UK General Election 2019 - Election Day and Results Thread

[rob in cal]

  One thought about national vote totals by ideology, if the Brexit party had run everywhere their share of the vote goes up from 2% to somewhere around 4% perhaps, or in the 3 to 4% range if there is still a lot of pro Tory tactical voting going on. Of course conservative vote goes down also, but since some of these potential new Brexit Party voters in tory held seats might have voted for Labor, or didn't vote at all, I believe the overall Conservative, + Brexit, + DUP + UKIP numbers do go up a bit.

[Lord Halifax]

find a way to turn the SNP into a permanent satellite.

that assumes Scottish independence never happens

[Antonio the Sixth]

find a way to turn the SNP into a permanent satellite.

that assumes Scottish independence never happens

Well, if Scottish independence does happen, that's even more reason for Labour not to compete there.

[Lord Halifax]

find a way to turn the SNP into a permanent satellite.

that assumes Scottish independence never happens

Well, if Scottish independence does happen, that's even more reason for Labour not to compete there.

The whole prospect of independence (which isn't some unrealistic dream given that Brexit is likely to have very negative effects on the Scottish economy) means that it's unrealistic for Labour to turn SNP into a "permanent satellite". Any Labour-SNP alliance will be temporary and likely fraught with tension.

Question to British posters: Would Scottish Labour benefit from ditching unionism and becoming neutral ("let the people decide") on independence?

[Antonio the Sixth]

find a way to turn the SNP into a permanent satellite.

that assumes Scottish independence never happens

Well, if Scottish independence does happen, that's even more reason for Labour not to compete there.

The whole prospect of independence (which isn't some unrealistic dream given that Brexit is likely to have very negative effects on the Scottish economy) means that it's unrealistic for Labour to turn SNP into a "permanent satellite". Any Labour-SNP alliance will be temporary and likely fraught with tension.

It's really not that complicated. Either independence succeeds and the Scottish Question stops being an issue for Labour (they're going to have to work their ass off to win a majority of English and Welsh seats, but it can be done). Or it fails, the SNP eventually has to accept that, and settles with a partnership with Labour. I mean I guess they could keep asking for a new IndyRef every 5 years or so, but they'll get tired of it eventually.

[CumbrianLefty]

If another independence bid ultimately fails, then there could as a consequence be a historic crash in SNP support similar to 1979 (or indeed Scottish Labour's in 2015) Quebec is not of course the same as Scotland, but certainly suggests this is possible.

[Former President tack50]

Labour has a long road ahead of them; they are 124 seats away from a majority. It's just a guess, but I don't think even a 10 pt uniform swing would get them 124. Their loss of Scotland makes things even harder; even in 2010, Labour had 217 seats outside Scotland; today Labour has 201. Barring a Scotland rebound, they would need to gain 124 in England and Wales alone...

Meanwhile, as an election nerd, I hope Johnson's gov't adopts the 600 seat redistribution; it would be cool to see new maps, especially for more even apportionment.

As I've said, Labour doesn't need to win an overall majority, or even win more seats than the tories to get into 10 Downing Street.

They just need to make it so Labour+SNP is a majority. Assuming the SNP keeps 40 seats or so, that means Labour needs roughly 280 seats or so. Still an uphill climb, but not a net pickup  of 120+ seats and a 10 point lead nationally anymore

[DC Al Fine]

There's a fairly recent precedent of the left working with seperatists in the Anglosphere. It didn't exactly go well.

[DistingFlyer]

Here are the cumulative 2017-2019 regional swings - a somewhat better correlation than just 2019 to the Leave/Remain vote, with 2017's big Labour swing in London being cut back a little last week.

The only outlier is - obviously - Scotland, but given that the Tories started as a poor third with just 15% of the vote there in 2015 it's easily explained.




For comparison, here are the Leave/Remain margins in 2016:

[Helsinkian]

As I've said, Labour doesn't need to win an overall majority, or even win more seats than the tories to get into 10 Downing Street.

They just need to make it so Labour+SNP is a majority. Assuming the SNP keeps 40 seats or so, that means Labour needs roughly 280 seats or so. Still an uphill climb, but not a net pickup  of 120+ seats and a 10 point lead nationally anymore

SNP would demand an independence referendum. Then, if they were to win it, Scotland would leave the UK and Labour would lose their majority mid-term.

[DistingFlyer]

As I've said, Labour doesn't need to win an overall majority, or even win more seats than the tories to get into 10 Downing Street.

They just need to make it so Labour+SNP is a majority. Assuming the SNP keeps 40 seats or so, that means Labour needs roughly 280 seats or so. Still an uphill climb, but not a net pickup  of 120+ seats and a 10 point lead nationally anymore

SNP would demand an independence referendum. Then, if they were to win it, Scotland would leave the UK and Labour would lose their majority mid-term.

Not to mention that the Tories already succeeded in doing some damage to Labour in 2015 by invoking the idea of Labour playing footsie with the SNP; I therefore doubt that Labour would try to do something like that, and if they did it would probably just make them look desperate - "Even they know they can't win on their own anymore, so they're cozing up to separatists to get in power that way!" You can envision the opinion pieces and Tory billboards already.

[CumbrianLefty]

True, but the SNP were to many something scary and threatening back then - they maybe aren't so much now given that the presence of a substantial bloc of them in Westminster is more established.

[DC Al Fine]

True, but the SNP were to many something scary and threatening back then - they maybe aren't so much now given that the presence of a substantial bloc of them in Westminster is more established.

The Bloc Quebecois had been a substantial force for 15 years when they attempted to to enter into a coalition to stop the Tories, and the Liberals still paid dearly for playing ball with them. The rest of the country still found them scary.

[Oryxslayer]

True, but the SNP were to many something scary and threatening back then - they maybe aren't so much now given that the presence of a substantial bloc of them in Westminster is more established.

That won't stop the Tories though. BoJo's 'One Nation' party is an English/British national party that rallies around the flag when the nation is slighted. Those who lack the national identity like Scottish-identifying-Scots rather than British-Identifying-Scots will always be villains trying to end the national project. It's a similar relationship to the one between PP/C's/Vox and the Catalan separatist groups.

[afleitch]

Their loss of Scotland makes things even harder; even in 2010, Labour had 217 seats outside Scotland; today Labour has 201. Barring a Scotland rebound, they would need to gain 124 in England and Wales alone...

[insert quote about Dylan Thomas and Welsh nationalism but with "Scottish" instead of "Welsh" here] (sorry, afleitch)

Non-salty take: the endgame for the left needs to be including the SNP in some sort of common program that isn't predicated on my-nationalism-is-woker-than-your-nationalism rather than attempting to tilt at windmills and overturn the new alignment north of the Tweed.

I think had SLAB not had it's dead cat bounce in 2017 that probably would have happened. Post Corbyn it's probably less likelym The swing back to the SNP was I think (based on anecdotal conversations) a bit of an apology from former Lab then SNP then Corbyn voters.

At it's core SLAB has no idea what it is and what it wants and who it's voters are. Scotland has it's 'Labour' party. It's just not Labour.

What is unforgivable for former Labour voters isn't the opposition to independence but the fact Labour were on the same side as the Tories and still are.

I think it's also evident across the UK is that the Tories, being their ideological and moral opponents are 'disliked' less than other parties of the left like the SNP, Plaid and past iterations of the Lib Dems. Labour like it one on one and prefer to scuttle their potential allies. Even if it keeps them away from power.

[Gustaf]

I'm very unconvinced about this whole "progressive coalition" talk. I think the people still voting LibDem are largely doing so because they really don't want to vote Labour. Maybe a non-Corbynist, centrist Labour could get a lot of those people back, but the current Labour party is sufficiently toxic that there will be non-Tory voters who will vote 3rd party.

[Lord Halifax]

find a way to turn the SNP into a permanent satellite.

that assumes Scottish independence never happens

Well, if Scottish independence does happen, that's even more reason for Labour not to compete there.

The whole prospect of independence (which isn't some unrealistic dream given that Brexit is likely to have very negative effects on the Scottish economy) means that it's unrealistic for Labour to turn SNP into a "permanent satellite". Any Labour-SNP alliance will be temporary and likely fraught with tension.

It's really not that complicated. Either independence succeeds and the Scottish Question stops being an issue for Labour (they're going to have to work their ass off to win a majority of English and Welsh seats, but it can be done). Or it fails, the SNP eventually has to accept that, and settles with a partnership with Labour. I mean I guess they could keep asking for a new IndyRef every 5 years or so, but they'll get tired of it eventually.

SNP is a broad tent populist party like Fianna Fail in Ireland. They have no reason to be permanently allied with Labour if it doesn't give them a referendum.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

If Labour becomes 'Labour' again and if the government has a hard time of things, then it isn't as if the maths from this election would tell us much about Labour's chances of winning a majority. Voters respond to the choices placed before them, that is all. Elections are not censuses.

[Pericles]

If another independence bid ultimately fails, then there could as a consequence be a historic crash in SNP support similar to 1979 (or indeed Scottish Labour's in 2015) Quebec is not of course the same as Scotland, but certainly suggests this is possible.

The crash could also drag out over time and the SNP lasts several elections as the party standing up for Scotland's interests, like how the Bloc Quebecois maintained their dominance in Quebec after the 1995 defeat of independence all the way until 2011, and even then regained a solid share of seats in 2019.

[Lord Halifax]

Question to British posters: Would Scottish Labour benefit from ditching unionism and becoming neutral ("let the people decide") on independence?

It seems some members are thinking along those lines.

Is Scottish Labour's position on independence changing?
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-50808996

[catographer]

Labour really has two paths now:
1. “Old” Labour
Have a leader more moderate and popular than Corbyn, and move the party in a populist, economically left direction while deemphasizing culture and social issues in order to appeal to cultural conservatives. Essentially, return to its Old Labour roots.
Pros: Potentially more easy electorally, can grab back marginal North seats.
Cons: Feasibly unlikely now against Johnson’s Tories and post-Brexit world.

2. “Remain” Labour
Fully embrace the Remain coalition of cosmopolitan, socially liberal and market liberal middle class; co-opt Lib Dem’s coalition, while maintaining social democratic policies and emphasis on economics. Similar to Blair’s New Labour, but without the neoliberalism and Iraq-baggage.
Pros: More feasible electoral future, seal in place the new Brexit political divide. Potential to unite the left by taking Lib Dem and Green votes.
Cons: Electorally fraught, difficult to break through with Lib Dem Remainers in the South; hard to win Conservative southern seats.

If I was Labour leader, I’d pick option 2, but that’s just me.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

This is not the United States, the North of England is not Ohio, the South of England is not Northern Virginia. Thank you.

[DistingFlyer]

Labour really has two paths now:
1. “Old” Labour
Have a leader more moderate and popular than Corbyn, and move the party in a populist, economically left direction while deemphasizing culture and social issues in order to appeal to cultural conservatives. Essentially, return to its Old Labour roots.
Pros: Potentially more easy electorally, can grab back marginal North seats.
Cons: Feasibly unlikely now against Johnson’s Tories and post-Brexit world.

2. “Remain” Labour
Fully embrace the Remain coalition of cosmopolitan, socially liberal and market liberal middle class; co-opt Lib Dem’s coalition, while maintaining social democratic policies and emphasis on economics. Similar to Blair’s New Labour, but without the neoliberalism and Iraq-baggage.
Pros: More feasible electoral future, seal in place the new Brexit political divide. Potential to unite the left by taking Lib Dem and Green votes.
Cons: Electorally fraught, difficult to break through with Lib Dem Remainers in the South; hard to win Conservative southern seats.

If I was Labour leader, I’d pick option 2, but that’s just me.

Option #2 is probably more likely, if for no other reason than they've won three majorities with that formula and zero (in the last forty-five years) with the other one.

[Zinneke]

Labour really has two paths now:
1. “Old” Labour
Have a leader more moderate and popular than Corbyn, and move the party in a populist, economically left direction while deemphasizing culture and social issues in order to appeal to cultural conservatives. Essentially, return to its Old Labour roots.
Pros: Potentially more easy electorally, can grab back marginal North seats.
Cons: Feasibly unlikely now against Johnson’s Tories and post-Brexit world.

2. “Remain” Labour
Fully embrace the Remain coalition of cosmopolitan, socially liberal and market liberal middle class; co-opt Lib Dem’s coalition, while maintaining social democratic policies and emphasis on economics. Similar to Blair’s New Labour, but without the neoliberalism and Iraq-baggage.
Pros: More feasible electoral future, seal in place the new Brexit political divide. Potential to unite the left by taking Lib Dem and Green votes.
Cons: Electorally fraught, difficult to break through with Lib Dem Remainers in the South; hard to win Conservative southern seats.

If I was Labour leader, I’d pick option 2, but that’s just me.

Option #2 is probably more likely, if for no other reason than they've won three majorities with that formula and zero (in the last forty-five years) with the other one.

Has it occured to you things might have changed since then?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The correct answer, for what it's worth, is to just try to be Labour; to doggedly and pragmatically make the case for using the power of the State to improve the lives of ordinary people. To look outwards rather than inwards and to accept society as it is (rather than what it might rather it be) and to use that to consider what can be done to improve things. Labour has been at its best (and this includes the early years of New Labour) when it has been like this. And it has been at its most electorally successful when like that as well...