United Kingdom General Elections: December 12th, 2019

[vileplume]

There are no such thing as Brexit or Remain seats!

A Labour- Tory marginal seat in the Midlands that voted 52-48 leave is still a million times different to a 52-48 leave voting Lib-Tory marginal in the South West. Equally a 24 year old single mum who voted leave in the first seat is a lot different to a 57 year old professional who voted leave in the second seat.

We’re talking about groups respectively of 17 and 16 million people; and any voter between the age of 18-21 couldn’t vote in 2016 by my maths.

We know seats that ‘voted leave’ can still easily vote for the Lib Dem’s- we already have examples of this when the Lib Dem’s won before- Carshalton, Westmoreland, Brecon and Radnorshire and Eastbourne to give four.

The Lib Dem’s even now are not just a stop Brexit Party; they’re actually a cash rich, Uber local, and activist led party with a strong local base. They have a history of winning seats they shouldn’t by getting local people to run on bin collections who win as a council, then run the council, then win the seat etc. They also have regions of historic strength that did well for them at the local elections.

Fairly sure Westmorland & Lonsdale voted Remain.

But otherwise yes, I mostly agree with this. Remain-Leave is going to be a divide in this election (and people who claim that its not going to be important and other issues will take over are kidding themselves) but it will be far from the only issue and the ones that have ruled British politics for decades are not going to magically disappear.

And by the way, even if it was, you guys understand there are Remain voters even in Leave seats right? So even if the Lib Dems were only improving among Remainers, their vote share would still go up in Brexity seats if it goes up nationwide by the amount currently predicted.

Well in a seat like North Norfolk the Lib Dem share in 2017 is extremely artificially high. If Lamb had stepped down in 2015 the Tories would've won it easily and it would've had a further swing towards them in 2017 to the extent that it would now look like a safe Tory seat with the Lib Dems a long way behind. Thus given the nature of this election I reckon North Norfolk is a likely Tory gain.

[vileplume]

Fairly sure Westmorland & Lonsdale voted Remain.

Comfortably at that. South Lakeland council (of which Westmoreland and Lonsdale is the vast majority) was 53% Remain. On top of that the bit of South Lakeland not in the Westmoreland and Lonsdale constituency, principally the town of Ulverston, would've been solidly Leave. This would mean the Remain vote in Westmoreland and Lonsdale was approximately 54%-55%.

[vileplume]

US House seats are like 10 times the size (typical population of like 700,000 people) of a UK Parliament constituency (typical population of like 70,000 people). They are correspondingly much easier to poll.

Well British constituencies are drawn based on registered electorate not on population so they will all in reality have populations significantly larger than their registered electorate of ~75,000. However the point does stand, constituency polling is atrocious in the UK. Lord Ashcroft invested a lot of money doing them for the 2015 election but they were all way wide of the mark (in this case they tended to massively underestimate the Tories and massively overestimate the Lib Dems).

[vileplume]

It is pretty clear that unless they change something major and fairly soon* that we will start to see, and maybe this will even occur soon as in a decade, a major structural fall in Conservative support; something akin to the declines suffered by the Cold War People's Parties in German-speaking countries. Or, for that matter, similar to the decline in turnouts seen here as the Wartime Generation started to depart in the 1990s.

It is true that people become more conservative as they grow older, but this does not mean that they will automatically become more likely to vote for the Conservative Party. This was not the case with earlier generations, particularly. It has been with older people recently for very specific material factors which cannot and will not be replicated: teachers will not be retiring to golden handshakes and final salary pensions, for instance. That's before we consider the property issues.

Of course this will play no role in the present election.

_{*Which can hardly be ruled out: this is British politics.}

Great post!

Whilst it at present looks likely the Tories will win this election (of course that could change) sooner or later they will lose power for the simple reason that the electorate will be sick of them after a decade+ in power and that's before we even consider any economic downturns that may be on the horizon. When they do lose I believe it will likely usher in a significant period of left rule, probably led by someone more competent and likeable than Corbyn, in which the Tories are confined to an infighting irrelevance whilst the left push through transformational change (e.g. how Labour was in the 80s when the right was in its ascendancy).

Eventually the Tories will have to come up with a way to appeal to Millennial and Gen Z voters (and indeed ethnic minority voters) and if they do they will eventually return to power when Labour has run its course, probably led by a Blair-esque centrist looking person. If they fail to do this however they risk a party like the Lib Dems eclipsing them as the major party of the centre-right (the Lib Dems do appear to be moving in the direction of becoming the party of centre-right metropolitans with their newfound strength in Wimbledon, Putney, Chelsea, Wokingham, Esher etc.)

Of course we could get Proportional Representation by then which would completely realign the political landscape in ways that would be very difficult to predict.

[vileplume]

An important thing to note about Corbyn is that while he's ultra-popular with Labour supporters, he's slightly less popular than most of the major diseases among non-Labour supporters. And Labour need some of the latter to win. Normally I'd say this means that Corbyn's Labour has a high floor but a low ceiling (as far as such a remark would be useful when talking about British politics), but given Boris has a fairly similar weakness, it makes this election even more unpredictable. Which side will benefit the most from 'hold their nose' voters?

Corbyn is not that popular with Labour voters, a large chunk aren't keen on him in the slightest (hence why his national approval ratings are so utterly dire). Labour Party members on the other hand (very different group of people) do genuinely seem to see him as a Messiah-esque figure. Though sadly for him their views are totally out of whack with everyone else's, even Labour voters.

[vileplume]

tonight's debate may have some bearing on that (I'm not one of those who thinks they can never change anything - and tbh am surprised at those who do, given Cleggmania wasn't *that* long ago)

Cleggmania didn't change anything though. It gave Clegg a momentary blip but the overall effect on the election was actually fairly minimal. And that's when he was the clear winner over Brown and Cameron, whereas both Johnson and Corbyn are so bad at debating I'm not sure there can be a clear winner. And even if there is a decisive winner, there's still three weeks until the election, plenty of time for other shiny things to make people forget the debate even happened.

I am surprised Theresa May is running again.  Last few PMs seems to have retired from politics after they left the PM spot.

As I said in my predictions, her becoming the female Ted Heath would be such a perfect end to her story.

Why did Clegg do worse than Kennedy in seats?

Because most Lib Dem seats/target seats are 'naturally' Tory leaning. In 2010 the Tory's vote share nationally went up significantly more than the Lib Dem's did and so consequently the Lib Dems made net losses to them. They did gain ground on Labour in many 'metropolitan' seats (e.g. Streatham) but not enough to flip many of them and hence despite 'Cleggmania' they ended up losing a net of 5 seats.

In the opposite way in the Blair landslide of 1997 the Lib Dem's vote share decreased but they gained a net of 26! seats. This was because the Tory's vote share fell by an awful lot more (hence they gained a lot of Tory seats) and as the surging Labour Party still wasn't competitive in most Lib Dem held or target seats (meaning they only lost a couple of seats in that direction).

[vileplume]

Easily visible Map format. Remember that third parties and tactical voters like the Unionists or Lib-Dems got underpolled last time.

Great maps thanks! Just to let you know Brecon & Radnorshire should be Tory, the Lib Dems are quite a way behind in this model.

[vileplume]

Great maps thanks! Just to let you know Brecon & Radnorshire should be Tory, the Lib Dems are quite a way behind in this model.

That was a value call. Last time, they seriously missed the other By-Election flip in Copeland, saying that it would return rather nicely to it's former owner because the general data is based  off of the  last election. So, if there was a color for 'weird' that would be it.

Fair enough except there's quite a few blue seats that I reckon the LDs stand a better chance of winning than Brecon. Firstly they barely won it in a by-election (their forte) in an area of traditional strength, secondly rural celtic fringe areas aren't exactly the kind of areas where they are primarily appealing atm and thirdly the MP isn't exactly inspiring and thus I doubt has anything in the way of a personal following. Brecon has all the hallmarks of a Tory regain IMO.

[vileplume]

What is that one area on the southeast tip of England that is labour?

Canterbury. University, remain, the whole shebang. Very different from rest of Kent, which is more  like the East of England politically. Labour picked it up last time slimly, after a near 100 years of tories, a length that was extended by LD/Lab splits in the town center. Frankly, I'm surprised Stroud isn't a Lab hold, since it was  in a slightly similar situation last cycle.

Funnily enough the Canterbury district did vote narrowly Leave. I imagine Herne Bay (in North Thanet) was emphatically for Leave which just tipped it? Even so I'm still surprised that the Remain vote in the rest of the district didn't outweigh it.

[vileplume]

Side question, but was wondering why in Liverpool Labour tends to have some of the highest margins in the country and Tories struggle to crack double digits.  I can see in some parts of Birmingham or London which are predominately non-white why this might happen or in university towns, but Liverpool is not especially young and it is fairly white or at least close to 90% white.  Any particular reason?

The Tories have an especially negative reputation in the Greater Liverpool region dating back to the Thatcher era when the city went into a significant period of accelerated decline and it was perceived that the government didn't care (government documents from the 80s have emerged in the last few years detailing a plan for the city's 'managed decline'). Given Liverpool's troubles it unsurprisingly lost a huge amount of population (the population approximately halved(!) between 1931 and 2001) with those demographics more likely to be sympathetic to the Tories being disproportionately likely to leave and move to somewhere like rural Cheshire (e.g. comfortably off, private sector manager types). I believe it is said that: 'there are Tory Scousers except none of them live in Liverpool!'.

Those who remained in Liverpool, a generally Labour demographic as is, near unanimously blamed the Conservative Party for ruining their city (not entirely fairly as there were other factors at work). This antipathy towards the Tories has filtered down the generations and remains very strong even though the city has recovered somewhat from its nadir. The movement of newly affluent Scousers to areas surrounding Liverpool since the 90s such as Crosby and the Wirral Peninsula has caused a significant weakening of the Tory position in these areas as the new residents bring their 'inherited' dislike of the Tories with them.

Another not-often discussed but nevertheless significant factor is that traditionally one of Conservative Party's best ways of getting their message across to the working/lower middle class is the Sun newspaper. However the Sun (referred to as the S*n by the Liverpool Echo and others) is reviled on Merseyside and has a derisory readership due to its false coverage of the Hillsborough disaster (96 Liverpool FC fans were crushed to death at an away match in Sheffield due to negligent police control) where it blamed the disaster on Liverpool fans and fabricated stories about their behaviour. Even 30 years aversion to the paper is still extremely strong effectively becoming ingrained in the regional psyche and consequently the Sun's target demographic in this region opt primarily for the left-leaning Mirror.

[vileplume]

Obviously there is some disagreement about the historical voting tendencies of the Jewish population, but it is very interesting to see the recent poll with a large majority going to the Tories.

Obviously here in the United States, the Jewish population is overwhelmingly Democratic regardless of income level.

My thought is that it would be that the Jewish population is solidly center-left and resistant to nationalism and social conservatism yet solidly pro-Israel. The Dems fit that bill pretty well, whereas Labour has been less pro-Israel on foreign policy.

Yet, I would think that that would cause Jewish voters to defect to LibDems rather than the Tories - especially today's loony Eurosceptic Tory party.

British Jews do not have the same political outlook as American Jews. British Jews are  mostly centre-right and generally supportive of Cameron-Osbourne-esque economic policies. Unsurprisingly they've been generally a Tory demographic since Thatcher. Yes they are suspicious of overt nationalism but they don't tend to see the Tories as such, instead viewing them as the 'pro-Jewish' party.

[vileplume]

FWIW those constituency polls don't exactly suggest the Tories are running away with it as certain national surveys indicate. And btw to one poster above, 38-35-24 isn't *really* a "three way tossup"

To be fair the vast majority of these DeltaPolls are in strongly Remain areas where you'd expect them to do significantly worse than average. The only one they've conducted in a strong Leave area (Berwick) had them doing very well.

[vileplume]

True enough, but Southport (which voted narrowly leave) only has a 1% Lab to Tory swing.

I've seen different estimates on Southport, some have it as ~53% Remain. Regardless though there seems to be an underlying pro-Labour trend in Southport probably due to increasing influence from Liverpool. Whilst I don't think they'll get it this time going forward it'll definitely be a top target.

[vileplume]

The polls were pretty widespread, but the average suggested a clear Tory majority. Kind of like now...

There had been polls showing only very small Tory leads  (1% and 2%) so the writing on the wall was there it's just most people (including me) chose to ignore it. The YouGov forecast also fairly accurately predicted what was coming though most people thought it was a joke. This time the Tory lead hasn't dipped that low in any poll (well at least yet) and has remained much more steady over the course of the campaign. Whilst I am ruling nothing due to there being a chance that all polling is massively out, the fundamentals do look more rosy for the Tories than at this point in 2017.

[vileplume]

I find that people frequently misunderstand what a Portillo moment is. It isn't just 'someone high profile losing their seat' - there were plenty of those in 1997 and in every election since.

There are two elements to it - first it needs to be some so high profile that their absence from parliament fundamentally shifts the future of their party. Portillo losing his seat meant he couldn't run for the leadership of the Tory party for instance. Second, it needs to be completely unexpected. Saying 'I think x is a candidate for a Portillo moment' means that x cannot be a Portillo moment, because you expect it as a possibility. The real Portillo moment would be y losing their seat that nobody thought was even remotely likely to flip.

Therefore, Boris or Raab can't be Portillo moments this election because it's now fairly common knowledge their seats are at least somewhat vulnerable. If Corbyn or Patel lost, then that would be a Portillo moment. Of course, neither of them would lose in a trillion years, but you get the point...

Angela Rayner going down in Ashton-under-Lyne would be the best example of a 'Portillo moment' should it happen: up and coming shadow cabinet minister and potential future leader, strongly disliked by her political opponents, who has a seat considered safe (though not utterly bombproof like Corbyn's). Rayner's current majority of 28.4% is pretty similar to Portillo's '92 majority of 31.8% as well.

There has also been some (probably false) murmurs that Labour is deeply unhappy with what they're seeing in the Ashton constituency and YouGov only has her winning by 12%. People forget that in the run up to '97 there was a poll in the Observer only showing Portillo winning Enfield Southgate by 3%, so the warning signs were there but most people just chose to ignore them. This is similar to the situation with Rayner as there has been some (probably not credible) reports that she could be in trouble that most people (including me) are choosing to dismiss.

In all likelihood she will hold the seat easily but if somehow she manages to lose, it would definitely be the next 'Portillio moment'.

[vileplume]

So front runners to succeed Corbyn? Will Watson make a bid?

I really hope it's Ed Miliband.

Bailey/Rayer (Corbyn Left)
Thornberry/Starmer (Soft Left)
Phillips (Right), won't win

I presume she's only running to boost her media profile further? Phillips would hate being leader anyway (I agree she stands 0% chance of winning) as it would mean she'd lose her slot on all the political panel shows. She really is much more at home being a TV rent-a-gob as opposed to actually having any position of responsibility.

[vileplume]

So front runners to succeed Corbyn? Will Watson make a bid?

I really hope it's Ed Miliband.

Bailey/Rayer (Corbyn Left)
Thornberry/Starmer (Soft Left)
Phillips (Right), won't win

I presume she's only running to boost her media profile further? Phillips would hate being leader anyway (I agree she stands 0% chance of winning) as it would mean she'd lose her slot on all the political panel shows. She really is much more at home being a TV rent-a-gob as opposed to actually having any position of responsibility.

Ah yes a women who ran a refuge for abused women & is one of parliaments leading voices against domestic violence clearly has no desire for any responsibility...

Besides you're thick if you think becoming leader means you lose time on TV.

A lot of being leader is people talking about you not to you. You didn't see Corbyn and Johnson regularly appearing on all the political shows for example. I think most people would agree Phillips rather enjoys her 'backbench media darling' status as she gets to appear on TV all the time and say exactly what she thinks. For this reason I think she'd be deeply unsuited for a cabinet/shadow cabinet role because I can't see her managing to stick to the party line if she personally wasn't sold on it. As a backbencher though she can freely talk about the issues she cares about, and given that she's one of the most well known backbench MPs, people tend to listen to her.