UK General Discussion: 2017 and onwards, Mayhem

[mileslunn]

If I were May (some concessions to party unity here)

Prime Minister: Theresa May
Leader of the House of Commons: Jeremy Hunt
Chancellor of the Exchequer: Amber Rudd
Foreign Secretary: Rory Stewart
Home Secretary: Brandon Lewis
Brexit Secretary: David Davis
International Trade Secretary: Liam Fox
Defence Secretary: Gavin Williamson
Health Secretary: Sarah Wollaston
Education Secretary: Penny Mordaunt
Justice Secretary/Lord Chancellor: David Liddington
BEIS: George Freeman
Transport: Dominic Raab
DCLG: Sajid Javid
DWP: David Gauke
DfID: Tom Tugendhat
DDCMS: Tracey Crouch
DEFRA: Michael Gove
Scotland: David Mundell
Wales: Alun Cairns
NI: James Brokenshire
Chief Secretary to the Treasury: Justine Greening
Minister of State for the Cabinet Office: Neil O'Brien
Chairman of the Conservative Party: James Cleverly
Chief Whip: Julian Smith

Wouldn't getting rid of Boris Johnson just increase the chances he will try to stir up things to become the next PM.  Maybe move him somewhere else, I am thinking of Transport/Infrastructure as that would go well for a previous mayor of the largest city.

[mileslunn]

If I were May (some concessions to party unity here)

Prime Minister: Theresa May
Leader of the House of Commons: Jeremy Hunt
Chancellor of the Exchequer: Amber Rudd
Foreign Secretary: Rory Stewart
Home Secretary: Brandon Lewis
Brexit Secretary: David Davis
International Trade Secretary: Liam Fox
Defence Secretary: Gavin Williamson
Health Secretary: Sarah Wollaston
Education Secretary: Penny Mordaunt
Justice Secretary/Lord Chancellor: David Liddington
BEIS: George Freeman
Transport: Dominic Raab
DCLG: Sajid Javid
DWP: David Gauke
DfID: Tom Tugendhat
DDCMS: Tracey Crouch
DEFRA: Michael Gove
Scotland: David Mundell
Wales: Alun Cairns
NI: James Brokenshire
Chief Secretary to the Treasury: Justine Greening
Minister of State for the Cabinet Office: Neil O'Brien
Chairman of the Conservative Party: James Cleverly
Chief Whip: Julian Smith

Wouldn't getting rid of Boris Johnson just increase the chances he will try to stir up things to become the next PM.  Maybe move him somewhere else, I am thinking of Transport/Infrastructure as that would go well for a previous mayor of the largest city.

True - I guess it depends whether May can survive the risk of Boris outside of the tent trying to whip up the Brexiteers, he's quite unpopular with most of the Parliamentary Party (but not the activists) so maybe she could.

You're right that he'd be best placed in a less important Cabinet role - Transport / DCLG / or DDCMS, though there have been press reports that he threatened to quit if offered a demotion.

Transport is still a very important one and based on his background as London mayor seems more suited as generally mayors tend to have more expertise in infrastructure and transport which is a major issue for cities as opposed to foreign policy.  Also he might cause the Tories problems passing the re-distribution is the re-distribution of his constituency would have him losing it as it includes a sizeable chunk of John McDonnell's constituency so he might vote against yet the new boundaries as a whole are better for the Tories than the current ones.  He also isn't the only Tory hurt, Kenneth Clarke under the new boundaries would be far more vulnerable as he would have only won by 2 points instead of 13 as he loses much of the southern rural parts which go heavily conservative while maintains the southern suburbs of Nottingham which the two parties split pretty evenly in and Labour even made some inroads due to changing demographics.  That being said I don't think boundary changes are a confidence vote that the government would fall on anyways.

[mileslunn]

Which puts you safely out of the country a lot of the time.

True - certainly helped for Brown re: David Miliband.

Oooh! Does this mean we get to watch them go up for the leadership and Jo win by a nose and then lose the next election?

What makes you think Boris Johnson would lose the next election.  With how polarizing Corbyn is, the next election is likely to be a dog fight no matter who the Tories choose and it will be a challenge for either party to win a majority especially a landslide.

[mileslunn]

True Boris Johnson has lousy approval ratings, but it seems for the most part both parties have a solid floor of 38% and a ceiling of 45%.  Now if it is 45% Tory to 38% Labour, that is a strong Tory majority but with 45% Labour to 38% Tory that still puts Labour slightly shy of a majority if you have a uniform swing.  The only way either can win a big majority is if one falls below 38% and this can only happen if one of the third parties does better.  If one of the third parties rises then its possible to win a majority like David Cameron in 2015, or Tony Blair in 2005 with under 40%, but not when you have weak third parties.  So Boris winning a general election should be completely dismissed even though he probably would be more of a liability than asset.

[mileslunn]

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-42767657

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If Bolton is removed, who takes over as UKIP Party Leader?

This is probably bad news for them as much of the rest of the party are right wing crazies, whereas he was one of the more moderate ones (formerly a Liberal Democrat himself).  Somewhat good news for the Tories although as we saw last election lots of UKIP votes swung over to Labour too.  If brexit happens and the free mobility of labour is ended, UKIP will have lots all relevancy or there only alternative would be to appeal to the racists like the BNP and NF did in the past.  Now if Brexit is cancelled or UK stays in the single market thus maintaining free mobility of labour they may have some potential.  Off course if there is a second referendum and the public votes to stay in the EU or votes in favour of a deal remaining in the single market they will lose all ammo as going against the public wishes never tends to go over well even for those who agree with the position.

[mileslunn]

Recent yougov poll shows Tories 43% and Labour 39%, while another is 41% Conservative and 40% Labour so is this a blip or could it be a trend.  With all the troubles the government is having you would think Labour would have a much bigger lead so it does suggest that while Corbyn does well amongst younger voters he is a liability amongst many.  When I visited Britain I found he is still a turnoff to much of the over 50 crowd so while the party gained a lot under him, he doesn't seem to be able to pull them much beyond the 40% mark.  While its tough to know if a centrist would do better, certainly there seems to be a limit to how much he can grow the party.  Will be interesting though if other polls confirm the trend or if it is just a blip.

[mileslunn]

Looking forward to Hodges' Twitter meltdown after the Tories get obliterated this May in the locals.

Most seats up for grabs this year are Labour strongholds.  It will be interesting to see more the results in swing areas as opposed to overall numbers.  That being said based on the polls I think Corbyn is a double edge sword.  He inspired many young people who wouldn't vote otherwise, but also a huge turnoff to older voters thus why he can get the party easily up to 40%, but has trouble going much beyond that.  Although to be fair Labour hasn't gotten over 45% in a general election for over 40 years mind you when Blair was PM and opposition leader in the 90s Labour did frequently top the 50% mark in the polls which Corbyn has been unable to do.  In terms of the Tories, I suspect if the alternative was more centrist their numbers wouldn't be as high.  Otherwise if you had a party similar to the Liberal Party of Canada or Democrats in the US, you probably could push the Tories down into the 30s, but as long as you have someone as left wing as Corbyn it will be tough to push them under 40%.  Sort of reminds me of my home province BC.  In the last federal election, the Tories crashed to 30% in BC as you had the centre-left Liberals, but provincially the centre-right BC Liberals (despite their name they are similar to British Tories in ideology) still got 40% when facing the NDP (who are like Labour although more like Brown or Miliband as opposed to Corbyn).

[mileslunn]

Are you quite alright?

Off course what are you talking about.  Just discussing the issues.  I tend to like long comments if you read my blogs.

[mileslunn]

A third poll has confirmed the Tories are now ahead so I think its fair to say at the moment if an election were held today the Tories would win.  Off course polls are just snapshots and can change but I do think Labour members need to really be asking themselves why they don't have a double digit lead with all the problems the Tories are facing.  Also Corbyn has negative approval ratings although not quite as bad as Theresa May while on best PM, most polls show May is still ahead.  While some say Britain is so polarized having someone more centrist wouldn't help, I am not totally sold on that.  I think if you put either Barack Obama or Justin Trudeau up against Theresa May both could beat her, so Labour needs to find their version of those two who is charismatic so excites younger voters but moderate enough he or she doesn't scare away older voters.  I think Sadiq Khan would in many ways fit that bill although his religion might be a problem in some smaller communities in England.

[mileslunn]

Anyway, this is relevant to the discussion above:



A lot of right-wing arguments Online about British political trends basically amount to pure fantasy. This land is not Ohio.

Cannot read what the map is about so what do the colour codes mean here?

[mileslunn]

Tories back in the lead again so while not time to panic I do think Corbyn has probably taken the party as far as it can go.  Someone from the soft left could probably pick up the extra 3 to 5 points Labour needs whereas low 40s is Corbyn's ceiling.  Around 1994, the British Tories faced similar troubles, but were trailing by 15-20 points in the polls rather than slightly ahead thus I believe, even though some disagree, more evidence that Labour would be doing better with a more centrist leader (maybe not as centrist as Tony Blair, but similar to traditional social democratic party leaders in continental Europe not loony left like Corbyn).  If Labour cannot pull ahead even under ideal conditions, then they probably will have a tough time ever doing so under Corbyn unless the Tories spectacularly implode or Brexit goes horribly awry.

[mileslunn]

I totally get the argument that Corbyn reaches out to some voters on a different frequency, one that many Labour-considerers don't hear. Looking beyond the main patterns of the 2017 election, it's evident that something happened to assist Labour among former Green voters, students, some non-voters, and probably also voters leaning toward the Lib Dems, who had been polling in low double digits. That something is most credibly labelled Corbyn, I believe, though in some areas it was certainly Remainer rage.

The risk is that Corbyn leaves and the kids don't care as much about bland but almost equally left-wing successor, who then has to do twice as well among the normies who see Corbyn as a bit off.

I would argue passion and charisma more than where one stands on the spectrum matter most with younger voters.  Justin Trudeau in Canada and Barack Obama in the US brought out the young in droves, but did so without scaring off moderate and/or older voters so Labour just needs to find their own version of Trudeau or Obama.  Sadiq Khan or perhaps maybe Andy Burnham are ones to look at.  Could also be some from some of the newer members of the Labour Party who are soft left.

[mileslunn]

We live in a Kurz/Ardern/Macron world now. Yoof leaders rule

You forgot Justin Trudeau.  He might be a bit older than those three but he acts quite immature compared to them.  That being said choosing Laura Pidcock would be nuts.  She is funny to listen to as she is truly a nutbar, but I don't think she could win, at least not now.  Kurz is fairly conservative like Austria is, Ardern is soft left not hard left, and Macron is a centrist (he would probably be a Liberal Democrat if in the UK).  If Pidcock became PM, UK would be on the verge of bankruptcy in five years and a worse basket case than Greece, while heading the way of Venezuela although not quite as bad.  Of the Corbynite younger members, someone like Cat Smith would probably be more electable and still fairly left wing but not complete nuts.  People like Dennis Skinner, Chris Williamson, and Laura Pidcock are off the scale nuts and even less electable than Jacob Rees-Mogg on the right.

[mileslunn]

That being said choosing Laura Pidcock would be nuts.  She is funny to listen to as she is truly a nutbar, she is part of the working class and I am prejudiced against that but I don't think she could win, at least not now. 

FTFY

I am not prejudiced against her because she is working class, I just think our ideas are crazy.  Note Che Guevera and Fidel Castro came from rich families so class has nothing to do with it.  Her, Dennis Skinner, Chris Williamson, John McDonnell, and Diane Abbott are the ones are consider nutbars as everywhere IMHO where their policies have been tried they failed miserably.

[mileslunn]

Not sure if lumping any of those people together with Williamson - who is a rather... erm... singular... Member of Parliament in certain respects - is particularly fair...

Each has their own styles, but they are all on the left wing of the party and well to the left of most Brits so that is what they have in common.

[mileslunn]

As for Cat Smith, don't know much about her, but David Cameron once commented she made an intelligent question and suggested she run for Labour leader, although maybe that was tongue and cheek.  As for the names mentioned, just pointing out they are quite left wing.  Now to be fair maybe there is a market for that, after all there is no shortage of countries including the US have leaders that most would consider too far right to be electable (In Europe you have Poland and Hungary) so more just an observation.

[mileslunn]

It's really odd looking at the map and seeing no lib Dem mp in Devon or cornwall, how times have changed..

Lib Dems were close in St Ives, but that's just one of 6 Cornwall seats. They weren't close in any of the other five. Nothing really close in Devon either. It's reflective of the huge loss in popular support for the Lib Dems since 2010.

It seems the Northeastern parts of Cornwall went Tory with over 50% much like Devon and Somerset, but the Southwestern parts you had a lot of tactical voting so in Camborne and Redruth as well as Truro and Falmouth it appears the LibDem collapse went mostly to Labour whereas in St. Ives the progressive vote stuck mostly with the LibDems.  Even in places like Eastbourne and Oxford West and Abingdon, it was probably more tactical voting than genuine Liberal Democrat support that tipped those to the LibDems.  However in North Norfolk and Westmorland and Lonsdale, I suspect if Norman Lamb and Tim Farron were not the candidates, the Tories would have won both handidly, likely topping the 50% mark.  In the North Cheadle and Hazel Grove are ones where LibDems could win if there is enough tactical voting but that is about it and you have the odd southern one like Cheltenham.  That being said most rural constituencies they won between 1997 - 2010 are now solidly Tory and unlikely to flip back.

[mileslunn]

I think the big problem with Brexit is of the 52% who voted leave there is great variance on what they wanted.  Anything from staying in the single market (Norway like deal), Customs Union (Turkey like deal), Free trade deal (Canada like deal), to returning to WTO rules were all possibilities.  I doubt many who voted leave wanted the first and only the most ardent brexiters favoured the last, but between the two middle you would probably get a split between hard and soft brexiters.  Essentially the deal is a compromise which seems like the best way forward to deal with a divided nation, but it seems neither side wants a compromise, it is for most their way or the highway meaning support one side and anger half the country or find a compromise like they did and leave both sides upset, even if less so than choosing one side.

That being said with the clock ticking, I cannot see how turning this down would help UK.  There doesn't seem to be enough time to make another deal and whatever the EU offers would probably be worse anyways.  Even if the Tories get the DUP on side, the only way I can see it passing the commons is if they can get all the Labour leave and a few Eurosceptics who reluctantly voted remain on side and since Labour feels they have a decent chance at winning an election (polls suggest they would fall short, but different story), I suspect most if not all would vote against in the hopes of triggering one.  Perhaps Labour MPs who barely won their seats might want to avoid this as just as Labour could win, they also could lose many of their marginal seats too, especially if turnout amongst younger voters falls back to normal levels.

[mileslunn]

I think those opposing the deal are shooting themselves in the foot.  I would have thought hard brexiters would be more scared of Jeremy Corbyn becoming PM thus that threat would make them want to avoid this.  Also if any Brexiters think the EU will offer a better deal, they are dreaming technicolour.  The EU doesn't want to make it too generous lest other countries may decide to leave and the EU wants to ensure that doesn't happen.

[mileslunn]

I doubt an election, too risky.  Corbyn only came as close as he did due to youthquake and no guarantee it happens again.  If younger voters don't turnout or Greens or Liberal Democrats pick up some they could easily lose 30 seats.  By the same token lots of supposed safe Tory seats, especially in London almost went Labour so I suspect those MPs aren't keen on going again while for SNP their support is quite volatile so anybody's guess how they will do.  Also Scottish Tory support is much softer than English Tory support so doubt many of the 13 Conservative MPs in Scotland will want an election.