UK General Discussion: 2017 and onwards, Mayhem

[Blair]

Fascinating program by Steve Richards about turning points in British Politics (parts are a bit, well, academically weak) but it's still a brilliant watch for those interested.

Episode 3 is on John Smith's death.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b09dlzr6/turning-points-unscripted-reflections-by-steve-richards-3-death-of-john-smith

[Blair]

 

It seems there's already 40 Tory MP's ready to sign a letter of no confidence on Theresa May (they would only need a few more signatures in that case):

https://news.sky.com/story/forty-conservative-mps-prepared-to-call-for-theresa-may-to-go-11123282

If forty Tories are willing to threaten a vote of no confidence against the government unless May steps down... The real question there is whether or not May would call their bluff.

They're not talking about a Motion of No Confidence in Her Majesty's Government (though how anyone could have confidence in them at the moment beats me...); they're talking about a vote among Tory MPs about confidence in May as leader of the Conservative Party.

This is the first stage in the party's processes for getting rid of its leader, and was used in 2003 to get rid of Iain Duncan Smith.  Basically if 15% of the parliamentary party (48 MPs) send letters to the chair of the 1922 Committee calling for a vote on May's leadership, then there will be a vote (among Tory MPs).  If she lost that, then there'd be a full Tory leadership election (oh fun) and IIRC May would be barred from standing.

Correct; although the assumption is of course that she'd resign even if she won it (I recall IDS didn't lose his, and obviously neither did Thatcher in 1990) The irony is that I (and a lot of other Labour people) have said that the Tory system for picking/removing the leader is much better than Labour's own system, when it actually appears that it has both given the party a piss poor leader, and one they can't get rid of.

Does anyone know what the numbers would look like if a vote was say held in January? I'd reckon in a secret ballot there must be at least 80-100 MPs who want to get rid of her.

[Blair]

The irony is that I (and a lot of other Labour people) have said that the Tory system for picking/removing the leader is much better than Labour's own system, when it actually appears that it has both given the party a piss poor leader, and one they can't get rid of.

Well, you and other Blairites who hate any internal party democracy.

I like Blair (hence the username) but I'm not a Blairite. FWIW the actual Blairites supported expanding party democracy with the Collins Review (which scrapped the old Electoral College). I mean as I wrote on the thread a couple of pages ago...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Blair]

The irony is that I (and a lot of other Labour people) have said that the Tory system for picking/removing the leader is much better than Labour's own system, when it actually appears that it has both given the party a piss poor leader, and one they can't get rid of.

Well, you and other Blairites who hate any internal party democracy.

I like Blair (hence the username) but I'm not a Blairite. FWIW the actual Blairites supported expanding party democracy with the Collins Review (which scrapped the old Electoral College). I mean as I wrote on the thread a couple of pages ago...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They supported democracy for their own ends - as a wider effort to dilute union influence - but it hasn't worked out as intended. That isn't to say they still do, and certainly, ignoring the fiasco of registered supporters, those holding the Tory process up as worth replicating is certainly restricted to a minority within Labour, concentrated amongst mainly Blairites.

I mean every faction within Labour supports internal reforms because it suits their own end; the right wanted Scottish and Welsh Representation on the NEC because they're more corbynskeptic regions, and the left expanded the members (or whatever the new one is called) slate because they want to get 3 more momentum backed people.

To bore people with the differences, the faction who'd benefit from MP's selecting two candidates for the membership, which be the UNITE affliated MPs and the remnants of the Brownites. The Blairites have a far too small parliamentary presence to get their candidate into the final two.

[Blair]

Why exactly are Tory apparatchiks so terrified of a Corbyn premiership? If they genuinely believe that he'd be an unmitigated disaster at Downing Street surely that would lead to an enormous Conservative majority in the (then-)following election.

The only thing that Tories really care about is the 'sanctity of the private sector', whether that's privatised rail, water etc. That's why for all the bluster they never really feared, or hated Brown and Blair, and why there were always hesitant of May's slight tinkering of the markets.

I suppose Corbyn is similar to Thatcher in 1979, someone who goes against the established consensus of the last 20 years, and who represents something that has never really been tried. 

[Blair]

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/931845154130055168

Leonard beats Sarwar for the leadership of Scottish Labour. I'm surprised it was so close considering the revelations about Sarwar's family business.

This means +1 Left seat on the NEC as well.

I mean the revelations weren't that surprising; Sarwar's dad was always know to have a certain amount of skeletons in his closet.

He's also been relatively well know in Scottish Labour; served as an MP from 2010-215, then as an MEP, than as Deputy Leader and Health Secretary. He was actually the favourite for a short time at the beginning, due to him having much higher name ID, better links in the party.

The rather depressing takeaway is that Scottish Labour only had what 22,000 vote? 2,000 people voted in my borough's selection for local mayor (a complete non-position). Scottish Labour basically hasn't benefited from the membership surge.

Also FWIW Scottish Labour is very much on the right; it was the only region to vote for Owen Smith in 2016 and voted for Jim Murphy (probably the most right wing Labour leader) in 2014. Also well it has so few members

[Blair]

I wasn't old enough to vote in 2011, but most likely would have voted to keep FPTP. Someone I know pointed out the funny trend that FPTP systems often get shifted to become more proportional, and PR systems have limits put in place to make it more like FPTP (thresholds, bloc allocation etc)

I know it's more related to the piss poor understanding of local politics but we have a weird AV system in the London Mayoral Race and no-one really knows how to use it (I know at least 5 people who gave the Greens/Womens' Equality Party a 2nd preference because they 'wanted Sadiq to win')

I'm not sure if's based on anything other than pure chance, but British Politics/FPTP tends to get trapped in era's of small majorities. 1964-1979 springs to mind, where barring '66, the highest majority was what less than 10?

The problem for the Tories is that it's hard to see where in the next election they could improve (beyond a handful of marginals) Just in London alone, seats they won in 2010 and 2015 now have majorities of 5,000-10,000.

[Blair]

Damian Green, the (de facto) Deputy PM, has resigned.

Looks like he's been sacked. I never get why they have this stupid facade where they say 'they asked for his resignation.''

Am a tad surprised; although it's been drawn out for so long, and was done on the last day of term for the Tories. If he had resigned in November when this was all brewing it would have been a lot worse.

Will cause a slight cabinet reshuffle, and we'll need a new deputy PM. Most likely Amber Rudd

[Blair]

Bar a major scandal Johnson won't be sacked. May has had too many chances to do it.

There's some talk about moving him from the Foreign Office to a beefed up Business Department (or to Tory Chairman) but the problem is that if he has a domestic post he'll be pissing on every news story.

He's not at all as popular as he was back in 2015, either with Tory MPs or with the public.

[Blair]

It's not 2014; Boris Johnson isn't the Messiah.

Boris Johnson's political career ended the morning after the referendum when he was booed coming out his House in London. His entire plan was for Leave to narrowly lose, get a plum Cabinet Job and then run against Osborne in 2018.

Johnson's only relative advantage over May is that he was slightly more liberal on certain issues like Immigration, and public sector pay, but by becoming the face of Leave he's made himself toxic with the voters the Tories need (affluent, 30-45 years living in urban areas)

I'd even argue that without Brexit, Boris's rather sketchy record in London (which saw lots of vanity projects, and not a lot of actual progress), his record of making absolutely sh**t stupid comments, and his eerie similarity to a British version of Trump make him pretty questionable.

Besides, he's been a god awful foreign Secretary, who actually put someone put in prison because he didn't do his homework before a select committee.

[Blair]

If polls are reliable except for forecasting general elections, then they are not reliable.

Theresa May or Corbyn were not unknown to the public. They are, after all, the most high-profile politicians in a country where politics has been loud and vituperative since the Brexit campaign. Millions of people had opinions about them, then changed their minds. They may do so again, or not.

The last three elections since 2010 delivered governments that surprised most people, the last two even did so relative to beliefs on election night. For most of that time, Labour has been convinced it would form the next government, including now. Perhaps a more profound scepticism about forecasting confidence is in order.

Well actually they were. Theresa May had never even fought a leadership campaign; and Corbyn had spend his two leadership elections running against the press. It's certainly true that voters had perceptions of the leaders; but Labour's success was the ability to use a general election to announce tons of popular policies.

When I worked in May in the kitchen at the cafe, every hour on Radio 6 (a music focused station) you'd hear a policy announcement from Labour; free school meals, taxing private schools, abolishing NHS parking fees etc. Basically good, populist stuff. It's hard to explain; but during elections the Broadcast channels have to give fair, and equal coverage; which allowed Labour to get attacked every day by the Daily Mail, the Sun etc but still good coverage on the BBC.

However... Corbyn and May are both still unpopular leaders. Although at the start Corbyn was at something like -40, and May was at +45; they've just managed to meet in the middle. As people will know I'm about as anti-corbyn as is possible whilst still staying a member; but I still voted Labour in the election.

The problem with polling is that people expect it to predict results; it's simply a snapshot of current public opinion, scaled on different turnout levels, and models. Labours own internal polling had it Tories: 45, Labour: 33... whilst YouGov had it 42-40 on the last day of the campaign. There was a clear trend in the polling data that it was narrowing; there was just a lot of debate about what turnout was going to be, and who was going to turnout.

When you add a Referendum that changes all previous voting intentions, which adds a top new salient issue to the agenda, and combine it with both the Liberal Democrats and UKIP dropping off (Meaning that there's about 20% of the electorate floating around) combined with voters affected by either the Scottish or EU referendum; you get a complicated mess.

There's a reason why say seat polling was much much easier in 2005

[Blair]

British Politics is basically very messy at the moment.

[Blair]

I was going to come on here and post some form of rant but IceAgeComing puts my thoughts perfectly.

It's a guess, but polls don't tend to shift that dramatically after elections. Nothing drastically has changed since June, for people who voted Conservative to suddenly love Labour (and/or Corbyn) so there's not a shift in the polls. The differences (all within the margin of error) show that at the moment an election would produce another hung parliament; just the number of seats depends on turnout/the smaller parties etc etc.

Corbyn remains what he always has been; a very good campaigner, but a very average parliamentary performance. The only opposition who've had an essential open goal was Blair after '94, and that required an economic collapse, and one of the worst Governments in Britain (combined with one of the most effective machines in New Labour)

I feel like this should be pinned as a disclaimer, but the assumed wisdom has been virtually always been wrong in British Politics since 2015. We've got a rather weird economy (with record employment figures, but with rising inflation/stagnant wages), two massive political culture issues with Scottish Independence and Brexit, and a lot of voters who are proving willing to act erratically (be they UKIP/Lib Dem/Tories in London etc etc) 

[Blair]

It's also significantly likely that neither May or Corbyn will be leading their parties when the next general election actually swing away

[Blair]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nireland-politics/ireland-britain-to-seek-to-re-establish-northern-ireland-talks-idUSKCN1FZ0U7

Can anyone with a better understanding of NI politics explain what this is means for May and/or the Brexit talks?

It seems that NI is really dominating british politics for the first time in a while

I'm on my phone so will give a short answer- no big impact.

Northern Ireland's devolved government has to include power sharing between the Unionst (DUP) and the Republicans (Sinn Fein) but the last one collapsed over a boring scandal+ a general decline in relations between both sides. If they can't reach a new agreement then London has to take over running the government.

A not directly related but important factor is that 8 DUP MPs are supporting May and they don't want any Brexit deal that imposes radically different terms on NI than the rest of the UK.

[Blair]

It's also significantly likely that neither May or Corbyn will be leading their parties when the next general election actually swing away

If Corbyn decides to step aside, who do you think he would anoint as his successor? Thornberry? Rayner? Would Pidcock have a shot or is she way too new?

I've seen Dan Carden suggested; newly elected MP who use to be an aide to Len McCluskly who runs UNITE; the biggest trade union in the UK.

I don't think Pidock would run; but she'd have a good chance of winning. As left behind says the fact that I'd happily vote for Rayner/Thornberry, but not Pidock shows they're not that left wing.

Outside the Cabinet; I'd expect Chukka Umunna to run; maybe Sadiq Khan

[Blair]

Could McDonnell run? He would undoubtedly become a Corbyn stand in, although I guess if Corbs wants to pass the baton to a younger generation he might pass.

Doubt Khan would run, he would risk alienating the Left and therefore his re-election; plus I've never really got the vibe he wants it.

I mean he's not briefing/being obvious about it if he is. Whereas Thornberry/Raynor/Pidock have all had their names in Labours various media organs as future leaders. He's a bit too Ken Livingstone

He's also despised by a vast majority of MPs including those on the left; even Dianne Abbott hates him apparently

[Blair]

He's also despised by a vast majority of MPs including those on the left; even Dianne Abbott hates him apparently

The first claim is obviously true, but where does the second come from? Google isn't helping a boy out today.

I would've thought that he and Abbott would be pretty close because of their mutual connection with Corbyn, with Abbott being's Jezza's ex-girlfriend and McDonnell being one of his closest longtime friends. And no, there's nothing wrong with gossiping about the intimate relationships of old socialists from countries I've never been to.

I did a long post on this but forgot to post it and closed the tab. But to keep it brief; Abbott is much more pro-EU, and pro-immigration than McDonnell. IIRC Abbott is seen as a bit of a sell out by the old hard left cause she moderated a tiny bit back in the 80s to get selected for her seat.

Hate was probably the wrong word but her and JM aren't close; iirc I think she forced John out of the leadership race in 2010 as well.

It's all academic tho cause Abbott has no sway on either the PLP or the wider party

[Blair]

Well the Tories clearly have alienated there voters cause they lost Canterbury for the first time in what 100 years?

[Blair]

Has anyone heard The Sun and Daily Telegraph claim that Corbyn was a Communist spy?

Yes it's bullsh**t. The allegations aren't even that he's a spy but rather a source from the 1980s... as if had anything to offer in 1984. It's no different to the CIA/MI6 talking to some random dissidents in the USSR or Eastern bloc.

Everyone knows Corbyn dislikes UK foreign policy so this is easy to brush off.

The fact that on Monday the Tories are set to cut student fees really shows the impact JC has had; Tories have given up the economic argument

[Blair]

My favourite story of the week is that a Tory MP Andrew Bridgen has reported Keith Vaz to the police for having too many houses. Wish I was joking. I seem to recall there have some sort of feud.

My more grim story is that as I just read that Leo Abse, one of the most high profile campaigners for homosexual equality in the 1960s was accused of child sexual abuse. The story is 3-4 years old, but only read it for the first time. Likewise discovered that the former Speaker George Thomas was apparently also up to the same.

[Blair]

Indeed few people knew that Marston Moore was fought to liberate burger vans!

Sadly though she's clearly running. She's hired some 25 year SPAD who understands instagram and wants to run as some sort of Michael Portillo 'Who Dares wins' crap about how great capitalism is. To think she was justice secretary

[Blair]

It's not the numbers, but more so the fact that the route to a majority without Scotland has to run through insanely Tory Seats (including 10-20 that Labour lost in 2005)

[Blair]

Aberconwy, the Vale of Glamorgan, Preseli Pembrokeshire and Arfon are all fairly marginal that would fall in a minor swing towards Labour; and even then there are more potential gains (remember in the 1997 blowouts the Tories lost every single seat in Wales)

But then the Liberals were still a force in Wales, 2017 was the first time they hadn't won a seat there since well parties formed.
But I guess there's enough to work with in North Wales and West of Swansea

This is me being lazy and not basing it on any actual data but I think some of the welsh liberal seats are never going to return to the Liberal Democrat’s (at least in the next 10 years) Cardiff Central had a 3,000 majority in 2015 and now a has a 12,000 one.

I came on here to post how useless Vince Cable is, I just saw a video on my news feed where’s he’s talking about Roy Jenkins and god even I was falling asleep! Apparently there press office is failing apart, and the locals will be interesting for them.

There’s essentially a vast chunk of urban seats (ex lib lab) marginals that now have 10k plus marginals, they’ve lost most of their MPs who can claim to have a personal vote (Mulholland,Clegg,Hughes) I think the best they can do is nibble away at Tory seats

[Blair]

The only interesting comparison is how Labour 'Moderates' in the PLP, and Republican lawmakers act with a leader who they frankly never wanted to get nominated.

Although ofc Corbyn's excesses are in his policies, whilst Trump's is in his absolute lack of suitability for high office. The only people on the left who are even close to Trumpian type behaviour would be someone like Gorgeous George Galloway