Subscribe Here | Send your thoughts

Dear friend,

Hope this finds you well!

In this week's newsletter:

• The Netflixification of British politics: With Restore Britain the latest new party to break through, does British politics now look like a streaming service with countless options to choose from?
  
  
• Our latest weekly dispatch from Makerfield: will this be a “nose-holding” election?

• Britain talks immigration: What policies does the public want and where do they think Burnham stands?

• How attractive are you? We asked the British public to rate themselves on attractiveness, intelligence, kindness, wealthiness and funniness.

If you’d like to hear more on the above, what Britons want from the welfare system, and what the country made of the Blair essay, listen in to this week’s podcast episode.

The Netflixification of British politics

The biggest story of British politics in recent years has, of course, been the collapse of the two-party system. We’ve seen widespread dissatisfaction driving people away from the mainstream, while at the same time, the barriers to entry are now lower - social media means that there are new ways for emerging parties to break through, traditional parties have lost their monopoly on campaigning.

There are many ways we can measure this fragmentation. One way is by looking at the combined vote share of the two leading parties - not just Labour and the Conservatives, but whoever happens to be in front. Earlier this year it dropped to just 47 per cent, a historic low and 10 points below the 2024 general election figure (57 per cent) - itself already the lowest ever recorded. You have to go back to 1918 to find the combined share below 60 per cent, and that was when the Labour Party was replacing the Liberals as one of the main two parties.

The collapse of the two party system since 2019 - an 18-point drop in five years - now looks less like a glitch and more like a fundamental feature of the political landscape. Much like how the old days of terrestrial TV - when viewers could only choose between a handful of channels - have given way to streaming services, the two-party system has fragmented into something with far more choices on offer, and it looks like it’s here to stay.

We saw this play out on the ground in last month's English local elections. Rather than simply "changing the channel" - voting out the incumbent in favour of the main opposition - voters are now choosing from a much wider menu. We found that wards weren't moving from left to right, or right to left, but from ‘inside’ to ‘outside’: away from the establishment parties (Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrats) and toward insurgents like Reform and the Greens. 

One of the most striking recent examples of Netflixification is the rise of Restore Britain, a party with no substantial infrastructure, but driven in large part by their leader’s online presence. It remains to be seen whether the party can transform online enthusiasm into votes outside of Great Yarmouth. However, they do appear to have a presence in Makerfield and Restore is occasionally raised unprompted in focus groups of voters in our right leaning segments.

For these voters, even Britain's main insurgent party is not insurgent enough. Restore is now there to cater for those seeking more radical change or who do not accept the boundaries that Reform has set for instance on prejudice statements from candidates, even accusing the party of being too mainstream:

"I think Farage is going to be another person who's got all these big ideas, but actually implementing them is a completely different story. (...). And I also think so many Conservatives have defected to him now. I'm not so sure that he now stands for what his party originally stood for. I'm not a Reformer, but yeah, I'm not so sure. But I think, I don't know if anyone's heard of Rupert Lowe. I think Rupert Lowe's party that he's bringing in is actually what Reform were when they first started. And I think they're going to start taking Reform people to him."

Nicola, Braintree

"I think I've heard a lot of the things that Nigel Farage was initially going to be trying to bring in, he's kind of backtracked a bit and now it seems like the Restore Party, Restore, isn't it? Restore? It seems like that might be the one that actually has more backing longer term (...) So someone maybe like Restore or something like that where they have got good ideas and things like that, it would be good to see it, but yeah, we shall see."

Ian, Braintree

It’s arguable that even Netflixification doesn’t fully capture what has happened as even in Netflix there is a degree of curation and control. Others have suggested the Youtubeification of politics with less policing of boundaries or control.

Yet much like streaming services or online platforms, a surplus of options doesn't necessarily mean the public feels spoiled for choice. Many voters still describe themselves as politically homeless - a sense that politicians are ‘all the same’ and that their views are not properly represented. And as we are hearing in our conversations with voters in Makerfield (more on this below!), voting tactically against parties rather than for them is becoming a defining feature of our elections. The public's demand for a new kind of politics has, so far, not been met by a more fragmented political landscape.

Weekly dispatch from Makerfield: a “nose-holding” election?

From our conversations with voters on the ground in Makerfield so far, the key thing that has really stood out to us is just how much voters have felt the weight of this election. Many describe a level of responsibility and seriousness. People aren’t treating this as an ordinary local vote. They feel that the outcome has national implications for the future of the Labour leadership, Reform UK and the country.

Some participants describe a feeling of being at the centre of a story that’s much larger than Makerfield itself. The pervasiveness of campaigners, protesters and journalists across the constituency has exacerbated this: some people talk about how strange it is having people online all over the country expressing opinions about their town. Some describe a self-consciousness about their local area being constantly on camera.

For some, the weight of the vote feels like a burden; for others, a privilege.

“When the camera is on our town centre, I'm actually ashamed of it because it's butchered and it looks a mess. The actual town it looks ... I don't know. I can't describe how bad it would be.”
Brenda

"I feel that there's a lot of pressure on us to more or less make a nationwide decision. From what I see on my Facebook newsfeed, it says "Come on, people of Makerfield, you've got a big responsibility."
Brenda

"For me it's also a privilege - that we've been put in a privileged position to be able to make such a massive decision really."
Claire

"You've got to vote. Doesn't matter in many ways who you vote for, but don't not vote and then complain. Please use your vote, especially women - women have died to get that vote for you."
Maureen

But while people feel the weight of this election, few seem enthusiastic. This looks set to be a "nose-holding election" with elaborate tactical voting on every side: people planning to vote for Burnham while holding their nose at his party, or voting Reform despite perhaps feeling drawn to Restore. One thing these voters seem to share is anger toward the Labour Government and a desire to send a strong message.

"I don't like Labour but I don't want Reform either. If there's no alternative but Labour and Reform then yeah, I would vote for Labour."
Jackie

"I'm not a Labour fan at all, but I am a fan of Andy Burnham... I think I'll be voting slightly holding my nose, but voting for the person rather than the party."
Helen

"I really don't like [Farage]. I wasn't able to vote in the referendum, but I did support Remain and I'm pro LGBTQ+... but I'm very concerned about immigration. It could make me vote Reform, particularly in this by-election... it could be almost like more of a protest than anything else."
James

"There's going to be a lot of nose-holding. If it weren't Burnham I'd never vote Labour."
Diane

You can read more about these groups in Caroline Wheeler's piece on tactical voting in Makerfield in The I here.

Immigration

One of the key tests for this Labour Government has been to get immigration under control. And while official statistics show progress, with net migration almost halving, successive governments have so badly lost the public's trust on immigration that those figures don’t resonate with the public. Only 13% of Britons think those ONS numbers are accurate, while most (58 per cent) think the real number is higher. In fact, half the country (50 per cent) believe that overall levels of immigration have actually increased in the past year.

In part this may be that for many people the image of migration they see most prominently is channel crossings, which is also the issue of biggest concern: four in five prioritise stopping small boat crossings over reducing legal immigration, and nearly two-thirds correctly believe channel crossings have increased. We know that the public also tend to overestimate the proportion of net migration that channel crossings make up and it seems unlikely there will be a significant drop in concern about migration while crossings persist at current levels. 

Establishing credibility on immigration will be essential for leadership contenders too. So far, Britons are unsure about Andy Burnham: the largest group say they don't know what he thinks on immigration. But there is potential for him to get a better hearing: Reform voters are less sceptical of Burnham's position on immigration than the current government's. They are half as likely to say he wants to increase it as they are for the government as a whole. It seems that while Britons aren’t yet sure what Burnham thinks, they are still willing to be convinced.

We discuss this in greater depth, including what Burnham’s stance on migration could mean for the Makerfield by-election, in this week’s podcast episode. 

How attractive does the median Briton think they are?

We asked Britons to place themselves on a scale from 0 - 100 on a range of measures: attractiveness, intelligence, kindness, wealth and funniness. On this scale, 0 means you are one of the least funny/kind/good-looking in Britain, while 100 means you are one of the most. 50 means you are bang-average, which means that if Britons were rating themselves accurately, the median Briton would be a 50 on every measure.

Overall, Britons did not rate themselves modestly: the median Briton selected 64 for intelligence - implying they are cleverer than nearly two-thirds of the public; they selected 60 for being funny, and 70 for kindness. But they also perceived themselves as less wealthy than average, selecting 39.

Interestingly, the median Briton placed themselves at exactly 50 when it came to attractiveness. Perhaps this is an example of social desirability bias: Britons seem to have no qualms about saying they are much kinder than average, but feel uncomfortable calling themselves good-looking.

And this spanned across almost every voter group: while parties varied on other attributes, the median Conservative, Reform, Liberal Democrat and Green voter all said that they were exactly average on attractiveness. There was only one exception: the average Labour voter selected 59 out of 100.

In fact, this was a trend we saw across all five questions: Labour voters tend to believe they are cleverer, wealthier, kinder and funnier than other voters describe themselves.

That’s all for this week. Thank you for reading! If you have any burning questions surrounding public opinion, remember you can email us on hello@moreincommon.com.

All the best,

Luke