UK Politics: You Didn't See That Coming

[The BlackBear]

The majority isn't enough for them to turn to infighting. Surely they'd have a bit of truce?

[Chaircat Meow]

Cameron will be gone within two years. He's not right wing enough and that matters now.

He is a winner though. Surely that counts for something. This is the first outright victory since 1992.

[Maltaran]

The majority isn't enough for them to turn to infighting. Surely they'd have a bit of truce?

Never underestimate how quarrelsome right wing Tory back benchers can be - Major's post 92 problems are likely similar to what Cameron can expect.

[ab aeterno]

Personally, I don't mind proportional systems, but I think in such a case, there would need a vote for a party, and a vote for an individual candidate from that party, rather than just going with the list provided by the party.

I think the best proposals I've heard are either a bicameral system where the Senate is PR and the Commons is FPTP, or alternatively, a more federal system with a PR Senate legislating for the entire UK and the Commons acting as an English Parliament. Best of both worlds.

The majority isn't enough for them to turn to infighting. Surely they'd have a bit of truce?

The opposite is more likely to be true. It'll be fine for a while, they'll show some deference to him for winning, and he'll pass some laws that they favour. Once the honeymoon period is over they'll be very powerful, because it would only take a small number of them to block Cameron's legislation. Due to the Fixed Term Parliament Act, they can block Cameron as much as they want without running too much risk of triggering an election. More likely though is that Cameron would have to just shelve legislation they don't like.

IMO Cameron needs to give Boris a post like Deputy PM after his term as Mayor of London is up. He needs to tie Boris to him so closely that the backbenchers can't latch on to Boris as a figurehead.

[DJDonegal]

He is a winner though. Surely that counts for something. This is the first outright victory since 1992.

It counts in so far as he won't be kicked out immediately. That's why I said two years - got to give the right wingers time to forget and build up resentment.

[SeanF]

Don't you find it telling that in spite of the mansion tax, which everyone knew would unfairly penalise Londoners, London shifted to Labour in great numbers? They actually promised over and over to take money out of London to spend elsewhere on the NHS and they still got creamed.

I think that points to one of two things. Either, a lot more natural Labour voters were voting UKIP than previously estimated (since Scotland and London are the least inclined to vote UKIP and they went SNP and Labour respectively) or London wasn't as scared of a Scottish presence in Parliament as the rest of the UK was.

My own theory on the voting fallout is that Conservatives stole votes from Labour all over the country but particularly in marginals where it "mattered". A large portion of the Lib Dem vote collapsed into Labour, making it look like Labour were improving (when they weren't), while UKIP picked up the protest vote in most locations. Greens then picked up the hard-left elements from Lib Dems who, after all, were the ONLY party whose national share of the vote dropped. Everyone else made gains.

The Lib Dem vote jumping to Labour is the only thing that makes sense. The Lib Dems underestimated just how many of their supporters were natural lefties looking for an alternative to Labour who were jumping further to the right to fight the Conservatives. When Lib Dems then went into power with said Tories, there was only one home left for the Lib Dem vote to go.

While the Conservatives picked up Labour votes based on creating a fear of the Scots.

This theory is based on no empirical evidence whatsoever. The best source Labour will get for finding out what happened will be comparing what happened with Ilford North (where Wes Streeting gained for Labour on a 6% swing) against everywhere else that they didn't make the breakthrough.

Greater London isn't a monolith. It's a whole series of towns and villages that have grown into each other, but many of which still retain their distinct political culture. In Barnet and Harrow, the Conservatives performed very strongly. The first has plenty of Jewish voters; the second, plenty of Hindu voters. The first group is now heavily Conservative (thanks, in part, to Ken Livingstone). The second is upwardly mobile, and shifting away from Labour, in terms of voting preference. The Conservatives also performed very well in South West London, in Wandsworth, Richmond, Sutton & Cheam, and Kingston & Surbiton.

But, in general terms, I'd say you're correct. London is now 11% Muslim, and seats with big Muslim populations showed very big Labour votes. It has lots of students, lots of university workers, lots of professional people working in the public sector, and lots of people in professions like fashion, design, media, arts, who tend to favour Labour or the Greens. There was a survey for the TES that showed something like 60% of university workers planning to vote Labour, and another 20% planning to vote Green. So, London is now much more left wing, much more pro-immigration, and much more pro-EU than the country as a whole.

[Chaircat Meow]

It counts in so far as he won't be kicked out immediately. That's why I said two years - got to give the right wingers time to forget and build up resentment.

Tbh I assumed the election was a disaster for the Tory right, as it seems to have vindicated the Cameroons so completely. OTOH Labour did so badly they might be inspired to act against Cameron.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Personally, I don't mind proportional systems, but I think in such a case, there would need a vote for a party, and a vote for an individual candidate from that party, rather than just going with the list provided by the party.

That's the way we (and Germany, and Scotland at the Holyrood level) do it.

When we changed over from FPP to PR in 1992-1993, we did it via two referendums. The first one asked (1) should we change the voting system, and (2) if so what is your preferred alternative [list of five options]. The second one was a run-off between the existing system (FPP) and the most popular alternative. The alternative won, and we've been using it ever since.

[ab aeterno]

Tbh I assumed the election was a disaster for the Tory right, as it seems to have vindicated the Cameroons so completely. OTOH Labour did so badly they might be inspired to act against Cameron.

I actually think this election has favoured them, overall. Although it has benefited Cameron and bought him some time, there will be plenty of those in the party that think it would have been an even bigger majority if they had moved further right and picked up some of those 3.5m UKIP votes. Overall, I think it still favours the Tory right for three main reasons:

1) With a majority and no Lib Dems, Cameron no longer has the excuse that the Conservatives mathematically can't pass the legislation the right wants. Previously, he could lay the blame on the Lib Dems and partially shield himself. That's no longer an option; when he defies the right, he will have to take the onus on himself.

2) With a slim majority, Cameron now has the ability to give out more ministerial and cabinet positions. In order to keep the right in line, he'll have to give more of these to the right-wingers. It will mean greater consequences for defying him in some circumstances, but generally more power and influence.

3) Many, if not most, of the right-wingers are in very safe seats. A lot of them would even survive Lib Dem scale implosions; after all, they can afford to be to the right of the general electorate because their constituencies are as well. This means that they have a lot less to lose if things go wrong, and also that they can afford to rock the boat more than those in more marginal constituencies - their own voters would probably mostly applaud them for it. Conversely, a lot of the moderates are from more centrist leaning constituencies, marginals, swing-seats, and are generally less well entrenched. They have a lot to lose if the government should come down, so they might well blink first in any game of chicken between the two wings.

[Chaircat Meow]

I actually think this election has favoured them, overall. Although it has benefited Cameron and bought him some time, there will be plenty of those in the party that think it would have been an even bigger majority if they had moved further right and picked up some of those 3.5m UKIP votes. Overall, I think it still favours the Tory right for three main reasons:

1) With a majority and no Lib Dems, Cameron no longer has the excuse that the Conservatives mathematically can't pass the legislation the right wants. Previously, he could lay the blame on the Lib Dems and partially shield himself. That's no longer an option; when he defies the right, he will have to take the onus on himself.

2) With a slim majority, Cameron now has the ability to give out more ministerial and cabinet positions. In order to keep the right in line, he'll have to give more of these to the right-wingers. It will mean greater consequences for defying him in some circumstances, but generally more power and influence.

3) Many, if not most, of the right-wingers are in very safe seats. A lot of them would even survive Lib Dem scale implosions; after all, they can afford to be to the right of the general electorate because their constituencies are as well. This means that they have a lot less to lose if things go wrong, and also that they can afford to rock the boat more than those in more marginal constituencies - their own voters would probably mostly applaud them for it. Conversely, a lot of the moderates are from more centrist leaning constituencies, marginals, swing-seats, and are generally less well entrenched. They have a lot to lose if the government should come down, so they might well blink first in any game of chicken between the two wings.

Fact remains, a pro-EU, socially liberal modernizer won the election, despite right wing rebellion from UKIP. Can't be good for the non-Cameroon wing.

[SeanF]

I thought it was impossible for the Conservatives to win a majority if UKIP won 13%. It turned out that UKIP took as many votes from Labour as from the Conservatives, and the Conservatives targeting of Lib Dem seats and marginal constituencies was brilliantly effective. They won an outright majority with just 37% of the vote.

[ab aeterno]

Fact remains, a pro-EU, socially liberal modernizer won the election, despite right wing rebellion from UKIP. Can't be good for the non-Cameroon wing.

What outcome from the election could possibly have been better for them? Even a massive Conservative majority would have left them with less influence, and nothing short of a coalition with a massive UKIP contingent (such as might have been delivered from a PR system,) would have put them in a better position. This is literally the best case scenario for them.

ETA: At least in the short term.

[Chaircat Meow]

What outcome from the election could possibly have been better for them? Even a massive Conservative majority would have left them with less influence, and nothing short of a coalition with a massive UKIP contingent (such as might have been delivered from a PR system,) would have put them in a better position. This is literally the best case scenario for them.

ETA: At least in the short term.

Ed Miliband winning.

I thought it was impossible for the Conservatives to win a majority if UKIP won 13%. It turned out that UKIP took as many votes from Labour as from the Conservatives, and the Conservatives targeting of Lib Dem seats and marginal constituencies was brilliantly effective. They won an outright majority with just 37% of the vote.

Yea, and the Conservative section of the UKIP vote seems really squishy.

[of man and wolf]

I feel bad for the Scots. These elections never truly represent them or give them anything to look forward to.

I still cannot understand how someone not int he upper tier financially speaking would ever vote for a Tory government anywhere in the world. They dont give a toss about you little working people.

Tight wads.

[ab aeterno]

Ed Miliband winning.

No referendum, no repeal of the Human Rights Act, yeah, they'd have loved that. :lol:

[Werthead]

I doubt it will be Jarvis, I don't think he's been around long enough - he was only elected in a by-election in 2011. IMO he's more likely to be the next-but-one Labour leader once whoever wins this time has had enough. I'd like to see Umunna, but I suspect it will come down to Burnham or Cooper.

Any reason why Tristram Hunt doesn't seem to be in the running? He didn't rule himself out when asked on the BBC, but he's not even on the "outside chance" lists I've seen.

The majority isn't enough for them to turn to infighting. Surely they'd have a bit of truce?

The forthcoming battle over Europe is going to be the biggest test any incumbent government has faced in a generation (since at least the Maastricht rumblings almost destroyed Major's government). Cameron has to somehow sell reform to Europe - which he may actually have a slightly better shot at then appeared a few years ago - and make it substantial enough to appease his party so they can unanimously vote in favour of it and encourage the people of Britain to vote for it convincingly (altogether less likely). If they go down that road and fail, it would be hard for Cameron to remain Prime Minister.

The other option is that Cameron fails to get significant reform and leads an anti-European campaign in the referendum, which would be more populist but also might alienate a lot of the business support Cameron successfully won this time around (especially from small business), which could bite back in 2020. If Cameron falls between the two stalls, gets some reform but nothing special and still tries to argue for staying in, then the Tories tear themselves apart and Cameron risks getting the boot.

Of course, if they pull all of that off, Cameron survives and Britain exits the EU, then he could face the break-up of the UK as Scotland moves for another independence referendum triggered by Brexit which would be a lot more likelier to succeed, although in that case they may be able to fob it off until after 2020 (Cameron's parting gift for his successor).

There's quite a few permutations involved and only a couple end well for Cameron.

[Chaircat Meow]

No referendum, no repeal of the Human Rights Act, yeah, they'd have loved that. :lol:

But it would have meant the end of Cameron's shift left and the emergence of a genuinely right wing Tory party. Only UKIP forced the referendum out of him anyway.

I feel bad for the Scots. These elections never truly represent them or give them anything to look forward to.

I vote in Scotland. Voted Tory and got a Tory government. Feeling very represented now, thanks.

[Maltaran]

On Lib Dem leader; I saw someone mention Tim Farron higher up but I think Norman Lamb could have a fair crack at it as well.

There are some active Lib Dem members on another board I visit, they're unanimous that Farron is the favourite, and if he does, he will move the party leftwards. However, there will definitely be an anti-Farron candidate, and given a) who's left and b) most of the others have small majorities, this will almost certainly be Lamb (the pre-election speculation was that Ed Davey would take this role, but the wipeout was worse than predicted).

Someone else on that board has pointed out that aside from Sheffield Hallam, every single constituency that has ever been held by a Lib Dem leader has been lost, and for the predecessor parties you have to go back to Jo Grimond to find a seat that's still in Lib Dem hands, and he resigned in 1967.

[Chaircat Meow]

Any reason why Tristram Hunt doesn't seem to be in the running? He didn't rule himself out when asked on the BBC, but he's not even on the "outside chance" lists I've seen.

The forthcoming battle over Europe is going to be the biggest test any incumbent government has faced in a generation (since at least the Maastricht rumblings almost destroyed Major's government). Cameron has to somehow sell reform to Europe - which he may actually have a slightly better shot at then appeared a few years ago - and make it substantial enough to appease his party so they can unanimously vote in favour of it and encourage the people of Britain to vote for it convincingly (altogether less likely). If they go down that road and fail, it would be hard for Cameron to remain Prime Minister.

The other option is that Cameron fails to get significant reform and leads an anti-European campaign in the referendum, which would be more populist but also might alienate a lot of the business support Cameron successfully won this time around (especially from small business), which could bite back in 2020. If Cameron falls between the two stalls, gets some reform but nothing special and still tries to argue for staying in, then the Tories tear themselves apart and Cameron risks getting the boot.

Of course, if they pull all of that off, Cameron survives and Britain exits the EU, then he could face the break-up of the UK as Scotland moves for another independence referendum triggered by Brexit which would be a lot more likelier to succeed, although in that case they may be able to fob it off until after 2020 (Cameron's parting gift for his successor).

There's quite a few permutations involved and only a couple end well for Cameron.

The likeliest scenario is that Cameron doesn't get anything substantial but has enough to fool some people into thinking there is reform. Then you just tell loads of lies, like was done in Scotland. People vote to stay in. I can't imagine he will appease men like Redwood and Rees-Mogg anyway, so some Tories will campaign for an out regardless.

I think Scoxit is a real risk if the UK as a whole votes to leave but I also think it will be harder to make the case for indie from a pro-EU position after the EU ref.

[SeanF]

Any reason why Tristram Hunt doesn't seem to be in the running? He didn't rule himself out when asked on the BBC, but he's not even on the "outside chance" lists I've seen.

The forthcoming battle over Europe is going to be the biggest test any incumbent government has faced in a generation (since at least the Maastricht rumblings almost destroyed Major's government). Cameron has to somehow sell reform to Europe - which he may actually have a slightly better shot at then appeared a few years ago - and make it substantial enough to appease his party so they can unanimously vote in favour of it and encourage the people of Britain to vote for it convincingly (altogether less likely). If they go down that road and fail, it would be hard for Cameron to remain Prime Minister.

The other option is that Cameron fails to get significant reform and leads an anti-European campaign in the referendum, which would be more populist but also might alienate a lot of the business support Cameron successfully won this time around (especially from small business), which could bite back in 2020. If Cameron falls between the two stalls, gets some reform but nothing special and still tries to argue for staying in, then the Tories tear themselves apart and Cameron risks getting the boot.

Of course, if they pull all of that off, Cameron survives and Britain exits the EU, then he could face the break-up of the UK as Scotland moves for another independence referendum triggered by Brexit which would be a lot more likelier to succeed, although in that case they may be able to fob it off until after 2020 (Cameron's parting gift for his successor).

There's quite a few permutations involved and only a couple end well for Cameron.

Cameron is a "lucky general". I've written him off on several occasions, but he always pulls something off at the last moment.