Next UK General Election

[cp]

What are the odds of Jo Swinson becoming a "Macron '17" electoral figurehead?

Slim to nil. No shade to Swinson. She's a good choice for the Lib Dems and a really nice person (I met her at London Pride this year). There's just no real chance of swaying hard core Tory or Labour supporters; even at their nadir the Tories/Labour pull in 45% of the vote, and that's outside of an election campaign.

Something that's more plausible is the Lib Dems leapfrogging the Tories/Labour/Brexit Party into official opposition, most likely in the case of a Labour victory caused by Tory meltdown.

[CumbrianLefty]

Some people seem to be taking the recent European election results too seriously here.

Said elections were always a low turnout, protest vote dominated business - but that increased exponentially this time round because of the circumstances in which they were held (which helped explain the unwillingness of both "big" parties. for varying reasons, to run a proper campaign)

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Question to people who keep up with this sort of news: have the government ... forgot about the Boundary Commission, and the fact that our constituencies are based on data from the early 2000's? Is this going to lead to some Old Sarum situation in a couple decades? The political parties seen to be operating under the assumption we'll be using the same borders we have now, given they are not selecting candidates for seats in the 2018 review, and I can't see the incoming government wanting to irritate backbenchers with the Cameronite pseudo populist pledge to cut MPs.

(Not to mention the 2018 plan would turn BJ's seat into a labour marginal, and remove Corbyn's seat entirely).

[Gary J]

Question to people who keep up with this sort of news: have the government ... forgot about the Boundary Commission, and the fact that our constituencies are based on data from the early 2000's? Is this going to lead to some Old Sarum situation in a couple decades? The political parties seen to be operating under the assumption we'll be using the same borders we have now, given they are not selecting candidates for seats in the 2018 review, and I can't see the incoming government wanting to irritate backbenchers with the Cameronite pseudo populist pledge to cut MPs.

(Not to mention the 2018 plan would turn BJ's seat into a labour marginal, and remove Corbyn's seat entirely).

In theory the government is still preparing the Orders in Council to give effect to the boundary reviews, but in practice nothing has happened or is likely to happen before an early general election.

[Epaminondas]

What are the odds of Jo Swinson becoming a "Macron '17" electoral figurehead?

Macron was not projected to win at all until the January Conservaggeddon of the Canard Enchainé revelations on Fillon's nepotism.

Even then, Fillon only lost about 6 points, but that was just enough to miss the runoff.

Given how hardened to corruption Conservative voters around the world have become under the Trump influence, and how MPs are selected locally, it is hard to imagine something equivalent for the Lib Dems.

[Tintrlvr]

What are the odds of Jo Swinson becoming a "Macron '17" electoral figurehead?

Macron was not projected to win at all until the January Conservapocalypse of the Canard Enchainé revelations on Fillon's nepotism.

Even then, Fillon only lost about 6 points, but that was just enough to miss the runoff.

Given how hardened to corruption Conservative voters have become around the world under the Trump influence, and how MPs are selected locally, it is hard to imagine something equivalent for the Lib Dems.

Surely it depends on what Johnson does (or doesn't do) as PM. He's not exactly coming into office highly recommended by his peers, and there are viable alternatives for pretty much all Conservative voters out there.

[Epaminondas]

Given how hardened to corruption Conservative voters have become around the world under the Trump influence, and how MPs are selected locally, it is hard to imagine something equivalent for the Lib Dems.

Surely it depends on what Johnson does (or doesn't do) as PM.

What would it take to push a crumbly from Christchurch or Sevenoaks to withhold their vote for a local Con MP?

I don't think there is anything that would break that connection, however dismally PM Boris turns out to be.

It is his huge fortune that PMs are not directly accountable to the voters, merely the party.

[Oryxslayer]

a majority of the electorate has no attachment to one party or another. Comparatively few voters are not going to change their minds no matter what happens.

So Brexit has trumped every moral value about assisting the poor, defending the NHS, supporting community development, opposing xenophobia?

Come off it.

My family in England wouldn't touch the Conservative party with a ten-foot pole, even if the Tories did produce their magic money tree.
They might hesitate between Labour (though they despise Corbyne) and Greens, but that's the range of their hesitations.

I suspect things are the same for many.

However I will concede that Lib Dems have really managed a repositioning coup, placing themselves in the middle for the next election.

Congratulations, your family are not part of the majority of voters. However, Brexit has upended the system and the issues that people care about for the majority of voters making any predictions about the political future uncertain to the nth degree.

Let me explain, since this all sounds like a opinion. Polarization is a psychological phenomenon. very few people have values to the extreme right/left of the national spectrum, rather most people's political values resemble a bell curve. This has been confirmed by polling again and again. What determines ones loyalty is when their first national vote is cast. At the age of 21 maybe education is the most prominent issue. 40, maybe taxes and rent. 65, pensions and healthcare. Alongside these generic age related issues there are also era issues like the Vietnam war motivating on cohort of voters, or stagflation motivating another. This voter casts their vote based on their opinion on said issue, and that vote becomes psychologically part of of their identity. Just like Race, religion, or class, this vote becomes part of who you are as a person and you are that much more likely to follow said vote up with similar votes in the future. As the perceived hurdles to voting decrease with age, it becomes easier for someone to cast their first vote, but if they cast it when they are older, its more likely to be a conservative vote because of said issues. This is why the elderly are a renewable political resource and the supposed 'death' of conservative parties never comes. Also, everyone starts at a different psychological position when they cast these first votes - some people were born into a lockstep Labour family and then casting a conservative vote will not erase all their previous identity from the group-oriented socialization. A single vote only moves you on a spectrum, but it is easier to replicate said single vote. Most of this is a summerization of  “Does Choice Bring Loyalty? Electoral Participation and the Development of Party Identification." by Elias Dinas.

Now, there is often only one way to break these psychological bonds on polarization, the UK is currently in the middle of this upheaval. New issues becomes so prominent, unavoidable, and all consuming that what becomes a 'generic issue' gets reforged into something different. So people now still possess their old identity, but the spontaneous insertion and then reorientation around said issue makes that polarized piece of a voters identity useless. The new crisis builds a new polarized identity on top of the old, gradually replacing the one that came before. And as new votes are cast around said new upheaval, it unmakes the old identity. This is in addition to of course generations being raised during said upheaval, who are going to eventually enter the political system with a different idea of what the parties stand for.

 What I am describing is a realignment, and the UK is currently  going through one right now. This is why I have been following UK politics more then US since 2017. If you have any doubt, look at what happened in Scotland. Scottish nationalism was a backburner issue before 2014, with the big driver of SNP in 2011 being disgust with labour. But after the referendum, the entire ideological spectrum in Scotland began to change into one around Unionist or Seperatist. Now, voters who voted to Remain in the EU and once voted labour are casting blue ballots because the Scottish tories are the union party. Everything is tied back to this separatism debate, and the generation coming of age today only knows Scottish politics in this context. So while it may be a struggle for an older voter to cast a ballot for 'Maggie's party' or 'the Separatists,' anyone with less party loyalty has broken their old polarized ways in favor of the new Unionist/Seperatist spectrum. The same thing is happening south of the border in regards to Brexit. Every issue has been reoriented around this all-consuming impasse in the commons, and the vote cast in 2016 seems to have more say over ones identity than the one cast in 2015. Like the civil rights debate of the 60s in the US, Brexit has redefined what it means to be on the left or on the right, and once polarized voters are now examining their identity in the context of Brexit and the greater sovereignty debate. Ones identity as remain/leave is more important then their old loyalty. This is how you end up with places swinging 50 points from the tories/labour in 2017 to the fierce remain camp of Greens/LDs/CHUK in the EU election. And while the EU election is a low turnout contest, huge swings cannot be ignored.

Also the vote bases are going to be geographically concentrated, so universal swings are worse than inaccurate.  

Odd claim, given that 2017 saw exactly that: a quasi-universal swing to Labour of around 8%.

[/quote]

You really believe that 2017 was a universal swing? No, Labour gained the most where the remain voters were, because that's what they were in 2017, the most likely electoral vehicle to both back remain and win the election. The majority of these swings where Labour gained absurd vote totals can be found in Remain heavy London, Her suburbs, or Urban centers elsewhere.



These voters are now all in the Lib Dem camp, for obvious reasons. This, and other contests like the EU and the locals offers insight into the parties geographic base. In a 25/25/25/25 contest, LDs are going to do better in the South and Greater London, Brexit in the NE and East, Labour in Urban cores in the north/midlands, and the tories probably in rural ridings, but this is less certain.

[parochial boy]

I think those swings in Cornwall, Devon and West Kent would undermine the argument of a Brexit based realignment though.

I mean, it is more or less a manifest truth that the 2017 GE wasn't primarily about Brexit, and that it wasn't just, or even mostly, Brexit that motivated people to turnout out, or to vote the way they did. Especially as far as Labour is concerned.

Even those swings in London weren't purely about Brexit. It was about Labour striking a cord on the types of issues that, in particular, large urban areas like London face - housing costs, utilities, public infrastructure, badly paid precarious jobs and so on. Even in the "wealthy" seats like Kensington or Battersea which swung hard left; you still have lots of people living in deprivation, in poor quality housing or flat shares and the like; and Labour's campaign struck a chord with them in 2017 - not just becuase of Brexit. (and to add to that, yes it's an interpretation of the EU elections results - but I think the swings in minority heavy parts of London did show us that poorer Asian or Black people in London are not particularly motivated by Brexit as an issue, but getting them to turn out explains a lot of what happened in 2017).

[Oryxslayer]

I think those swings in Cornwall, Devon and West Kent would undermine the argument of a Brexit based realignment though.

I mean, it is more or less a manifest truth that the 2017 GE wasn't primarily about Brexit, and that it wasn't just, or even mostly, Brexit that motivated people to turnout out, or to vote the way they did. Especially as far as Labour is concerned.

Even those swings in London weren't purely about Brexit. It was about Labour striking a cord on the types of issues that, in particular, large urban areas like London face - housing costs, utilities, public infrastructure, badly paid precarious jobs and so on. Even in the "wealthy" seats like Kensington or Battersea which swung hard left; you still have lots of people living in deprivation, in poor quality housing or flat shares and the like; and Labour's campaign struck a chord with them in 2017 - not just becuase of Brexit. (and to add to that, yes it's an interpretation of the EU elections results - but I think the swings in minority heavy parts of London did show us that poorer Asian or Black people in London are not particularly motivated by Brexit as an issue, but getting them to turn out explains a lot of what happened in 2017).

Yes, there will always be outliers, but I tend to think the handfull of outliers doesn't disprove the 150+ urban and suburban ridings. Brexit of course wasn't the only issue, but it was the major issue of 2017. And it is now the only issue. This ties back to my post on the first page, how corbyn gets too much credit for 2017. He certainly did well, then, and low-income, youth, and minority groups were certainly activated by the labour campaign. But the majority of votes were remain votes, that would have come as long as labour was closer to remain than May, no matter who the leader.

This map also ignores the places where the LDs picked up the remain vote overwhelmingly like Bath, SW greater london, a oxford seat, and a few other seats, hurting both other big parties in 2017.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

There are only three ridings in Great Britain and they are all in Yorkshire.

[mileslunn]

I think those swings in Cornwall, Devon and West Kent would undermine the argument of a Brexit based realignment though.

I mean, it is more or less a manifest truth that the 2017 GE wasn't primarily about Brexit, and that it wasn't just, or even mostly, Brexit that motivated people to turnout out, or to vote the way they did. Especially as far as Labour is concerned.

Even those swings in London weren't purely about Brexit. It was about Labour striking a cord on the types of issues that, in particular, large urban areas like London face - housing costs, utilities, public infrastructure, badly paid precarious jobs and so on. Even in the "wealthy" seats like Kensington or Battersea which swung hard left; you still have lots of people living in deprivation, in poor quality housing or flat shares and the like; and Labour's campaign struck a chord with them in 2017 - not just becuase of Brexit. (and to add to that, yes it's an interpretation of the EU elections results - but I think the swings in minority heavy parts of London did show us that poorer Asian or Black people in London are not particularly motivated by Brexit as an issue, but getting them to turn out explains a lot of what happened in 2017).

Yes, there will always be outliers, but I tend to think the handfull of outliers doesn't disprove the 150+ urban and suburban ridings. Brexit of course wasn't the only issue, but it was the major issue of 2017. And it is now the only issue. This ties back to my post on the first page, how corbyn gets too much credit for 2017. He certainly did well, then, and low-income, youth, and minority groups were certainly activated by the labour campaign. But the majority of votes were remain votes, that would have come as long as labour was closer to remain than May, no matter who the leader.

This map also ignores the places where the LDs picked up the remain vote overwhelmingly like Bath, SW greater london, a oxford seat, and a few other seats, hurting both other big parties in 2017.

Corbyn is more pro-remain than Johnson although it doesn't seem genuine.  Many think he is a leaver at heart and only moving somewhat in remain direction as most of his party are remainers.  Lets remember much of traditional old Labour vote, i.e. labour unions in industrial North did vote heavily leave, its just that Labour's coalition has changed a lot since then and its more your urban younger educated types, not your blue collar union types.  To be fair Tory coalition has changed too as it used to be your upper middle class business types while now more your older rural types and former generally voted remain, latter heavily leave.

[Epaminondas]

I think those swings in Cornwall, Devon and West Kent would undermine the argument of a Brexit based realignment though.

Thank you for the map, but its colouring is deceptive.
Here it is again with a filter of pink for "swing to Labour less than the nation" rather than light blue.

Suddenly it looks a lot more like a nationwide swing, and nothing like a Brexit doppelgänger.

[Oryxslayer]

I think those swings in Cornwall, Devon and West Kent would undermine the argument of a Brexit based realignment though.

Thank you for the map, but its colouring is deceptive.
Here it is again with a filter of pink for "swing to Labour less than the nation" rather than light blue.

Suddenly it looks a lot more like a nationwide swing, and nothing like a Brexit doppelgänger.

(*shrugs) Our current site measures tread by taking a locality and then seeing if it swung further than the overall contest. So the 'median' is the state/county/nation-wide swing, and then any bonus is a positive trend. Any regions that swung towards you but failed to match your overall swing are considered to be trending against you. So that's why things got colored the way they did.

To be frank though, I have the full nationwide swing map measured by percentage - it's actually the first ever electoral map I made! As long as you recognized that the London+Home counties Circle swung hard AF for labour when compared with the nation, we good. Like it starts with just -7% swings but it in general becomes 10, 15 or more when you get close to or enter thee city. Hornsey & Wood Green Has the strongest overall swing with a 15% swing to Labour from LDs, but the strongest Lab-Tory in the region come in the corridor of seats just west of City of London: places like Holborn & St Pancras, Kensington, and Ealing Central & Acton.

[beesley]

The Lib Dems and Greens were supposed to announce some joint candidates, but that didn't happen.

[CumbrianLefty]

The Lib Dems and Greens were supposed to announce some joint candidates, but that didn't happen.

I wonder if certain events this week have caused a bit of a hitch there?

[Conservatopia]

The Lib Dems and Greens were supposed to announce some joint candidates, but that didn't happen.

I wonder if certain events this week have caused a bit of a hitch there?

Definitely part of the reason.

[MillennialModerate]

I was hopeful that the the Brexit party would make some serious gains in the next general election, thus blocking the Tories reign on Government. But I can’t see them winning more than half a dozen seats in the next general election & with Corbyn leading Labour into the ground - could be looking at a second run of 14+ years of conservative rule

[Gary J]

Corbyn represents a faction of the Labour Party. He has no real interest in building bridges to the majority of the Parliamentary Labour Party let alone to other non-Conservative political forces. Indeed the Corbynites probably regard everybody to their right, including most Labour MPs, as really being Tories.

So long as Corbyn and his followers control the Labour Party they will block any real chance of progress. They cannot attract enough support themselves, but can easily block anyone else from doing so.

I do not see any real chance of avoiding Brexit, without a deal.

An early general election, if one is timed before the problems of Brexit become undeniable, could well produce a large parliamentary majority for the Conservative Party on a historically low share of the vote.

[cp]

I was hopeful that the the Brexit party would make some serious gains in the next general election, thus blocking the Tories reign on Government. But I can’t see them winning more than half a dozen seats in the next general election & with Corbyn leading Labour into the ground - could be looking at a second run of 14+ years of conservative rule

I think that's a little premature and pessimistic (for Labour, anyway). Corbyn defied expectations in his leadership contests and the 2017 GE and has come closer to power than anyone ever expected. His shortcomings aren't irrelevant but they're also not the Achilles heel most of his critics have (incessantly) insisted they are.

As for the Brexit Party, I saw an analysis of their projected seat/vote share couple weeks ago on Twitter and it's quite compelling reading (for Labour, anyway). The Brexit Party doesn't need to win any seats for them to mortally wound the Tories. So long as they're pulling anywhere above 10% of the vote they will deplete Tory vote totals in marginal constituencies across England, handing them to Labour or the Lib Dems, and certainly denying the Tories a majority. From 15-20% they start picking up a handful of seats and the Tories drop into second place overall. 20% is the tipping point, after which the Brexit Party starts picking off Tory seats left and right, while scores of other Tory safe seats start falling to Labour due to vote splitting.

[cp]

Cabinet ministers have been summoned to Downing Street for an "impromptu and unexpected cabinet meeting" with Boris Johnson.

Though this might not turn out to be the informal declaration of intent, conventional wisdom is coalescing around the idea that an election call is imminent.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

If it comes to that - and the phrasing of the various briefings has been odd so I haven't a clue - everyone's favourite piece of legislation, FTPA, could potentially make things complicated, particularly given the timescale issues currently floating around.

Not just because it isn't clear what Labour would do this time (to the extent that it isn't even clear if Labour would pull in one way), but because if the idea is to pull this if the vote tomorrow is lost and they go through with the threats to auto-deselect any Conservative MP who votes for it... well, why would they then vote for dissolution at this moment?

[urutzizu]

At this point Boris Johnson would de facto be running on a no-deal platform if there is a snap election. Any time there was for renegotiation (not that there could be much of a compromise on that anyway) would be gone. He cannot negotiate with the EU and run an election campaign at the same time. Either he is planning to massively con his voters after winning a huge mandate, or, most likely, he has given up any pretense and is determined to go for no-deal whatever the cost.

[cp]

That does seem to be the inexorable logic of the situation, but I struggle to see how this works out well for Johnson. Blagging and dissembling about 'wanting a deal but preparing for no deal' is easy enough when Parliament isn't sitting and you can keep media access to a minimum. But in an election Johnson will be expected to be on camera often and expected to provide detail of why no deal is necessary and why it won't be a catastrophe. That is, to say the least, a tall order even for the most effective communicator.

Oh, and that's not bringing up the fact that in an election there will be 600ish local Tory candidates, most of whom vehemently do not want to see a no deal exit, knocking on doors and saying whatever they can to save their own jobs.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

If it comes to that - and the phrasing of the various briefings has been odd so I haven't a clue

...and subsequent leaks have been even stranger.