Four out of five respondents to the readers’ survey said that they would vote Labour rather than Conservative if the general election took place tomorrow. Don’t worry – it isn’t happening tomorrow. [Click here, here and here for other results from this survey]
There were over 600 of you who I will describe as ‘Labour’ from now on (even though you might actually abstain or vote something bizarre such as LibDem in real life) and 150 Tories. Are there any differences between these two groups?
Labour and Tory voters live in the same countries, are about the same age, visit this blog at the same time of day, are equally likely to follow @markavery on Twitter and are just as likely to buy one or more copies of A Message from Martha when it is published.
Two thirds of Labour voters responding to this survey are men, three quarters of Tory voters responding to this survey are men.
Not surprisingly, perhaps, Labour voters’ three favourite newspapers are Guardian, Independent and Times whereas Tory voters’ three favourite newspapers are The Telegraph, Times and Daily Mail. That is reassuringly what one might expect.
The Shooting Times and Field are, not surprisingly (?), more likely to be read by Tories whereas British Wildlife is (rather surprisingly – to me) read by a much higher proportion of Labour respondents to this survey than Tories.
BASC, GWCT the National Trust and Woodland Trust are slightly more favoured by Tory voters than are the other wildlife NGOs that are slightly more favoured by Labour voters.
There are more followers of fieldsports (twitching, shooting, fishing and wildfowling – and birdwatching) amongst Tory voters than Labour.
Tories are slightly more optimistic about the future of wildlife in 20 years time – but that doesn’t mean that they are optimistic.
Labour voters are very unimpressed by the environmental performance of the coalition government – Tories less damning but still surprisingly (?) damning.
Labour and Tory voters both say that the performance of the current government will influence how they would vote in a general election.
Tories are much more likely to think that there are too many wildlife NGOs than are Labour voters.
Tories are just a little less satisfied with the performance of wildlife NGOs.
Tomorrow – what you think about banning grouse shooting.
[registration_form]
Fascinating, yet bewildering – and how-will-you-use-this-information-wondering.
You should have offered a Green Party option, to see how realistic we all are (I am not realistic. I will vote Green). And you should have checked out income/employment because in my experience to be a naturalist with a conscience is expensive. In view of recent comments in media about no children in the countryside (mind you, I can’t remember many when I was a child either- it was always pretty much a solitary indulgence) it might have been interesting to find out how long people have been wild-lifing. How many since childhood cf. how many since retirement.
You might also have checked out use of local libraries (which is where I will check out Martha and buy her if I like her enough). (Don’t forget to register for PLR.)
Are there more kestrels in England in summer than in winter?
Hello Hilary, your comments are interesting but I wonder why you think being a Naturalist (with a conscience) is expensive. I think before the last war most naturalists were what are now termed the upper or middle classes. These were people with more spare time and the means to buy natural history books. There were also many “working class” people who knew about wildlife but did not write books about the subject. Since the last war wildlife study has become more of a pastime among every class of people, with perhaps the greatest authority among the “working class” of the public. Wildlife study need not be expensive, it is the cost of fuel to get to sites that are further away that is becoming prohibitive to many. This will be a loss to Natural History in general. Perhaps there are those who still think the subject should be confined to the “better off?” I,m not sure what you mean by “to be a naturalist with a conscience is expensive.” If this were the case in terms of money then there would have been hardly any wildlife campaigners prior to the recent times. Of course, we know this is not the case. Campaigning in terms of time spent is extremely expensive and is only necessary because those who are paid to protect wildlife and habitats are failing in their duty. We should keep on campaigning at any cost until those who are failing us either improve or are replaced. Best wishes.
Well, unless mainstream education steps in and makes the study of the environment and natural history as basic a priority as literacy, numeracy, and science, access to the countryside will continue to be biased towards students with families with the time and money to invest in taking children out to reserves, coast and countryside. They are the ones that I meet in the hides with their books and bins and tick lists. Just saying. Wish it wasn’t so. And to buy organic is beyond many people.
Books are still a luxury, school libraries largely rely on PTA support which is in itself selective, town libraries are closing all over the country.
I volunteer with school parties and local wildlife trust when I have time. I think for a lot of young people the natural world is as inaccessible as theatre, live music and museums. Of course I don’t think this is right but I think it is true, and needs facing for the sake of the future.
Surprised if I am correct that in a way you are calling twitching and bird watching as field sports,cannot follow that theory especially as when bird watching we admire the Linnet as opposed to thinking it is a nasty bird.
Dennis – it is a (very little) joke. There is quite a lot in common between chasing around for rare birds and chasing things around with a gun – it’s all about the size of your bag.
Think you are right Mark,
bird-watching, bird photography, twitching, bird ringing, taxidermy, bird egg collecting are probably all forms of a sublimated hunting instinct, often but not exclusively male dominated, particularly when a competitive element creeps in. I guess we men are hard-wired in this way – didn’t someone once write about a ‘hunting gene’?
OED definition here – “outdoor sports, especially hunting, shooting, and fishing.”
Desmond Nethersole-Thompson describes this ‘thrill-of-the-chase’ vividly (mainly with respect to bird egg collecting) in his Greenshank, Dotterel and Snow Bunting monographs.
Keith – and a lesser writer wrote about it here http://www.thefield.co.uk/features/531355/Naturalists_and_sportsmen.html
Good stuff – spooky how we seem to have read and enjoyed similar stuff and developed similar thoughts!
You should write a book or two….oh wait a minute…..
Very funny Mark,you had me worried there.
“Don’t worry – it isn’t happening tomorrow.”
It doesn’t matter who anyone votes for – the Gubmint is always elected, and it always turns out to be worse than the last one. It must be something to do with entropy. So I do worry at the prospect of a worse kind of worse. Tick, tock