UK General Discussion: 2017 and onwards, Mayhem

[EPG]

In fact, re earlier discussions, Boris Johnson's brother Jo has been moved to be a minister for Transport and London under Chris Grayling.

In the UK, the Department for Transport doesn't have much discretionary budget, or many state transport companies to direct, and as for the largest decisions, they are constrained by planning law and public interest, so the whole government is inevitably involved. In contrast, the Foreign Secretary has a huge role in setting UK foreign policy, and you get to meet with world statesmen!

[EPG]

I think it's much more likely that leaders get BETTER approval among their own supporters than leadership rivals.

Asking Conservatives about Theresa v Boris is like asking whether they prefer Mummy or the wicked stepmother who wants to take Mummy away.

If Boris Johnson were PM and Theresa May his main rival, I should expect those ratings to be reversed.

[EPG]

I think it's much more likely that leaders get BETTER approval among their own supporters than leadership rivals.

Asking Conservatives about Theresa v Boris is like asking whether they prefer Mummy or the wicked stepmother who wants to take Mummy away.

If Boris Johnson were PM and Theresa May his main rival, I should expect those ratings to be reversed.

Boris' approval deficit between himself and May amongst Tory voters has doubled in the space of two months (even when her own support was also declining). His own incompetence has undoubtedly been the cause of it.

No doubt, but I remember not too long ago Theresa May was polling over 50 per cent in party vote intention.

Life moves pretty fast.

[EPG]

Seems well suited for UKIP.

I think it's much more likely that leaders get BETTER approval among their own supporters than leadership rivals.

Asking Conservatives about Theresa v Boris is like asking whether they prefer Mummy or the wicked stepmother who wants to take Mummy away.

If Boris Johnson were PM and Theresa May his main rival, I should expect those ratings to be reversed.

Boris' approval deficit between himself and May amongst Tory voters has doubled in the space of two months (even when her own support was also declining). His own incompetence has undoubtedly been the cause of it.

No doubt, but I remember not too long ago Theresa May was polling over 50 per cent in party vote intention.

Life moves pretty fast.

Largely because she was able to portray herself as the safe pair of hands in turbulent times (and that quickly evaporated once voters got to know her). Good luck convincing the public BoJo is that amidst Brexit.

But wasn't the 2017 campaign the most significant event in recent UK psephology? 10-15 point changes in vote intention during an election campaign telling us that opinion polls are mud as forecasting devices in anything but the shortest term imaginable, i.e. a week. So at the time of the next election, none of those numbers will matter.

[EPG]

In April, Corbyn polled poorly in Labour voters' approval, sometimes even net negative, while Theresa May led in overall net approval by over 50 points. So I'd trust no indicator over a horizon of more than three months.

[EPG]

If polls are reliable except for forecasting general elections, then they are not reliable.

Theresa May or Corbyn were not unknown to the public. They are, after all, the most high-profile politicians in a country where politics has been loud and vituperative since the Brexit campaign. Millions of people had opinions about them, then changed their minds. They may do so again, or not.

The last three elections since 2010 delivered governments that surprised most people, the last two even did so relative to beliefs on election night. For most of that time, Labour has been convinced it would form the next government, including now. Perhaps a more profound scepticism about forecasting confidence is in order.

[EPG]

You don't get to +45 or -40 approval while being unknown. It's more credible that May and Corbyn were known, but people's opinions changed.

The uncomfortable implication for some people is that people's opinions might change again. That might mean all the cheering of Corbyn will be for a two-time loser to the Tories, who useless though we keep hearing they are, beat Corbyn by more than Cameron beat Brown.

[EPG]

The uncomfortable implication for some people is that people's opinions might change again. That might mean all the cheering of Corbyn will be for a two-time loser to the Tories, who useless though we keep hearing they are, beat Corbyn by more than Cameron beat Brown.

Or rather you persist with this line because you've yet to be persuaded that Corbyn could win.  

Of course Corbyn could win. Voters change their minds quickly. The only actual data point is his record so far, 0-1 against the worst Conservative campaign since universal suffrage.

[EPG]

Hunt will run. Then if it is Hunt versus Boris, Rees-Mogg or a remainer, Hunt will win.

[EPG]

Looking forward to Hodges' Twitter meltdown after the Tories get obliterated this May in the locals.

Most seats up for grabs this year are Labour strongholds.  It will be interesting to see more the results in swing areas as opposed to overall numbers.  That being said based on the polls I think Corbyn is a double edge sword.  He inspired many young people who wouldn't vote otherwise, but also a huge turnoff to older voters thus why he can get the party easily up to 40%, but has trouble going much beyond that.  Although to be fair Labour hasn't gotten over 45% in a general election for over 40 years mind you when Blair was PM and opposition leader in the 90s Labour did frequently top the 50% mark in the polls which Corbyn has been unable to do.  In terms of the Tories, I suspect if the alternative was more centrist their numbers wouldn't be as high.  Otherwise if you had a party similar to the Liberal Party of Canada or Democrats in the US, you probably could push the Tories down into the 30s, but as long as you have someone as left wing as Corbyn it will be tough to push them under 40%.  Sort of reminds me of my home province BC.  In the last federal election, the Tories crashed to 30% in BC as you had the centre-left Liberals, but provincially the centre-right BC Liberals (despite their name they are similar to British Tories in ideology) still got 40% when facing the NDP (who are like Labour although more like Brown or Miliband as opposed to Corbyn).

The good point here is that Labour tended historically to rely on two-handers with a good Liberal or Lib Dem performance to form governments. Most obviously 1964, however, it's hard to spot an election where the third party did poorly in England, but Labour formed a government. I don't think this is an iron law, but third parties seem able to reach parts of the English vote Labour can't reach, without which it's hard to eject the Conservatives from office.

[EPG]

1966? Before then? I don't think that's true at all - whatever gains the Liberals take from the Conservatives where Labour are noncompetitive in the South they hurt the Labour vote everywhere else, depriving them of marginals. They aren't nearly as efficient as you think, and the collapse even helps Labour in that those the Liberals retain in everywhere but their bastions are usually the right-wing Orange Book variety who would just be voting Tory in another era.

The biggest obstacle for Labour is Scotland - where Labour have went from a reliable mid-forty bloc to half a dozen. If they still won those seats Labour would have 300 to Conservatives 317.  A 1% swing to Labour from 2017 would see the reverse.

Oh sure it's an observation rather than a dissertation, but thinking about 1966, the Liberals did relatively well compared to 1959 or my "favourite" election as a political science event, 1970. Labour won one clear victory before that - it's really 1964 before Labour becomes a party winning office in normal times, right?

Now absolutely they should focus on winning whole regions rather than hoping for a protest that doesn't look like coming, but it's notable that Ukip 2015 didn't seem to help, squeezing the Lib Dems a little in 2017 didn't help much as the relevant gains seemed to go in every direction. So it looks like Corbyn needs to win the necessary votes versus the Conservatives on his own. This is, to my mind, a pretty significant change compared to Blair's position.

[EPG]

Conservatives won very well in 2017 locals a month before the election, then lost seats in the generals, falling back to only 55 more than Corbyn's Labour versus a lead of almost 100 against Miliband.

[EPG]

Conservatives won very well in 2017 locals a month before the election, then lost seats in the generals, falling back to only 55 more than Corbyn's Labour versus a lead of almost 100 against Miliband.

Thanks for this breaking news

Not very polite. It's relevant to the discussion of what is signified by particularly good or bad local election results in Labour heartlands or not. Outside the councils' bailiwicks, literally nothing.

[EPG]

The 2017 Locals were before May was finally exposed as the Empress with no clothes though... and even then, whilst the Labour result was bad, it was a lot less bad than the national polls at the time were predicting in the general. I remember thinking at the time that, even allowing for the differences between local and national elections, the result showed that the Tory position was far less unassailable than many people assumed.

I guess I just don't believe voters only ever change their mind once, so May and Tories might become popular again, and whisper it, hero V.I. Corbyn might not win? I am old enough to remember pro-husky pro-sweatshirt hero David Cameron, rubbish at campaigning anti-Greggs Cameron, surprise majority pro-bacon anti-Salmon tactical wizard Cameron, and Brexit loser Cameron.

[EPG]

The economic statistics are quite good. There's no reason to expect people to think, "time for a change", in quantities that would give any Labour leader 50% or so. Prices are starting to rise rather faster than wages, though, and personal debt is getting a bit risky.

May's incompetence is overstated by Conservative leadership rivals and the memory of a few big mistakes during the last election, as well as a genuine belief among her party that she should be ousted before the next one because of her campaigning. Her day-to-day governance, by contrast, is evidently not alienating her voters.

[EPG]

The 2017 Locals were before May was finally exposed as the Empress with no clothes though... and even then, whilst the Labour result was bad, it was a lot less bad than the national polls at the time were predicting in the general. I remember thinking at the time that, even allowing for the differences between local and national elections, the result showed that the Tory position was far less unassailable than many people assumed.

I guess I just don't believe voters only ever change their mind once, so May and Tories might become popular again, and whisper it, hero V.I. Corbyn might not win? I am old enough to remember pro-husky pro-sweatshirt hero David Cameron, rubbish at campaigning anti-Greggs Cameron, surprise majority pro-bacon anti-Salmon tactical wizard Cameron, and Brexit loser Cameron.

Who exactly is disputing the above? It seems like it's you and Miles who have came closer in surety of the next GE outcome, because HE SHOULD BE LEADING BY MILES apparently because muh liberalism and of course your time-served knowledge stretches back a whole ten years.

How unnecessarily personally rude! As I have made clear, I don't believe Labour would be winning by miles now under any feasible leadership. First, the Conservatives are too competent and their agenda is intrinsically popular; unpopular policies are pre-empted by their minority. Second, Brexit keeps most Leave voters Conservative. Third, long-term, Labour is only an occasional party of government, winning when disgust with the Conservatives reaches a certain level. Even limiting ourselves to the post-war, the tally is 43 years of Tory government, 17 Labour, 13 damnatio memoriae kulaks. By the way, you lost the last election by 55 seats, so egg on your face.

[EPG]

The 2017 Locals were before May was finally exposed as the Empress with no clothes though... and even then, whilst the Labour result was bad, it was a lot less bad than the national polls at the time were predicting in the general. I remember thinking at the time that, even allowing for the differences between local and national elections, the result showed that the Tory position was far less unassailable than many people assumed.

I guess I just don't believe voters only ever change their mind once, so May and Tories might become popular again, and whisper it, hero V.I. Corbyn might not win? I am old enough to remember pro-husky pro-sweatshirt hero David Cameron, rubbish at campaigning anti-Greggs Cameron, surprise majority pro-bacon anti-Salmon tactical wizard Cameron, and Brexit loser Cameron.

Who exactly is disputing the above? It seems like it's you and Miles who have came closer in surety of the next GE outcome, because HE SHOULD BE LEADING BY MILES apparently because muh liberalism and of course your time-served knowledge stretches back a whole ten years.

First, the Conservatives are too competent

Wait? Why would you think that? You can say alot about Theresa May, but competent isn't really a vibe she has ever given off. Neither have David Davis, BoJo and friends

They have done nothing to alienate their voters, and are at little risk of paralysis. They don't care about Labour/LD partisans or the woke, though.

[EPG]

There's definitely a notable age-issue in voting preferences at the moment, but a degree of caution needs to be used when combining with the ABCDE figures - they're bad enough in themselves (outdated and often perverse), but there are additional problems in this context: i.e. most pensioners are categorised as DE because polling firms are lazy.

Exactly. It is better to make small claims and be careful than big ones based on numberology.

That latter way leads to cherry-picking unusually interesting numbers, like considering Canterbury (nowadays home to many students) instead of the UK as a whole.

[EPG]

BTW at no point did I have egg over my face for Labour's narrow loss (2.4%) at the last election - it was almost guaranteed by the situation in Scotland.

  I'm afraid I don't understand this point? I hear it a lot, but as long as the Conservatives won about 7 seats in Scotland they would have formed the current government, I think. Most SCON seats were won quite well versus the SNP. If you mean that Labour requires a 40:1 margin over Conservatives a la Blair then I would begin looking for easier routes to power...

[EPG]

BTW at no point did I have egg over my face for Labour's narrow loss (2.4%) at the last election - it was almost guaranteed by the situation in Scotland.

  I'm afraid I don't understand this point? I hear it a lot, but as long as the Conservatives won about 7 seats in Scotland they would have formed the current government, I think. Most SCON seats were won quite well versus the SNP. If you mean that Labour requires a 40:1 margin over Conservatives a la Blair then I would begin looking for easier routes to power...

I don't understand how I'd have egg on my face regarding the loss if I never believed Labour could win until the Scottish question had been resolved? In the wake of the 2015 loss, John Curtice made the prescient point that unless Labour reversed the Scottish swing to the SNP, to replace those seats lost in Scotland, on a uniform swing Labour would need somewhere around a 12-point lead over the Tories nationally to gain enough seats elsewhere to form a majority - very improbable. Coupled with a poisoned chalice that is Brexit to deliver, there was really no better time for a civil war and/or purges. There still is little sign Scots are embracing SLab in the manner they did throughout the post-war period (and actually gone further - delivered an almost pre-Thatcher result to the Tories) however the DUP-deal and the spectre of Hard Brexit has opened up the path for a future Lab/SNP coalition so everything's back in play.

Good thing swings aren't ever uniform. I just meant that it seems to me that a Lab-SNP pact could exist today, but still have fewer seats than the Conservative-DUP pact. Thus, Labour's position in Scotland is not why the Conservatives are in government, unless the problem is literally that Labour requires a 40-seat margin there, in which case I think Labour can find much a easier route to power elsewhere. You could replace 30 SNP seats with 30 Labour seats and still May is PM.

[EPG]

It's not the numbers, but more so the fact that the route to a majority without Scotland has to run through insanely Tory Seats (including 10-20 that Labour lost in 2005)

Sure, this is why Labour have mainly been in opposition, because there is usually very strong support for the Conservative Party in the UK, even vis-a-vis a very bad Conservative campaign as in 2017.

Lab + SNP through time:
2005 360
2010 264
2015 290
2017 297
So Labour's "Scottish road to 10 Downing Street" through the SNP would be marginally useful, like the Tories in 2017, but it won't deliver a government with the SNP, let alone a Labour majority, without plenty of further gains in England and Wales, including many of those difficult 10-20. (Not that the 2005 losses will all be difficult; I think you guys can take Putney.)

[EPG]

Oh, great. The Labour right is never going to accept Corbyn's legitimacy, is it? Thank God voters don't give a sh*t what these morons think.

He is an election loser who I am very sure will lose again, even against PM May, so he doesn't get a free pass. I am not even very doubtful on this, I think he will be 2 and done.

[EPG]

Corbyn did lose by 55 seats against Theresa May of all people, which is the usual trigger for reconsidering party leadership in the UK. But, trust me, all the rest of us outside Labour are happy for your guy to keep "winning" as well as he did in 2017.

[EPG]

Corbyn did lose by 55 seats against Theresa May of all people, which is the usual trigger for reconsidering party leadership in the UK. But, trust me, all the rest of us outside Labour are happy for your guy to keep "winning" as well as he did in 2017.

Yeah it's not like he closed a massive gap in six weeks or anything, and it's not like the Tories are going to not by dealing with the consequences of Brexit in the next year or so. Everything is nice and dandy for the Tories, right?  

I am being serious. I hope the Labour Party wins every election as well as it won 2017. And the Tories certainly hope they keep losing like in 2017 forever if it means they stay in Downing Street forever.

But there we are, that certainty of yours that I pointed out.

In the last few months, it has become clear that the anti-Brexit forces in Parliament will fail, and then the pro-Corbyn ironic Europhile Londoners will fall back. It has also become clear your guy has learned nothing. He is still pushing puerile anti-American and anti-Israeli causes, to the point of disingenuity when people are being killed in his country (but maybe that was the CIA). He just commiserated upon the obliteration of graffiti featuring, I kid you not, an international conspiracy of rich men with big noses (link to coverage by vile capitalist kulakite rootless-cosmopolitans in the Guardian).

[EPG]

(As a conciliatory gesture, I offer a hostage to fortune. I'm suggesting that Labour will lose Kensington next time, even if they hold Crewe. Laugh if they don't. I can't understand the obsession on all sides with fish and I don't think fish will matter, at least in Kensington, or any other English seat. But the 2017 coalitions will change, and a lot of London targets will be fools' gold.)

I agree that Corbyn's greatest strength is his distinctive personality allowing him to attract ex-voters of the Green Party, far-left parties and a lot of Lib Dems, groups who do not really care about niceties he transgresses. It alienates people who already distrust Labour, like most Jewish voters. That's usually costless, but may also have led to a greater intensity of support for the government. Unknowable.

I interpret the cryptic comment as saying that Corbyn is now safe to depart at a time of his choosing without a coup. If so, I agree on that too. But if he really has that ability to get through on an unnoticed frequency like the rogue component of a Fourier transform, it may not do much good either way to lose both the up and the down.