Who will replace Theresa May as Conservative leader?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 03:57:30 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  International General Discussion (Moderators: afleitch, Hash)
  Who will replace Theresa May as Conservative leader?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3
Poll
Question: ?
#1
Boris Johnson
 
#2
David Davis
 
#3
Amber Rudd
 
#4
Philip Hammond
 
#5
Ruth Davidson
 
#6
Jacob Rees-Mogg
 
#7
Damian Green
 
#8
Priti Patel
 
#9
Liam Fox (joke option)
 
#10
Michael Gove (see above)
 
#11
Other vaguely prominent Tory
 
#12
Somebody literally nobody has ever heard of
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 68

Author Topic: Who will replace Theresa May as Conservative leader?  (Read 5454 times)
MAINEiac4434
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,269
France


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -8.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: October 10, 2017, 03:34:02 PM »

Rees-Mogg so that Corbyn sweeps into No. 10.
Logged
Hnv1
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,505


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: October 11, 2017, 02:54:36 AM »

Rees-Mogg is exactly what people hate about the Tories, he named his sixth child Sixtus ffs
Logged
parochial boy
parochial_boy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,114


Political Matrix
E: -8.38, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: October 11, 2017, 07:10:08 AM »

Remember that the internal workings of the Conservative party are absolutely rutheless. I think that would prevent any of the extremist or ridiculous candidates from having a real go.

On that basis, probably Amber Rudd or Phil Hammond.
Logged
PoliticalShelter
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 407
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: October 11, 2017, 07:37:01 AM »
« Edited: October 11, 2017, 07:38:53 AM by PoliticalShelter »

Johnson or Patel.

I like Patel. She'd be the next Thatcher, and someone who can clearly communicate conservative principles in a ruthless, but honest way.

Johnson is seen as too much of a political animal.

Not sure the UK is ready for a non-white PM.
I'm pretty sure that if America can elect a non-white president from the left-leaning party, Britain can accept a non-white PM from the right-leaning party.

Not comparable. The Democrats won despite losing whites, no British party can afford to lose their (much larger) majority population.
First off the democrats are the left leaning party whereas Patel would be running under the right leaning party where this would be less of problem (unless you think that a non-white republican would lose the white vote to a white democrat, in which case you are a moron).

Also Britain does not have the racial tension that is present in America and it clearly would be less of a problem to be a non-white candidate and I don't know why I am arguing against something as ridiculous as the UK isn't ready for a non-white leader (while America is).
Logged
LabourJersey
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,145
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: October 11, 2017, 11:00:42 AM »

Probably Davis or Hammond.
Logged
Blair
Blair2015
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,816
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: October 11, 2017, 11:33:42 AM »

Johnson or Patel.

I like Patel. She'd be the next Thatcher, and someone who can clearly communicate conservative principles in a ruthless, but honest way.

Johnson is seen as too much of a political animal.

I wouldn't rate her that highly; the problem is that Thatcher had 4 years to grow into the job- where as Patels' only hope is she gets promoted to something like idek Business? and then can become PM in 2019. It will be hard to jump from International Development Secretary to PM, and she'd be pretty easy fodder for Labor to attack (voted against gay marriage,supports death penalty, former lobbyist, close to the Tobacco industry etc)

However she could easily get into the final round of voting as The Anti-Boris Choice for Leavers (as Leadsom did in 2016) and if she's facing Amber Rudd or another liberal remainer she could easily win. I subscribe to the theory that Tory leaderships are won by whoever survives against the unpopular frontrunner (Clarke in '97, Portillo in '01, Davis in '05, Johnson/Osborne in '16) I actually put money in my history seminar sweepstakes on Patel; so yeah I'd imagine she could win.

On the issue of race; to put it blunty she's a daughter of Indian immigrants who left Uganda so it's not an issue; our first non-white PM will from an Indian/Pakistani background (as people would be much happier to vote for an Indian than a black PM I'd imagine)
Logged
Dr. MB
MB
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,813
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: October 11, 2017, 05:32:16 PM »

Probably Boris Johnson. But it's not like I care or would support any of them over Corbyn.
Logged
mileslunn
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,800
Canada


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: October 12, 2017, 09:15:57 PM »

I know most probably will disagree with this, but I think it should be Boris Johnson.  Sure a bit of a buffoon at times, but people like someone they can relate to.  He is pro Brexit as most who are staunchly anti-Brexit aren't voting Tory anyways, urban, and a one nation conservative so fairly moderate.  This shows https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdTQFl2m1c4 why he connects well with people and would be a good choice for the next leader and prime-minister. 

I also think Labour should dump Corbyn and replace with Sadiq Khan.  Yes Corbyn is popular amongst millennials and those more on the left, but he scares away the centrist you need to win whereas Khan connects well with millennials without scaring off older voters or centrist ones.  Right now with the mess the Tories are in, Labour should have at least a 10 point lead, yet they are only two points ahead and if an election were held today they would have a hung parliament with Labour ahead by only 10 seats and under 300 seats.  Despite Corbyn outperforming what many including myself thought his room for growth is quite limited.  Khan is like Justin Trudeau or Barack Obama, can appeal to millennials, but also not scare away older voters whereas Corbyn is more like Sanders, Melenchon, GreenLeft in Netherlands, or Podemos in Spain, popular with younger voters but scares the heck out of centrists.  I know this likely won't happen but my wish is to see Boris Johnson as Conservative leader and Sadiq Khan for Labour in the next election, you would have two strong and very capable leaders which Britain could be proud of no matter who won.
Logged
cp
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,612
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: October 13, 2017, 03:23:58 AM »

you would have two strong and very capable leaders which Britain could be proud of no matter who won.

Not with Johnson, I'm afraid.

Perhaps you have to live in this country to fully perceive this, but Johnson's public persona and political appeal is not how you describe it. He's as divisive as Donald Trump is or Stephen Harper was - utterly loathed by his ideological opponents and irritating to a wide swath of his own tribe as well. What you allege as his moderation and urbanity is based, as far as I can tell, on the fact that he was mayor of London. This might have been the case 5-10 years ago, but since the referendum he's pursued an avowedly hard-right/hard Brexit form of opportunism, making him toxic to centrists and cityfolk alike.

Also, being 'urban' isn't what it used to be. Again, 10 years ago when the conventional wisdom was that growth, diversity, cosmopolitanism, and unrestricted financial markets (read: London) were a good thing for everyone, Johnson's style of urbanism fit the bill. To centrist/moderate/urban/surburban voters he represented a bridgehead for the Tories: a sign that a stuffy, provincial, insular party could compete in the big, sexy, modern world of London (alongside the suave New Labourites who were in charge at the time). His pedigree made that case convincing: born abroad, Eton/Oxford educated, media savvy, and refreshingly unkempt when compared to the stolid figures elsewhere in the Tory party.

Now the mood has shifted. Super elite backgrounds and slick image management are much more cause for suspicion and derision, if not outright contempt, than previously. The reputation of London, its finance-dominated economy, and the wider system of inequality it helped perpetuate, are equally out of fashion. As as result, Johnson's profile doesn't come off as something people relate to anymore. His background looks ridiculously elite and out-of-touch. His 'buffoonery' comes off as a well practiced act (this is more due to him being around so long and the shtick wearing off). And his association with the policies of high neo-liberalism before the crash and austerity afterwards puts him at odds with the prevailing winds of populism, wealth redistribution, and renewed government intervention in the economy.

As for Corbyn and Khan, Corbyn is certainly divisive, but in the last election he pulled in as much of the electorate as Tony Blair did in his prime. He might not have much more room to grow with centrists or people over 45, but with the Tories imploding he doesn't really have to. Khan is a solid politician, but he lacks the charisma of Obama or Trudeau. To be honest, he has more in common with Sanders than Corbyn does - middle class background, hails from an ethnic minority, pragmatic rather than idealistic.
Logged
mileslunn
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,800
Canada


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: October 13, 2017, 01:51:37 PM »

you would have two strong and very capable leaders which Britain could be proud of no matter who won.

Not with Johnson, I'm afraid.

Perhaps you have to live in this country to fully perceive this, but Johnson's public persona and political appeal is not how you describe it. He's as divisive as Donald Trump is or Stephen Harper was - utterly loathed by his ideological opponents and irritating to a wide swath of his own tribe as well. What you allege as his moderation and urbanity is based, as far as I can tell, on the fact that he was mayor of London. This might have been the case 5-10 years ago, but since the referendum he's pursued an avowedly hard-right/hard Brexit form of opportunism, making him toxic to centrists and cityfolk alike.

Also, being 'urban' isn't what it used to be. Again, 10 years ago when the conventional wisdom was that growth, diversity, cosmopolitanism, and unrestricted financial markets (read: London) were a good thing for everyone, Johnson's style of urbanism fit the bill. To centrist/moderate/urban/surburban voters he represented a bridgehead for the Tories: a sign that a stuffy, provincial, insular party could compete in the big, sexy, modern world of London (alongside the suave New Labourites who were in charge at the time). His pedigree made that case convincing: born abroad, Eton/Oxford educated, media savvy, and refreshingly unkempt when compared to the stolid figures elsewhere in the Tory party.

Now the mood has shifted. Super elite backgrounds and slick image management are much more cause for suspicion and derision, if not outright contempt, than previously. The reputation of London, its finance-dominated economy, and the wider system of inequality it helped perpetuate, are equally out of fashion. As as result, Johnson's profile doesn't come off as something people relate to anymore. His background looks ridiculously elite and out-of-touch. His 'buffoonery' comes off as a well practiced act (this is more due to him being around so long and the shtick wearing off). And his association with the policies of high neo-liberalism before the crash and austerity afterwards puts him at odds with the prevailing winds of populism, wealth redistribution, and renewed government intervention in the economy.

As for Corbyn and Khan, Corbyn is certainly divisive, but in the last election he pulled in as much of the electorate as Tony Blair did in his prime. He might not have much more room to grow with centrists or people over 45, but with the Tories imploding he doesn't really have to. Khan is a solid politician, but he lacks the charisma of Obama or Trudeau. To be honest, he has more in common with Sanders than Corbyn does - middle class background, hails from an ethnic minority, pragmatic rather than idealistic.

But has Britain really swung that much to the left.  In urban areas and amongst younger voters perhaps, but amongst older voters and areas outside the big cities, results seem to suggest the opposite as I believe May got 60% of the senior's vote which even Thatcher couldn't do and nationally the Tories are still around 40% which for the past quarter of the century they have been unable to do (mind you the implosion of the Liberal Democrats and UKIP has helped push their numbers up and also Labour's too).  Canada has definitely swung leftward, but I've always thought Britain was more polarized than Canada so you can certainly make those on the left more ideological as we are seeing, but you cannot pull those on the right over to the left like you can in Canada, it's more like the US where those on the right will stay there.

If you look at the youtube video, it seems to show Johnson is quite popular with people and connects much better than May who is very wooden in her demeanour.  Sidaq Khan has a net approval rating of +40 which is well above any politician and while it wouldn't be that high nationally, I am sure it would be positive whereas Corbyn as a negative net approval rating, just not as bad as May.  The problem for Labour is they can easily beat the Tories in seats, but getting a majority would require a much stronger swing than any polls suggest thus why I think they need someone who can pull away centrists much like Blair did.  While it's true Corbyn got almost the same percentage as Tony Blair did in 2001, more than 2005, and not far off 1997, Blair was far less polarizing so many centre-right voters were willing to go Liberal Democrat when they tired of the Tories whereas Corbyn is so toxic to those right of centre they will stay Tory to keep him out.  To win a majority he needs the Liberal Democrats to rebound in the rural South and UKIP to do better and neither seems likely at the moment.
Logged
Phony Moderate
Obamaisdabest
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,298
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: October 13, 2017, 01:59:04 PM »
« Edited: October 13, 2017, 02:05:48 PM by Phony Moderate »

The Lib Dem vote declined in 1997. More of the Tory vote that year probably swung to the Referendum Party than to the Lib Dems (even in the South), and even more just stayed home entirely.
Logged
parochial boy
parochial_boy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,114


Political Matrix
E: -8.38, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: October 13, 2017, 02:14:41 PM »

The thing is, voters don't fall into neat little buckets like "left wing" or "centre" or whatever. As a lot of recent polling has demonstrated, even Conservative voters have a fairly high propensity to support left wing policies like rail renationalisation or higher taxes on the wealthy (both issues which are given as "proof" of Corbyn being an unelectably extremist left-winger, but both issues on which he has the support of the British public).

The kind of "Centrist" voter who is put off by Corbyn is much more likely to be older and focused on cultural issues, or softer personal qualities like "leadership"; all of which builds much more into the narrative that is spun for, and by, politicians. Much more so than their position on any arbitrary political spectrum.

Britain is hugely polarised, yes, but fundamentally, there are a lot of people who are uninterested, frustrated, and to use the french term "dégagiste" that can come on board, or who will sign up to a narrative. Think of all of Thatcher's landslides even when she was absolutely hated by nearly half the population.

As far as BoJo goes - he is on record saying some pretty Social Darwinist stuff, along the lines of people who are rich are just better people; and has been outed as being pretty incompetent in the fall out of the Brexit referendum (reciting a poem about colonial Burma at a temple in Myanmar...). CP put it perfectly to be honest, in that he has gone from being a loveable dolt to someone who creates a lot of frustration across the spectrum.

And for Sadiq Khan. Three things to remember -
1) The Mayor of London virtually always has high ratings
2) don't fall into the "Centrism = more electable" fallacy. In the last election, both the Tories and Labour increased their support precisely by driving away from the centre. Like I said, narrative outweighs policy.
3) He is vey much a guy who is a great fit for Cosmopolitan, Liberal London; but a terrible fit for the rest of the country (and I don't mean "because he is a Muslim", but more because he is so pro-multiculturalism, and so willing to embrace diversity  - which is somewhat otu of fashion outside the big cities).
Logged
mileslunn
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,800
Canada


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: October 13, 2017, 05:02:45 PM »

I think it is questionable that May was more right wing than David Cameron.  Maybe on Brexit, immigration and social issues although she did vote in favour of gay marriage.  On economic issues she seemed more centrist as she favours a living wage, refused to ruled out raising taxes for the rich although unlike Corbyn it would be a last resort, talked about doing more on reducing inequality.  If you read the Tory manifesto it looks far more like something you would see from the Democrats than the GOP.  Even here in Canada, it is the type the old Progressive Conservatives would have put up, not the current Conservatives who are more right wing.  Also the total right wing vote went down in 2017 as lets remember UKIP got almost 14% in 2015 while 2% in 2017 so if you take the Tories + UKIP vote, it was 50% in 2015 while 44% in 2017. 

As for Corbyn's ideas, it is true raising taxes on the rich is popular as is the case in every country, but the danger is many wrongly assume it will hit the middle class as well thus why even though polls show taxing the rich is popular, politicians are generally reluctant to run on this.  Renationalization may seem popular, but the cost is the biggest barrier.  Otherwise most Brits believe privatizing Utilities, Royal Mail, and Rail was a mistake, but undoing it is not easy.  In addition much of the swing towards Labour was in the large urban centres.  If you look at the coal fields in the North, Labour didn't gain much and Tories gained more.  Traditional Labour constituencies like Copeland, Walsall North, Stoke on Trent South, Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland, Ashfield, and Derbyshire Northeast were all lost while in Newcastle under Lyme, Dudley North, Stoke on Trent North, Penistone and Stocksbridge, Barrow in Furness, and Bishop Auckland Tories came a lot closer than they normally do to winning them.  Never mind there were many constituencies Blair won where Corbyn was not competitive such as along the Channel line in Kent which went for Blair as recently as 2005 but Corbyn lost by 20 points or much of Staffordshire which Blair dominated but Corbyn lost badly.  In many ways Labour has the same problem as the Democrats in the US, they are running up the margins in the big cities, but struggling in the hinterlands.

Sadiq Khan maybe more your liberal cosmopolitan type, but that would appeal to millennials just as much as Corbyn and it wouldn't scare older voters as much.  Justin Trudeau unlike Corbyn was able to win/be competitive in the hinterlands (whether he holds those seats in 2019 is a different story) and wasn't largely confined to the large urban centres (although they were strongest there) and he was progressive but not as radical as Corbyn.
Logged
cp
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,612
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: October 14, 2017, 04:12:47 AM »

I think it is questionable that May was more right wing than David Cameron.  Maybe on Brexit, immigration and social issues although she did vote in favour of gay marriage.  On economic issues she seemed more centrist as she favours a living wage, refused to ruled out raising taxes for the rich although unlike Corbyn it would be a last resort, talked about doing more on reducing inequality."

I think that underlines parochial boy's point that it's futile to try to pigeonhole people/parties/countries into discrete ideological groups. Is May 'left wing' because she's adopted Labour-inspired economic policies? Are the people who voted UKIP in 2015 and Labour in 2017 (as about 1/3 of erstwhile UKIP supporters did) now 'left wing'? Is the UK as a whole more 'right wing' than Canada because of Brexit or because Canada has allegedly shifted to the left? I'd say the answer to all these is 'no' because the categories of 'left wing and 'right wing' are just too clumsy and imprecise to accurately describe the political situation at the moment.

Logged
Blair
Blair2015
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,816
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: October 14, 2017, 04:24:07 PM »


And for Sadiq Khan. Three things to remember -
1) The Mayor of London virtually always has high ratings
2) don't fall into the "Centrism = more electable" fallacy. In the last election, both the Tories and Labour increased their support precisely by driving away from the centre. Like I said, narrative outweighs policy.
3) He is vey much a guy who is a great fit for Cosmopolitan, Liberal London; but a terrible fit for the rest of the country (and I don't mean "because he is a Muslim", but more because he is so pro-multiculturalism, and so willing to embrace diversity  - which is somewhat otu of fashion outside the big cities).

Agree on the first one. Disagree on the 2nd as Sadiq isn't a centrist; he's still relatively on the soft left of Labour.

Very much disagree about the last one; I don't see how he's 'pro-multiculturalism' anymore so than any other Labour MP (besides the resident cranks) Besides he's a muslim who was raised in a council flat by his Dad who was a bus driver.

Sure his views on the EU are probably a bit too remainy for a lot of the country but I don't think people who voted for Jeremy Corbyn are suddenly going to say 'oh wait Sadiq is too metropolitan'.

I think it is questionable that May was more right wing than David Cameron.  Maybe on Brexit, immigration and social issues although she did vote in favour of gay marriage.  On economic issues she seemed more centrist as she favours a living wage, refused to ruled out raising taxes for the rich although unlike Corbyn it would be a last resort, talked about doing more on reducing inequality."

I think that underlines parochial boy's point that it's futile to try to pigeonhole people/parties/countries into discrete ideological groups. Is May 'left wing' because she's adopted Labour-inspired economic policies? Are the people who voted UKIP in 2015 and Labour in 2017 (as about 1/3 of erstwhile UKIP supporters did) now 'left wing'? Is the UK as a whole more 'right wing' than Canada because of Brexit or because Canada has allegedly shifted to the left? I'd say the answer to all these is 'no' because the categories of 'left wing and 'right wing' are just too clumsy and imprecise to accurately describe the political situation at the moment.



Objectively May is to the right of Cameron; on devolution, immigration, brexit, fox hunting etc. Her relatively stale interventionism (e.g energy caps) on the Economy has only slightly shifted the party; she went into an election basically keeping all of the cuts that Osborne put forward, and didn't even try and change it

Never mind there were many constituencies Blair won where Corbyn was not competitive such as along the Channel line in Kent which went for Blair as recently as 2005 but Corbyn lost by 20 points or much of Staffordshire which Blair dominated but Corbyn lost badly.  In many ways Labour has the same problem as the Democrats in the US, they are running up the margins in the big cities, but struggling in the hinterlands.

This is partly true; and was very much what happened in 2015; but Labour actually won suburban seats like Enfield Southgate which IIRC we lost in 2005, and there are a fair few seats similar to that. I wouldn't put our problems quite as bad as the democrats; since there's clearly areas for Labour to get a majority in the next election (pick up seats in Scotland, hoover up M25 London seats, pick up close marginals like Hasting)

I agree Labour has a problem in it's traditional ex-industrial seats like Copeland; but I don't see any Labour leader who could fix that
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,192
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: October 14, 2017, 05:18:45 PM »

Yeah, I think a lot of people came into the election expecting to us have similar problems with the Democrats - political types probably read too much American news and get confused - but it really didn't happen, and I doubt the much hypothesized "collapse in the heartlands" would have happened even if, I dunno, Tristram Hunt or Chuka Ummuna was leading the party. Labour is weaker than it was in certain areas of the Midlands especially, sure, but that's no reason to lose our heads. in fact, I feel the major ex-industrial seats that have fallen from Labour are rather atypical.

As for Sadiq, I get the impression he's somebody who really likes being Mayor and is not interested in returning to Westminster.
Logged
parochial boy
parochial_boy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,114


Political Matrix
E: -8.38, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: October 14, 2017, 07:47:54 PM »

Oh I didnt mean to say that Khan was a centrist. I was just responding to the point that he is more moderate than Corbyn and therefore more electable. If that was true, Liz Kendall should have become leader - but we all know that was never going to work.

As for "pro-multicultutal" I mean, he, very much to his credit, is very explicit about his views on immigration or that he views diversity as being a good thing, which are opinions that even Corbyn shies away from vocalising. I dont doubt a Khan led Labour party would still win in the heartlands, my point was more that his brand of soft-leftism isnt going to win back the kinds of once upon a time marginal seats around the Thames estuary that are now solidly conservative (and yes I know demographic changes are to blame here - but Labour still needs to win seats in areas that arent solidly working class if it is to form a majority, because the country's demographics have changed)
Logged
Phony Moderate
Obamaisdabest
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,298
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: October 14, 2017, 08:39:25 PM »

A lot depends on how you define 'marginal'. Rochester and Strood, for example, is certainly winnable in a good election for Labour but would be Tory in an average election (the Tory majority in Medway - the predecessor seat - was about the same in 1992 as it is now). A few in that area (the Thanets for example) actually look more rosy for Labour than they did in 1992.
Logged
mileslunn
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,800
Canada


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: October 14, 2017, 10:06:46 PM »

A lot depends on how you define 'marginal'. Rochester and Strood, for example, is certainly winnable in a good election for Labour but would be Tory in an average election (the Tory majority in Medway - the predecessor seat - was about the same in 1992 as it is now). A few in that area (the Thanets for example) actually look more rosy for Labour than they did in 1992.

In Kent, Dover is probably the most marginal but still would take a very big swing.  Mind you it does seem when seats in Kent go Labour they tend to swing much more heavily than the country as a whole and likewise against when they go Conservative.  For example I don't think many thought Canterbury was winneable going into the last election.  That being said they have a large university with a young population which probably tipped it in favour whereas I am not sure if any other Kent constituencies have favourable demographics.  I think the coastline from Shoreham to Hastings is probably where the Labour in the Southeast should aim to sweep asides from Caroline Lucas' constituency and Lewes and Eastbourne (the Liberal Democrats are the main challenger in those two).  In many ways there isn't a huge string of constituencies in any area they can win, rather it is getting Scotland in the central belt to swing behind them while elsewhere picking up another 30-40 seats in various marginals.  A few areas I can think of though is Lancashire seems to have a lot of marginal ones with only a few safe for each party so trying to pick up most but not all of the remaining Tory ones is one place.  Another thing I've noticed is if Labour wins usually you can drive from Nottingham to Liverpool going only through Labour constituencies provided you take a detour going from Nottingham to Sheffield (there are still some holes there) and then Sheffield to Liverpool (you couldn't do that in 2010 or 2015, but can in 2017) only passing through Labour constituencies.  West Midlands is a big problem as Labour got a favourable swing but in all the wrong areas.  The biggest were central Birmingham which was already solidly Labour or the southern rural areas which they were never going to win anyways.  In the Birmingham suburbs and Stoke on Trent, there was a strong swing towards the Tories.
Logged
parochial boy
parochial_boy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,114


Political Matrix
E: -8.38, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: October 15, 2017, 09:34:53 AM »

A lot depends on how you define 'marginal'. Rochester and Strood, for example, is certainly winnable in a good election for Labour but would be Tory in an average election (the Tory majority in Medway - the predecessor seat - was about the same in 1992 as it is now). A few in that area (the Thanets for example) actually look more rosy for Labour than they did in 1992.

Rochester and Strood has always been slightly different to the other Medway/Thames Estuary seats though. It's always been that little bit posher and that little bit more "countercultural" (Rochester Castle and all).

The Thanets I think are more in line with the massive swings that occured in many coastal towns (Bourmemouth and Worthing for example) than indicative of any particular Labour resurgence in East Kent.

Looking at the other Thames estuary seats in Kent and Essex, where they swung Labour at all, it was by less than the national average - and places like Dartford still swung towards the Tories.

As for Sadiq Khan, I guess what I am getting at is - in a world where the divide is if Labour should target non-voters (which Corbyn did very well) or the mythical "swing voters", I think Khan is a bit too much of a generic Labour politician to sway either the former, in the way that Corbyn did; or the latter group.
Logged
JonHawk
JHawk
Rookie
**
Posts: 213


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: October 15, 2017, 04:55:09 PM »

A typical safe boring tory like Hammond or Davis. Kind of curious how Rees-Mogg would do in a general though.
Logged
Anzeigenhauptmeister
Hades
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,373
Israel


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: October 16, 2017, 04:41:26 PM »

Since celebrities being in political position has become a normal thing, why not Adele?
Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,144
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: October 17, 2017, 08:41:24 AM »

Is there any chance of Gove managing to hobble together the votes to win the leadership election?
Logged
Slow Learner
Battenberg
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,022
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: October 19, 2017, 05:27:27 PM »

Patel isn't next-PM material. Maybe the next IDS (opposition leader in lean year), but not at all a successor to May.

Is there any chance of Gove managing to hobble together the votes to win the leadership election?
LOL

his performance in 2016 was already outperforming expectations no way he's winning
A typical safe boring tory like Hammond or Davis. Kind of curious how Rees-Mogg would do in a general though.
No chance of it being Spreadsheet Phillip, tbh.
Logged
mileslunn
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,800
Canada


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: October 19, 2017, 06:39:59 PM »

Patel isn't next-PM material. Maybe the next IDS (opposition leader in lean year), but not at all a successor to May.

Is there any chance of Gove managing to hobble together the votes to win the leadership election?
LOL

his performance in 2016 was already outperforming expectations no way he's winning
A typical safe boring tory like Hammond or Davis. Kind of curious how Rees-Mogg would do in a general though.
No chance of it being Spreadsheet Phillip, tbh.

I think when you look at things realistically Boris Johnson is the best choice.  Amber Rudd is a good one but the danger is her seat is a very marginal one and the swing was bigger than the national so you could have the Tories win nationally but she loses her own seat.  At the very least she would need to move to a safer seat.  Ruth Davidson who helped the party gain seats in Scotland seems like a good choice, but don't think she is interested.  So I believe for all his flaws Boris Johnson is still the best choice of those who could realistically be leader.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.083 seconds with 14 queries.