How does London’s politics differ from the rest of England’s? Let’s look at the data

London from Heathrow Airport. Image: Getty.

In the 2016 EU referendum, London markedly bucked the English trend. The capital voted by 59.9 per cent to remain, in stark contrast to England outside London which voted by 55.4 per cent to leave.

For some this was confirmation that, politically, London is a “place apart” from England. But, other than this work by NatCen, there has been little empirical analysis of the evidence. So, for my Master’s dissertation, I decided to take an in-depth look at the political attitudes of Londoners, using polling data from the British Election Study (March 2019).

London vs England

The data reveals that Londoners exhibit widely different political attitudes to the English on a number of issues. On left-right questions, the capital’s residents are more likely to self-identify as left-wing. On open-closed ones, Londoners are less likely to identify as authoritarian. Londoners are also significantly more positive about immigration.

In terms of party support, Londoners are more averse towards the Conservatives, and more favourable to Labour. On leaders, Londoners are significantly more disapproving of Boris Johnson, and less hostile towards Jeremy Corbyn. On national identity, Londoners are much less likely to identify as English.

Regarding Brexit, a majority of the capital’s residents support holding a second referendum. And in a rerun of the 2016 vote, over two-thirds of Londoners would back remain. On the choice between maintaining access to the single market versus controlling immigration, Londoners are much more likely to prefer the former.

When I empirically compared the political attitudes of Londoners with the English across 20 variables (left-right, open-closed, Brexit, parties & leaders), I found statistically significant differences on all variables tested. In sum, Londoners hold political opinions totally unlike those of the English.


The rural-urban divide

In recent years, there has been a growing rural-urban division in political attitudes across the Western world, as seen with Brexit and the elections of Trump and Macron. So it may be the case that London’s political divergence just reflects wider UK rural-urban divisions. One must remember that London was not the only English city to back remain in June 2016.

To test this, I compared London’s political attitudes with those of six major English urban areas. Whilst some similarities are seen, on certain issues – immigration, Europe and national identity – Londoners hold views unique even to these other urban areas. So, London’s divergence goes beyond the rural-urban divide.

Explaining the divide

So what explains the political divide seen between capital and country? There are two main explanations: demographics – Londoners are younger, more diverse and better educated; and geography – Londoners have greater positive contact with immigrants and mix more among people with liberal attitudes.

To test which of these explain the divide, I conducted regression analysis on support for remaining in the EU. I found that, even after controlling for its demographics, Londoners are more likely to vote remain in a second referendum relative to an English person. This suggests that both demographic and geographic factors help to explain London’s divergent views.

What does this all mean?

The evidence is clear. London’s political attitudes are significantly different to those of the population of England. Londoners are more liberal, tolerant and outward looking.

These findings add clout to the calls for greater devolution of powers to the capital. London should be allowed to diverge from England, where necessary – especially on Brexit. Most Londoners do not want it, and it is likely to detrimentally impact the city. LSE’s Tony Travers has even talked of the emergence of a “London nationalism”, if Londoners felt they were being wrongly treated on Brexit. So policy-makers, please take heed and mind the gap.

Chujan Sivathasan is a masters student at Loughborough University.

 
 
 
 

The IPPC report on the melting ice caps makes for terrifying reading

A Greeland iceberg, 2007. Image: Getty.

Earlier this year, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – the UN body responsible for communicating the science of climate breakdown – released its long-awaited Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate.

Based on almost 7,000 peer-reviewed research articles, the report is a cutting-edge crash course in how human-caused climate breakdown is changing our ice and oceans and what it means for humanity and the living planet. In a nutshell, the news isn’t good.

Cryosphere in decline

Most of us rarely come into contact with the cryosphere, but it is a critical part of our climate system. The term refers to the frozen parts of our planet – the great ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica, the icebergs that break off and drift in the oceans, the glaciers on our high mountain ranges, our winter snow, the ice on lakes and the polar oceans, and the frozen ground in much of the Arctic landscape called permafrost.

The cryosphere is shrinking. Snow cover is reducing, glaciers and ice sheets are melting and permafrost is thawing. We’ve known this for most of my 25-year career, but the report highlights that melting is accelerating, with potentially disastrous consequences for humanity and marine and high mountain ecosystems.

At the moment, we’re on track to lose more than half of all the permafrost by the end of the century. Thousands of roads and buildings sit on this frozen soil – and their foundations are slowly transitioning to mud. Permafrost also stores almost twice the amount of carbon as is present in the atmosphere. While increased plant growth may be able to offset some of the release of carbon from newly thawed soils, much will be released to the atmosphere, significantly accelerating the pace of global heating.

Sea ice is declining rapidly, and an ice-free Arctic ocean will become a regular summer occurrence as things stand. Indigenous peoples who live in the Arctic are already having to change how they hunt and travel, and some coastal communities are already planning for relocation. Populations of seals, walruses, polar bears, whales and other mammals and sea birds who depend on the ice may crash if sea ice is regularly absent. And as water in its bright-white solid form is much more effective at reflecting heat from the sun, its rapid loss is also accelerating global heating.

Glaciers are also melting. If emissions continue on their current trajectory, smaller glaciers will shrink by more than 80 per cent by the end of the century. This retreat will place increasing strain on the hundreds of millions of people globally who rely on glaciers for water, agriculture, and power. Dangerous landslides, avalanches, rockfalls and floods will become increasingly normal in mountain areas.


Rising oceans, rising problems

All this melting ice means that sea levels are rising. While seas rose globally by around 15cm during the 20th century, they’re now rising more than twice as fast –- and this rate is accelerating.

Thanks to research from myself and others, we now better understand how Antarctica and Greenland’s ice sheets interact with the oceans. As a result, the latest report has upgraded its long-term estimates for how much sea level is expected to rise. Uncertainties still remain, but we’re headed for a rise of between 60 and 110cm by 2100.

Of course, sea level isn’t static. Intense rainfall and cyclones – themselves exacerbated by climate breakdown – can cause water to surge metres above the normal level. The IPCC’s report is very clear: these extreme storm surges we used to expect once per century will now be expected every year by mid-century. In addition to rapidly curbing emissions, we must invest millions to protect at-risk coastal and low-lying areas from flooding and loss of life.

Ocean ecosystems

Up to now, the ocean has taken up more than 90 per cent of the excess heat in the global climate system. Warming to date has already reduced the mixing between water layers and, as a consequence, has reduced the supply of oxygen and nutrients for marine life. By 2100 the ocean will take up five to seven times more heat than it has done in the past 50 years if we don’t change our emissions trajectory. Marine heatwaves are also projected to be more intense, last longer and occur 50 times more often. To top it off, the ocean is becoming more acidic as it continues to absorb a proportion of the carbon dioxide we emit.

Collectively, these pressures place marine life across the globe under unprecedented threat. Some species may move to new waters, but others less able to adapt will decline or even die out. This could cause major problems for communities that depend on local seafood. As it stands, coral reefs – beautiful ecosystems that support thousands of species – will be nearly totally wiped out by the end of the century.

Between the lines

While the document makes some striking statements, it is actually relatively conservative with its conclusions – perhaps because it had to be approved by the 195 nations that ratify the IPCC’s reports. Right now, I would expect that sea level rise and ice melt will occur faster than the report predicts. Ten years ago, I might have said the opposite. But the latest science is painting an increasingly grave picture for the future of our oceans and cryosphere – particularly if we carry on with “business as usual”.

The difference between 1.5°C and 2°C of heating is especially important for the icy poles, which warm much faster than the global average. At 1.5°C of warming, the probability of an ice-free September in the Arctic ocean is one in 100. But at 2°C, we’d expect to see this happening about one-third of the time. Rising sea levels, ocean warming and acidification, melting glaciers, and permafrost also will also happen faster – and with it, the risks to humanity and the living planet increase. It’s up to us and the leaders we choose to stem the rising tide of climate and ecological breakdown.

Mark Brandon, Professor of Polar Oceanography, The Open University.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.