Research

UK Elections 2021 – How is the political landscape changing?

How is the political landscape changing? As the dust settles on the May 2021 elections, it is worth taking a closer look at the results to see what they might tell us.   

England

The overall results for labour have been bad across the English elections.  Labour has lost seats across many areas and, at the same time, the Tories have picked seats up.

Overall, the Tories have increased their number of councillors in contested areas by + 11%, labour have declined by -20%. 

The LibDems remain the third largest party but have seen little real change.

Other important highlights are that UKIP has now disappeared from the political scene and Reform has failed to hoover up those old seats.  The main beneficiary from the demise of UKIP has clearly been the Tories. 

There has also been a dramatic increase in the amount of Green councillors (more than doubling their number of councillors in contested areas to 151). 

One final important highlight is the fact that there have been gains across the board for a mix of independents (an 18% increase to 255 councillors).

Labour’s highest profile loss was, of course, Hartlepool.  However, here, the story has more to it than meets the eye.

Hartlepool

In Hartlepool the Tories saw their vote increase from 28.9% at the last general election to 51.9% on May 6th.   Much of this gain is likely the result of the disappearance of the Brexit Party as a meaningful political force.  25.8% voted BP in 2019 which, if added to the Tory vote at that time, would total 54.7% – similar to the Tory vote this time around.

Whilst this may explain the Tory win, it does not explain the reduction in the Labour vote (falling from 37.7% in the last general election to 28.7%).  Smaller parties like the Greens may have taken votes from Labour but as the Greens only accounted for 1.2% of the vote, this can hardly explain it.

One point to remember is that the incumbent MP was forced to leave office because of allegations of sexual harassment and victimization.  This may have served to turn some voters away from Labour – but the question remains that whatever their reasons were for not voting Labour, who did those voters turn to?

A big factor appears to have been an independent candidate – Sam Lee, a local businesswoman.   Sam positioned herself as someone who stood up for the local business community and a Westminster outsider.  A vote for her, she claimed, would “show politicians that we are sick of their party games and empty promises”. A vote for her then, was, in many ways, a rejection of the status quo.  Sam polled 9.7% of the vote and, as she didn’t stand in 2019, it looks like she may have taken a fair number of votes away from Labour.

No change..?

So, in 2021, it may be that Hartlepool saw no real significant switch from Labour to Tory at all – that had already happened in 2019, when large numbers of voters changed to the Brexit Party.  And having switched to the BP, the move to voting Tory seems to have been an easy step for many. 

The vote for Sam Lee is significant though.  It shows a considerable number of people prepared to vote for someone outside the political establishment, and a desire amongst many for something quite different from the established parties.

The Red Wall weakens in the North and Midlands

In general, results in the North and Midlands have shown the biggest Tory gains plus the most serious Labour losses.

Again, the explanation seems to lie mainly with picking up former Brexit Party voters rather than outright direct conversion of 2019 Labour voters. 

The biggest Tory gains compared with previous local elections were in Yorkshire and Humberside (+11.2% up), the West Midlands (+9.7%) and the North East (+7.3%).

These marry up with the more significant Labour losses – Yorkshire and Humberside (-4.5%), the West Midlands (-5%) and the North East (-4%).

Labour losses and Tory gains were less significant elsewhere in England.

So, are we witnessing a sea-change in voting patterns in the North driven by regional factors or is it something more complicated than this? 

It is true that the so-called Red-Wall has clearly been seriously eroded in many parts of the North.  However, Labour has performed well in the area in certain large cities.  Could it be that this is more about how voting patterns are changing in metropolitan v non-metropolitan areas, than it is about changing attitudes in the North?

The Metropolitan Effect

Labour has performed well in northern metropolitan areas such as Liverpool and Manchester, showing that it can hold its own there under the right conditions.

In Manchester, Labour even gained ground.  Perhaps this was due in no small part to the charismatic Andy Burnham but the numbers tell a convincing tale.

Labour increased its share of the vote on the first choice for Mayor from 63.4% in 2017 to 67.3% in 2021. The Tories slipped from 22.7% to 19.6%.  Here, the lesser parties were very much out of the picture.

The Labour Mayoral vote also held strong in Liverpool.  No sign of any cracks in the Red Wall in these major northern cities; a quite different story from the story we see in less urban areas. 

So why is the metropolitan vote in the North so different from the trends we see elsewhere?

The Role of ‘Englishness’

Will Jennings, Professor of Political Science and Public Policy at Southampton University, feels that the migration of voters to the Brexit Party and then to the Tories has much to do with the emergence of a strong English national identity.  This tends to view the Tories as a party that is positive about the English and Labour as essentially mediocre about, or even hostile to, an English cultural identity.

Evidence for this can be found in BSA research that looked at the motives behind voting Leave/Remain in the Brexit vote.  This found that people who identified themselves as ‘British’ and not ‘English’ in England, voted 62% in favour of Remain.  However, 72% of people who identified themselves as ‘English’ and not ‘British’, voted in favour of Leave.

This sentiment, Jennings would argue, has translated into a vote for the Brexit Party in 2019 and has now converted into a Tory vote.  Parts of the North which have switched to Tory are often areas where this sense of ‘Englishness’ is strongest.

However, cities such as Manchester and Liverpool are more cosmopolitan in character and have strong and distinct local identities (as Mancunians or Scouse).  As a result, the tendency to strongly identify with an ‘English’ nationalist identity is less evident.  This in turn translates into a much-reduced willingness to switch away from Labour to the BP or Tories.

Treating the ‘North’ as a single homogenous area would therefore appear to be a gross over-simplification.

A different picture in Southern England

In the South, there was less dramatic change in voting patterns.  Although we saw some shift to the Tories in the council elections, the change was nowhere near as significant or dramatic as that seen in political landscape in the North.

However, there are a couple of interesting results that are worth pulling out – both Labour Mayoral wins.

The first is the result for Cambridge and Peterborough.   On the first choice alone, the Tories would have won (Tory 41%, Labour 33%, LibDems 27%).  However, once the LibDems were knocked out of the picture the second-choice votes for these voters were overwhelmingly Labour.  The result enabled Labour to win (just) by 51%. 

The second result is for the West of England Mayor (which covers Bristol, Bath and North East Somerset and South Gloucestershire).

Here Labour increased its vote from 22.2% to 33.4% in the first round.  The Tories also actually did a little better (increasing from 27.3% to 28.6%).  The LibDems, again, saw limited but negative change (20.2% down to 16.3%) and the Greens again, saw progress (up to 21.7% from 11.2%). 

Again it is worth noting that the presence of a strong independent candidate can affect the results.  In 2017 such a candidate polled 15% of the vote but this time around, no such candidate stood.

This does raise the possibility that a future cooperative arrangement between Labour, Greens and LibDems in the south could potentially cause significant damage to the Tories in some parts of the southern political landscape.  However distant and unlikely such a prospect might seem today.

What about Scotland?

The results in Scotland, of course, have been quite different from anything we see in England.

Here we have seen the SNP make modest progress – increasing their share of the vote from 46.5% of constituency votes at the last parliamentary election in 2016 to 47.7% now.  The Tories saw little change in fortune (21.9% share now vs 22% in 2016).  Labour, too, saw limited change (21.6% down from 22.6%).

The SNP have consolidated and built on their dominant position even if they have not achieved an outright majority.  Some have suggested that they owe their electoral success at least in part to the general perception that Nicola Sturgeon has handled the Covid crisis well. 

One might make a similar observation across the UK.  This is that the light beckoning at the end of the Covid tunnel tends to favour the incumbent administrations – the SNP in Scotland and the Tories in England.  There is no doubt some truth in this and, if so, we can see this pattern repeated in Wales.

What about Wales?

Wales bucked the pro-Tory trend we see in England.  Here comparisons with England are more interesting because Wales, like England, voted Leave (whereas Scotland did not).  However, UKIP and latterly the Brexit Party have never been quite the force in Wales that they were in many parts of England (the Brexit Party registered only 5% of the Welsh vote in the 2019 election). 

Here the Tories have not managed to benefit anywhere near so much from picking up former UKIP or Brexit Party voters.  In 2016 the Tories got 21.1% of the constituency vote, which they have been able to increase to 25.1% this time around.  This no doubt reflects picking up some of the old UKIP votes (which accounted for 12.5% of the votes in the 2016 assembly election).

However, in Wales Labour have increased their share of the vote from 34.7% to 39.9%. Plaid Cymru have remained at pretty much the same level (20.7% vs 20.5% last time).

As with elsewhere, it may well be that the incumbent administration is benefiting from the feeling that we are headed in the right direction Covid-wise. 

The lack of the BP/UKIP factor in Wales in the political landscape meant there were only a limited number of these voters for the Tories to potentially pick up.  This supports Professor Jennings’ view that it is the sense of Englishness that has driven a migration of votes from labour, via UKIP and the Brexit Party, to the Tories.  The absence of the ‘Englishness’ factor in Wales potentially explains why such a pattern has not been repeated here.

In conclusion

It is probably worth concluding by saying that we ought to be very careful in what we read into these results.  The 2021 elections have occurred at a time when so much is in a state of flux.  The Covid crisis makes these times most unusual indeed. 

In a few years’ time when (hopefully) Covid no longer dominates our lives, we will be living in a vastly different world.   Also, we cannot yet say what the longer-term impacts of Brexit may be.  We are also only at the very beginning of the Tory levelling-up agenda.  Much has been promised, but what will be delivered?

This election has highlighted some important emerging trends, but the events of the next few years could yet see things change quite radically.

About Synchronix

Synchronix is a full-service market research agency.  We believe in using market research to help our clients understand how best to prepare for the future.  That means understanding change – whether that be changes in technology, culture, attitudes or behaviour. 

We offer market research services, opinion polling and content creation services.  You can read more about this on our website.  

If you wish to follow our weekly blog you can view all out past articles on our website here.

Sources

Election Results from BBC England

BBC Scottish Election Results

Welsh Election Results from the BBC

Sky News Election Takeaways

BSA

Hold the Front Page

Marketing Personas – powerful tool or pointless exercise?

What are marketing personas?

You have probably heard of marketing personas (or buyer personas as they are otherwise known).  The purpose of creating marketing personas is to paint a picture of the audience you are trying to reach.  Used well it can be great tool for segmentation marketing.  But used poorly it can, unfortunately, end up being a pointless exercise. 

Where do marketing personas come from?

Whilst many of us may have seen the end result, it is often not entirely clear how these personas were created, or even by whom.

Perhaps a group of sales and marketing people huddle together in a workshop and “brainstorm” a bunch of personas. 

Or perhaps they were created based on some focus groups that some of your marketing team had commissioned. 

Or maybe they were developed from insights generated from a larger scale quantitative market research survey.  Or perhaps all of these. 

How they were created does matter.  They should of course, be based on a broad group of real actual customers – and not just plucked out of the air based on a customer meeting that one person had with a single customer!

How do they help?

They allow us to bring to life different segments of our market and, in doing so, allow us to better target them and serve their needs. Or do they?

“Segments must be Measurable, Substantial, Accessible, Differentiable, and Actionable.”

Philip Kotler

Unfortunately, sometimes, people can go through a lengthy exercise in creating fancy personas only to find that they aren’t of much actual use.  They can look good.  They look as though they make sense.  You can even bring them to life with infographics, videos and swish artwork.  That’s all cool … but what use are they?

When such an exercise goes wrong you can end up with something that looks very impressive but is hard to relate to any of the questions or challenges that your business actually faces. 

But it doesn’t have to be like that.  Done right, marketing personas can be an extremely powerful business tool. 

So how do you get it right?

Make sure you start with some clear business objectives

First things first.  You must always start with a good reason why you want to create marketing personas in the first place.

That of course means you need to start some tangible business questions.

Obvious questions usually include the following:

  • Who is most likely to buy our products?
  • What makes them buy?
  • How do we reach them?
  • What do we need to do to persuade them to buy?

Once you have these questions you then know what you are trying to achieve. Your success criteria for the entire exercise are then clear and simple – can the personas we have created answer our original questions.  Keep these questions clearly in mind throughout the exercise – they are your guiding light and anchor point for the entire project

Do you need them?

An important question to ask before you get too far with generating your personas is:  “Do I even need to generate multiple market personas” ?

Generating multiple market personas implies you are adopting a market segmentation strategy.  That means you want to divide your customers and prospects into different groups and adopt a different marketing approach for each of these groups.

This more targeted approach can bring great rewards. 

But to develop and execute specific campaigns and strategies to address different market segments requires resources.  Not everyone will have the resources or the time to invest in this.

This comes back to our original questions – why are you doing this?

Sometimes, people develop market personas for the wrong reasons.  Sometimes what you really need is something simpler. 

Maybe all you need is a good profile of your target customers and prospects as a single group.  One group of people who you can focus your marketing resources on, directing a specific approach.

In this case you just need a market profile that simply allows you to describe those people who represent good prospects for targeting to your marketing agency in an accurate and meaningful way.

Make sure Personas integrate into your marketing strategy

Although it sounds very obvious, people can sometimes get this wrong and, when they do, generating marketing personas can be a waste of time.

If you decide you need marketing personas then this should form an integral part of your marketing strategy.  The insight you gain from the personas will help you to design a targeted segmentation strategy that will shape and inform your marketing.

You don’t need to generate marketing personas if you have already determined what your strategy will be.  The whole point of creating them is to help formulate your strategy.

Personas are powerful tool for briefing your marketing agency

When you brief a marketing agency, the first thing they will want will be for you to paint a picture of your target audience.  Who are you trying to reach?  What do you need to say to them?

The more they know about the audience the better.  The more specifically they can then target any media campaigns and the more engaging they can make the messaging.

With well crafted and meaningful marketing personas you should be able to provide them with everything they need to create a very targeted and relevant campaign for you.

How do you know your Marketing Personas are any good?

OK, so you have completed the process of pulling together what you need to create your personas.  You believe they will answer the questions you set out at the start of the process.  Now you need to bring them to life and present them to colleagues, to your marketing agency and your partners.

So now you need to create a concise and meaningful guide that explains what these personas are and why they matter.

By this time you may have been working on the project for a few weeks.  So there is a real risk that you, your market research agency and anyone else closely involved might not be able to see the wood for the trees.  So it is worth taking a step back and looking at what you have, to make sure it does indeed give you everything you need.

You can check this by asking a few basic questions:

  • Is the Marketing Persona clearly defined and easy to understand?  How easy is it to explain to a colleague who has had no involvement in the project?
  • Does it tell you how big/small the market segment it represents actually is?  Is this particular Marketing Persona representative of 50% of your potential market or 5%?
  • Does it clearly outline the opportunity that this market segment represents?  Will these people buy from you?  Will it be an easy or a hard sell?  If your salesman is speaking with one of them, what are the chances that you will make a sale?
  • Does it tell you what this Persona likes and dislikes?  What kind of things are likely to interest and engage with them?  And what might leave them cold?
  • How is this particular Persona different from the other ones?  Can you easily explain why this Persona is different?  What do you need to do differently to engage with this group that you do not need to do with any of the other Personas?
  • What media channels should you use to communicate with this Persona and how is this different from the others?
  • What kind of marketing messages do you need to design in order to ensure that people in this segment will listen and engage with you?

If you are able to reach a point where your marketing personas can be used to provide meaningful and actionable answers to each of these questions, then you know you have created something of real value.

About Synchronix

Synchronix is a full-service market research agency.  We believe in using market research to help our clients understand how best to prepare for the future.  That means understanding change – whether that be changes in technology, culture, attitudes or behaviour. 

If you are looking to create market personas, we can provide a market segmentation services that you enable you to generate these in a structured and successful way.  You can read more about how we do this on our website.

Covid in Numbers – why have some countries suffered more than others?

As vaccinations roll out, we are beginning to see some light at the end of the covid pandemic tunnel.  It will take a few months yet, but it seems almost unreal to think that by the end of 2021 we may finally be back to some kind of post-pandemic normality.

Now seems like an appropriate time to take stock.  What might we learn from the traumatic events of the past year?  We might ask ourselves the question – why is it that some countries appear to have faired so much worse with Covid than others?  How have some countries experienced relatively low death rates, whereas others have experienced such tragically high numbers?

The Worst Hit

If we take a look at the numbers, the worst hit of the larger countries include many European nations (eight from the top ten worst affected) as well as the USA and Mexico.  All ten have experienced more than 150 deaths per 100,000 population.  The worst affected at the time of writing is the Czech Republic, with over 230 deaths per 100,000.

Other countries have escaped relatively lightly.  Amongst the other European nations Germany has suffered significantly less – ie, experienced a death rate less than half that of countries like the UK, Belgium and Hungary.

Healthcare Quality

One thing we might look at is the quality of healthcare.  More developed countries generally have more established, advanced and comprehensive healthcare. That being the case, such nations should be better placed to deal with a pandemic such as covid.  Unfortunately, it is plain to see that there must be a lot more to it than this; with countries like the USA, UK and Italy all suffering badly despite their relatively advanced healthcare systems.

India has a comparatively small proportion of deaths (under 12 per 100,000 on official figures).  Despite this, India’s healthcare system is ranked only the 112th most efficient healthcare system in the world according to the WHO.  The USA is ranked 37th, the UK 18th and Italy 2nd.  Clearly there must be other factors at play.

One factor is potentially under-reporting.  One source estimated that this could mean that the true level of covid deaths is as much as five times larger than the official numbers in India.  However, even taking that into account, India’s death rates have still been significantly lower than those of the ten hardest hit nations.

Whilst the standard of healthcare has no doubt played some role here, there are clearly other aspects involved.

Population Demographics

One factor is population demographics.  Older patients are much more likely to become seriously ill and die from covid than younger ones.  Here India’s age demographics counts in her favour. 

Only 6% of India’s population is aged over 65.

Compare this to most European countries and the difference is striking – with around 20% of population in the hardest hit European countries being aged over 65.  Italy was the most vulnerable in this sense, with 23% aged over 65 before the pandemic hit.

Of the 10 hardest hit countries, 8 were nations where 19% or more of their populations were aged over 65.  The USA has a slightly younger demographic (16% over 65s) which would help to limit its vulnerability a little but is still clearly more exposed than somewhere like India.

Mexico represents the odd one out here.  Only 7% of Mexicans are aged over 65, giving the country a youthful demographic that is closer to that we see in countries like India.  We must therefore look for other explanations as to why Mexico has suffered so badly.

Urbanisation

Covid spreads best in environments where people live in close proximity to each other and, in general, people living in towns and cities are more likely to live in closer proximity with others.  Indeed, although India in general has seen lower death rates, it has nevertheless suffered more in major urban centres like Mumbai.

Many of the countries that have been worst hit have high levels of urbanisation which has likely contributed to higher death rates.  Belgium has an particularly high level of urbanisation (with 98% of its population living in urban environments), making it especially vulnerable in this sense.  Several other countries on the list have high urbanisation levels (80%+), namely the UK, USA, Mexico and Spain.  A country like India has much lower level of urbanisation overall (36%), which means its population is more widely dispersed and people in more rural environments are therefore less likely to come into frequent contact with others who might be affected.

Lockdowns

The lockdown measures taken by different countries at different times would also have an impact.  However, as these measures are often taken in response to the pandemic getting out of control in the first place, it is no surprise to find that many of the countries with the worst rates have had to impose longer and stricter lockdowns.

According to the Oxford Covid Government Response tracker those countries on our list that have taken the strictest measures for the longest periods of time over the course of the pandemic would include the UK and Italy.  This has not prevented either country from registering high rates however, although it has no doubt helped to prevent the problem getting even worse.

Based on these measures, those countries which have been laxer from this list would include Bulgaria (most notably), the Czech Republic, Hungary and Belgium.  So, it is possible that in these cases a more relaxed approach has contributed to a higher death rate.

Test and Trace

Another factor would be the efficiency of a country’s testing and tracing regime.  On this measure Mexico does especially badly, having only managed to test 41 out of 100,000 people in its population to-date – far fewer than any other country listed.

Nevertheless, the UK has now tested 1,585 people out of 100,000 – more than any other country on the table.  Despite this, the UK still has the third worst death rate overall.  But here the devil lies in the detail.  The UK has massively improved its testing regime over the course of the pandemic but, initially, the UK lagged behind somewhat.  During the first 60 days after the first five UK deaths the British managed to test just 23 people in 100,000.  This compares poorly to a number of other affected countries. 

Germany’s lower death rate overall is partly down to its test and trace efficiencies, especially during the early phase of the pandemic.  The Germans managed to test 37 people in every 100,000 during the first 60 days after their fifth death.

Of all the countries on the list, Mexico stands out as the most behind on test and trace at every stage of the pandemic.  No doubt this is a major reason as to why the country now ranks so highly in terms of death rates.

International Travel

Another factor is the level of international travel.  Countries that experience a large volume of people travelling through their airports and transport hubs are more likely to import covid from overseas. 

Of course, travel restrictions now apply across many nations but this was not always the case.  The UK and the USA would, under normal circumstances, see significantly more international traffic than most other countries.  And so they, along with Hungary, would have been most exposed to importing infection in the absence of strict border controls and quarantine measures.

The Czech situation

It is worth taking time to consider the Czech situation, since this country has experienced the most serious problems to-date. 

In terms of many of the risk factors nothing immediately stands out that would explain why it tops the list.  The level of urbanisation is high but not unduly so at 73%.  Likewise, its population demographic is not notably different from many other European countries (20% aged 65 plus).  It also receives limited international traffic compared to many other countries.

However, over the course of the pandemic its lockdown measures have been the second laxest of the ten worst affected countries.  It is also the case that its figures for test and trace do not appear as comprehensive as many others (although it appears to be testing a reasonable amount of people now).

According to Dr. Rastislav Maďar, the dean of the University of Ostrava’s medical school, the Czech situation can be attributed to three key mistakes.  The first of these was a failure to make mask wearing mandatory, the second a decision to open shops in the run up to Christmas and the third a failure to react quickly enough to the presence of new strains in the new year.

Key lessons learnt

Hopefully, it is clear to see that no single factor or measure can in and of itself entirely explain why any particular countries experiences a high death rate.  There are many factors working together in combination. 

However, the nature of the pandemic is such that it is clear that just a few missteps at any stage can very quickly lead to the situation rapidly deteriorating.  Hopefully, we can all learn from that and avoid making any future silly mistakes in the final stages of the pandemic.

About Synchronix

Synchronix is a full-service market research agency.  We believe in using market research to help our clients understand how best to prepare for the future.  That means understanding change – whether that be changes in technology, culture, attitudes or behaviour. 

We provide a wide range of market research and data services.  You can learn more about our services on our website.  Also, please check out our collection of free research guides for more information on specific services offers.

Sources

John Hopkins University https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html

United Nations https://population.un.org/wup/Download/

Our world in data: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/covid-stringency-index

Worldbank: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.65UP.TO.ZS?name_desc=false&view=chart

ITV https://www.itv.com/news/2020-12-09/is-indias-covid-19-death-rate-five-times-higher-than-official-figures-suggest

CNN https://edition.cnn.com/2021/02/28/europe/czech-republic-coronavirus-disaster-intl/index.html

Scroll to Top