UK General Discussion:The Rt. Hon Alex Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, Populist Hero

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Not to quibble, but 34% would be just under a 10% drop for the Conservatives.

Not correct. Polling figures do not include Northern Ireland and always round up: the relevant figure for the Conservative performance at the last General Election is thus 45%.

But what happens if the Conservatives still have a decent lead in seats (let's say 20-30) and Labour can only overcome that with the support of the SNP? Would Labour make the figurative deal with the devil or would they be content with another Conservative Government? (I'm assuming the SNP holds at least 40-45 seats.)

If it became clear that a Conservative minority administration could not be formed despite a substantial lead in seats, then Labour would have its shot at forming a government. There is no formal vote on the appointment of a Prime Minister, which means there would be no constitutional or political requirement for a deal with anyone, so long as the government could win a confidence vote and pass a budget. This is how the very first Labour government was formed, nearly a hundred years ago now. In this scenario Labour would not be without its own cards to play: would the SNP really wish to be seen to be preventing the ousting of Conservatives after X years in power? Informal negotiations and arrangements would be reasonably likely, but such a parliament would not be very stable and would be unlikely to run to its full term, one way or another.

[politicallefty]

Nope, we are talking about GB shares here - which is also how most polling is done.

Not correct. Polling figures do not include Northern Ireland and always round up: the relevant figure for the Conservative performance at the last General Election is thus 45%.

I appreciate that clarification. It was not something I was aware of. I always looked at the overall national results.

If it became clear that a Conservative minority administration could not be formed despite a substantial lead in seats, then Labour would have its shot at forming a government. There is no formal vote on the appointment of a Prime Minister, which means there would be no constitutional or political requirement for a deal with anyone, so long as the government could win a confidence vote and pass a budget. This is how the very first Labour government was formed, nearly a hundred years ago now. In this scenario Labour would not be without its own cards to play: would the SNP really wish to be seen to be preventing the ousting of Conservatives after X years in power? Informal negotiations and arrangements would be reasonably likely, but such a parliament would not be very stable and would be unlikely to run to its full term, one way or another.

I've always thought the SNP is pretty radioactive for the major parties to touch (similar to the Bloc in Canada). In other words, they can do what they want, but neither major party will make a deal in writing. In that sense, I suppose they could vote to topple the Conservatives. My understanding of the British system is that one goes to the Queen with the presumption of the support of the Commons. If the Conservatives were the largest party and Labour tried to take power without an arrangement with the SNP, it seems to me like the Conservatives could force their hand quite easily. They could vote down the Queen's Speech or otherwise forward a confidence motion.

[Blair]

It was very nearly tested in 2017 but an unappreciated part of British politics is that the Conservatives have made themselves radioactive to every other political party; including to a degree the DUP. In 2010 the 'rainbow' coalition seemed like madness where as now its basically an assumption that every party will be voting to get them out.

I haven't done the exact maths but there's at least 7 (?) MPs from the smaller parties who would support Labour at their first Queens Speech simply to stop the Conservatives.

My hunch is that it would be a short Parliament, with Labour then returning to go the country within 6-18 months.

I've always thought the SNP is pretty radioactive for the major parties to touch (similar to the Bloc in Canada). In other words, they can do what they want, but neither major party will make a deal in writing. In that sense, I suppose they could vote to topple the Conservatives. My understanding of the British system is that one goes to the Queen with the presumption of the support of the Commons. If the Conservatives were the largest party and Labour tried to take power without an arrangement with the SNP, it seems to me like the Conservatives could force their hand quite easily. They could vote down the Queen's Speech or otherwise forward a confidence motion.

Labour wouldn't enter an agreement; I doubt there would even be a formal confidence and supply (the phrase comes from supporting the Government in confidence motions and Budgets (e.g the supply of money)

The problem with predicting it is that it completely depends on the numbers and the numbers in the minor parties; a Parliament with 290 Labour MPs and 30 Liberal MPs is very different to one with 270 Labour MPs and 17 Liberal MPs.

Events and razor thin margins in Scotland & Northern Ireland will play a role too.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

My understanding of the British system is that one goes to the Queen with the presumption of the support of the Commons. If the Conservatives were the largest party and Labour tried to take power without an arrangement with the SNP, it seems to me like the Conservatives could force their hand quite easily. They could vote down the Queen's Speech or otherwise forward a confidence motion.

That would depend on the overall balance of the Commons and the strength of the other parties - how many Liberals (LibDems and also, these days, Alliance MPs), how many SDLP and so on. All of whom are a lot easier to work with than the SNP; even Plaid's small contingent generally is. If there's still a gap, then, as I wrote previously, it isn't as if the SNP would hold all the cards: it would be politically dangerous to be seen to vote in favour of a Conservative power-move, given that their image as the guardians of Scottish interests against this Conservative government is an important element in their electoral appeal. Of course such a situation would not be tenable for long, but you would never expect a parliament that hung to last the full term.

[Blair]

Even more Tone deaf than the Met- especially considering the other news about them today.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/met-police-federation-sadiq-khan-b2014692.html

[CumbrianLefty]

Met's gonna Met.

[Blair]

It’s v funny as Dowden is a Cameron era staffer who in another life would be giving boring speeches about financial regulation as Chief Secretary for Prime Ministers Osbourne.

With the brain rot in the party though there’s a good chance he believes this.

https://mobile.twitter.com/OliverDowden/status/1493266949429682181?ref_src=twsrc...

[Blair]

I must confess I don’t know what a nostrum is though!

However it does send very bold signals about who their sister party is in the US! I’m old enough to remember Jim Messina working for Cameron!

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

I must confess I don’t know what a nostrum is though!

However it does send very bold signals about who their sister party is in the US! I’m old enough to remember Jim Messina working for Cameron!

UK politicians and those in the general Westminster bubble strike me as among the most online politicians in the western world. I get a sense that more MP's do manage their social media personally or are at least personally active than elected representatives in other countries do.

[Silent Hunter]

I must confess I don’t know what a nostrum is though!

"A scheme or remedy for bringing about some social or political reform or improvement," according to Google.

[ingemann]

I must confess I don’t know what a nostrum is though!

However it does send very bold signals about who their sister party is in the US! I’m old enough to remember Jim Messina working for Cameron!

UK politicians and those in the general Westminster bubble strike me as among the most online politicians in the western world. I get a sense that more MP's do manage their social media personally or are at least personally active than elected representatives in other countries do.

It's likely a consequence of British MPs being younger than Congressmen (51 vs 57), I think the younger a parliament is, the more active they will be on new media.

[Cassius]

I mean if they did something meaningful like abolish the EHRC, eject the concept of hate crime from the statute book and stop trying to force companies to achieve demographic parity on their boards then maybe we’d be going somewhere. Instead the government’s grand strategy is to lock people up for a decade for defacing a statue because it makes Winston’s Churchill’s ghost cry. That’ll turn the tide!

[EastAnglianLefty]

Why would they abolish the EHRC? The current Commissioners are fully signed-up to the government's culture wars agenda.

[CumbrianLefty]

I mean if they did something meaningful like abolish the EHRC, eject the concept of hate crime from the statute book and stop trying to force companies to achieve demographic parity on their boards then maybe we’d be going somewhere

We would be "going somewhere" alright. Not a good place, though.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The general 'Equalities' framework is popular with the public, if perhaps not Conservative Party members, which is the reason why you see attempts to manipulate it (c.f. the recent controversial appointments to the EHRC) rather than a direct assault on it. Anti-discrimination laws were generally always passed with substantial public approval, even when politically controversial (such as the first laws against racial discrimination passed by the Wilson government at the height of the Powellite backlash in the late 1960s). One of the more interesting cases was the passage of the old Disability Discrimination Act in the 90s: it was pretty much forced on a fairly unwilling Major government - which, we should not forget, was a rather radical right-wing administration on most issues - by public pressure.

[Former President tack50]

My understanding of the British system is that one goes to the Queen with the presumption of the support of the Commons. If the Conservatives were the largest party and Labour tried to take power without an arrangement with the SNP, it seems to me like the Conservatives could force their hand quite easily. They could vote down the Queen's Speech or otherwise forward a confidence motion.

That would depend on the overall balance of the Commons and the strength of the other parties - how many Liberals (LibDems and also, these days, Alliance MPs), how many SDLP and so on. All of whom are a lot easier to work with than the SNP; even Plaid's small contingent generally is. If there's still a gap, then, as I wrote previously, it isn't as if the SNP would hold all the cards: it would be politically dangerous to be seen to vote in favour of a Conservative power-move, given that their image as the guardians of Scottish interests against this Conservative government is an important element in their electoral appeal. Of course such a situation would not be tenable for long, but you would never expect a parliament that hung to last the full term.

Any chance that a Labour government propped up by the SNP in that manner generates resentment among the Labour base though? (leading to losses to the Conservatives).

I thought that "selling out to Scotland" was seen as a big image problem?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I thought that "selling out to Scotland" was seen as a big image problem?

Anglo-Scottish relations are nothing like that bad - the problem with being seen to be too close to the SNP is the second initial not the first. But the specific issue at the 2015 election was that Alec Salmond was, and is, a hated figure in England (and also to an extent Wales), generally seen as a borderline racist Anglophobic prick. Although he was no longer the First Minister or leader of the SNP by that point, it was still plausible for the Conservatives to portray him as the power behind the throne in Scotland and, by extension, as taking a similar role across the UK in the event of a Labour minority administration. Extremely dishonest for many reasons, but very effective. Things are different now: Nichola Sturgeon is not liked in England, but she isn't a hate figure, it is very unlikely that the General Election would be held less than a year after an Independence referendum, and I don't think that casting Starmer as a weak, pliable figure would work either.

[EastAnglianLefty]

I would also say that to the extent English resentment of the Scots is a thing, it isn't concentrated amongst the Labour base.

[Blair]

I would also say that to the extent English resentment of the Scots is a thing, it isn't concentrated amongst the Labour base.

I always assumed it had a disproportionate impact because those who cared about the issue were likely to have been UKIP or (strangely for non-UK posters) Liberal Democrat voters; who then defected to the Conservatives.

[Biden 2024]

I thought that "selling out to Scotland" was seen as a big image problem?

Anglo-Scottish relations are nothing like that bad - the problem with being seen to be too close to the SNP is the second initial not the first. But the specific issue at the 2015 election was that Alec Salmond was, and is, a hated figure in England (and also to an extent Wales), generally seen as a borderline racist Anglophobic prick. Although he was no longer the First Minister or leader of the SNP by that point, it was still plausible for the Conservatives to portray him as the power behind the throne in Scotland and, by extension, as taking a similar role across the UK in the event of a Labour minority administration. Extremely dishonest for many reasons, but very effective. Things are different now: Nichola Sturgeon is not liked in England, but she isn't a hate figure, it is very unlikely that the General Election would be held less than a year after an Independence referendum, and I don't think that casting Starmer as a weak, pliable figure would work either.

Do you know if there exists any polling on Sturgeon's favorability #s among English voters (preferably by party)? Would be interested in gaging if there's a demographic of Labour voters in England who see her as a respectable opposition figure of sorts.

[Boobs]

Do the English really resent Scots or are they actually jealous?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Do the English really resent Scots or are they actually jealous?

In general 'no' and 'haha no'. But there's a minority who do, much as there's a minority in Scotland who feel the same way in reverse. In both cases it's largely a very unattractive sort of whinge without any serious justification, but some people are unattractive whingers.

[CumbrianLefty]

I thought that "selling out to Scotland" was seen as a big image problem?

Anglo-Scottish relations are nothing like that bad - the problem with being seen to be too close to the SNP is the second initial not the first. But the specific issue at the 2015 election was that Alec Salmond was, and is, a hated figure in England (and also to an extent Wales), generally seen as a borderline racist Anglophobic prick. Although he was no longer the First Minister or leader of the SNP by that point, it was still plausible for the Conservatives to portray him as the power behind the throne in Scotland and, by extension, as taking a similar role across the UK in the event of a Labour minority administration. Extremely dishonest for many reasons, but very effective. Things are different now: Nichola Sturgeon is not liked in England, but she isn't a hate figure, it is very unlikely that the General Election would be held less than a year after an Independence referendum, and I don't think that casting Starmer as a weak, pliable figure would work either.

Do you know if there exists any polling on Sturgeon's favorability #s among English voters (preferably by party)? Would be interested in gaging if there's a demographic of Labour voters in England who see her as a respectable opposition figure of sorts.

Sturgeon actually has some popularity amongst left-leaning English people, though this is probably a bit less than a few years ago. And I agree that she is a lot less toxic to the sort of swing voters who decide elections in England than Salmond was.

[Blair]

The Met are investigating a charity linked to Prince Charles.

I see we’re back to the Georgian era of royal scandals every other day. It’s going to be interesting as there’s still a lot of deference towards the firm by Parliament, the Lobby and press.

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

The Met are investigating a charity linked to Prince Charles.

I see we’re back to the Georgian era of royal scandals every other day. It’s going to be interesting as there’s still a lot of deference towards the firm by Parliament, the Lobby and press.

I find it weird how Corbyn was incredibly silent on his republicanism unlike on many other of his less popular view points