UK Politics: You Didn't See That Coming

[ab aeterno]

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.

Tim Farron is great, but I'd prefer Lamb as Leader. I think he can help the party more, especially in the South and South West where the party is still likely to be the main opposition to the Tories in many places. If there is going to be a comeback, I think it will have to start there. I will probably vote for Lamb, assuming that he runs.

[Free Northman Reborn]

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.

Best bet:

Join the populist anti-Europe camp. Lead a Brexit move. Then let Scotland leave Britain. Then have a conservative majority in England and Wales for a generation or more.

[Chaircat Meow]

Best bet:

Join the populist anti-Europe camp. Lead a Brexit move. Then let Scotland leave Britain. Then have a conservative majority in England and Wales for a generation or more.

Why are you still banging on about this? The Labour party was exterminated in Scotland and the Tories have a majority in the HoC anyway.

[The Marquis de Leech]

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.

Grimond was also briefly leader in 1976.

(In fact, looking over the list, the Lib Dems have also lost every seat that has ever been held by a Lib Dem deputy leader!).

[The Marquis de Leech]

Best bet:

Join the populist anti-Europe camp. Lead a Brexit move. Then let Scotland leave Britain. Then have a conservative majority in England and Wales for a generation or more.

Except that the Tories are Unionist? You know, it's right there in the official name "Conservative and Unionist Party"?

(As for a "generation or more," politics changes. Labour are historically quite capable of winning England).

[Free Northman Reborn]

Why are you still banging on about this? The Labour party was exterminated in Scotland and the Tories have a majority in the HoC anyway.

Well, as pointed out by Werthead's post, by trying to keep Scotland in, he will be forced to go against the wishes of a large part of his constituents as far as Brexit is concerned. And we all know that the 56 SNP seats aren't all immune to Labour recapture in future, thus giving Labour access to potential additional seats in future elections. Getting rid of those 59 Scottish seats altogether (seats that are all basically unatainable for Conservatives for all time) can only help a Conservative cause in England and Wales.

As for the "Conservative and Unionist" party. Times change. And if it comes to a point that you have to choose between your conservative and unionst values, then that choice has to be made.

Would the average Conservative voter rather live in a Union, or in a society based on conservative values? It seems like those two goals are becoming more and more mutually exclusive.

[Chaircat Meow]

Well, as pointed out by Werthead's post, by trying to keep Scotland in, he will be forced to go against the wishes of a large part of his constituents as far as Brexit is concerned. And we all know that the 56 SNP seats aren't all immune to Labour recapture in future, thus giving Labour access to potential additional seats in future elections. Getting rid of those 59 Scottish seats altogether (seats that are all basically unatainable for conservatives for all time) can only help a Conservative cause in England and Wales.

As for the "Conservative and Unionist" party. Times change. And if it comes to a point that you have to choose between your conservative and unionst values, then that choice has to be made.

Would the average Conservative voter rather live in a Union, or in a society based on conservative values? It seems like those two goals are becoming more and more mutually exclusive.

No he won't. He wants to stay in the EU because that's what he believes in (and it would be embarrassing to pull out - would look chippy and so on, and Cameron doesn't want that). Nothing to do with Scotland.

edit: do you favour dissolving the USA to get rid of the democrats on the coasts?

[Seli]

Best bet:

Join the populist anti-Europe camp. Lead a Brexit move. Then let Scotland leave Britain. Then have a conservative majority in England and Wales for a generation or more.

A Brexit that might remove a million (?) capable workers from england and have a similar number of mostly retirees return to the UK. Can't see that being a success.

[Free Northman Reborn]

So Wikipedia says that the last poll put support for Brexit at 41%, with 18% of people undecided. What happens if the "Exit" vote gets 50.1%? It hardly seems an unlikely event to me.

[Maltaran]

So Wikipedia says that the last poll put support for Brexit at 41%, with 18% of people undecided. What happens if the "Exit" vote gets 50.1%? It hardly seems an unlikely event to me.

The latest poll actually has 56% support for IN and only 34% for OUT, according to Wiki - the one with 41% for OUT was over a month ago and even that had 45% for IN. There have only been two polls this year where OUT has been ahead, and in the polls where the question is asked based on there being a prior renegotiation (which is Cameron's plan), they all have over 50% for IN. Also when the campaign actually starts all the businesses will put their money behind the IN campaign, which will likely help swing the undecideds. I expect the referendum to end with an IN vote with a higher margin than the Scottish referendum.

[A wilding]

I've watched how people in my friendship circle approached this election with some fascination. My facebook feed is very much a liberal bubble - with a few exceptions the majority of people on there who expressed political views either did so in favour of the Greens/Labour or against the Conservatives/UKIP, without much middle ground. After the results came in there was rage and several people circulating this blog post.

<Most of well thought out post truncated to save space>

So it seems to me that without finding out the reasons behind why someone voted the way they did, there is no cause for summary unfriending/disowning. If as an ambassador for the views you support you show yourself to be so dismissive of others without due cause, you are not going to change many minds. Create a toxic environment for the expression of alternative points of view and there is no way those points of view are going to be changed - you're just going to end up with a bunch of 'shy Tories' screwing up your poll results.

ST

I have been mulling this point over for a few days. I think that for me the issue is me is that the handful of people I know who voted Tory typically had pretty bad reasons for doing so.

Take the case of an elderly aunt of mine. Her political views are literally lifted directly from the Daily Mail. She could never vote for someone who tripped over at a debate, while Cameron is "confident, passionate, and physically attractive", as also is Osborne (!) She has very little idea of policies at all. She has only the faintest understanding of the cuts, and does not realise that there are more to come. She believes that the Tories have already managed to balance the budget and that there is no longer any deficit. Etc, etc.

It is quite difficult not to get annoyed at this, and quite easy to develop a thesis that money, and the propaganda it can pay for, have had an unhealthy effect on our democracy.

[HexMachina]

http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2015/05/09/410239/Protesters--London-Conservatives

*sigh*

[Talleyrand]

I feel like the quality of protest chants really has been dropping.

I mean what happened to things like "No gods, No Masters" or "Vive la revolution" or "Smrt fašizmu, sloboda narodu" that had a ring to them.

Now half of them sound like the chorus to a mediocre song

[Chaircat Meow]

Return of the Gove. He's become Justice secretary.

[mormont]

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.

... is this meant to be a description of David Cameron?

Socially liberal, I'll give you. It is one of the few genuinely held political positions he cleaves to. The rest are not principled positions that he actually holds - they're tactical considerations he'll quite cheerfully sacrifice in the name of expediency, ie his leadership of the party and the continuance of his government (in that order).

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

But you're not represented. Your vote contributed nothing towards the election of the Conservatives. Your party got 15% of the vote. Your MP is almost certainly SNP. You do not have any Conservative representation, unless you happen to live in Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale.

What I think you mean is that you have a UK government you like - but that's more or less by happenstance. It's not representing your wishes in any sense other than coincidence. So, if you feel represented, that's nice - but you're not actually being represented. That's not how our system works.

[Werthead]

A Brexit that might remove a million (?) capable workers from england and have a similar number of mostly retirees return to the UK. Can't see that being a success.

Well, that would be unworkable. The Spanish can no more forcibly remove one million people from Spain who don't want to go any more than we could forcibly remove half a million Poles who don't want to go from the UK.

How exactly the process would be regulated remains to be seen, but the ideas that have been floated (not necessarily by the Tories or UKIP but in speculative pieces) include Britain effectively maintaining a free movement deal with Spain, France, Germany, Ireland and probably Italy, Scandanavia, Portugal, Belgium and the Netherlands but barring immigration from the more recent countries like Bulgaria and Romania. Poland would be a bit of a grey area. The other permutation is that people already here would be fine but no more would be allowed in (although that would then lead to criticism from all those Brits hoping to retire to Europe).

The issue here is that it's not what either UKIP or the Tory Euro-sceptics want: they seem to want the whole island to be sealed off by minefields and patrolled by sharks with lasers on their heads. But forcibly deporting hundreds of thousands of people is not going to happen and, even if it was possible, would result in massively problematic retaliatory moves from right across Europe as a million or more tanned grandparents are dumped back in the country and we have to build a city the size of Birmingham to house them all.

This then leads to a nightmare scenario (for UKIP and the Euro-sceptics) where we finally "gain independence" and then find that immigration doesn't really slow down: people still come here but they go to France or Germany first as an intermediary step and once here disappear into the system, and thanks to budget cuts we don't have the capability to remove them. That's happening right now anyway with the grey economy and illegal immigration, so having it on the statute books that immigration is now restricted will have no effect on that at all.

[Gears of the Beast]

http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2015/05/09/410239/Protesters--London-Conservatives

*sigh*

That'll show those women of WW2! Also fuck the mirror for censoring the word 'fuck'.

[HexMachina]

That'll show those women of WW2! Also fuck the mirror for censoring the word 'fuck'.

Ugh. People.

[ab aeterno]

http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2015/05/09/410239/Protesters--London-Conservatives

*sigh*

At least they didn't set it on fire this time.

I wonder if those same people were protesting the Labour governments which had massive majorities despite only getting 43% (419 seats), 40.7% (413 seats) and 35.3% (355 seats) respectively. Makes 331 seats from 36.9% and 306 seats from 36.1% look a lot more reasonable.

This electoral system massively distorts everyone's vote, but it has actually become less distorted in the past two elections, as the above demonstrates. In fact, it seems to have peaked under Blair at it's most distorted:

If we compare Blair to Thatcher,Thatcher's election wins (43.9% and 339 seats; 42.4% and 397; 42.2% and 376,) delivered fewer seats from higher percentages of the vote than Blair's (above). Even Major only managed 5 more seats than Cameron despite getting 5% more of the popular vote.

If you compare 1979 with 2001, 2005 and 2015 directly:

1979: 43.9% of the popular vote : 339 seats,

2001: 40.7% of the popular vote : 413 seats,

2005: 35.3% of the popular vote : 355 seats,

2015: 36.9% of the popular vote : 331 seats,

the result this year doesn't seem quite so distorted. It's actually even worse than the above suggests, because the three 1980s elections had significantly higher turnouts and the 2001 and 2005 elections had historically low turnouts. 2010 and 2015 both saw increases in turnout.

Those Blair victories were massively distorted when you also include the low turnout i.e. a low of 59.4% in 2001.

I'm not particularly pleased with the outcome, but let's not overstate the unfairness of the result this year. :lol: (Not directed at you, Heathen.)

ETA: Not intending to make statement by stopping at 1979, I just thought that 9 elections was enough to show a brief trend, and the beginning/end of 18 years of same party rule seemed like a natural demarcation point.

[HexMachina]

At least they didn't set it on fire this time.

I wonder if those same people were protesting the Labour governments which had massive majorities despite only getting 43% (419 seats), 40.7% (413 seats) and 35.3% (355 seats) respectively. Makes 331 seats from 36.9% and 306 seats from 36.1% look a lot more reasonable.

This electoral system massively distorts everyone's vote, but it has actually become less distorted in the past two elections, as the above demonstrates. In fact, it seems to have peaked under Blair at it's most distorted:

If we compare Blair to Thatcher,Thatcher's election wins (43.9% and 339 seats; 42.4% and 397; 42.2% and 376,) delivered fewer seats from higher percentages of the vote than Blair's (above). Even Major only managed 5 more seats than Cameron despite getting 5% more of the popular vote.

If you compare 1979 with 2001, 2005 and 2015 directly:

1979: 43.9% of the popular vote : 339 seats,

2001: 40.7% of the popular vote : 413 seats,

2005: 35.3% of the popular vote : 355 seats,

2015: 36.9% of the popular vote : 331 seats,

the result this year doesn't seem quite so distorted. It's actually even worse than the above suggests, because the three 1980s elections had significantly higher turnouts and the 2001 and 2005 elections had historically low turnouts. 2010 and 2015 both saw increases in turnout.

Those Blair victories were massively distorted when you also include the low turnout i.e. a low of 59.4% in 2001.

I'm not particularly pleased with the outcome, but let's not overstate the unfairness of the result this year. :lol: (Not directed at you, Heathen.)

ETA: Not intending to make statement by stopping at 1979, I just thought that 9 elections was enough to show a brief trend, and the beginning/end of 18 years of same party rule seemed like a natural demarcation point.

I agree with you. The *sigh* was aimed at the protestors. I think the problem is more apparent for the smaller parties, like the Greens and, much as I dislike them, UKIP.

Incidentally, this has all been great in terms of revision for my public law exam. If an essay comes up on the electoral system, composition of parliament etc. etc. I'll be thrilled :D