1 and spent eight weeks biking around London persuading people to take what was likely to be a car crash career decision – to quit their jobs and join a low probability proposition: hacking the political system to win a referendum against almost every force with power and money in politics. In September we had an office, in October ‘Vote Leave’ went public, in April we were designated the official campaign, 10 weeks later we won.
Why and how? The first draft of history was written in the days and weeks after the 23 June and the second draft has appeared over the past few weeks in the form of a handful of books. There is no competition between them. Shipman’s is by far the best and he is the only one to have spoken to key people. I will review it soon. One of his few errors is to give me the credit for things that were done by others, often people in their twenties like Oliver Lewis, Jonny Suart, and Cleo Watson who, unknown outside the office, made extreme efforts and ran rings around supposed ‘experts’. His book has encouraged people to exaggerate greatly my importance.
I have been urged by some of those who worked on the campaign to write about it. I have avoided it, and interviews, for a few reasons (though I had to write one blog to explain that with the formal closing of VL we had made the first online canvassing software that really works in the UK freely available HERE). For months I couldn’t face it. The idea of writing about the referendum made me feel sick. It still does but a bit less.
For about a year I worked on this project every day often for 18 hours and sometimes awake almost constantly. Most of the ‘debate’ was moronic as political debate always is. Many hours of life I’m never getting back were spent dealing with abysmal infighting among dysfunctional egomaniacs while trying to build a ~£10 million startup in 10 months when very few powerful people thought the probability of victory was worth the risk of helping us. (Two rare heroes who put up a lot of their own money and supported the team were Peter Cruddas and Stuart Wheeler.) Many of those involved regarded their TV appearances as by far the most important aspect of the campaign. Many regarded Vote Leave as ‘the real enemy’.
It is hard to explain the depth of TV derangement that gobbles up SW1 souls. Much of politics involves very similar tragi-comic scenes re-created by some of the basic atoms of human nature – fear, self-interest and vanity. The years, characters, and contexts change, the atoms shuffle, but the stories are the same year after year, century after century. Delusions and vanity dominate ‘rationality’ and ‘public service’. Progress, when it comes, is driven by the error-correcting institutions of science and markets when political institutions limit the damage done by decision makers at the apex of centralised hierarchies. It rarely comes from those people, and, when it does, it is usually accidental or incidental to their motives.
Discussions about things like ‘why did X win/lose?’ are structured to be misleading and I could not face trying to untangle everything. There are strong psychological pressures that lead people to create post facto stories that seem to add up to ‘I always said X and X happened.’ Even if people do not think this at the start they rapidly construct psychologically appealing stories that overwrite memories. Many involved with this extraordinary episode feel the need to justify themselves and this means a lot of rewriting of history. I also kept no diary so I have no clear source for what I really thought other than some notes here and there. I already know from talking to people that my lousy memory has conflated episodes, tried to impose patterns that did not actually exist and so on – all the usual psychological issues. To counter all this in detail would require going through big databases of emails, printouts of appointment diaries, notebooks and so on, and even then I would rarely be able to reconstruct reliably what I thought. Life’s too short.
I’ve learned over the years that ‘rational discussion’ accomplishes almost nothing in politics, particularly with people better educated than average. Most educated people are not set up to listen or change their minds about politics, however sensible they are in other fields. But I have also learned that when you say or write something, although it has roughly zero effect on powerful/prestigious people or the immediate course of any ‘debate’, you are throwing seeds into a wind and are often happily surprised. A few years ago I wrote something that was almost entirely ignored in SW1 but someone at Harvard I’d never met read it. This ended up having a decisive effect on the referendum.
A warning. Politics is not a field which meets the two basic criteria for true expertise (see below). An effect of this is that arguments made by people who win are taken too seriously. People in my position often see victory as confirmation of ideas they had before victory but people often win for reasons they never understand or even despite their own efforts. Cameron’s win in 2015 was like this – he fooled himself about some of the reasons why he’d won and this error contributed to his errors on the referendum. Maybe Leave won regardless of or even despite my ideas. Maybe I’m fooling myself like Cameron. Some of my arguments below have as good an empirical support as is possible in politics (i.e. not very good objectively) but most of them do not even have that. Also, it is clear that almost nobody agrees with me about some of my general ideas. It is more likely that I am wrong than 99% of people who work in this field professionally. Still, cognitive diversity is inherently good for political analysis so I’ll say what I think and others will judge if there’s anything to learn.
Apologies for the length but I didn’t have time to make it shorter. The next ones will be short.
Reality has branching histories, not ‘a big why’
Much political analysis revolves around competing simple stories based on one big factor such that, in retrospect, ‘it was always clear that immigration would trump economic interest / Cameron’s negotiation was never going to be enough / there is an unstoppable populist tide’, and so on. Alternatives are quickly thought to have been impossible (even if X argued the exact opposite repeatedly). The big event must have had an equally big single cause. Confirmation bias kicks in and evidence seeming to suggest that what actually happened would happen looms larger. People who are quite wrong quickly persuade themselves they were ‘mostly right’ and ‘had a strong feeling’ unlike, of course, the blind fools around them. Soon our actual history seems like the only way things could have played out. Brexit had to happen. Trump had to win.
You see these dynamics all the time in historical accounts. History tends to present the 1866 war between Prussia and Austria as almost inevitable but historians spend much less time on why Bismarck pulled back from war in 1865 and how he might have done the same in 1866 (actually he prepared the ground so he could do this and he kept the option open until the last minute). The same is true about 1870. When some generals tried to bounce him into a quick preventive war against Russia in the late 1880s he squashed them flat warning against tying the probability of a Great Power war to ‘the passions of sheep stealers’ in the Balkans (a lesson even more important today than then). If he had wanted a war, students would now be writing essays on why the Russo-German War of 1888 was ‘inevitable’. Many portray the war that broke out in August 1914 as ‘inevitable’ but many decisions in the preceding month could have derailed it, just as decisions derailed general war in previous Balkan crises. Few realise how lucky we were to avoid nuclear war during the Cuban Missile crisis (cf. Vasili Arkhipov) and other terrifying near-miss nuclear wars. The whole 20th Century history of two world wars and a nuclear Cold War might have been avoided if one of the assassination attempts on Bismarck had succeeded. If Cohen-Blind’s aim had been very slightly different in May 1866 when he fired five bullets at Bismarck, then the German states would certainly have evolved in a different way and it is quite plausible that there would have been no unified German army with its fearsome General Staff, no World War I, no Lenin and Hitler, and so on. The branching histories are forgotten and the actual branch taken, often because of some relatively trivial event casting a huge shadow (perhaps as small as a half-second delay by Cohen-Blind), seems overwhelmingly probable. This ought to, but does not, make us apply extreme intelligent focus to those areas that can go catastrophically wrong, like accidental nuclear war, to try to narrow the range of possible histories but instead most people in politics spend almost all their time on trivia.
We evolved to make sense of this nonlinear and unpredictable world with stories. These stories are often very powerful. On one hand the work of Kahneman et al on ‘irrationality’ has given an exaggerated impression. The fact that we did not evolve to think as natural Bayesians does not make us as ‘irrational’ as some argue. We evolved to avoid disasters where the probability of disaster X happening was unknowable but the outcome was fatal. Rationality is more than ‘Bayesian updating’. On the other hand our stories do often obscure the branching histories of reality and they remain the primary way in which history is told. The mathematical models that illuminate complex reality in the physical sciences do not help us much with history yet. Only recently has reliable data science begun to play an important role in politics.
Andrew Marr wrote recently about the referendum with a classic post facto ‘big event must be caused by one big factor’ story:
‘Connected to this is the big “why?”. I don’t think we voted to leave the EU because of clever tacticians or not-quite-clever-enough pollsters, or even because Johnson decided that one of his columns was better than another. I think we voted to leave because so many British people had been left behind economically and culturally for so long, and were furious about it; and because, from the 2008 financial crisis onwards, they had accumulated so much contempt for the political elites. In these circumstances any referendum narrows down to a single question: “Are you happy with the way things are?” The answer was “no”.’ Andrew Marr, October 2016.
‘The big why?’ is psychologically appealing but it is a mistake. In general terms it is the wrong way to look at history and it is specifically wrong about the referendum. If it were accurate we would have won by much more than we did given millions who were not ‘happy with the way things are’ and would like to be out of the EU reluctantly voted IN out of fear. Such stories oversimplify and limit thinking about the much richer reality of branching histories.
Branching histories in 2016: three powerful forces, many possible campaigns
Sometimes the outcome of a vote is clear before a campaign starts such that it is reasonable to say ‘the campaign didn’t matter’ other than in the negative sense that, provided it avoids huge disasters, the twists and turns, the exact messages and adverts, thousands of decisions taken and so on very likely had no impact on the binary outcome. For example, Reagan’s re-election campaign in 1984 or Blair’s re-election campaign in 2001 were campaigns like this. Both won by so much and were clearly predicted by very large and historically very unusual poll leads well in advance. It is not plausible to say that the weeks of campaigning affected who won. At most the campaigns affected the scale of victory.
The referendum was not like this. Throughout the second half of 2015 and the beginning of 2016 the averages of polls – the only sensible way to look at polls – showed clear IN leads. All polls showed significant shifts towards Leave in the last five weeks (then a shift towards Remain at the end but this was at least partly because London-based pollsters changed their methodology thinking that they were making them more accurate – they fooled themselves). Polls tracking deeper attitudes that had been consistent for years suddenly changed in the last few months in ways that were significant given the close outcome. Recent claims that the polls ‘really’ showed Leave ahead all the time should be taken with very large pinches of salt given their dodgy statistical claims, charlatan authors like Matt Goodwin (who treats data dishonestly), and the inherent impossibility of discovering the truth of such a question.
One example from our private ICM polls (I will post the data tables for all these): Vote Leave asked people to choose between these options regularly to probe attitudes to the EU that are more informative than just the referendum question. The 11 point gain for ‘strong out’ is much bigger than the margin of error, is supported by other data, and is clearly significant.
The cold reality of the referendum is no clear story, no ‘one big causal factor’, and no inevitability – it was ‘men going at it blind’. The result was an emergent property of many individual actions playing out amid a combination of three big forces (see below). Many of these actions were profoundly nonlinear and interdependent and the result that we actually witnessed was very close. If about 600,000 people – just over 1% of registered voters – had decided differently, IN would have won. This is a small enough margin that it could easily have happened if quite a few specific events and decisions had turned out differently. If just one person had behaved differently the dominant story now would be ‘the economy was always going to trump a revolt against the elites, the status quo and “the economy stupid” always win’ – which is what the overwhelming majority of pundits said before 23 June and in some cases had drafted for their columns after the vote.
For example, if Michael Gove had stayed out of the campaign then Vote Leave would almost certainly have either collapsed (which it nearly did anyway) or been forced into fighting the campaign on a losing message like ‘Go Global’, a firm favourite for many years among a subset of MPs and Farage’s inner circle (Leave.EU adopted this as its first slogan) and a total loser with the public. (Therefore another counterfactual: why did Cameron and Osborne not try very hard to get a clear commitment from Gove that all he would do is issue a statement but would carry on with his day job and would not campaign? I hope he would have refused but it was worth a shot and they didn’t try very hard.)
Without Boris, Farage would have been a much more prominent face on TV during the crucial final weeks, probably the most prominent face. (We had to use Boris as leverage with the BBC to keep Farage off and even then they nearly screwed us as ITV did.) It is extremely plausible that this would have lost us over 600,000 vital middle class votes.
Without Victoria Woodcock, an absolutely phenomenal manager and by far the single most important person in the management of Vote Leave (and who would have been running Downing Street now but for the Gove-Boris debacle – more branching histories), we would not have been able to build anything like the structure we did and this could easily have cost us the winning margin of votes.
Anybody who says ‘I always knew X would win’ is fooling themselves. What actually happened was one of many branching histories and in many other branches of this network – branches that almost happened and still seem almost real to me – we lost.
Problems with Vote Leave
This is not a claim that ‘we won because of the Vote Leave campaign’. Our campaign failed to do much that we should have done. There were powerful connections between:
- infighting over who appeared on broadcast and strategy,
- the lack of resources (many kept clear because of the infighting and many used infighting as an excuse to keep clear of something they thought was doomed),
- the extreme difficulty of finding a governance system that could work,
- four crucial posts held by the wrong people (including the disastrous John Mills as first Chairman),
- the fundamental structure of how the media works (see below),
- the extreme difficulty of getting prominent people to say on TV what research showed was necessary to win, and
- the lack of anything resembling a well-organised mass movement.
Despite many years to prepare, the eurosceptic community had built remarkably little to prepare for the battle. On the ground were many small ineffective and often warring little groups and essentially no serious machinery (though Business for Britain had begun to build a business network). All this had to be built almost entirely from scratch in an environment in which many of those in charge of the small groups were sure we would lose, were less interested in winning than they were in ‘preserving our group’s identity Dominic’, and were keen to get their hands on cash being handed out by Leave.EU on condition that they not contribute to the campaign with Vote Leave. At various points UKIP HQ sent out emails to UKIP activists telling them not to work with Vote Leave and some senior activists were told by Farage’s gang that they would lose their UKIP jobs if they helped our ground campaign (luckily most of those out on the ground ignored these instructions but they were disruptive).
The office implemented the winning message in ~125 million leaflets and nearly a billion targeted digital adverts regardless of all complaints. We recruited more active volunteers (~12,000) in 10 months than UKIP in 25 years (~7,000 according to Farage). Our GOTV effort targeted crucial voters identified by traditional polling, a new type of experimental polling, the ground campaign, and the social media campaign, all overseen by the data science team. But until the last 4-5 weeks we had a big problem getting those going on TV to give the same message. The office could only do so much. If Boris, Gove, and Gisela had not supported us and picked up the baseball bat marked ‘Turkey/NHS/£350 million’ with five weeks to go, then 650,000 votes might have been lost. In the awful weekly campaign committee meetings, there were constant complaints and arguments for variations on ‘Go Global’ (until all the polls swung our way and people remembered ‘I’ve always said stick with 350 million’.) The Big Three knocked this back despite great pressure.
Some people had spent a quarter of a century talking about things that appealed to about 10% of the population and they would not pay attention to what millions of normal people actually knew and thought (‘I’ve spent years trying to ignore the NHS in elections Dominic and I’m not going to change now’ said many like Peter Bone). Media planning was extremely hard. Paul Stephenson’s media team of half a dozen, massively outnumbered by hundreds of officials, did a fantastic job but we could have done so much more if more MPs had been more determined and more supportive.
It should be remembered that the net effect of Conservative MPs was strongly supportive of IN. We won despite the net effort of Conservative Party MPs, not because of them, though the support from a small fraction was vital. Although Leave voters were more enthusiastic and determined than Remain voters, Cameron and Osborne were more focused on winning than most Leave MPs were. (Almost all Labour MPs seemed to be in a parallel universe until they got intelligence from their constituencies about postal votes after which they panicked ineffectually.)
Most of the MPs we dealt with were not highly motivated to win and lacked extreme focus, even those who had been boring everybody about this for decades. They sort of wanted to win but they had other priorities. They were very happy having dinner parties and gossiping. They were very happy coming to meetings with people they thought were important. This wasted enormous amounts of time as we had to create a string of Potemkin committees for people to attend while the core team actually did the campaign, then reinvent them as people became convinced that there were other secret meetings that they were being excluded from. They were very happy to be on the Today Programme. But they didn’t want to win that much. Not enough to work weekends. Not enough to stop having all their usual skiing holidays and winter beach holidays. Not enough to get out on the streets day after day. Not enough to miss a great shooting weekend. Not enough, most of them, to risk annoying a Prime Minister who they thought would still control their next job after 23 June.
This lack of motivation is connected to another important psychology – the willingness to fail conventionally. Most people in politics are, whether they know it or not, much more comfortable with failing conventionally than risking the social stigma of behaving unconventionally. They did not mind losing so much as being embarrassed, as standing out from the crowd. (The same phenomenon explains why the vast majority of active fund management destroys wealth and nobody learns from this fact repeated every year.)
Our core campaign team were not like this. They sacrificed weekends, holidays, and family events. They worked like dogs week in week out for little money often treated with appalling rudeness by people calling from their beach loungers (Boris, Gisela and Gove were three notable exceptions and all three were liked by junior staff partly because of their good, therefore rare, manners). We were happy to risk looking stupid to win. We knew that almost nobody in SW1 understood or agreed with what we were doing. We also knew we had more chance of winning if we did not explain a lot of it – most importantly the entire digital and data science element which (combined with the ground campaign and GOTV) gave us a chance to exploit strong network effects (and which we hid from the Board and MPs, see HERE).
Example… We were urged by everyone to hire a big advertising agency and do traditional posters. ‘When can we discuss our posters?’ I was asked constantly by people who would then try to explain to me their creative ideas (‘we need another Labour Isn’t Working, Dominic, I’ve got an idea for a picture of the globe and arrows…’). One of the few reliable things we know about advertising amid the all-pervasive charlatanry is that, unsurprisingly, adverts are more effective the closer to the decision moment they hit the brain. Instead of spending a fortune on an expensive agency (with 15% going to them out of ‘controlled expenditure’) and putting up posters to be ‘part of the national conversation’ weeks or months before the vote, we decided to 1) hire extremely smart physicists to consider everything from first principles, 2) put almost all our money into digital (~98%), 3) hold the vast majority of our budget back and drop it all right at the end with money spent on those adverts that experiments had shown were most effective (internal code name ‘Waterloo’). When things are digital you can be more empirical and control the timing. The world of advertising agencies and PR companies were sure we had screwed up because they did not see what we were doing. (Tim Bell told everybody we were doomed because we hadn’t hired one of his companies.) This points to another important issue – it is actually hard even for very competent and determined people to track digital communication accurately, and it is important that the political media is not set up to do this. There was not a single report anywhere (and very little curiosity) on how the official Leave campaign spent 98% of its marketing budget. There was a lot of coverage of a few tactical posters.
There were some MP heroes.
Example… Steve Baker often disagreed with me, sometimes very strongly, but he was a rare person in the campaign – an honest man. Not only did Steve win some important Parliamentary battles he also played a vital role during the attempted coup of 25 January. If he had thrown in his lot with the coup, it might have proved fatal. Instead he spoke honestly about the situation. We did not agree and we were both under pressure from a set of people who thought that ‘if they [HQ/MPs] control the campaign we will lose, we [HQ/MPs] must control it’. We came to an agreement that we both stuck to. With five weeks to go, there was an attempt to revive the coup by a couple of VL Board members working with players from the January coup like Malcolm Pearson. The demand was to replace the Big Three (Boris, Gisela, Gove) and the core campaign team with Farage, and replace £350 million / NHS with ‘go global’ trade babble. This didn’t get past the usual weekend boozy chats partly because of Steve Baker telling them he thought it a mad plan. This also shows how volatile the situation was right until the end and how few prominent eurosceptics even then understood that a) the £350 million / NHS argument was necessary to win and b) their ‘go global’ message was a total loser.
Other MPs also made significant personal sacrifices – backbenchers like Anne Marie Trevelyan and Graham Stringer, and ministers like George Eustice and Dominic Raab.
Rough balance of forces
The IN side started with huge structural advantages.
- IN started in 2015 well ahead in the polls and had the advantage of having the status quo on its side which is intrinsically easier to explain than change is, as lots of historical data around the world shows. Usually the ‘change’ campaign has to start considerably ahead in order to win as it loses support as the campaign goes on. This argument was even stronger with something so much bigger and more complex like the EU. VL had to persuade millions of people to risk a profound change. Those on the IN side made this point repeatedly for many months. They were right then. After 23 June many of them say the exact opposite – it’s so complex to explain all the wonders of the EU, they say, and so easy to argue for change. This is laughable.
- IN had the government at its heart including the Downing Street machine, the Cabinet Office, and Government departments and agencies all of which added up to thousands of people including hundreds of press officers. Cameron and Heywood also instructed Permanent Secretaries not to share EU material with Secretaries of State supporting Vote Leave in order that they did not have access to new information about all the ways in which EU law affected policy. (In general Whitehall has made great efforts to hide the scope of EU control. It also preserves, Potemkin-style, old processes like circulating Cabinet papers ‘for approval’ where the only acceptable response is ‘approve’ – it is not actually legally possible not to ‘approve’ but still the papers are sent round via the absurd red box system daily.) VL had a few dozen effective people and no access to the official machine other than some leaks. We had a research team of about five. MPs proved largely useless in helping this team.
- IN controlled one side of the renegotiation and its timing. VL was at the mercy of events and could not get any ministers supporting us until the process ended.
- IN controlled the timing of the referendum. VL had to plan resources on the basis of many scenarios.
- IN controlled the Cabinet and junior ministers – bribes for support and threats to deter. They had the chance to set the terms for how ministers engaged in the campaign (though they partly blew this). VL had to meet ministers in secret, could guarantee them no jobs, and (as was pointed out to me by many) could not dodge the basic truth that purely from a personal career perspective it was usually better to support the PM.
- IN controlled the governing party and the Parliamentary timetable and procedures. VL had to work with a small number of MPs many of whom had spent many years in constant opposition to their own leadership and were unused to any sort of discipline or collective action.
- IN set the legal rules. VL faced a huge imbalance in how these worked. For example, Cameron even during the official campaign could do huge events at places like the British Museum and the IN campaign did not have to account for such events as part of their £7 million. Meanwhile VL was told by the Electoral Commission that if people we did not even know put up huge signs that appeared on TV we might get billed for them. There were many other consequences of the imbalance. E.g. the Government’s legal timetable meant we had to commit before the official start of the campaign to a load of activity that would occur after the official start of the campaign without knowing if we would be the official campaign and therefore legally entitled to spend this money. We therefore had to choose between either a) not do various things, be sure we would not break the law, and lower the chances of winning or b) do the right thing for the campaign and riski being judged to have broken the law. Obviously we did (b) though we had to hide this choice from some of those on our Board as this was exactly the sort of thing some of them were very weak about.
- IN had access to huge resources – financial, personnel etc. IN had the support of almost every entity with power in Britain, Europe, and the world from the senior civil service to the CBI to the big investment banks, to Obama and the world bureaucracy (G20, UN, IMF etc). Very few senior people were prepared to risk supporting us. Those who did mostly did so in a small way and on their own terms without getting involved in our campaign. While IN could send out name after name to deliver their message, we could depend on very few names who would deliver our message. The Government machine, the Commission, and the Cabinet Office were effective in scaring off prominent people from supporting us; many of them told us (some embarrassed) about the phone calls they’d had and their ‘duty to shareholders’ and so on. Advanced media planning was almost impossible and we had to shuffle things around at short notice constantly. IN had millions more than us before the campaign ever started and used this money for direct voter communication. We could not afford this. We sent out one 10 million voter mailing to people identified by the physicists just before the spending limits started and we could only do this by tricking some of those on our Board about the numbers. (I was also helped by Peter Cruddas saying, ‘Don’t worry about the fundraising situation, don’t listen to everybody panicking, just do whatever it takes to do the campaign, if the money doesn’t come I guarantee I’ll put in whatever you need’. I knew I could trust him. This gave us vital flexibility and also meant we could ignore some of those on the Board who were more focused on whether they may be liable for a bill post-23/6 than they were on winning.)
- IN had the support of most journalists and senior management in the main broadcasters. The broadcasters let the Government set the agenda on TV for almost the entire campaign, apart from ten crucial days after the immigration numbers on 26 May. VL had the support of some powerful papers but we were overwhelmed on TV news. (Two broadcast journalists who were conspicuous by their unusual professionalism and determination to act fairly despite the behaviour of some of their management were Laura K and Allegra Stratton.)
- IN started with legal access to vast amounts of electoral data from at least three political parties, unofficial / illegal access to vast amounts of data from things like CCHQ data and the Crosby/Messina models built during the campaign, and vast amounts of commercial data. (CCHQ laughably claimed that there were ‘Chinese walls’ that prevented any abuse of Party data.) VL had none of these things. We could not even afford to buy standard commercial datasets (though the physicists found ingenious ways around this). We had no way even to acquire the electoral roll until the official process allowed us in early 2016, after which we had to wait a couple of months for LAs to fulfil their legal obligations to provide us with the data (which they did patchily and often late).
- IN had a great boost to its fortunes in the form of a network linking Nigel Farage, Aaron Banks, assorted peers (e.g. Malcolm Pearson), MPs (e.g. Bill Cash), businessmen (e.g. Richard Smith), and a handful of Vote Leave Board members (including the one-time Chairman John Mills) and some staff foisted on us (one of whom won the title of the most repellent person I’ve met in politics – Nigel Griffiths, an ex-MP who some female staff refused to be in the same room with). Farage put off millions of (middle class in particular) voters who wanted to leave the EU but who were very clear in market research that a major obstacle to voting Leave was ‘I don’t want to vote for Farage, I’m not like that’. He also put off many prominent business people from supporting us. Over and over they would say ‘I agree with you the EU is a disaster and we should get out but I just cannot be on the same side as a guy who makes comments about people with HIV’.
On 25 January 2016 a network of these characters launched a coup. But for the actions of Stephen Parkinson, Paul Stephenson, and Victoria Woodcock (supported by most but not all of the office) it would have succeeded. This would have given control of the official campaign to the Farage crowd. They ran with vapid slogans like ‘Be in the know’. Ironically for a group of people who claim to be anti-SW1 they rehashed the classic losing SW1 eurosceptic trope for 25 years – ‘Go Global’ – showing how little they understood the electorate and mass communication. They rejected the connection between immigration, £350 million and the NHS, which was absolutely vital, as the IN side has said after 23 June (see below). They published dumb offensive videos. They talked about privatising the NHS. They built little grassroots organisation and their claims about social media were (and remain ) laughable. Farage himself admitted after 23 June that they did not have the organisation to run the campaign if they had won designation: ‘quite what we would have done if we had got it I’m not really sure!’, which sums them up (Shipman, Location 4,150). The media would have covered this gang’s official campaign as a version of their own book – a bunch of childish dodgy boozers on an ego trip.
Before the 2015 election Farage said to me at Stuart Wheeler’s that he knew he could not be the leading face of the campaign – ‘I’m one of the generals but I can’t lead the army’ he said, to my relief. When I next saw him in the summer, I was amazed at how his tune had changed, his obsession with the debates, and his pessimism. One can only understand some of the behaviour from those around Farage if you realise that much of their operation was about positioning Farage for what they assumed would be defeat.
One of the biggest problems during the campaign and biggest misconceptions after concerns this issue. Those who argued ‘we need one campaign’ were wrong. Those who argue now ‘we would have won by more if there’d been one campaign’ are wrong. One campaign would have meant total bedlam and 60-40 defeat.
If MPs had had extreme focus on winning then they would not have used Farage as leverage against us viz official designation and therefore much of the infighting could have been avoided as Farage would have done a sensible deal with us early, realising much earlier that we would not compromise over him running the campaign under any circumstances. By encouraging Farage to think that he could get a much more prominent position, people like Bill Cash nearly destroyed everything.
Given all these huge advantages, if their campaign had been of equal effectiveness to Vote Leave then, all else remaining equal, Cameron would almost certainly (>95% likely) have won.
Why did all these forces not add up to overwhelming and devastating firepower? If you want to understand the combination of things that gives us largely dysfunctional government and therefore undermined the IN campaign – a mix of selecting and promoting the wrong people, wrong education and training, bad incentives, anti-adaptive institutions and so on – then read this in which I explain in detail why Whitehall does not and cannot work properly.
The approximate truth
The closest approximation to the truth that we can get is that Leave won because of a combination of 1) three big, powerful forces with global impact: the immigration crisis, the financial crisis, and the euro crisis which created conditions in which the referendum could be competitive; 2) Vote Leave implemented some unrecognised simplicities in its operations that focused attention more effectively than the other side on a simple and psychologically compelling story, thus taking advantage of those three big forces; and 3) Cameron and Osborne operated with a flawed model of what constitutes effective political action and had bad judgement about key people (particularly his chief of staff and director of communications) therefore they made critical errors. Even if (1) and (2) had played out the same, I think that if that duo had made one of a few crucial decisions differently they would very likely have won.
When I started to research opinion in 2014-15 and compared it to my experience of the euro campaign (1999-2002), it was clear three forces had changed opinion on the EU.
1) The immigration crisis. 15 years of immigration and, recently, a few years of the migration crisis from the East and Africa, dramatically portrayed on TV and social media, had a big effect. In 2000, focus groups were already unhappy with immigration but did not regard it as a problem caused by the EU. By 2015, the EU was blamed substantially for the immigration/asylum crisis and this was entangled with years of news stories about ‘European courts’ limiting action against terrorists and criminals. Actually often these stories concerned the Strasbourg court of the ECHR (not the ECJ) though, ironically, the EU’s adoption of its Charter of Fundamental Rights meant that many issues concerning the ECHR became relevant to the EU debate, something that almost nobody in SW1 realised and we tried and largely failed to explain (one of the very few who did understand this was Boris’s wife, an accomplished lawyer, who I discussed this with in autumn 2015).
2) The 2008 financial crisis. This undermined confidence in Government, politicians, big business, banks, and almost any entity thought to be speaking for those with power and money. Contra many pundits, Miliband was right that the centre of gravity has swung against free markets. Even among the world of Thatcherite small businesses and entrepreneurs opinion is deeply hostile to the way in which banks and public company executive pay work. Over and over again outside London people would rant about how they had not/barely recovered from this recession ‘while the politicians and bankers and businessmen in London all keep raking in the money and us mugs on PAYE are paying for the bailouts, now they’re saying we’ve just got to put up with the EU being crap or else we’ll be unemployed, I don’t buy it, they’ve been wrong about everything else…’ All those amazed at why so little attention was paid to ‘the experts’ did not, and still do not, appreciate that these ‘experts’ are seen by most people of all political views as having botched financial regulation, made a load of rubbish predictions, then forced everybody else outside London to pay for the mess while they got richer and dodged responsibility. They are right. This is exactly what happened.
Many Tory MPs and ‘free market’ pundits / think tankers are living in a fantasy world in which they want hostility to big business to end even though everybody can see that those who failed largely escaped responsibility and have even gone back to doing the same things. (I’ve argued since 2001 for big changes on executive pay to almost zero effect. SW1 is full of people who think they’re ‘defending markets’ but are actually defending the opposite – corporate looting. In the 1930s Britain put people in jail because of what happened in the 1920s. We should have done the same after 2008.)
3) The euro crisis. Britain joined the EEC because it was a basket case in the 1970s and ‘Europe’ was seen as a modernising force that could help us recover and improve the economy and living standards. As the euro crisis hit, millions saw Greece in chaos, even flames, for month after month. This undermined confidence in the EU as a modern successful force – ‘it’s so bad even Germany’s in trouble now because of the euro’, ‘not even Germany can afford to sort this out’, people would say.
Together these three big forces undermined confidence in the EU project as a modern force for progress that brings prosperity and solves problems and pushed it into about 30-35% of the population (younger, richer, better educated) which increasingly saw the EU in terms of ‘are you racist / supporter of Farage?’ This feeling was central in 1975. It diminished gradually but was still partly there 1999-2002 when I was doing focus groups on the euro. (It is why I had so many arguments at the time with eurosceptics explaining to them that if we accepted Blair’s framing of the euro debate as IN/OUT of the EU, we would lose. Our two slogans were therefore ‘Europe yes, euro no’ and ‘Keep the pound, keep control’.)
Second, they undermined confidence in those in charge. There had been strong anti-Westminster feelings growing for over a decade. In 2004 with James Frayne and my uncle I set up the campaign to fight the referendum on the North East Regional Assembly as a training exercise for an EU referendum (then envisaged after Blair’s 2005 victory). We came from behind and won 80-20 (not a misprint) despite having almost no money, no support, and the entire North East establishment against us because we exploited this feeling (‘politicians talk, we pay‘ was our slogan). SW1 ignored the result. It did not appreciate the scale of this growing force even after the financial crash and expenses scandal. Normal electoral politics and the structural grip of established political parties fooled insiders about the extent of support for people like Cameron. Cameron won negatively – because he was not Brown or Miliband. There was very little positive feeling for him. They fought the referendum with him and Osborne at the front as if they were fighting Brown or Miliband and asking people to make a choice: this is not how most people saw it.
These three big forces and the failure of the parties to cope, combined with the daily resentment of paying taxes for the bill of the 2008 Crash, meant that in a vote like 2016 where people did not have to vote to stop Brown or Miliband ‘stealing my money’, millions who were unpersuaded by Cameron/Osborne felt free to vote positively for something (‘take back control’) and against a duo they disliked, distrusted, and saw as representative of politicians’ failure over many years.
These three big forces had global impact and had much more effect on people who pay a normal amount of attention to politics than every speech, article, pamphlet and ‘campaign’ about the EU over 15 years, the sum total of which had almost no discernible effect.
Those who think I am exaggerating the relative lack of influence of conscious SW1 activity could consider another example – the Gove education reforms 2010-14 (which I was closely involved with). These reforms were one of the most prominent stories of the 2010-15 Government with thousands of stories and broadcast discussions. I researched public attitudes to these reforms after I resigned from government in January 2014 (contrary to widespread belief the Cameron operation spent very little time and resources before 2014 on researching public opinion, they were focused on the media rather than the public). Approximately nothing of our arguments – including the years of speeches by Blair too – had got through to the public.The entire SW1 media debate had approximately no impact on public opinion. People had some idea of some changes if they had kids in school but knew almost nothing of the arguments. Consider how much more motivated people were to learn about this than they were about the EU. (Part of the reason is that the language that Cameron and SW1 generally used was about ‘choice, competition’ and so on. I was almost totally unsuccessful in persuading people to talk about the issue in a different way which is one of the reasons I spent so little time on communication and almost all my time on management in the DfE. Gove knew the problem but also knew that there was no chance of getting Cameron to do things differently.)
This is relevant to the immigration argument in particular. Many pundits who described themselves as ‘modernisers’ wrote columns over the years arguing that immigration was an issue because Cameron was making foolish promises about it and the media therefore paid more attention to it. This is wrong. Cameron’s foolish promises certainly made his situation worse but it is wrong to think that public interest in an issue is proportional to the attention paid by politicians and newspapers in SW1. The public only pays attention to a tiny subset of issues that politicians and the media bang on about. It is largely impossible to predict which things will catch fire and which will not, though process stories and ‘scandals’ almost always have zero effect and insiders repeatedly get this wrong. Long before there was any prominent media discussion of ‘the Australian points system’ you could hear it being discussed in focus group after focus group to an extent that was very surprising to me and was very surprising to every single person I discussed it with, including Farage (who adopted the policy because of focus groups, the causal chain was not – Farage talks >> focus groups respond).
Making these three forces even more powerful was the nature of the reaction from those in charge in the EU and Britain – a general failure not only to grip the problems but even to show that they understood what the problems were. There was clearly no sensible movement for reform of the EU. As it lurched from crisis to crisis, its only response was ‘the EU needs more power’ (this is, of course, the founding logic of the Monnet-Delors system). The British Government clearly had no sensible plan for dealing with the EU’s crises and dysfunction. Worse, their responses were often obviously rubbish, such as the ‘tens of thousands’ immigration promise that people could see had no chance of being met yet politicians just kept repeating it. People naturally concluded – these guys in London don’t grasp the seriousness of the problems, they haven’t a clue what to do, and are treating us like idiots. Cameron’s renegotiation did not change this view. The Government therefore entered the campaign in a very different state to Wilson in 1975.
These three forces meant that by summer 2015 only about a third of the electorate positively wanted to be inside the EU. Another third strongly wanted to leave and were not worried about the economy. Another fifth had roughly the view that – the EU is rubbish, I’d like to be outside, but I’m worried about the short-term effects on jobs and living standards so maybe I’ll vote IN (see the ICM table above). Further, our research showed that the strong Leave third was significantly more enthusiastic about the referendum than the strong Remain third and the swing fifth, and therefore more likely to vote.
Vote Leave exploited these forces
I will go into this in much more detail and I will ignore all management/operational issues here.
Our story rested on five simple foundations that came from listening very hard to what people really knew, thought, and said:
1. ‘Let’s take back control’. The overall theme. When I researched opinion on the euro the best slogan we could come up with was ‘keep control’. I therefore played with variations of this. A lot of people have given me a lot of credit for coming up with it but all I really did was listen. (NB. ‘back’ plays into a strong evolved instinct – we hate losing things, especially control.)
2. ‘The official bill of EU membership is £350 million per week – let’s spend our money on our priorities like the NHS instead.’ (Sometimes we said ‘we send the EU £350m’ to provoke people into argument. This worked much better than I thought it would. There is no single definitive figure because there are different sets of official figures but the Treasury gross figure is slightly more than £350m of which we get back roughly half, though some of this is spent in absurd ways like subsidies for very rich landowners to do stupid things.)
Pundits and MPs kept saying ‘why isn’t Leave arguing about the economy and living standards’. They did not realise that for millions of people, £350m/NHS was about the economy and living standards – that’s why it was so effective. It was clearly the most effective argument not only with the crucial swing fifth but with almost every demographic. Even with UKIP voters it was level-pegging with immigration. Would we have won without immigration? No. Would we have won without £350m/NHS? All our research and the close result strongly suggests No. Would we have won by spending our time talking about trade and the Single Market? No way (see below).
NB. Unlike most of those on our side the IN campaign realised the effectiveness of this, as Cooper, Coetze and others said after 23 June. E.g. ‘The power of their £350 million a week can’t be overstated.’ Andrew Cooper, director of strategy for the IN campaign.
Some people now claim this was cynical and we never intended to spend more on the NHS. Wrong. Boris and Gove were agreed and determined to do exactly this. On the morning of 24 June they both came into HQ. In the tiny ‘operations room’ amid beer cans, champagne bottles, and general bedlam I said to Boris – on day one of being PM you should immediately announce the extra £100 million per week for the NHS [the specific pledge we’d made] is starting today and more will be coming – you should start off by being unusual, a political who actually delivers what they promise. ‘Absolutely. ABSOLUTELY. We MUST do this, no question, we’ll park our tanks EVERYWHERE’ he said. Gove strongly agreed. If they had not blown up this would have happened. The opposite impression was created because many Tories who did not like us talking about the NHS reverted to type within seconds of victory and immediately distanced themselves from it and the winning campaign. Unlike Gove and Boris they did not learn from the campaign, they did not listen to the public. Until people trust that the NHS is a financial priority for Tories, they will have no moral authority to discuss management issues. This obvious fact is psychologically hard to absorb because of the strength of gang feelings in politics.
(There are already myths about some of these events. The press conference of 24 June is now written up as the two of them ‘terrified of what they had done’ but this is completely wrong. They were subdued partly because they were genuinely sad about Cameron and partly because they did not want to be seen as dancing on his grave. Some of the media created the psychologically compelling story that they were regretful / frightened about victory but this was not at all their mood in HQ on the morning of 24 June. Boris came in punching the air like Maradona after a great goal, hugging staff and clearly euphoric. It is completely wrong to portray him as regretful.)
3. ‘Vote Leave to take back control of immigration policy. If we stay there will be more new countries like Turkey joining and you won’t get a vote. Cameron says he wants to “pave the road” from Turkey to here. That’s dangerous. If we leave we can have democratic control and a system like Australia’s. It’s safer to take back control.’
I was surprised at what a shock it was to IN when we hit them with Turkey. By the time this happened they were in an almost impossible position. I wanted them to announce a veto. It would not have been believed and would have had the opposite effect – people would have taken the danger of Turkey joining more seriously. If your life depended on winning for IN, the answer is clear: they should have said long before the campaign started as part of the renegotiation process that they would veto any accession.
4. ‘The euro is a nightmare, the EU is failing, unemployment is a disaster, their debts and pensions are a disaster, if we stay YOU will be paying the bills. It’s safer to take back control and have a new relationship based on free trade and friendly cooperation instead of the European Court being in charge of everything…’ (This is not an official text, just a summary of the notion off the top of my head.)
5. Anti-Establishment. E.g. We aligned our campaign with those who were furious with executive pay / corporate looting (about 99% of the country). We aligned ourselves with the public who had been let down by the system.
Mandelson regarded this as ‘sheer nerve, sheer chutzpah’. It was obvious. The hard thing was sticking to it despite the sensibilities of many of our own supporters. One of the most effective TV performances of the campaign was the day Boris hit the theme of corporate looting in a market square. No10 were rightly panicked and in response pushed out Heseltine a few hours later to make a very personal attack on Boris. This made sense tactically but was a strategic error. All such personal attacks helped persuade Boris to up the ante. This was vital with a month to go when the immigration figures came out. Rudd and others argue that Cameron should have attacked Boris and others more. Wrong. They should have played it Zen publicly and had a much better black ops team.
I’ll go into this separately but just to give a few examples…
1. Cameron never had to offer the referendum in the first place. His sudden U-turn was a classic example of how his Downing Street operation lurched without serious thought in response to media pressure, not because of junior people but because of Cameron himself and his terrible choice of two main advisers (Llewellyn and Oliver). This happened many times and I wrote about all the damage it caused on other issues after I left government (HERE). This was the biggest example. It was a product of a deeper error – a combination of his failure of party management (misleading them about the best way to handle the party) and failure to understand how swing voters really think and therefore the dangers of a vote (see below).
2. If Cameron/Osborne had had a top notch person like David Plouffe running their campaign and they did as they were told then they would have won (>95% confidence), all else being equal. They were warned many times by their closest friends about Oliver and Llewellyn, including by Gove, but would not listen.
3. Their renegotiation was flawed from the start and badly undermined their central message. They compounded their errors in 2015 by accepting the pathetic deal in 2016. If they had walked away in February then Vote Leave would quickly have imploded and the flying monkeys would have taken over the campaign.
4. They made themselves too prominent in the campaign and were too crude. Lacking a feel for psychology they gradually undermined their own message. Oliver thought Obama’s ‘back of the queue’ was brilliant. It was counterproductive. They thought ratcheting up the warnings to DEFCON 1 was effective. It was counterproductive.
5. They doubled down on ‘tens of thousands’. They thought they would lose credibility if they didn’t. The opposite was true. They should have dropped this in 2015 – for example, in an exclusive to the Independent on a Saturday in early August 2015 – and gone into the campaign without it. Every time they defended it they were helping us.
6. They suckered themselves into over-prioritising their coalition versus message. Blair’s campaign against us in the North East did the same. When you do this you lose focus and clarity which is usually fatal. The error was perhaps most visible the day Cameron unveiled an absurd poster that effectively listed all the ‘serious people’ on their side and – creative genius! – a blank page for us. A total waste of valuable time. The fact of being the Government meant the broadcasters let them lead the news almost all the time but they often wasted it like this. (I would bet that that ad was never put in focus groups or if it was the results were ignored.)
7. One of my basic criticisms of Cameron/Osborne from the start was the way they steered by pundit. During the 2015 election Crosby partly corrected this and they partly learned the lesson. But left to their own devices in the referendum when under pressure they defaulted to their instincts at a crucial moment. The reaction to the dreadful murder was an example of how the media and SW1 can live effectively in a parallel universe. Somehow they convinced themselves that this event might undo over a decade of growing hostility for those in power. They therefore tried to push the theme that actually MPs are great, ‘they are in it for good reasons’ and so on. The media led themselves into a dead end and No10, defaulting to their instincts of steering by pundit, followed. As soon as I saw Osborne and Matt Hancock wasting their time tweeting broken multicoloured hearts and encouraging #weloveourMP, I knew they had screwed their own OODA loop. We knew from focus groups (conducted by the brilliant Henry de Zoete who also played a crucial role in coordinating the digital and data science teams) that opinion outside London was extremely different to that of MPs and those in charge of most news. We went straight back to what we knew were the winning messages leaving Hancock and co to tweet broken hearts.
BUT BUT… Roland Rudd and others have attacked them for their basic strategy of focus on the economy and argue there should have been ‘a positive campaign for the EU’. WRONG. Cameron and Osborne were right about this big call. There was not enough time or money to change basic attitudes. As the campaign developed and there were signs of pressure from Rudd and others I crossed my fingers and hoped they would shift strategy. No10 were right to ignore him.
I suspect that in general big mistakes cause defeat much more often than excellent moves cause victory. There are some theoretical reasons to suspect this is true from recent statistical analysis of human and computer decisions in chess. Two results are particularly interesting. 1) The very best computers seem to make moves that preserve the widest possible choices in the future, just as the most effective person in politics for whom we have good sources, Bismarck, operated always on the principle of ‘keep two irons in the fire’. (We tried to mimic this by adopting a message that we thought had the highest probability of winning in the largest number of plausible branching futures, hence £350m/NHS.) 2) Even great humans are distinguishable from great computers by their propensity to make clear tactical errors occasionally amid the fog of war. This is significant enough that it wipes out the advantage of going first – i.e. it being ‘your move’ is seen as a plus but in fact it is a minus for humans because of the probability of a significant error, while for computers this effect is absent. (See Human and Computer Preferences at Chess, 2014. It would be very interesting to know if these results are supported by the recent success of Deep Mind with computer GO.)
Summary of the false dichotomy
False: ‘Leave won because of the campaign.’ E.g. Without 15 years of out of control immigration, our message of ‘take back control’ would not have had enough traction. Campaigns can ride big waves but they almost never make them.
False: ‘Leave won because of a big event [immigration, 2008 crash etc], the campaign was irrelevant.’ E.g. If the campaign had not deployed £350 million and the NHS (which almost nobody on our side liked), we would not have neutralised/overwhelmed Project Fear.
True: ‘Leave won because 1) three big forces created conditions in which the contest was competitive, AND 2) Vote Leave exploited the situation imperfectly but effectively, AND 3) Cameron/Osborne made big mistakes. If just one of these had been different, it is very likely IN would have won.’
Overall, the now-mocked conventional wisdom that ‘the status quo almost always wins in referendums like this’ obviously has a lot of truth to it and it only proved false this time because of a combination of events that was improbable.
A ‘miracle’ to get 48%? Beaten by lies? Corbyn the AWOL saviour?
Since losing many inside the IN campaign now talk dejectedly as if they could never have won and tell rationalising fairy tales. They are wrong. They almost did win. Some have latched onto the idea that they were overwhelmed by an epic, global force of ‘right-wing populism’. Mandelson defends himself by saying 48% looks ‘like a miracle’ given the populist tide. Most have latched onto the idea that their ‘complex truth’ was overwhelmed by ‘simple lies’ and they are happy with their comforting ‘post-truth’ sobriquet – a delusion that leaves them very vulnerable to being shocked again. Many have even argued that they lost because they could not persuade Corbyn to make more speeches.
These stories are psychologically preferable to the idea that their own errors caused defeat (just as it is for some of those in Hilary’s campaign) but should not be taken seriously.
The least plausible claim is that Corbyn sabotaged what was otherwise a winning campaign. This is argued mainly by the same people (including Mandelson) who in a party context also argue that Corbyn is a joke who nobody takes seriously. The idea that more speeches by Corbyn would have persuaded vital swing voters has no good evidence. These people wanted to ‘take back control’. Corbyn’s message was – there should be not just more immigration but no limits on it. There are not many branching histories in which this is a winner.
This ‘epic global force’ of ‘populism’ was thought by the same people before 23 June to be puny in comparison with the force of the combined Establishment hammering a message of economic fear in support of the status quo. Having underestimated certain trends in public opinion the same people are now exaggerating them (see below).
This is connected to ‘complexity’. Month after month they argued (including to us in private discussions) that they would win largely because they had the advantage of the status quo – an advantage proved in votes around the world over many years. They were right. That was a big advantage. It is much simpler to argue for the status quo than for a very complex change – that is exactly why most ‘change’ referendums lose, just as they briefed the media. Now they say ‘The EU is very complex, it requires a lot of information to explain it’ (Craig Oliver). Their claim that actually they had the ‘complex’ argument to make against our ‘simple lies’ is laughable for exactly the reasons they gave themselves before they came unstuck.
Connected to this idea is that the great rationalists Cameron and Osborne – they of Project Fear and their comic ’emergency budget’ and in 2015 the pictures of Salmond picking pockets designed successfully to persuade the English that the Scots would steal their money – were undone by a great surge of ’emotion’. Osborne is taking this delusion so far he is writing a book titled ludicrously ‘The age of unreason’. When you lose and you blame it on millions of people being overtaken by ‘unreason’ – after previously winning by exploiting nationalist hostility – it’s a sure sign that you are the one not reasoning straight and able to face your errors. For the likes of Osborne it is ‘irrational’ to reject the views of people like him. For most of us, people like Osborne are not experts to be trusted – they are charlatans not to be taken seriously.
Many of those who blame defeat on ‘lies’, including Cameron, Osborne, and Clegg themselves told flat-out lies. One example will do. Cameron and Osborne claimed repeatedly on TV, almost always unchallenged, that their new deal meant ‘after six months if you haven’t got a job you have to leave’. This is not an argument over the fairness of using a gross/net figure, like ‘£350 million’, or even a properly bogus figure like the Treasury’s £4,000 per household figure. It is a different category of claim – a flat out 100% lie. (For more details see HERE.) How much time did Today, Newsnight, and the Guardian spend explaining to people that the PM and Chancellor were lying through their teeth? Approximately none. Why? Because very few of those complaining about lies really are cross about ‘lies’ – they are cross they lost and they are not so interested in discussing a lie that undermines the pro-EU campaign’s attempt to neutralise fear of immigration.
Further, many of the same people spent the entire campaign saying ‘Vote Leave has admitted a Leave vote means leaving the Single Market, this is what will happen make no mistake…’ and now say ‘the Single Market was not an issue, Vote Leave never had a policy on it and there is no mandate for leaving it’. Cameron, Osborne, Mandelson, Campbell and Clegg spent much of the last 20 years lying through their teeth to further their own interests and prestige. Now they whine about ‘lies’. They deserved worse than they got – and reasonable Remain-ers deserved better leadership.
Fools and knaves
Many of those who worked on the IN side are now wrongly attacked as fools by pundits who would have praised them as geniuses had they won, while many on the OUT campaign are wrongly praised.
Example… ‘If Remain wins Cameron ought to be hailed as the genius strategist of western democratic politics’ (Rentoul). Pundits who wrongly hailed Cameron as a genius after the 2015 election now wrongly describe him as a bumbling oaf. He was neither – he was the best of a bad bunch picked pseudo-randomly in a broken system and out of his depth. 600,000 votes either way does not make one set of people geniuses and another set of people morons. Geniuses in politics are rarer than in maths and physics and nobody involved in the referendum on either side is remotely close to one. Some of those who worked on the IN side were much more able than many on the winning side. It does not make sense to label people on the IN side idiots because of errors made by Cameron, Osborne, Llewellyn, and Oliver.
Example: many have said to me ‘you were so clever to hold back on immigration until the start of purdah’. Wrong. It is true that we did not do much on immigration before the 10 week official campaign. That is because, as I wrote in 2014, we did not need to. It was far more important to plant other seeds and recruit support that would have been put off if we had focused early on immigration. Immigration was a baseball bat that just needed picking up at the right time and in the right way. The right time was before purdah and we set in motion during January-April a series of things like the free referendum address with the right message but we could not persuade many prominent people to do what was needed until after 26 May. The right way was via the NHS (unifying) – not ‘we want our country back’ of Farage (divisive). The timing was not ‘a brilliant move’ by me, it was a combination of good luck and seizing a tactical chance to persuade people of something I’d failed to do for weeks, but such things get rewritten as such if you win.
It is also foolish to see the conflict in terms of who is ‘nicer’ and ‘nastier’. I don’t think the people on our side are nicer. There are lovely and loathsome people, liars and charlatans on both sides.
Many OUT-ers talk as if we were destined to win. Wrong. The IRA used to say ‘you have to get lucky every time but we only have to get lucky once’. For Leave to win a string of events had to happen many of which were independently improbable or 50-50 and therefore the combination was very improbable. The result was certainly not an inevitable outcome of ‘the great British public simply voting for democracy’ as some romantics delude themselves.
Oblonsky and the frogs before the thunderstorm: fashion, delusions of the educated, and the Single Market
‘I feel that, in some ways, this was a conflict between good forces in society and bad forces. I feel that the bad forces on 23 June won a very significant victory.’ Matthew Parris.
Matt Ridley: Matthew, you’re not saying that 17 million people are, deep down, racists?
Matthew Parris: Yes. (Spectator, December 2016)
Why is almost all political analysis and discussion so depressing and fruitless? I think much has to do with the delusions of better educated people. It is easier to spread memes in SW1, N1, and among Guardian readers than in Easington Colliery.
Generally the better educated are more prone to irrational political opinions and political hysteria than the worse educated far from power. Why? In the field of political opinion they are more driven by fashion, a gang mentality, and the desire to pose about moral and political questions all of which exacerbate cognitive biases, encourage groupthink, and reduce accuracy. Those on average incomes are less likely to express political views to send signals; political views are much less important for signalling to one’s immediate in-group when you are on 20k a year. The former tend to see such questions in more general and abstract terms, and are more insulated from immediate worries about money. The latter tend to see such questions in more concrete and specific terms and ask ‘how does this affect me?’. The former live amid the emotional waves that ripple around powerful and tightly linked self-reinforcing networks. These waves rarely permeate the barrier around insiders and touch others.
These factors are deepened by the fact that almost all of those whose job it is to explain politics and campaigns have never been responsible for a complex organisation in general or a campaign in particular, so they are unsuited to understand how politics ripples out from decisions at the centre through dysfunctional bureaucracies to the ground. They almost always exaggerate the extent to which important decisions have been considered carefully by people who know what they are talking about. (The worse educated are actually often helped by their lack of education towards the truth.) They constantly discuss complex systems as though errors can be eradicated instead of asking how quickly errors are adapted to and learned from. This perspective biases them in favour of existing centralised systems that fail continually and against innovations with decentralised systems. They understand little about the challenges faced by small businesses and the lower middle classes.
The more closely involved people are in the media and politics the more they are driven by fashion and the feeling, rarely acknowledged and almost always rationalised, that ‘this is my gang’. Look at all those in SW1 who tweet attacks on Dacre to each other then retweet the praise from their friends, then look at those who attack them. Look at Robert Peston tweeting pictures of the London Eye and Habermas quotes on election night and his opponents ranting about ‘elites’. Both sides are just like football team fans defending their in-group and attacking their out-group enemies. The more they think of themselves as original the more likely they are to be conformist – and conformist within very narrow parameters. We all fool ourselves but the more educated are particularly overconfident that they are not fooling themselves. They back their gang then fool themselves that they have reached their views by sensible, intelligent, reasoning.
This makes them particularly vulnerable to ‘influence operations’. It also makes them vulnerable to repeated errors about what the sort of people who ignore politics other than for a few weeks before voting time are thinking. It creates something of a paradox: it is almost impossible to get a good feel of public opinion, or of ‘the winning strategy’, by listening to those whose job it is to speculate about it. However often this happens, the lesson is never learned. It is very hard to see how it could change as it is so entangled with our evolved nature.
There is a wonderful passage in Anna Karenina that sums this up, much better than any ‘political scientist’ has done:
‘Oblonsky never chose his tendencies and opinions any more than he chose the style of his hat or coat. He always wore those which happened to be in fashion. Moving in a certain circle where a desire for some form of mental activity was part of maturity, he was obliged to hold views in the same way he was obliged to wear a hat. If he had a reason for preferring Liberalism to the Conservatism of many in his set, it was not that he considered the liberal outlook more rational but because it corresponded better with his mode of life… The Liberal Party said that marriage was an obsolete tradition which ought to be reformed, and indeed family life gave Oblonsky very little pleasure, forcing him to tell lies and dissemble, which was quite contrary to his nature. The Liberal Party said, or rather assumed, that religion was only a curb on the illiterate, and indeed Oblonsky could not stand through even the shortest church service without aching feet, or understand the point of all that dreadful high-flown talk about the other world when life in this world was really rather pleasant… Liberalism had become a habit with Oblonsky and he enjoyed his newspaper, as he did his after-dinner cigar, for the slight haze it produced in his brain.’
Towards the end of the novel, there is a discussion about the then big issue of Turkish atrocities and the rise of pan-Slavism. The old prince replies to the intellectuals who are talking rubbish about ‘the national feeling’ that they think is ‘sweeping the country’:
‘Yes, all the papers say the same thing. That’s true. So much the same that they are just like frogs before a storm! You can’t hear anything for their croaking.’
Many will reply, ‘Oblonsky is a dilettante, not a serious character, you can’t compare him with people like Robert Peston’. Oblonsky isn’t a dummy, he’s brighter than many of the posh duffers in his club. And also consider Anna’s husband, Karenin – a terrifying reminder that the ‘serious characters’ in politics are really no better than Oblonsky regarding fashion. In politics, just about all of us are some combination of Oblonsky and Karenin. If you think you aren’t, you’re probably fooling yourself. If you’re on TV a lot, you’re almost definitely fooling yourself.
There are many examples of how real Oblonskys, who control practically all important cultural institutions, think. They believed things about Stalin’s regime so outlandish that it is hard to appreciate now. They were more in favour of Britain joining the euro, not because they understood ‘the complexities’ better but because they were suckered into thinking about it as a moral test – are you on the side of the ‘baddies’ or the goodies’? As the BBC Europe editor said to me back then, in similar terms to Matthew Parris about the 2016 referendum, ‘the thing is Dominic, we like foreigners and cappuccinos and we hate racists’. Polls show that better educated people are less likely to have accurate views about the science of evolution and genetics (their desire to send moral signals suckers them into believing fairy tales).
The conformity of the educated is in some ways a good thing – most obviously, a basic consensus about things like not killing one’s domestic opponents that is extremely unusual historically. But it has many bad effects too. There is a collective lack of imagination which makes the system very susceptible to disastrous shocks. They share a narrow set of ideas about how the world works which mistakes their own view as the only possible sensible approach. They are aways writing about how ‘shocking’ things are to them – things that never were as low probability events as they imagine. They can’t imagine something like Stalin deliberately creating a famine or deliberately murdering millions. They tell themselves that Hitler will be ‘more sensible in power’ and ‘engagement’ is the right path. Western liberals (like Clinton and many pro-euro campaigners) and conservatives (like Bush) talked of relations with Putin as if he is a normal western politician rather than an ex-KGB mafia overlord with views very far from western liberals. They tell each other ‘I can’t imagine President Trump, it just can’t happen’. Many conservatives are now telling themselves that they should not take Trump too literally but that too is a failure of imagination – his character is clear to those unblinded by gang mentality and he will govern in character.
The referendum was a great example of this. Large numbers of people better educated than average – the sort of people who work as producers at the BBC – talked about their vote like this:
‘Farage is racist, he hates gay people and made that comment about foreigners with HIV, he wants to turn the clock back and pull the drawbridge up, I’m not like that, my friends aren’t like that, I am on the other side to people like that, I am tolerant and modern, I will vote IN.’
All over the country sentiments almost identical to this were expressed in large numbers. The idea that millions of graduates voted because they ‘studied the issues’ is laughable to anybody who spent time measuring opinion honestly. Almost none of these people know more about what a Customs Union is than a bricky in Darlington. They did not vote on the basis of thinking hard about the dynamics of EMU or about how Brussels will cope with issues like gene drives. Millions thought – there’s two gangs and I know which one I’m in. Another subset of the better educated feared the short-term economic disruption of a Leave vote would cost them money. They also did not vote on the basis of deep consideration of the issues.
The modern day Oblonsky reads an op-ed about how ‘the CBI warns of the dangers of leaving the Single Market’ and ‘the dangers of racist extremists’ and, having no idea of what ‘the Single Market’ is, jabbers away at their dinner party about how concerned they are about leaving ‘the Single Market’, and a warm haze of knowing one is on the ‘good’ side of the argument envelops the brain.
When it comes to the central issues of the nature of the EU’s trading relationships and what a UK-EU relationship might look like outside the EU, we are dealing with a particularly strong example of this phenomenon. Not only do the Oblonskys not know what they are talking about, neither do almost any of the supposed experts and specialists.
Lots of people said to me ‘when are you going to set out the details of the UK-EU trade relationship if you win?’ What would have been the point of that?! Approximately nobody knows anything about the important details of how the EU works including the MPs who have spent years talking about it and the journalists who cover it – indeed, often those who talk about it most are the most ignorant (and most overconfident). This is still true six months after the vote – imagine how much more true it was in the six months before the vote.
I am not aware of a single MP or political journalist who understands the Single Market – its history, its nature, its dynamics, its legal system, the complex interactions between law, economics, business, history and so on. Cameron, Osborne and Clegg certainly don’t. Neither does Bill Cash. Neither does any head of the CBI. Neither do Jon Snow, Robert Peston, Evan Davis or John Humphreys so they do a rubbish job of exposing politicians’ ignorance.
The number of people who do is tiny. In our campaign there were two – Oliver Lewis and Richard Howell – who understood a large fraction of it and the common misconceptions. They constantly had to explain to MPs, MEPs, and journalists why their ideas were misunderstandings. Maybe there is a business/economics journalist somewhere who really understands it. There are certainly some exceptional lawyers who understand narrow aspects extremely well, though few of these also understand the political and business dimensions. I have spoken to many very successful business people and never met one on either side who understands the Single Market in depth. In the entire campaign I am not aware of a single programme on TV that even tried to delve into these issues seriously (Newsnight was particularly bad, combining smugness and vapidity such as dropping Evan Davis by helicopter on an offshore platform to babble about ‘sovereignty’ trying to make the Leave side look like a bunch of weirdo cranks). British elites handed over power to the Monnet-Delors project with barely one-in-a-thousand understanding in detail why, what it involved, and its likely evolution (and that one-in-a-thousand almost all concluded that the public could not be trusted to know the truth – I’ll explore another time the ideas of this tiny group).
Further, it was clear that Cameron/Osborne intended to run a campaign based on hysterical warnings and bogus arguments/figures while ignoring the big questions about how the EU works and its trajectory. No10 tried to turn the whole complex issue into a question about whether the economy would grow a little bit slower over the next few years – a trivial issue relative to the significance of the overall question. They are not a duo who have ever engaged the public on a serious matter in a serious way. Their brains don’t work like that. They formed early habits of looking at everything through a very narrow prism of SW1 conventional political wisdom. Given this, the way the media works, how outnumbered we were among the influential broadcast media, and the way in which the media (inevitably to some extent) takes its lead from No10, why would I have tried to run a campaign based on educating normal people to a far higher level than the professionals and ‘experts’ who were fighting and covering the campaign? It would have been impossible to get even two sensible MPs to explain the same complex argument about such things on TV without cocking it up – it was hard enough to get people to say ‘let’s spend our money on our priorities’ without days of arguing. (If the vote had happened in 2017 and we’d had all that time to build sensibly more could have been done.)
We did try to get the media to focus on deeper questions of how the EU is run, its problems, its evolution and so on. We knew from the research that the more coverage of the EU, its powers, its record, its plans and so on the better for us. We had little to fear from serious policy discussion and much to gain. But we largely failed. (A big speech from Gove was turned by the Financial Times – yes, the FT that bemoaned the ‘low quality debate’ – into a story about whether he had ‘gaffed’ by mentioning Albania, though in plastering ‘Albania’ all over the place the FT accidentally helped us.) No10 calls up the BBC and says, ‘we’ve got a business letter tomorrow with dozens of household companies warning of Armageddon.’ If we published something worthy on the Eurozone’s debt and demographic nightmare, the structural problems of the Eurozone and implications of the Five Presidents’ Report, how far did this get? ‘Sounds boring. Who’s fronting it? Got any new names? Any chance of Boris putting the boot into Dave and George?’, is the first question from the BBC TV producer who has no interest in ‘the arguments’.
It was not in our power to change basics of how the media works. We therefore twisted them to our advantage to hack the system.
Hack the medium, hack the message: ‘the alternative government’ launches Sunday 29 May
The media is obsessed with process and the snakes and ladders of careers. Many hacks said to me words to the effect: ‘I don’t care about the issues, I care about whether Cameron will still be PM at the end of the year.’ We could not match No10 in the golden currency of ‘names’. But we could give the media an even more valuable currency – a leadership story. When Boris and Gove decided to go for it after 29 May immigration numbers, we launched the story of ‘the alternative government’.
The media were understandably obsessed with this story so we served it up to them in such a way that they also had to cover our message. For 10 days, we dominated the news with a set of stories on the Australian points system, VAT on fuel, Turkey, the NHS and so on all based on ‘it’s safer to take back control’. Broadcasters lapped it up – even ITV News which barely pretended to be impartial was useful.
What did the public hear? They heard that prominent Conservatives, particularly Boris and Gove, did not trust Cameron’s promises or warnings and that there was an alternative path – we could ‘take back control’, have ‘an Australian style immigration system’, and ‘spend our money on our priorities like the NHS’. In an environment in which the central arguments concerning trade and the economy were incomprehensible to the ‘experts’ themselves and the history and dynamics of the EU either unknown to or suppressed by broadcasters, people chose between two simple stories. Vote Leave’s was more psychologically compelling, given the three powerful forces at work and No10’s errors.
(NB. Whoever leaked the Hilary email story was probably doing something similar. This played into the media obsession with scandal and process such that they spent a ridiculous amount of time on it despite probably 80% of them wanting Hilary to win. It shows how powerfully the media is in the grip of dynamics they rarely reflect on themselves. Putin’s communication maestro, Surkov, uses these sorts of tricks all the time. Cf. Peter Pomerantsev’s great book, a must read for any MP before they pontificate on Putin’s mafia government.)
The political media and how to improve it
High prestige pundits and editors yield great power over the stories told (and have far more power over politicians like Cameron, unfortunately, than they realise) but the field is not based on real expertise. Fields dominated by real expertise are distinguished by two features: 1) there is enough informational structure in the environment such that reliable predictions are possible despite complexity and 2) there is effective feedback so learning is possible.
Neither condition applies generally to politics or the political media. In the most rigorous studies done, it has been shown that in general political experts are little better than the proverbial dart throwing chimp and that those most confident in their big picture views and are most often on TV – people like Robert Peston, Jon Snow, and Evan Davis – are the least accurate political ‘experts’ (cf. HERE).
We know that cognitive diversity is vital for political accuracy yet almost all political institutions and the media – including the dominant people at Newsnight, the Economist, the FT, and Parliament – are actually remarkably homogenous, as discussed above, and they herd around very similar ideas about how the world works. Scientists and entrepreneurs in particular are almost totally excluded from political influence.
There is no structure to hold them to account either internally or externally so, like anyone when not forced to be rigorous, they fool themselves. It is normal to write month after month that the IN campaign cannot lose because of XYZ then just as confidently and authoritatively explain why IN lost without any intermediate step of identifying and explaining errors.
Despite the rise of social media most people get most of their news from TV. TV coverage of politics rarely illuminates much because there is no clear way to decide who is right about anything. The format makes it almost impossible for any useful discussion to happen. Interviewers, politicians, and pundits talk past each other with no clarity about assumptions. Questions are vague, often meaningless, posed by interviewers who rarely have more than a thin bluffer’s understanding of any policy issue and the same is usually true of those answering; the more famous the interviewer, the less likely it is they know anything about, say, education policy and like David Cameron they are bluffing. (As soon as a story is deemed ‘political’ it is taken out of the hands of specialists (who are very rarely actually specialists anyway) and given to ‘political’ hacks who have no idea of the policy.) Most of those professionally involved are much more interested in the ‘horse race’ political dimension than the policy. They obsess on process and scandal but most people have no interest in the process or ‘scandals’ because they assume ‘they’re all dodgy in some way’. Nobody tries to make predictions that can be checked and the shows don’t take what is said seriously enough to catalogue it. Simplistic stories compete so political analysis is dominated by endless false dichotomies.
Those making the shows do not understand how people learn so the dead format recycles grim clichés like Evan Davis saying ‘… economy down the plug hole’, while filming an actual plug hole, or Nick Robinson saying ‘… will the economy take off’ standing in front of a plane actually taking off (both of these have happened). Every night the News contains reports that are a mix of incomprehensible, facile, and boring to millions while also usually at best simplistic and often just wrong when it comes to policy / issues. The possibilities of the medium are largely ignored.
Insiders think of the masses as being irrational in paying so little attention to political debate. I think they are rational. If you want to understand politics you should read serious things and invest time and effort in researching public opinion. You should particularly make an effort to invert your point of view and consider opinions very different to your own. Time spent watching/listening to shows like Newsnight and Today is not just wasted – it is actively distorting reality and making you less informed. I often meet people who are cleverer than those in politics and successful but they have deluded views about politics because they pay too much attention to political analysis. Overall, unless you are professionally involved in politics you will be better off if you stop >95% active reading of political analysis. You will miss occasional worthwhile things but the effort of sorting them is not worth it. If something is genuinely very good / unusual and you have avoided isolating yourself in an echo chamber that insulates you from opinions very different to your own then someone reliable will send it to you. Even if you are professionally involved in politics I would do roughly the same. Extreme focus on important things you can control will repay far far more than time spent reading speculation about things you can’t control.
I read very little punditry during the campaign – just enough to preserve a sense of the gaps between the ‘croaking frogs’ and the real world. If I’d had less infighting to deal with I’d have read even less as I could have been less concerned about tracking certain things. In my entire time in the DfE (three years) I never listened to Today once (I listened to a handful of interviews on the web). I focused on managing priorities and saying ‘No, stop, that’s a waste of time’ every day.
This situation is particularly ironic because the media industry is in a panic about the internet, falling ad revenues and profits, the collapse of print journalism and so on.
A better way…
There is a better way.
Example 1. Shows should require precise quantitative predictions about well-formed questions as Superforecasters do. Newspapers should do the same when interviewing people. The next step is using this process to push people towards admitting conditional errors like ‘if I am proved wrong about X by date Y then I will admit I was wrong to claim Z’. If political shows pushed their guests to do this and kept track of the predictions it could have a big positive effect. (Next time they come on you can flash up their record on a screen so the public can see how often they are right.) It is vital to change incentives so people are encouraged to admit errors and learn instead of fooling themselves constantly. For those who refuse it would be easy to develop a protocol that categorises their vague comments and puts numbers on them. This will push them to ‘correct the record’.
Example 2. Rip up the format for political shows and base broadcasts on a) an empirical assessment of what people actually know and b) the science of how people really learn and how best to communicate. Instead of the tedious low-information interviews, imagine what could be done if one had a mix of artists, scientists, and policy specialists trying really hard to use the possibilities of film to explain things, then used cutting edge data science to test how effective they were as part of a learning cycle driving higher quality. A news broadcast now contains much less information content and much higher noise than reading. The only way to improve this is experimenting with formats in a scientific way. Doing this would force those making the news to think more about policy and the audience would be much more engaged. People are interested in policy and ‘how X will affect me, my family, and my community’. It would also obviously require a lot of changes in the media but this is coming anyway because existing business models are blowing up.
Example 3. Pay for this partly by firing most of your political commentators like Dan Hodges. Broadcasters, fire 90% of your political correspondents. They are a waste of money. Hire a much smaller number of much better people with radically different skills and backgrounds and a different focus. (By doing #1 you will soon see who is more/less accurate so you’ll have a good benchmark.)
Together these changes could improve the quality by a factor of x10 or more. The same principle of focusing on precise quantitative predictions about well-formed questions could also be used to improve policy making and management of bureaucracies by developing clusters of well-formed questions that ‘surround’ a vaguer big question that is not so susceptible to measurement.
For example, break down ‘will Britain leaving the EU be a success?‘ into dozens of simpler more precise questions that can be quantified and which together give a useful part of an overall answer. This process could be put on a prediction platform for little money and dramatically improve the quality of decisions. The Superforecasters new consultancy could do this pretty simply with little help and not much money.
As usual in systems that are failing, the youngest people understand the problems and possibilities best while the most senior / prestigious figures can’t think of anything to do other than get overpaid for what they’ve always done. If you run a big media company, you should replace the expensive old schoolers like Jon Snow with younger, cheaper, and brighter new schoolers with an extreme focus on the public, not SW1.
An example of a simple, powerful media story that is wrong and contributed to forecasting errors on Brexit – ‘the centre ground’
One of the most misleading stories in politics is the story of ‘the centre ground’. In this story people’s views are distributed on an X-axis with ‘extreme left’ at one end, ‘extreme right’ at the other end, and ‘the centre ground’ in the middle. People in ‘the centre’ are ‘moderate’. ‘Extremists’ are always ‘lurching’ while ‘sensible moderates’ are urged to ‘occupy the centre’.
This story is one of the dominant features of political discussion and the basis for endless interviews, columns, and attempts at political ‘strategy’. The story is deeply flawed and where it is not trivially true it is deeply misleading.
Swing voters who decide elections – both those who swing between Conservative/Labour and those who swing between IN/OUT – do not think like this. They support much tougher policies on violent crime than most Tory MPs AND much higher taxes on the rich than Blair, Brown, and Miliband. They support much tougher anti-terrorism laws than most Tory MPs AND they support much tougher action on white collar criminals and executive pay than Blair, Brown, and Miliband.
One of the key delusions that ‘the centre ground’ caused in SW1 concerned immigration. Most people convinced themselves that ‘swing voters’ must have a ‘moderate’ and ‘centre ground’ view between Farage and Corbyn. Wrong. About 80% of the country including almost all swing voters agreed with UKIP that immigration was out of control and something like an Australian points system was a good idea. This was true across party lines.
This was brought home to me very starkly one day. I was conducting focus groups of Conservative voters. I talked with them about immigration for 20 minutes (all focus groups now start with immigration and tend to revert to it within two minutes unless you stop them). We then moved onto the economy. After two minutes of listening I was puzzled and said – who did you vote for? Labour they all said. An admin error by the company meant that I had been talking to core Labour voters, not core Tory voters. On the subject of immigration, these working class / lower middle class people were practically indistinguishable from all the Tories and UKIP people I had been talking to.
The media tried to categorise Vote Leave as ‘right wing’ while Tory MPs and Farage’s gang were screaming at me about our championing the NHS and our attacks on the indefensible pay of FTSE CEOs. SW1 did not understand our appeal but the crucial voters did because they do not think as the ‘experts’ think they think. We tried to speak to a majority in the country. Cameron and Osborne have never won even 40%. They approached it as they did previous battles but this greatly limited their appeal. Most UKIP and Tory voters (rather than MPs/insiders) agreed with us on the NHS and executive pay while also agreeing with us on the need to take back control of immigration policy from a system that has obviously failed. Our campaign was neither Left nor Right in the eyes of the crucial audience.
The media made a similar mistake with Trump. Trump did lots of things wrong and the post facto re-branding of his campaign as ‘brilliant’ is very silly. BUT he had a national message the core of which appealed to a big majority and which defied categorisation as Left/Right. Again the media do not realise this – they label it, like Vote Leave, as ‘populist right’ (abetted by some charlatan academics). But the reason why it is successful is exactly because it is not a simple right-wing message.
It doesn’t occur to SW1 and the media that outside London their general outlook is seen as extreme. Have an immigration policy that guarantees free movement rights even for murderers, so we cannot deport them or keep them locked up after they are released? Extreme. Have open doors to the EU and don’t build the infrastructure needed? Extreme. Take violent thugs who kick women down stairs on CCTV, there is no doubt about their identity, and either don’t send them to jail or they’re out in a few months? Extreme. Have a set of policies that stops you dealing with the likes of ‘the guy with the hook’ for over a decade while still giving benefits to his family? Extreme. Ignore warnings about the dangers of financial derivatives, including from the most successful investor in the history of the world, and just keep pocketing the taxes from the banks and spending your time on trivia rather than possible disasters? Extreme. Make us – living on average wages without all your lucky advantages – pay for your bailouts while you keep getting raises and bonuses? Extreme and stupid – and contemptible.
These views are held across educational lines, across party lines, and across class lines. Cameron, Blair, and Evan Davis agree about lots of these things and tell people constantly why they are wrong to think differently but to millions they are the extremists.
(This is not a post facto rationalisation. I wrote about the centre ground and the EU in 2014 HERE.)
Why I got involved and my role
Winning the referendum against Cameron was not the way I wanted things to happen. I thought the chances of winning a referendum against a PM on the other side, with all the possibilities for him to mobilise the system behind IN, were low. Many prominent Eurosceptics (not all) lobbied for it out of a combination of self-promotion and not knowing how to solve the real problem – what should the UK-EU relationship be? The referendum was very useful for many Out-ers: it provided a much simpler political focus than figuring out a complex positive agenda, removed the need for difficult thinking and action, and gave people a chance to pose on the side of ‘democracy’. I thought it foolish to push for a referendum while simultaneously not building a serious movement to win it. (I had tried to start building such a movement in 2004 after the euro battle was clearly won but could not persuade crucial people so decided to drop the issue for a while.) Romantic long shots are rarely wise in politics particularly if there is a better path.
I thought it wiser and safer to wait for Cameron to go then try to capture the Tory leadership and change the UK-EU relationship from Downing Street with someone who actually wanted to solve the problems (Cameron’s best friends would not claim that he wanted to spend his time trying to solve these deep problems, he wanted not to think about the EU and got into an existential battle he never wanted). If you are going to have a referendum, then have it when controlling the institutions and when you can set the agenda. A British PM could invite the EU to evolve such as to include a) those in the euro, Single Market and ‘free movement’, and b) those outside some or all of those three but with free trade and friendly cooperation between all. The chances are low that there would have been support for fundamental change but then a divorce could have happened after a serious clarifying debate which would have occurred ~2018-25, including the Eurozone countries figuring out what they would do. This would have been a much better way to proceed than the charade of Cameron’s ‘renegotiation’. Either Europe would have embraced a new and more open architecture (unlikely) or the Government would have won a Leave referendum with 60-70% and prompted a lot of clarifying thought across Europe.
I also thought it foolish of Cameron to cave into the pressure and promise a referendum in 2013. So did Gove and Osborne both of whom told Cameron not to do it. He mistakenly thought it would take the wind out of UKIP’s sails and did not understand why it would actually boost UKIP and Farage. (This was not hard to foresee and I suspect part of the problem was that Cameron did not appreciate that him promising a referendum would be thought by most as just a typical pre-election lie.) The idea that there was an irresistible force for a referendum is pushed by Farage’s and Cameron’s supporters. They are both wrong. The country supported one but without any passion outside the small fraction who had long been passionate about it. Most Tory MPs did not want it. Most Tory donors thought the timing was wrong and wanted a focus on stopping Miliband who they feared. Those MPs who did want it could mostly have been bought off or distracted in other ways – a mix of some policy, gongs, bribes, and so on in the usual fashion. Putting a date on the vote was particularly mistaken – it would have been far better to leave it open-ended ‘in the next Parliament’.
Once the election happened there was a sudden panic among OUT-ers. UKIP was an organisational disaster. There was no national campaign prepared. There were many tiny groups who often hated each other more than they wanted to win and were conditioned to expect failure and defeat. There was an abundance of people who thought that the campaign was quite simple – put me on TV, they thought, and the nation will appreciate my natural leadership. There was practically nothing of what was actually needed. Many quickly flipped into panic mode assuming the vote was unwinnable.
Having opposed the push for a referendum, I was faced with an uncomfortable choice in May 2015. Either keep out of politics, refuse to help, and then feel miserable about the tragicomic campaign, or re-engage with people I did not want to work with, feel miserable about the tragicomic campaign, and in almost every way make my life worse. In many ways irrationally, I chose the latter. My thinking was something like this: the chance of changing the whole political system (more profoundly than in a normal election) comes along very rarely, the chaos of the eurosceptics and the complacency of Cameron creates a very slim bridge to seize control and do it, a small chance of very high impact is worth the gamble. About a month or so later my wife was pregnant. If the timing had been slightly different I might well have stayed retired.
Why do it?
I thought that Leaving would improve the probability of 1) Britain contributing positively to the world and 2) minimising dangers. I thought it would:
- minimise Britain’s exposure to the problems caused by the EU;
- improve the probability that others in Europe would change course before more big crises hit, e.g. by limiting free movement which is the biggest threat to continued free trade;
- require and therefore hopefully spark big changes in the fundamental wiring of UK government including an extremely strong intelligent focus on making Britain the best place in the world for science and education;
- improve the probability of building new institutions for international cooperation to minimise the probability of disasters.
The foundation problem with the EU was best summarised by the brilliant physicist David Deutsch, the man who extended Alan Turing’s 1936 paper on computation into the realm of quantum mechanics. Deutsch said:
‘The EU is incompatible with Britain’s more advanced political culture. I’m voting Leave… [E]rror correction is the basic issue, and I can’t foresee the EU improving much in this respect… [P]reserving the institutions of error correction is more important than any policy… Whether errors can be corrected without violence is not a “concern” but a condition for successfully addressing concerns.’
Healthy and effective systems like our immune system and the English common law allow constant and rapid error-correction. Unhealthy and ineffective systems like the EU and modern Whitehall departments block error-correction. They are extremely centralised and hierarchical therefore information processing is blocked and problems are not solved. In politics this often leads to disasters when more and more resources are devoted to reinforcing failure. NB. This most fundamental question played effectively no role in the debate.
This fundamental problem generates its other problems. It arises because of how Monnet and Delors created its institutions deliberately in opposition to the Anglo-American system they bitterly opposed. The Foreign Office romantic delusion of ‘influence’ was peddled by every PM since Thatcher. Every one left office having demonstrated how empty the hope is. True influence comes from demonstrating success – not sitting in meetings for forty years in an institution that is programmed on principles that guarantee worse error-correction than the evolved institutions of the Anglo-American system.
I will go into the problems of the EU another time. I will just make one important point here.
I thought very strongly that 1) a return to 1930s protectionism would be disastrous, 2) the fastest route to this is continuing with no democratic control over immigration or human rights policies for terrorists and other serious criminals, therefore 3) the best practical policy is to reduce (for a while) unskilled immigration and increase high skills immigration particularly those with very hard skills in maths, physics and computer science, 4) this requires getting out of the EU, 5) hopefully it will prod the rest of Europe to limit immigration and therefore limit the extremist forces that otherwise will try to rip down free trade.
One of our campaign’s biggest failures was to get even SW1 to think seriously about this, never mind millions of voters. Instead the false idea spread and is still dominant that if you are on the side of free trade, think controlled immigration generally a positive force, and want more international cooperation rather than a return to competing nation states then you must support the EU. I think this error is caused by the moral signalling and gang mentality described above.
What was my role?
My role mainly involved:
a) trying to suppress/divert/overcome internal coalition warfare to a level where about ten crucial people were protected enough to do their jobs,
b) building the team,
d) taking a small number of important decisions about policy, message, money, and the machine,
e) providing clear focus and priorities, including the vital job that nobody likes of saying ‘no’ to hundreds of people (thus making (a) harder), and
f) dealing with big problems.
The media tends to suggest my role was mainly talking to them. This is wrong. The same happened with my role in the DfE. In both projects my main role was management. Serious management means extreme focus and this requires saying No an awful lot. Contrary to the media story, I dislike confrontation and rows like most people but I am very strongly motivated by doing things in a certain way and am not motivated by people in SW1 liking me. This is often confused with having a personality that likes fighting with people. One of the basic reasons so much in politics is mismanaged is that so often those responsible are more interested in social relations than in results and unlike in other more successful fields the incentives are not structured to control this instinct.
Many have written that I got involved with this because of ‘hate’ or ‘loathing’ for Cameron. Wrong. I do not hate Cameron. I do not respect him, which is different. I thought that he was in politics for bad reasons – essentially because he was someone who wanted ‘To Be’, not someone who wanted ‘To Do’ (see the Colonel Boyd speech) and his priority was himself and a small gang, not the public. I also thought Cameron was mostly (not all) bad at the job, despite having some of the necessary temperamental characteristics, and was flattered by having Brown then Miliband as opponents. I didn’t object to him blocking me from Government in 2010. He was entitled not to hire someone who did not take him seriously and ignored the orders of his Chief of Staff.
I spent a few years of my life (1999-2002) trying to stop Blair on the euro before anyone had heard of Cameron. In 2004 I co-founded the campaign that won the referendum on the North East Regional Assembly 80-20 as a training exercise for a possible future EU referendum. My motivation was the issue itself – not personal antipathy for Cameron or anybody else. I’ve never been a party person. I’m not Tory, libertarian, ‘populist’ or anything else. I follow projects I think are worthwhile.
Farage’s motley crew claim that I did this campaign in order to lose it deliberately then get a job in No 10 with Cameron. It is pointless to discuss this theory though the fact that they understood so little about the political environment, and struggled to use Google, was an important fact.
I am not clever, I have a hopeless memory, and have almost no proper ‘circle of competence’. I made lots of mistakes in the campaign. I have had success in building and managing teams. This success has not relied on a single original insight of any kind. It comes from applying what Charlie Munger calls unrecognised simplicities of effective action that one can see implemented by successful people/organisations.
Effective because they work reliably, simple enough that even I could implement them, and ‘unrecognised’ because they are hiding in plain sight but are rarely stolen and used. I found 10-15 highly motivated people who knew what they were doing and largely left them to get on with it while stopping people who did not know what they were doing interfering with them, we worked out a psychologically compelling simple story, and we applied some simple management principles that I will write about another time. It is hard to overstate the relative importance in campaigns of message over resources. Our success is an extreme example given the huge imbalance in forces on either side. In many ways Trump’s victory has little resemblance to what we did but in this respect he is another example.
We also got lucky.
I will post a number of blogs of the referendum to try to answer some basic questions including:
What were the main political, operational, financial/budgetary, and data/digital lessons from the campaign?
What worked and did not work?
How confident can we be about these judgements?
There is a natural set of categories and I will post links to blogs below:
- Some basic numbers that summarise important elements.
- Strategy, message, polls.
- Data and digital.
On data science, digital marketing, canvassing software made available for download. (NB. There has been some confusion about this blog. The VICS system is a web-based canvassing tool, the first proper one that works in the UK – it was one component of our overall data science approach and should not be equated with it. It is not a data science tool – it provided data to the data science team.)
- The ground campaign.
- The media.
- Internal politics and the infighting.
- Dynamics that affect ‘what next’.
- The rules: how could they be improved to make future votes serve the public better?
Please leave comments and corrections below. I am happy to approve hostile comments if they have substance and will moderate comments to avoid putting sensible people off reading them.
Dominic. Appreciate your candour and self-criticism here, and your own adherence to error-correction. One thing that I’d like to ask is that if you firmly believe “a return to 1930s protectionism would be disastrous” then how do you square that with the (hardening every day) idea of the UK reverting to WTO rules once we leave the EU, and falling back on tariffs? Appreciate that the end game would be FTA’s with other countries, and over time the EU, but isn’t this a backwards step?
LikeLiked by 1 person
There is an argument that we should abandon the Article 50 process and just leave. This would cut out all the uncertainty and friction. WTO tariffs are not that bad with UK exporters facing around £6bn largely offset by the devaluation of the Pound whereas EU27 exporters would face around £13bn tariffs into the UK helping to discourage UK imports and correct the trade imbalance. These figures are trivial as a proportion of our £1.8tn economy.
I do not agree.
The European Council (EU27 leaders) confirmed at its December meeting that it would “remain seized” of the Brexit process. They will provide a representative of the Council at every negotiating meeting with the UK in order to keep the Commission and Barnier on a tight leash. There is an excellent possibility of concluding a satisfactory free trade agreement as part of the A50 process and within the allowed time frame.
The UK is the EU27’s single largest export market and foreign currency generator. The UK’s £291bn imports representing 2.6% of total EU27 GDP. Their annual growth rate is optimistically forecast at 1.5%. Remain supporters should be the first to understand the perils of creating a “DIY recession”.
It is inconceivable that the EU 27 can play “hard ball” in the Brexit negotiation with key EU leaders facing their hostile electorates over the next 15 months and the EU banks and the Euro teetering of a mountain of debt and rising interest rates.
Thank you for your compelling and fascinating piece….your granularity prompted me to twice re-read it.
As you suggest (and I recall as the WSJ posited) the referendum asked: who are you? Are you a Brit, or, are you a Euro? Once answered, the consequence was near predictable.
And I was thrilled you noted Cohen-Blind…..
And – if you don’t already know about – suggest you would be amused + interested in the hustler “PARVUS” (spook name for Israel Lazarevich Gelfand), who in 1917 sold the Wilhelmstrasse the idea of sending Lenin to Russia ….and …. Bricmont, the lefty physicists who says convincingly national identity dooms the EU.
Again, thank you.
Probably one of the most brilliant blogs I have ever read.
reads like a thriller, and made me think.
your highly intelligent and thoughtful analysis has helped me see the referendum in a new light
I was , and still am a staunch remainer ,and was always hostile to you.
You have excelled in this
l agree totally with the first half of your post. But I was a staunch Brexiteer from the get-go (actually from the day the Common Market became the European Union by such stealth) – and I campaigned actively. And I was truly astounded at the strength & dedication of the VL central office and its tireless, wided-ranging work and the insights I saw. No stone was left unturned, no approach or tit-bit of information from anyone, incluidng the workers in the field ignored or unacknowledged.
It was a masterpiece example of ‘how to do it’. Hats off to this man – huge Respect !!
LikeLiked by 1 person
So nice to hear history from the front line Dominic..a rare event.
However..there is always a however…could you possibly make it hugely shorter…..you lose your impact by repetition and volume…and that shortchanges you so much.
Bullet points of pure fact?………..
Thank you for doing what you did, when you did as regards the EU referendum. I hope writing it up is as insightful for you as the output is fascinating to me. I wish you, your wife and newish baby well for the future you have helped so much to create.
Agreed & heartily seconded by me !
When governing is seen as “management” (based on positive outcomes) rather than “politics” (the art of power and persuasion), assumed systems of government become evidently unsuited. The study of “politics” and PPE’s is causing a severe supply issue for the “educated politics class” as they are being shown by their actions as unempirical. This considered with the additional issues of “virtue signalling” and social bubbles reveals a insightful background for why modern governments in the UK and across the Western world have drifted from the concerns of the majority.
Fantastic Post. Thanks for sharing.
Very enlightening,except for the Dan Hodges bit,that’s a no brainer!!
The biggest problem I have with the whole anti-EU movement is that it prevents a much needed look at the sclerotic institutions within the UK. The UK is one of the most centralized countries in the world and it suffers greatly because of it. Rather than letting the regions play to their strengths and innovate everything is homogenized and centrally controlled through various policy and management techniques.
This country used to have wonderfully innovative and diverse municipal cultures that provided for the public good, encouraged business, and sought to engage with the world without having to look to London for funds or permission. Towns like Boston used to have more trade with the continent in goods and ideas than it did with the south of England. Boston is also the town that voted to leave more than anywhere else is now, ironically, seeing a renaissance because those links are returning in the form of people and trade. New factories are opening to process EU foodstuffs because Boston is once again becoming a European hub thanks to immigration – which they voted to end because the central authority couldn’t get its act together and provide the services a growing community needed. Something that wouldn’t have happened if local communities had agency over their destiny.
Blaming the EU for problems that are inherently self inflicted is a huge disservice to the people and the country.
Absolutely fantastic writing, this text should be compulsory reading for future students researching this time in British politics.
Hear hear – and I’m sure it will be !!
One of the most interesting essays I have read in a very long while.
Uh, RE: The Corbyn thing, polls showed that around 50% of Labour voters (in 2015) didn’t know Labour favoured remain. Hard to say if that had an effect, but they aren’t wrong that they did a lackluster effort.
Fascinating, thank you for taking the time!
FWIW, I voted Brexit, while holding my nose over the whole Farage faction and his fairly blatant xenophophobia. I had ‘priced in’ that the result would not necessarily be economically pretty, but I was motivated by long term antipathy to the democratic deficit, made real and acute by the fates of Cyprus, Ireland & Greece… but I don’t really see that as being a strand in your messaging anywhere, so I probably didn’t get that view reinforced by your campaign, and if you weren’t pushing that line, it’s probably because I was not representative of any significant slice of the electorate?
A very interesting blog, I learnt one or two things – thankyou. 🙂
Really interesting read.
It did make me feel rather miserable for the state of politics. Only at the end do we get to Mr Cummings’ outline reasons for being on the VL side. These are far more interesting and reasonable than anything we heard in the whole campaign (although I disagree with 3, maybe all of them, but I’m sure nobody who has got this far down wants to know why!). But I do accept that any simplification/falsification was just as prominent on the IN side. And the cultural/signalling point about the remain vote rings very true from experience, which is also probably why people were so angry afterwards, as the vote revealed that they/we didn’t live in the country they thought they did.
What a shame though; to see such an intelligent piece concerned for so long over what people think (who aren’t really thinking, on either side), rather than what ‘is’, and I’m sure the author would agree.
1. Cummings rightly acknowledges that the vast majority of MPs/commentariat don’t have the foggiest when it comes to EU law, customs unions, single market legislation, and the EU’s interaction with human rights legislation. Cluelessness on both sides. But surely it is more pressing for those pressing to actively leave to understand the status quo so the change isn’t chaos and promises can be realised (by contrast, on the remain side, this is the job of civil servants on a day to day basis rather than legislators). So to see high profile leave politicians, in their newly created, Leave-specific posts, spouting nonsense, is more galling than a remain MP talking a bit of bollocks about the customs union during the campaign.
It is easy to criticise ALL political commentators and journalists, but to name two, I have yet to see any Leave (or indeed Government) responses to the considered critiques by the likes of David Allen Green (on law disentanglement and process) or Ian Dunt (on trade policy) that remotely match up in terms of quality or knowledge. Perhaps I’m not looking in the right places.
2. If you treat politics cynically as being purely the means by which you achieve your ends, which is probably sensible, you do have more responsibility on issues where you are playing with fire. Of course VL didn’t create anger about immigration out of thin air. But using and inflating the issue of immigration as a signifier for people’s general sense of discontentment, way beyond any factual relationship (beyond temporal correlation) that exists, is cynicism verging into recklessness. More racist attacks since June. Or, more importantly I’m sure, for an ideas man like Cummings, the victory of a populist logic that rejects trade, immigration and blames others- hardly the ally of free trade. Try putting that genie back in the bottle.
Fascinating read, but I too am concerned about stoking fear and hatred for expediency’s sake (even if leave campaign didn’t create the base for this). Two people just murdered in U.S. for trying to protect Muslim women from racist abuse. Do we want to set a tone that helps foster such events?
I was for remain but understood some of the arguments for leave. This analysis is absolutely fascinating.
Fascinating reading of what was an extra-ordinary achievement winning against the odds, the establishment and all it’s rescources. I had never before (I’m 54) joined a campaign, delivered leaflets or manned a street stall – donating a few £ or joining a political party yes but mever before getting off my backside. For this issue the decision to do so was a no brainer. This was achieved without more than a few words about how close to collpase the eurozone is and the economic pain inflicted on much of Europe by it’s flawed design and mismanagement. It’s failed and dysfunctional on so many levels, economically and politically. All this and they want an army !
Good luck with whatever the future holds for you and a massive thanks you.
Well done Andy. Without the inspired campaign management from the top down and spreading gradually until it reached the local street-stall & leafletting levels, it wouldn’t have happened – but it was people exactly like you who helped to turn the tide….
Yes, The same for me. I have never been so fired up, I read some books and am totally convinced that we should leave the EU, usually I cant be bothered with politics mainly because of what Dominic mentioned. They have absolutely no idea of the opinions and concerns of the average ‘Lower Middle Class voter’ and take the path of To Be rather than To do. I still feel passionate about it. I just hope I live long enough to see it happen. (I am 72!)
As I read this extraordinary post, great vertiginous vistas of my own ignorance opened up. Thank you for writing it.
Thanks for writing this – one of the best political reads since the Clark diaries.
Found this utterly fascinating and tremendously written. Your revelation of the highest echelons of British politics as full of the greatest incompetency is genuinely worrying. A question: do you think that the civil service and May administration can remotely deal with Brexit negotiations if they have inherited that same chaotic, uninformed bureaucracy?
I thought this was a superb piece of work – and share your concern over the ability of our existing administrative structure and politicians to deliver any kind of exit.
Thank you for an interesting read. I write with the perspective of a VoteLeave volunteer in N Yorks. I usually vote Tory but prior to the referendum I had never been politically active other than taking a close interest in current affairs. Contrary to the stereotypical media narrative, my wife and I are both professionals and our student children both study academic subjects (you will like that my eldest is studying for a PhD in Physics). All of us voted to leave on sovereignty grounds. My wife and I both campaigned locally on the streets and would like to offer some thoughts based on what we observed:
1. It seemed that people had a great many different reasons for supporting Leave. It was enough to appeal to their one or two main issues to secure their vote. I very much agree that leave voters were highly committed to cast their vote and they were proud, albeit somewhat guiltily, to tell you that that’s what they’d do.
2. People didn’t seem really interested in whether you wore a red VoteLeave T-shirt, a green ‘Go’ one, or a purple UKIP one. We campaigned right alongside these other groups and were in fact organised by a local coordinator that marshalled resources from all 3 organisations.
3. I deduce from this that whilst I accept that Farage toxicity might have been a concern at the strategic campaign level, it was less of an issue at the grassroots level where we were united in a single aim to win the referendum.
4. At the time, we were horrified by the divisions between the leave campaigns which we were concerned would become the sole media focus. With hindsight, I accept your argument that the divisive arguments in London served a wider purpose to set the tone especially early on in the campaign.
5. As a foot soldier, I very much look forward to reading your blog on the street campaign. Thanks again.
Fascinating stuff Dominic. I am an avowed Remainer, and an admittedly shrill one on occasion, but I cannot deny that your post above is significantly more thoughtful and considered than much of the Remain message was during the campaign. More power to your elbow, and thank you for your honesty.
Fascinating insights; indeed brilliant in many ways.
Applaud your modesty, but don’t entirely believe it.
Agree wholly about ‘news’, & political approaches of SW1.
Disagree with view (hope?) that if only Boris/Gove had got in, all would be well.
Anyway, grudging admiration from this curmudgeonly Remoaner.
//We all fool ourselves but the more educated are particularly overconfident that they are not fooling themselves. //
I think this is incorrect. How do you square this claim with the Dunning–Kruger effect? I grant that intelligence =/= education, however I think there is a correlation. Doesn’t the balance of empirical evidence indicate that less intelligent people are more certain in their beliefs?
“How do you square this claim with the Dunning–Kruger effect”
Maybe you can answer for him?
I think it may be different in a sphere like politics where victory is won by making salient points, finding good analogies and debating. Clever people win debates.
Clever people are not necessarily as smart as they think they are, which is Dominic’s point…
That’s not a correct interpretion re. Intelligence, in my view, and the answer you’re looking for lies in the arguments made in the Kruger-Dunning nobel prize winning paper itself:
“Unskilled and Unaware…”
The authors argue that competencies are skill/ domain specific. ALL people suffer from these cognitive biases, independent of their level of education / skills in other domains. There are of course transferable skills, but a person educated to degree level, & competent in, a particular subject does not necessarily justify high confidence in other domains they haven’t been trained to evaluate the evidence available.
Anecdotally, I’ve seen many more examples of misplaced confidence in university educated persons when making claims regarding other domains e.g. Politics.
I think Daniel Kahnemann should be compulsory reading at undergraduate level! We are all prone to heuristic mechanisms where we substitute hard questions for easy ones without realising it. The question “Should the UK leave the European Union?” Is an extremely difficult question that requires weighing up numerous variables, and significant time investment to answer competently. Unknowingly, I think it could easily be substituted for some variation of the far easier question “Do I like Europeans and European culture?”
James, I love Europeans and European culture and was lucky enough to live in Spain in the early nineties, learning Spanish in the process.
The UK should never have joined the EU in the first place and should have left decades ago. Certainly, we should leave now.
There is no contradiction between these statements and so your alternative question seems to add nothing but confusion.
Not at all James. Most British like the Europeans and their cultures very well, they just don’t like the EU. The problem of immigration is not the many ‘cultures’ that concerns us, it’s the ‘many’ that causes problems.
Some if not all of our objections towards the EU may have been possible to eradicate if our MPs, MEPs, justice systems and Civil Servants had been more vigorous in defending British citizens but they cave at every opportunity. Worse, they were happy to blame the EU for everything. The only argument that worked was the financial one and like many blackmail opportunities, it loses its potency every time it’s used. Eventually people say ‘do it’.
Contrary to some of the other comments I think that for some people (both Leave and Remain) the question did become one of culture. Chris & TinyCO2 – you can easily see James’ point as influencing people (perhaps irrationally) to vote ‘remain’.
I’ve been thinking about the ‘groupthink’ issue quite a lot since reading this post.
James: you say
“Anecdotally, I’ve seen many more examples of misplaced confidence in university educated persons when making claims regarding other domains e.g. Politics.”
(1) anecdotal evidence is a very dangerous input to weak heuristic thinking and groupthink.
(2) Dominic asserts that the university educated tend to talk more about (at least ‘high-level’ or abstract) political questions. Hence there would naturally be more chance to observe over-confidence.
(3) Dominic’s idea that the well-educated are *more* prone to groupthink just seems completely unevidenced to me. They have traditionally been (i) more of a group of the sort for which feedback loops can emerge and (ii) more engaged in and with more priveleged access to the ‘broader’ discussions in politics.
Given this, there has been more potential for groupthink of a broad political nature among this (very protean) ‘group’.
This imbalance is now changing. Social media sets up the conditions to have groups with the vicious kinds of feedback which were once the preserve of th privileged few. That’s one reason why ‘Leave’ were so wise to concentrate their resources on digital.
So for such an intelligent and in depth study, I wonder if the writer has any kind of…you know…plan. Because nothing was expressed in the campaign or in this piece or by “government” since.
It really is quite important stuff. Is asking for a plan really so out there? I often get called a traitor for it.
Great essay. Some of it was laugh out loud funny, especially barbs against Peston, Marr, Snow etc.
Just as I read this I turn on Sky News to see Ed Conway reducing Brexit to flavours of ice cream and saying we might (might!) leave the Single Market. No useful information imparted at all.
Pingback: On the referendum #21: Branching histories of the 2016 referendum and ‘the frogs before the storm’
My God, brilliant. I find you a most eloquent writer, and took a lot from this account. That is not to say I think you’re a hundred percent on the money, Mr Cummings, but your arguments about the centre ground, for instance, were distinctly compelling. I shall be sure to send this to all my wannabe Machiavelli friends.
Extremely interesting, Dominic, if rather depressing (though, not a surprise…)
Superb. Write more. Please.
The modesty is beguiling, the nuance and apparent honesty interestingly at odds with the campaign tactics. Missing from this account is the question: what now? What after the EU? What if your criticisms are valid, but your method in addressing them turns out not to be a remedy, but actually makes things worse? Will you be content in the role you played, particularly as you were not straightforward with the choices you presented to people?
Very interesting. A very useful insight.
I have almost finished Tim’s book. It is very good. I wondered if he had been so dismissive of Farage because Farage was doing a different book. You seem to suggest Farage was a hinderence to leave.
But he must have been worth his 12 – 14% of UKIP votes? Or do you suspect they were in the bag at the start and Nigel on Tv 24 hours could only have lost some floaters?
As always, a pleasure to read.
The phenomenon of the irrationality of the better educated is something I’ve been considering lately.
I don’t disagree with the ideas you put forward, but would add two more to the mix which I think may contribute:
i. There is a desire to reach an answer, a position, or a solution, when often there is no evidence to justify doing so. Better educated people, particularly those educated in the humanities, struggle to invest time in complex ideas only to yield the same level of uncertainty as when they started (cf. physics/maths). “I don’t know / I am uncertain” is an entirely acceptable outcome. But for many, when confronted with such horror, the temptation to succumb to heuristics and oversimplifications becomes too much. I suspect in part that this is fostered by years of rhetorical training, largely through essay writing and debating.
ii. In a social environments where status and image are overvalued, which are often those the better educated find themselves working in, the magnitude of cognitive dissonance is amplified. Thus reneging on false conclusions is an even greater challenge.
I have yet to finish reading your educational manifesto, so apologies if it’s there, but see a pressing need to teach our more able students (I’d prefer it if we taught all our children) that no matter how erudite they become, no matter how slick their rhetoric gets, they still run off a monkey lizard brain and should always be on their guard.
Reading the stuff about Farage one wonders even though he did want to win, how much he cared about winning and how much he cared about creating a populist identity (as he’s doing now).
Thanks, anyway. I didn’t like how anti-intellectual the victory seemed but maybe that fight is for another day and I’m glad the first hurdle has been passed.
Thank you, absorbing read. Speaking as a professional charlatan and purveyor of humbuggery, a couple of points re: ad and communications effectiveness. Your strategic decision to focus spend on digital at the single, once in a generation, binary, decisive moment makes perfect sense, in the context of months long saturated media coverage, clear sides, decades of buried (EU) emotions, ground game, and a couple of PT Barnum-esque figures to make, as the master said, “glittering appearances”. Agree completely with your point on data. Take all that stuff away, and apply the same digital strategy for x, y, or z, product, throw in other variable e.g. low vs high involvement, low vs high sociability, then recency theory not so robust. You did the work of a good agency yourself, in terms of listening to audience and landing on ‘control’ message.
Dominic – I commented with a brief word of thanks above but felt I had to return with something more fulsome. Without exaggeration, this is the article I have been wanting to read since June, and it probably renders every other opinion piece I’ve read about the referendum virtually irrelevant.
I hated the referendum and I hated the debate and I hated all the media and social media coverage, yet was quite addicted to it, all of it. I voted Leave, but only after absurd amounts of agonising and only finally made up my mind in the polling booth.
I fully expected Remain to win and when it didn’t, I was thoroughly discombobulated. It felt rather as if the tectonic plates of my political and sociological assumptions had lurched violently beneath me.
I couldn’t articulate exactly what or why this was, but two things seemed clear: (1) that my close following of the great rotating circle jerk of the British political commentariat (Twitter – newspaper op-eds – Newsnight – Twitter and round again) had actively diminished my understanding of the world rather than improved it.
And (2) that there had at some point in the recent past appeared a really very profound disconnection between the concerns and priorities of what you call SW1 and the concerns and priorities of the great majority of the British public. Many pundits on left and right have of course banged on about this in various ways, but usually they’re just complaining that the ‘Westminster Bubble’ isn’t pushing their particular agenda.
What really did it for me was Cameron’s own assessment that his greatest achievement in politics was the upgrading of civil partnerships to gay marriages. Now I approve of gay marriage, it’s fine by me. But it’s the sort of pleasing thing that should be a cherry on the top of a substantial cake of political achievement. It has almost no bearing on the pressing practical concerns of voters. A whole generation of young workers that can’t afford to buy even the most modest property; people whose home towns have, without consultation, been utterly transformed by unprecedented economic migration; a nagging sense that one’s children will have lots of gadgets but no real prospect of reliable, well-paid work or a decent family home…. And there’s Cameron proudly trumpeting gay marriage as his great achievement for the nation? He left no cake, only a cherry sitting sadly on a great empty plate.
Your post – particularly the sections on the media and how it influences politicians, and the myth of the centre-ground – begins to fill in some of the disconcerting blanks at which I’d been staring. It is not just required reading, it feels like it requires one to stop reading nearly everything else.
Hear hear, Mr Nixon. I fully agree with your comments and they are well made. My only difference with you is that, if Remain won, I think I would have given up on politics for a very long time. Mind you, Mr Cummings’ piece has me wondering whether I should still do that anyway!
No way !! Just imagine where we would have been now had Dominic Cummings given up on politics, rather than engaging ….
Impossible to contribute without reading several (more) times and thinking very carefully. Congratulations on a meaningful contribution.
Perhaps the first two of the three significant factors were conflated in the famous old dictum of ‘events’.
Fascinating and illuminating. Why are your blogging this, and not cashing in with a major publishing house?
Good question – but I would hope that the one will follow the other, in due course …
Interesting that you mention Surkov and Pomerantsev. I was under the impression that Surkov was out of the picture after his demotion in 2014. I know that Surkov is supposed to have opposed the KGB-style purge of all political opponents. Arguably, the purge has left the Kremlin in no need of providing a coherent ideology at all. As a result, there is little place for a figure like Surkov whose instance that politics is a text (of which the audience is the author, rather than speechwriters or politicians) is ultimately dependent upon the exploitation of others’ ‘ideologies’. I would argue that Surkov’s zenith actually came when Medvedev was President. Pomerantsev’s book is good but again it doesn’t seem to realise the main purpose of the Russian government, which is to enrich itself. Thus, the ones that bring in most cash are the most powerful. Corruption is not a problem of the Russian system, it is the Russian system.
Absorbing, thank you for everything you and the VL team achieved for our country.
I hadn’t come across David Deutsch’s error correction argument. Totally convincing.
What a fantastic piece. Thank you for writing it. This coming from a strong remainer.
One thing I don’t get in the original in/out debate was the “free movement of people = impossible to control immigration” concept. You touch on this, and immigration appears to be a motivating factor for you, so I will ask my question here: why not control immigration via internal bureaucratic systems like residence permits rather than trying to control arrival rates? This appears to be what other rich EU countries do. E.g. Any EU citizen can go to Spain, but if they want to stay more than 3 months, they need to obtain a residence permit, which will involve non-spaniards in showing that they have enough money and health insurance so as not to be a burden on the state.
You touch on the need for diversity of thought amongst politicians and the 4th estate, and I agree wholeheartedly. I think that many of our problems could be simplified by looking at how other countries are coping with them. Us Brits seem very inward focused, uninterested in other peoples. I am suggesting that we may be too insular in our thinking, and that Brexit may reduce our social links with similar countries, impoverishing our thinking.
Anyway, thank you and bravo.
Brilliant and insightful. Thank you for cutting through the fog of meaningless wittering that pervades the instant nature of communication these days.
Your blog speaks to me because it understands who I am – a leave voter that took the time and trouble to investigate the issues of the day. I concluded it was best to leave the EU in the interest of my children and the human race. I do not have a University education because I grew up in an environment that did not recognise this as a possible conclusion to my schooling. I am working class by birth and have been in the business of cold hard sales for nearly 30 years.
My sales experience tells me you efficiently identified the importance of VL’s USPs, focused on simple messages derived from these and were not distracted by outside influences that can only ever diminish one’s chances of closing the deal. I sense that Alec Baldwin’s soliloquy in Glengarry Glen Ross could be a favourite…
For me, the error made by the IN campaign was that it left a vacuum of objectivity that anyone interested in leaving or thinking of leaving could inhabit. It reads to me that VL simply occupied this space. IN patronised voters with clearly ridiculous prophecies of doom and ignored completely the fundamental aspects of the EU that rankled so strongly with voters. Most of the time people like me were not challenged – by anyone – about the conclusions we were reaching. IN’s messages did not resonate with me at at all as I would gladly have lost some wealth in order to gain democratic sovereignty.
Ultimately it is clear that the IN campaign could not address the EU’s fundamental fault lines and so the focus on racism and the economy were strategic decisions that they made. This in itself could have driven anyone that took the time to understand it to vote leave – I was one.
Many people will distort your blog to suit their own narrative, they will elide parts of it to suit themselves and this will be a shame.
The referendum cost me friends and added many grey hairs in the pursuit of objective debate. It was depressing to me that it was so evident that friends I had previously held in high esteem were doing no due diligence of their own. They freely bounced around in their own echo-chamber not taking the time to rehearse arguments or inform themselves of the other side’s perspective. As you have said, the natural assumption among many was that a University education and membership of the cosmopolitan liberal elite conferred upon one the the badge of truth. How wrong they were…
Your reply repeats the canard around sovereignty and otherwise says very little. It is the UK’s London – centrIc economic policies that have left much of the country disaffected. This is nothing to do with the EU – surely you get that?
Coming back to sovereignty, and without re-running the immigration debate, can you please tell me which laws imposed by the EU keep you awake at night? Your comments about losing some wealth to regain ‘democratic’ sovereignty feels like petty nationalism and we all know where that leads.
I really enjoyed reading this. I would have voted against the Lisbon Treaty given the chance.
As a Leaver I recognised myself in your three major problems, immigration, financial and the euro crisis.
My feelings about immigration were not based on racism. but were based on what was happening in respect of the boat people coming into Europe and the EU’s lack of desire to find out who the smugglers were and attempt to stop them, in spite of the fact that ISIS just might take advantage of this extremely sad situation. They didn’t seem to identify economic migrants from genuine asylum seekers and the Shenghen agreement allowing free movement made the situation worse. I know we are not part of this agreement but nevertheless the EU’s inability to act for the sake of its own citizens shows a lack good leadership. Although immigration has not affected me personally I was aware of what was happening in our towns and the negative effect on low paid workers. The impact on our housing hotly denied by the comfortably housed Remainers was ignored as was the impact on our hospitals and schools. Also the Government’s inability to deal with hate preachers, protected by EU courts.
Financial. Well yes, the rich have got richer and the poor poorer and yes those up north were, like all citizens, paying off a debt whilst those responsible got away scot free, rewarding themselves for their failure. Those same people who just love the EU and have since even suggested they remain members. Well why not just as long as they take the debt with them and leave us in the black. Then we can start again. No, we do need them even if we detest them.
Finally the EU. Our experience of, and the reports coming in regarding the problems in Greece, Spain and Italy and mass unemployment of their young people and added to the immigration problem was a
deciding factor. David Camerson’s failure to make a tangible deal with the EU, in fact went cap in hand almost to beg for changes was the final straw for me. Their disdain was their downfall.
It was an excellent campaign in contrast to the other side who used bullying tactics and Obama who to me came across as threatening but others would disagree.
There were a lot of if’s in the run up to the campaign which could have derailed and prevented it. If Labour and the Lib Dems had agreed to offer a referendum, would David Cameron have won the election, would UKIP voters have voted Labour. If David Cameron had taken a back seat and worked on positives of remaining in the EU (if there were any), rather than the negatives of leaving. The attraction of Leavers being enthusiastic about leaving and ignoring the insults of the Remain side was so appealing. Finally had Labour been in touch with their grass roots voters the result for leave could possibly have been greater. Gisela Stuart was excellent as was Boris and Andrea.
This is a fascinating read whilst being totally abjectly depressing.
I am very puzzled by this statement though, when talking about the marketing campaign: “weeks or months before the vote, we decided to hire extremely smart physicists to consider everything from first principles”. How do you hire ‘smart physicists’ for a temporary role in marketing? Where/who are these amazing jobbing advertising physicists? Why do you need physicists to create a marketing campaign? Why would a physicist know anything about a political campaign anyway?
Do you really mean ‘physicist’ at all? I am very curious.
Ignore this question. I have found the answer courtesy of your own blog, thank you very much: https://dominiccummings.wordpress.com/2016/10/29/on-the-referendum-20-the-campaign-physics-and-data-science-vote-leaves-voter-intention-collection-system-vics-now-available-for-all/
20,000 words of gold.
I was one of your VL volunteers, and given all your experience with Data and Campaigns, do you think it would be theoretically possible for a new ‘Moderate/Labour Right’ independent Scottish Unionist Party (Or Peoples Party) to Win against the Nats in Scotland?
It just seems that given that 38% of the Scots voted out, and given what you say about Fashion in politics, it may be possible to put a coalition together to win a Westminster election (even by just one seat), by wresting the Scottish identity away from Sturgeon, as focus groups seem to suggest that the SNP always win as they ‘stand up for Scotland’.
When there was an independent Scottish Unionist Party in Scotland they used to win elections, and one of the theories as to why the parties united was to give the center (pro European at the time) more control.
Had their been an independent party in Scotland at the time of Maastricht they would never have given away fisheries, and could have been more protective over legal safeguards because of Scot’s law.
Would be interesting to hear whether you thought it was possible to ‘Hack’ Scotland as well.
I can’t confess to having read the piece in full, but I was interested in that you start off by seeking to put some distance between yourself and the campaign (in particular, but not only, the comment that the Shipman book threatens to exaggerate your importance in it). You were Campaign Director, after all! I looked consequently for what your own thoughts about the EU were and, while there is a section there and your view that we should leave the EU seems to be clear, it is very brief and the argumentation does not look fully-formed. I therefore wondered whether your reluctance to review the events leading up to the vote and the distance you seem to be putting between yourself and it reflected that your heart was not fully in the campaign that you ran?
Calvin, might I respectfully suggest that you read the whole offering before making your comments ?
Bismarck and Potemkin aside, thank you for a very comprehensive polemic. Glad to hear, too, that future posts will be more concise, but fully understand why you had to get this one off your chest. Also explains why Messrs. Raab and Cook H. may have bright futures!
Dominic, firstly thank you very much for all you did to secure this historic result and for making my children’s future prospects brighter. Secondly thank you for such an original and educational blog. I have followed the EU issue for many years and studied every twist and turn. I was always hopeful but I just thought the weight and power of the establishment would win the day ……… clearly they very nearly did. Your superb account articulates so very clearly why they didn’t. I too would be very very interested to read what you think should/may/will happen next. Thanks again.
Fascinating read…thank you. I found myself agreeing with most of your analysis on how fed-up the public outside of the London political/media bubble are at being told how and what to think. If nothing else it gave me a bloody good laugh too. I had never hear the expression ” Like a one legged man at an arse kicking competition ” before but I have now memorised it for future use!
This is a really interesting insight into the Brexit saga and far more honest than most accounts we see in the mainstream media where as you point out the argument is largely portrayed as only having 2 sides.
Personally I voted “in” but I possibly caved in to my own Project Fear – my concern is/was that Britain’s departure would destabilise the EU to the point of collapse; and following some of your own observations about history it would not take much for parts of the EU such as the Balkans to return to military conflict which we would inevitably get drawn into, especially with Russia in its current state.
I am surprised the “in” camp didn’t make anything of this point, but maybe people are tired of having large numbers bandied around – after all the financial cost of the Second World War ($4.6 trillion in today’s money) is only 4 times the amount committed to bailing out the banks (amazing to me anyway).
And as you say Project Fear backfired spectacularly so maybe this would have just been more kindling on that particular bonfire.
Ultimately I think Cameron did a *terrible* job of negotiating any kind of deal for the UK and the country has paid the price (good or bad!).
Excellent post Dom! I’ve been clicking on all your links as well and now have a lot of reading material. I’m about to start my own blog and you have set the standard I should aspire to.
BTW, I first heard of you via David Laws autobiography and was left with a rather negative impression. However, when I started reading your blog, I quickly realised who was the greater intellect.
Dominic, you may remember me from the days of Business for Sterling when I co-authored the first pamphlet ” The Case for Keeps my the Pound” with Bill Jamieson. Lord Marsh was the first CEO then came Nick Herbert, George Eustice and you. Whent Matthew emailed all us supporters saying you were on board, I replied saying He’s a Rottweiler that I knew we would win and Blue British passports had hoven it view.’ You’re being uncharacteristically modest about your involvement in VL.
The ground response in deepest rural Wales was surprisingly positive back in Feb 2016 when I first started leafleting and I told my husband and the handful only of helpers that our only weapon was positive thinking against the battery of Remain focusing media, especially here. This campaign is unlikely to have been successful without you.!
Happy New Year
Many thanks for a brilliant analysis of a super successful political campaign, which was both refreshingly honest and most revealing about a very gifted political communications player.
I would like to make a few comments from someone who is Anglo-French, spent the first half of his life based in London and the second half based in Paris, and who has worked as an international finance director throughout Europe, both North and South, and in other regions of the world.
You named several key areas :
Immigration – but there has been more non-European immigration, and much of it from different cultures. Immigration volumes have been made dramatically worse as a consequence of the Iraq war, but which European country actively participated in it?
You mention Turkey, but it was the UK, particularly Thatcher who pushed for their entry, together with as many new countries as possible so as to hinder any thoughts of a political union, and to force a purely free trade area. The EU was from its inception a political project, which Nigel Lawson had the honesty to say so in the FT. It was the UK that set up its free trade area in 1960, EFTA. Incidentally, nobody in Europe, certainly not Continental Europe, is seriously thinking about a Turkish entry now or at any time, quite the opposite.
The financial crisis of 2008 had nothing to do with the EU, indeed it started in the US, with some help from the Bearn Stains hedge funds lodged in the Cayman Islands, and some 50 billion of Leman Brothers liabilities parked in the City due to laxer UK accounting rules.
As for the understandable anger of the population about the greed of bankers and CEOs , it was the EU which tried to cap bankers bonuses but the UK government was dead against it, and again the EU has NOTHING to do with the tax policy of UK citizens, bankers or otherwise.
As the UK is not part of the Eurozone, it’s not the UK’s problem. As for Ireland it’s a lot richer country today, Euro crisis and all, than when I had to deal with an Irish subsidiary back in 1985.
The £350 million a week saving going to the NHS was a brilliant communications ploy, but again a net £8 billion a year when public spending in 2016 was £762 billion seems to me somewhat deceitful.
And I think that I would use the words of deceit and bad will for the European project. I agree with you that much can be improved in the European project but your approach is purely negative, there is no intention of trying to correct it, purely to destroy it.
As a European I can accept that someone doesn’t like the project, but I do object to the sheer lies, deceit and bad will that has been shown by people like you. For me, the campaign was the dirtiest and grubbiest I have ever seen in the UK, and believe me I have seen some in my 69 years. It leaves me with the pained impression of the UK embarking on the path of grubby, grabby, grim new Britain, which believe me for the UK’s sake I much regret.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank heavens someone is saying this – in an ‘echo-chamber’ for leavers! This man Cummings seems totally unconcerned about honesty, despite protestations to the contrary. He is extremely clever (too much so by half?), despite his denials of being so. He seems to think that because the remain side told lies, these cancelled out those of the leave side. Most amazing to read his pinpointing of the NHS/350m stunt as the pivot on which victory turned, blithely ignoring the falsity of the promise.
I stand with the despairing and disaffected leave voters and their sense of disenfranchisement (as opposed to those more comfortably off leavers motivated by ‘little Britain’ ideology), and wait with trepidation to see what they will be doing some time down the line when they discover that the ‘newly sovereign’ British political system is even more intractably untransparent, centralized, and inherently undemocratic than the EU. And with no European Court to resort to when needed as a balance to possible injustices in the British legal system (heretical thought).
Lastly, what about the totally ignored reasons for a Union in the first place – that is, to avoid once and for all the little question of a third world war with an European epicentre?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: Labour has shifted focus away from the NHS crisis. For what?
I’ve just read this fantastic piece on the Spectator website and I am moved to say that this is by far the best thing I’ve read about the referendum. And, as someone who keenly wanted our country to leave the EU for 20 years, I have followed this subject very closely, especially over the last year. There has been no shortage of words written on the subject, from both sides. But Mr Cummings’ contribution in this piece alone strikes me as sounding very much like the last word in the matter. That said, now that I’ve come across this blog, I shall be digging deeper: I am very interested to hear else Mr Cummings has to say.
I am somebody who previously thought that the £350M/NHS argument was extremely minor in its influence. Certainly it had zero effect on determined Leave voters like me and other like-minded Leave voters I spoke to. And, of course, it didn’t sway any Remain voters. But, before reading this piece (all the more potent for its modesty and honesty) I failed to appreciate the swing voters. I guess I’ve always had issues with swing voters: I am critical of people whose voting convictions can be swayed whichever way the wind blows. But, I am now persuaded that their votes were decisive and that £350M/NHS was an influential factor.
This was just one of many thought-provoking and original nuggets and I shall be re-reading this piece and recommending it.
Impressive work, Mr Cummings. Leave voters like me are indebted to you: thank you.
Its good to see such self reflection in the age of “look at me”, your points certainly provide food for thought. The logic of your complex systems argument is compelling but does not sit very well with the simplistic messages required to get people to vote and the ideological positions of both left and right . Messages such as the NHS funding when not followed through comes across as typical political cynicism.
You repeat the fashionable “virtue signalling” argument, and in many cases this may well be righteous hypocrisy however virtues are good things, there is a danger of inadvertently making it a bad thing to enjoin goodness and compassion. I think the key point here is that people should put their money where there virtue is.
Pandering to fear, self interest is the way to win votes but what does it do to society in the end ? Does it act as a positive feedback loop in the system that results in a non-linear unintended outcome ? There are many historical examples to suggest this could be probable.
Immigration is a favorite instrument to use to arouse passions, but the problem is the cost for these passions are paid by others. None of whom you meet. A more sensible debate here is required but it will always get drowned in the fear messaging.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Great piece, but it does seem like your own – very interesting – historiographical thesis is working in tension against your account of the referendum. Apologies for the obnoxiously long comment…
1. Obviously, I can’t speak to the personalities involved, but possibly at least some of the people behind “Go Global” were thinking about governance post-referendum, instead of being myopically focussed on a win? Some of the current mess in UK politics bears that out. You present resistance to your “Turkey/350m/NHS” line as a simple sign of political incompetence, instead of – perhaps? – a resistance to what could be characterised as populist half-truths, or racial paranoia. However effective a winning strategy it might have been, many people would hardly praise Boris, Gove et al. for so enthusiastically embracing that line.
2. Indeed, your own – fascinating – analysis about branching histories would seem to suggest that making those promises that rely on so many factors you know to be essentially unpredictable, even unlikely, is exactly the kind of poor political decision-making you decry. For someone who’s making a claim to clear-eyed analysis (and operating with Feynman’s warnings against self-delusion in mind) your trust that Boris and Gove would have kept their NHS investment promise seems wilfully naive – and relied on their being in a position to deliver, which did not in fact come to pass. It does seem a shame that you (and – of course – others, on both sides) didn’t feel that public debate around such a major decision deserved the same kind of nuanced treatment of possible outcomes you embrace here.
3. And on that note: given your analysis of historical processes, your claim to be playing a long game based on thinking “a return to 1930s protectionism is disastrous” requires so many unlikely steps, and so many other actors behaving in very specific and unforeseeable ways, that it does seem either to be magical thinking or simply a convenient dishonesty. It strikes me that, by your own reasoning, the safer “Occam’s razor” approach would have been the rather less roundabout path of making a positive case for European cooperation and internationalism… Obviously, since the Leave campaign won, I very much hope you’re proved right and – against every indication I can now see – Brexit somehow boosts the forces of moderation in the UK and elsewhere. A very big gamble has been made with other people’s money against some long odds. Fingers crossed?
This is the best thing I have read so far this year, and I have a high degree of confidence that it will remain so for at least several months. Thank you for posting it.
It has always struck me that mainstream politics occupying the centre ground (slightly to the left or right) has led to entrenched divisions where the country swings on a pendulum from one ‘extreme’ to the other. Whilst the main parties remain diametrically opposed to each other & utterly refusing to concede that their opposite number may have actually had a good idea or pointed out a flaw in their position is an utterly disgraceful way to behave. Politicians have to get back to first principles, everything they do has to be for the good of the nation, not for their friends in business or in Unions.
I hate to use the word but we need a political class that are patriotic, not tribal. Everybody sees on a daily basis the injustices around them, homeless veterans, the queues outside the job centre plus (folks finding it impossible to make work pay more than the state because of the state) etc. etc. Our political classes have morphed into a homogeneous group of Oxbridge educated PPE graduates with little or no idea about how the vast majority of their ‘constituency’ exist. How many politicians & the civil servants who ‘advise’ them have ever worked a real job outside of the bubble & struggled whilst doing it? Yes, I know there are a few but even many of those mentioned had privileged positions like ‘Officer’ in the forces.
The point so eloquently made by Dominic (better than I ever could) is the public view the politicians as the extremists & have views & opinions that are spread across the spectrum of all parties.
The main point is, when we joined the EU it was in our best interests & politicians knew it. Now, it isn’t & if politicians had been honest about it instead of subscribing to some liberal wonderland utopian view that it’s a bad mess but we’re better off in that bad mess (& I think politicians of all stripes liked having the EU as an excuse for their failings (‘it’s not us joe public, It’s he EU, they won’t let us do X or Y’)) instead of telling the truth in that membership of the EU as currently constituted is not in the UKs best interest.
Politics, the civil,service (mandarins) & the way lobbying is carried out has to change if joe public is going to re-engage in the political process. If it doesn’t, don’t be surprised if we end up with UKIP as the main opposition or worse.
Pingback: Unrecognised simplicities of effective action #1: expertise and a quadrillion dollar business – Dominic Cummings's Blog
Thanks. A worthy second draft of history. Compelling, fascinating and (from my perspective) ghastly: I write as someone who favour(s)(ed) ever closer union, and who considers there are interesting and positive branching histories where the UK joins the Euro and Schengen. However, this is not the place to debate them.
There are a couple of things here however which don’t quite ring true to me.
1. You dismiss the “Corbyn AWOL” problem. Well surely the problem was that Corbyn was Corbyn. If England had had its Alex Salmond, even a far-left (but not Corbyn) Labour leader in the Ken Livingstone mould, I’m sure Remain would have benefitted very significantly.
2. Credit to Farage. One significant factor was the number of people, particularly the less well-educated from deprived communities, who seldom or never normally vote, but who turned out on 23rd June. I can see exactly how Farage, like Trump, appeals to that demographic in a way most unlikely for high-profile Tories like Gove or Johnson.
This is the single most fascinating thing I’ve read about the referendum since it took place. I would be interested to know whether you think a political party could structure itself and its policy making using the same methods. Could a party formulate policy by constantly correcting errors in assumptions about what people want / need or would it be accused of following rather than leading?
Interesting as an analysis of how you did it it. However, all I get out of this is that we will end up as a country with the same failed/failing right wing policies and a strong whiff of Colonel Blimp about it. Fixing the unbalanced economy and creating a fairer society seems to be getting further and further away. I wonder how the good people of Sunderland and Boston will view things in five years time?
LikeLiked by 1 person
“There is a natural set of categories and I will post links to blogs below:
Data and digital.”
Will follow with keen interest.
Wonderful and honest analysis.
Wish many others would have the guts, intelligence and candour to post analyze like this!
Pingback: Brexit weekly briefing: goodbye single market and customs union | ReportNews
I voted Remain and campaigned for Stronger In and this is one of the best and most interesting analyses I have read of the referendum, period.
Dominic, you are clearly a very smart guy. That being the case, it is surprising to see you make the following errors – or at least use language which is much less precise than in most of your writing:
– “Have an immigration policy that guarantees free movement rights even for murderers, so we cannot deport them or keep them locked up after they are released? Extreme.”
This is a one-sided explanation of the truth. Free movement certainly limits the grounds on which non-UK EU nationals can be excluded from the UK (something which I don’t have any objection to, since I believe in the concept of European citizenship), but it is not true to say that “murderers” can never be refused permission to exercise treaty rights in the UK. Is it actually rational in any case to want to deport a reformed offender – or is this just a base human instinct which we have to live with and make policy around?
As an aside, on the subject of European citizenship, you haven’t actually addressed anywhere in your writing as far as I can see whether it is rational and an example of the higher-quality policy that you do discuss to seek to limit the number of non-citizens living in one’s country, even non-citizens from one’s closest geographic neighbours (vs the current system whereby nationals of the EU member states are treated as one step a way from a national in whatever EU state they’re in). There are evidently pros and cons of both free movement and non-free movement systems, so a knee-jerk, “Well, of course only UK nationals should have the guaranteed right to live and work in the United Kingdom”, based on one particular worldview, wouldn’t appear to cut it.
Do you think this point is arguable with facts and figures and the smarter ways of doing politics which you describe, or do you think this is simply a topic which in a democracy people are entitled to take a view on, and other policy has to bend around that view?
– “improve the probability that others in Europe would change course before more big crises hit, e.g. by limiting free movement which is the biggest threat to continued free trade”
It’s not clear whether this is the typical UK erroneous conflation of hostility to non-European immigration which exists in many countries in Europe with the UK’s own issues with European free movement, or if it just refers to generous immigration policies more generally (ie, not specifically to the EU/EEA/Swiss system of free movement). You also don’t explain the causal link between the existence of free movement and the threatening of free trade, nor the actual purpose/expected benefit of “changing course” before further crises hit. The whole statement is extremely vague – perhaps deliberately.
I’m not aware of any other country in the European Union that is as bothered about other Europeans having the right to move to their country whenever they wish as the UK appears to be (assuming the country, in the aggregate, even views this system negatively at all). Therefore, it’s not clear that limiting European free movement is a position which there is actually public support for in most of the European Union, never mind it being necessary to avoid the disruption of free trade. (Even in Switzerland, which of course is not in the EU but is currently part of the EU’s system of free movement, opinion on the topic is on a knife-edge and would seem to be less vehement than in the UK.)
Immigration to the EU by non-EU nationals is already limited, so there’s nothing particular to be done here. In any case, this policy area (both in the UK, and in the rest of the EU) appears to have little to do with whether the UK remains in the EU (though I’m curious to know if you have some theory which provides otherwise – ie, specifically around the likely impact of the Brexit vote on *non*-EU migration to the EU).
– “require and therefore hopefully spark big changes in the fundamental wiring of UK government including an extremely strong intelligent focus on making Britain the best place in the world for science and education”
This one is both particularly surprising and not surprising. You make the typical English/’British’ intelligent person’s mistake of conflating England and the UK, or of not caring a jot about the difference between them. You also use the vacuous word “Britain”, presumably not really sure of or bothered about whether you mean England, Great Britain, or the whole United Kingdom – you’d presumably happily say England, other than for the English nationalism which that might associate you with. One gang you’re sure you don’t want to be in is that one.
In any event, notwithstanding the important contribution of the UK-wide Research Councils, the UK government has little overall responsibility for education (including higher education) in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. It seems remiss to entirely avoid mentioning that very important constitutional fact in an explanation of why you thought the UK *as a whole* should leave the EU.
An informed reader might be reminded of your earlier remarks about how few people understand the workings of the EU. It seems you don’t understand the UK’s own constitutional arrangements – or you think England and the UK are so much the same thing that the other parts of the UK can be airbrushed out of the discussion.
PS You might find this article helpful:
Pingback: Weekend Reading 1/27/17 | Sightline Institute
A very interesting, honest and insightful account. As a committed (rural) remainer I can tell you that you’re right about the susceptibility of metropolitans to ‘group think’ and an over-confidence in their views on good/moral policy/strategy.
And it’s also excellent to hear with honesty the very pragmatic machinery of persuasion and catalysis that lay behind the Leave campaign.
It’s slightly frustrating that at the same time you keep the simplistic ‘elite’ meme alive though (one of the groupthinkish markers of ‘those outside London’). Plenty of Urbanites on 20k a year or thereabouts were buying into and feeding back into what you describe as the ‘elite’ mentality – surely better classed as an urban or ‘metropolitan’ phenomenon.
I’m intruiged by your claim that:
“Polls show that better educated people are less likely to have accurate views about the science of evolution and genetics (their desire to send moral signals suckers them into believing fairy tales)”
Can you link me to these polls?
You say: “the false idea spread and is still dominant that if you are on the side of free trade, think controlled immigration generally a positive force, and want more international cooperation rather than a return to competing nation states then you must support the EU. I think this error is caused by the moral signalling and gang mentality described above.”
Surely this is kind of simplistic answer that you so carefully ask us to avoid when it comes to the “why did Leave win?” question (but were so happy to encourage in the Leave campaign itself).
I know that these bigger questions about The Future were not the focus of this particular post. So it would be *excellent* to hear more of your (less simplistic) thoughts about the connection people make between the importance of international cooperation and the EU.
Superb account Dominic. Many thanks. Summary seems to be: Rabble rousers beat gang, right or wrong, unlikely to happen often. ?
If only the EU had done something about free movement. I understand there are attempts to limit it, to require that immigrants have jobs in place, but these are weak. It will be interesting to see where this goes and if it can be solved within the EU before we do see a swing towards nationalism of the kind embodied by Trump.
You claim the press as being against you, yet amongst our most popular papers we have The Express, The Daily Mail and The Sun. These are strongly biased towards Leave and strongly play the immigration card. Their stories, even now, are often misleading and they go as far as attacking our judiciary and anyone who dares question Leave. It was claimed that places that had higher immigration were less afraid of it. If anything stoked the fear of immigration it was these papers. It is sad that actual statistics tell a very different story both about the effects of immigration and the drivers behind it.
I’d hope, as you say at the end, that we could see an improvement in education and investment in our people and services. But are the Tories the right people for this, with what seems a Small State mantra? This doesn’t seem to have worked where practiced by The Republicans in America.
Educated = having a degree. Educated more likely to vote irrationally. Got to love assumptions in statistics. Those who have a degree are more likely to vote irrationally would be the correct statement. But then again, I would not expect many people to be careful with the words they choose in an era where being informed and accurate has become a taboo.
Quite frankly, this blog post lost credibility when it attacks ‘educated’ people as incapable being set up to listen and change views and forming rational arguments. You have not considered that no-one listens to you because what you are saying is irrational, incomplete, ill-informed and so on… Surely someone who knows something about statistics would be aware of such other variables?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mr Educated – People with a degree level education are more likely to be in the kinds of jobs or industries that benefit from globalisation and the EU. Globalisation is unescapable in my work. People don’t have to immigrate here to compete with me for a job. They can do so sitting at their laptop in India. This has been the case for some time now and our world hasn’t ended, in spite of fears towards the start of the century that it would.
So for someone like me it makes sense to be in the EU, not just because of the well founded economic risk of change but:
* Myself and my children can benefit from freedom of movement without seeing its drawbacks
* A lot of the companies that myself and my cohorts work for export to Europe and will suffer given non-trade barriers that may arise from Brexit.
LikeLiked by 1 person
DC’s line about polls suggesting smarter people vote more irrationally is probably a reference to the phenomenon of educated Republicans in the US being more likely to reject climate change.
It has been found in other policy areas too and generally applies most strongly among people of a “conservative” mindset.
DC’s is a very entertaining and thought-provoking piece but like a commenter above I was puzzled by one glaring omission: in a piece of 20,000 words he mentions the role of the printed Press in half a sentence (“VL had the support of some powerful papers …”). This is to ignore the hostility towards the EU among the public engendered by years of implacable and often wilfully inaccurate bile from the Mail, Sun, Telegraph, Express, Times, and their Sunday incarnations – something surely not replicated in the media of any other EU nation. Without this, would VL have ever seen got out of the starting blocks?
Dominic… tremendous article. It seems to be getting a lot love now on this side of the Atlantic. I found it via a Feb. 9 mention on Instapundit, and it has been talked up quite a bit at ricochet.com. I read it comparing it with our recent election. Would really like to have you take up residence in this country for a couple of months and write up what you see as a traveling political/cultural correspondent. Tim W.
This is a fascinating blog post Dominic, well done. I don’t agree with Vote Leave’s aims, but I always respect a winner.
A great article, though almost long enough for you to publish your own Brexit book.
I voted Remain, even though I think in the long run the UK will be better outside the EU. I had 2 main reasons for doing so:
1) I didn’t think the disruption and distraction that would ensue would be worth it, taking up so much of our national attention. I still don’t.
2) I couldn’t see how a sensible Brexit could be achieved by our political class given a successful Leave vote. I still can’t.
I do hope it’s a success though and am now 100% behind the reality of what is going to happen.
You are dead right on so many aspects of this campaign though, and you sell yourself short in terms of your contribution. If you had been running Remain then I’m sure you could have tipped the balance that way, though getting Cameron and Osborne to abandon their collective delusions on how to win would have been extremely hard. All the effort they devoted to winning the argument over the economy was merely addressing their core who were already staunch Remain.
The article also answers the question for so many Londoners (and I count many of my friends among them) who were totally shocked by the Leave victory. Not only were we living in our own echo chamber, but none of your marketing was ever targeted at us.
Looking forward to seeing what you’re going to do next.
Pingback: On the referendum #23, a year after victory: ‘a change of perspective is worth 80 IQ points’ & ‘how to capture the heavens’ – Dominic Cummings's Blog
Pingback: Saturday assorted links - Marginal REVOLUTION