Some anaylsis it seems on how supporters of various parties have voted in the referendum.
But not so much on turnout, generally reported as being high (72.2%), and the highest national vote since the General Election of 1992.
In Nottingham, postal vote turnout was 84.3%, yet overall turnout was low, at 61.8%.
Now, it may be that the referendum coming just after many university students have gone to new jobs or to their other homes, could explain a lot.
But given the emphasis on how there are huge numbers who would vote for an alternate politics, there has to be a question mark over that assertion.
Meanwhile, what drives the voting?
The national campaigns yes; and the pattern of results then reflects a number of sociological trends. Crudely speaking, in Nottingham, wards dominted by the council housing estates of the 20’s/30’s and of the ’70s voted LEAVE; the wards with more older housing, or by university living, or more metropolitan living, voted REMAIN.
After that, local activity can make a difference, and does, and in the New Meadows, did.
Returning to the national result, could Jeremy Corbyn, with better campaigning have changed the result?
I did, too often, have to explain on the doorstep that Jeremy was voting REMAIN, and in the end, isn’t that the real criticism?
In a major test – a decision for the future of the country – in which the choice was limited to one of two options, too many of the voters didn’t understand what his position was.
Could it have switched 635,000 voters? Or won an extra 1,270,000 voters? Or the right mix of both?
Whatever, the notion that Jeremy would be a catalyst to the non-voters can no longer seem significant.