UK General Discussion: 2017 and onwards, Mayhem

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

It's clear (and always has been) to me that Corbyn is not an ideal leader for a large number of reasons, and the smug "PWNED BLAIRITES!" rhetoric from his side since the election is beyond annoying and complacent (if understandable); but it's even more clear that the strategy of the Right to his rise has been vapid, moronic and really betrays the long term collapse in the post-Blair Right's mode of thinking.

Basically both assumptions of the two sides - either that there is a huge mine of TRUE LEFT untapped voters who are longing for pure socialism (and with it the endless wankery about frivolous issues like Trident and Palestine) or the median voter theorem (that all swing voters are Rational Centrists TM or, even more laughable, that they are "fiscal conservatives but social liberals") - are both bunkum. Most voters don't give two hoots about political theory or whatever factional guff the Labour Party finds itself in; nor do they care about Twitter drama: they care about "issues" and optics. And although the public at large seeem to find Corbyn weird, unstatesmanlike and obsessed with fringe matters the perception of his internal opponents is that they are superficial and career focused, something which would not be helped by your diagnosis of "INSERT YOUNG CHARISMATIC INDIVIDUAL HERE". I like Sadiq, but the idea that he is the one to save the key seats in the Midlands is beyond foolish.

[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.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

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

[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.

[Cassius]

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.

[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.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

An odd feature of the 2017 locals was that the tone of commentary was set by the first few results in - which were indeed appalling for Labour - and not by what then followed, which was a much more complex picture. An telling feature of them was the unusual attention given to Wales before the results came in and pretty much zero attention given to Wales the following day. An amusing detail was Laura von Kuenssberg briefing that Labour was likely to lose its majority in Durham - in the event the majority was quite comfortable - after having obviously had a very quick check at the results website and not noticed that pretty much all the divisions left to declare were coalfield ones.

[IceAgeComing]

There has been a small shift in the polls, although its hardly as significant as many are implying; we've gone from a very small Labour lead of something like 1% to a very small Tory lead of something like 1%. 

The "LABOUR SHOULD BE 20% AHEAD!!!" thing is a silly argument though for a variety of reasons.  Firstly; we're only seven or eight months removed from the General Election and we're still at the point where historically government poll ratings may not have fallen much at all.  Secondly a lot of the issues faced by the government aren't really things that are affecting people now: its about division in the Tory Party (which isn't exactly a new issue; it was a significant reason why she went for an early election) and POTENTIAL problems caused by Brexit which haven't hit yet and people tend to base their votes not on potentials but on the current situation which isn't actually that bad for the government.  Thirdly; we're not that far removed from a General Election which dramatically Polarised people's opinions and unlike most other General Elections in recent history both parties have retained their leaders - indeed the last time this happened was after the 1987 Election (I'm excluding February 1974 because we don't know what would have happened if Labour hadn't gone when they did, plus also it kind of proves the above as well because that was a no change election) and the polls then remained constant with the Tories leading for most of the early term of that government until you get into 1990.  That may well suggest that in the immediate post-election period without dramatic changes to the parties or the major issues - as has happened here - voters are a lot less elastic and generally are less likely to swing away from their party unless the situation dramatically changes.  There's also the fact that we basically have a two party system again and that may well affect the way that many respond to polls: many of those who in the past would have said the Libs or UKIP to the opinion polls clearly aren't anymore and that may well make voters a lot more firm in their partisan affiliation.

There's also the fact that this is a bit of a unique situation for the UK: we've never really had a government call an early election and get embarrassed in this way whilst staying in government: the two unsuccessful examples that had government going vaguely early (Labour went in 1970 after three and a half years because they were running high in the polls after three years of misery; the Tories went in February 1974 after around three and a half years because of the miners strike and the issues that it caused) led to the government being defeated which is different to the current situation.  Because this is new we don't have any historical data to fall back on that fits the current situation so we can't definitively say that either Labour or the Tories are under or over performing.  I'm of the opinion that the status quo (the big two parties basically tied with the others nowhere) will likely remain constant until we have a clearer idea what the future of the UK post-March 2019 is which we don't at the moment.  Even then its unlikely to hit significantly unless the situation post-Brexit gets very dire quickly which you might expect if the American economy starts to misbehave around that time.

An odd feature of the 2017 locals was that the tone of commentary was set by the first few results in - which were indeed appalling for Labour - and not by what then followed, which was a much more complex picture. An telling feature of them was the unusual attention given to Wales before the results came in and pretty much zero attention given to Wales the following day. An amusing detail was Laura von Kuenssberg briefing that Labour was likely to lose its majority in Durham - in the event the majority was quite comfortable - after having obviously had a very quick check at the results website and not noticed that pretty much all the divisions left to declare were coalfield ones.

Doesn't this always happen in elections though?  The narrative is drawn up in advance and then the election results are interpreted to fit that narrative - look at the people still trying the "Labour did very badly in Leave areas" after the General Election when that underperformance cost them; what; three seats - and three seats with other factors that might explain the result at that?  Another example of that was Peter Kellner claiming that after five seats were in (which at the time showed no net swing I believe; perhaps a small swing to the Tories) that the results in proved that the Tories were heading for a 100 seat majority!

[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.

[Blair]

I was going to come on here and post some form of rant but IceAgeComing puts my thoughts perfectly.

It's a guess, but polls don't tend to shift that dramatically after elections. Nothing drastically has changed since June, for people who voted Conservative to suddenly love Labour (and/or Corbyn) so there's not a shift in the polls. The differences (all within the margin of error) show that at the moment an election would produce another hung parliament; just the number of seats depends on turnout/the smaller parties etc etc.

Corbyn remains what he always has been; a very good campaigner, but a very average parliamentary performance. The only opposition who've had an essential open goal was Blair after '94, and that required an economic collapse, and one of the worst Governments in Britain (combined with one of the most effective machines in New Labour)

I feel like this should be pinned as a disclaimer, but the assumed wisdom has been virtually always been wrong in British Politics since 2015. We've got a rather weird economy (with record employment figures, but with rising inflation/stagnant wages), two massive political culture issues with Scottish Independence and Brexit, and a lot of voters who are proving willing to act erratically (be they UKIP/Lib Dem/Tories in London etc etc) 

[Leftbehind]

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.

[Silent Hunter]

Some of us are just remembering the concerns raised during Ed Miliband's leadership, which were borne out in 2015.

[Leftbehind]

Some of us are just remembering the concerns raised during Ed Miliband's leadership, which were borne out in 2015.

Well those concerns led most to believe Labour were a write off at the last election (with many of the same concerned to have egg all over their faces). So we've had two experiences with polar opposite lessons. All we can really do is believe we're competitive but not be too complacent about it, which I think for the most part Labour are doing.  

[Leftbehind]

There has been a small shift in the polls, although its hardly as significant as many are implying; we've gone from a very small Labour lead of something like 1% to a very small Tory lead of something like 1%.

I also find it hilarious to see the possibility of Labour storming the local elections waved off as irrelevant, but a MOE movement amongst the largely disgraced UK pollsters signalling the Conservatives on course for a win! In reality both are unrepresentative, unfortunately.

[Blair]

It's also significantly likely that neither May or Corbyn will be leading their parties when the next general election actually swing away

[Babeuf]

It's also significantly likely that neither May or Corbyn will be leading their parties when the next general election actually swing away

If Corbyn decides to step aside, who do you think he would anoint as his successor? Thornberry? Rayner? Would Pidcock have a shot or is she way too new?

[Leftbehind]

It's also significantly likely that neither May or Corbyn will be leading their parties when the next general election actually swing away

If Corbyn decides to step aside, who do you think he would anoint as his successor? Thornberry? Rayner? Would Pidcock have a shot or is she way too new?

However agreeable Thornberry & Rayner are, they're for the most part soft-left, so if he was going to go through the trouble of anointing a successor I'd assume Pidcock would be the likeliest of those you mentioned. In reality all would have a chance in a leadership election.

[LabourJersey]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nireland-politics/ireland-britain-to-seek-to-re-establish-northern-ireland-talks-idUSKCN1FZ0U7

Can anyone with a better understanding of NI politics explain what this is means for May and/or the Brexit talks?

It seems that NI is really dominating british politics for the first time in a while

[Blair]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nireland-politics/ireland-britain-to-seek-to-re-establish-northern-ireland-talks-idUSKCN1FZ0U7

Can anyone with a better understanding of NI politics explain what this is means for May and/or the Brexit talks?

It seems that NI is really dominating british politics for the first time in a while

I'm on my phone so will give a short answer- no big impact.

Northern Ireland's devolved government has to include power sharing between the Unionst (DUP) and the Republicans (Sinn Fein) but the last one collapsed over a boring scandal+ a general decline in relations between both sides. If they can't reach a new agreement then London has to take over running the government.

A not directly related but important factor is that 8 DUP MPs are supporting May and they don't want any Brexit deal that imposes radically different terms on NI than the rest of the UK.

[Blair]

It's also significantly likely that neither May or Corbyn will be leading their parties when the next general election actually swing away

If Corbyn decides to step aside, who do you think he would anoint as his successor? Thornberry? Rayner? Would Pidcock have a shot or is she way too new?

I've seen Dan Carden suggested; newly elected MP who use to be an aide to Len McCluskly who runs UNITE; the biggest trade union in the UK.

I don't think Pidock would run; but she'd have a good chance of winning. As left behind says the fact that I'd happily vote for Rayner/Thornberry, but not Pidock shows they're not that left wing.

Outside the Cabinet; I'd expect Chukka Umunna to run; maybe Sadiq Khan

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Could McDonnell run? He would undoubtedly become a Corbyn stand in, although I guess if Corbs wants to pass the baton to a younger generation he might pass.

Doubt Khan would run, he would risk alienating the Left and therefore his re-election; plus I've never really got the vibe he wants it.

[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.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Actually I think a hardcore Remainer could probably get quite a substantial vote based on Labour's current membership demographics, although not enough to win.

I think the person that is most likely to run and fail hard is Stephen Kinnock.

[ViaActiva]

Bold prediction: David Lammy runs for leadership more than a decade after his expiration date as the personification of everything wrong with Remoan Twitter and received a well-deserved single-digit result.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsR4Nx-ELgc



I'd add Keir Starmer to the list of names mentioned - probably the only candidate who would attract support from all sections of the party. Not that he'd necessarily win of course with the leftward tilt of the party membership. Whoever positions themselves as Corbyn's natural successor would be the favourite.

[IceAgeComing]

The last time the Tories won a working majority (defining my terms: a working majority is distinct from an overall majority in that the latter is a mathematical thing while the former also suggests that their majority almost guarantees that their legislative programme passes - ie enough to cover by-election losses, defections and rebellions) was 1992; since then they’ve lost three elections (two of them massive landslides), been the largest party in hung parliaments in two (both of which were seen as under performances, especially 2017) and a majority of 12 in 2015 which is amongst the smallest majorities since the war.  This idea that the Tories are the natural party of government is really rather out of date; they certainly haven’t been able to put together a coalition that’s big enough to give them even a decent overall majority.

Also the idea that minority governments and intrinsically popular because they can’t pass anything is just... weird and certainly not true in the UK context.  Labour governed with a minority from 1976 for three years and lost bad in 1979 for example.  Indeed going back to World War 1 no government elected as a minority and governing as a minority party has improved their situation in the next election bar 1974 which is a different case to now - a newly elected government seeking a majority.  If you’re using history you also need to consider this.

One other fact: we’ve already seen what happens if the Tories go fully after the Leave voter - or at least their imagination of the Leave voter.  They hemmorage seats that they’ve held forever - some of them never had been Labour before -  and end up being on the losing side of a 20,000 majority in a seat that they won in 2010 and for what?  Three gains from Labour and tepid swings in safe Labour seats while annoying lots of very Tory voters especially in London which has lots of places where the Tories should be competitive in.  If your strategy results in Labour swings in every region of the country bar the West Midlands (and even that was like a 1% swing) and Scotland (special case; the Scottish Tories ran a very different campaign) while resulting in a 10% swing from the Tories to Labour in London strikes me as being very misguided.  Most Tory voters may have also voted leave but that 30% who didn’t are key for them and they can’t win without them and they found the 2017 Tory campaign and the direction that the party went in unpalatable.