UK General Discussion: 2017 and onwards, Mayhem

[Blair]

In the never ending combination of Brexit wars it looks like Phillip Hammond (nicknamed spreadsheet Phil, later revised to spreadsh**t Phil) is going to face another difficult budget.

It's worth noting the tories haven't had a successful budget since summer 2015; autumn 2015 had the tax credit fiasco, summer 2016 was the 'project fear' budget that angered the right, and the spring budget this year had the chaos of the National Insurance tax rise on small businesses.

I expect this current one will lead to some crisis; the government has such a small majority that 1 or 2 MPs can just cough some objection, and it virtually leads to a climbdown.

And well this would be hard in normal times, but Hammond has to deal with the black hole of Brexit and the mouth breathers on the right, whilst also trying to show that he understands that the Tories need some sort of electoral offer to both the young and the old.


However he could easily get sacked after the Budget, as a fair amount of tories are calling for him to be sacked; and replaced with Gove.

I thought Tory-DUP actually gives realistically a 6 seat cushion as the 7 Sinn Fein MPs have an abstentionist policy so they are never in the House to vote the government down.  If the Sinn Fein MPs actually showed up the government would be in much greater danger of falling as they only need to lose two by-elections which is probably likely prior to 2022 whereas losing 7 seems like a lot.  Do you know how many they lost between 1992-1997 and if they do lose 7, how long did it take as that would be good basis to go on.

The SNP, considering how they did in the last election, are not likely to vote for another one.

In other news, new Labour MP accused of sexist comments

The MP who defeated Nick Clegg for all things.  Wonder how people will feel although probably won't matter.  I was wondering how come Nick Clegg survived the 2015 route but couldn't survive 2017?  Was it stronger youth turnout that did him in as I suspect some Tories probably tactically voted for him to stop a Labour win.

Also another new MP who is embarrassment is Laura Pidcock who said she won't hang out with Tories.  From what I've read on her she seems like a real left wing firebrand and SJW, sort of Britain's version of Niki Ashton here in Canada.

The other nutty one but has been around for a long time is Dennis Skinner who seems to be fairly far out there.  Ironically his constituency has become more competitive so the Tories might have a shot at it if he resigns or dies (he is in his 80s now).

FWIW I'd put money on him losing the whip today, and possibly resigning by Friday if anything awful comes out.

I'm not sure if you saw but it's been leaked by Guido Fawkes (the infamous almost alt-right parliamentary gossip website, which has a long history of basically causing sh**t for politicians) I have my own suspicions on who actually gave the tip off; but they've been leaking it slowly for the last two days, and the worst is still to come on.

Clegg lost for four reasons
1.) The Lib Dem vote share actually dropped between 2015 and 2017
2.) A lot of tories in Sheffield Hallam voted Lib Dem tactically in 2015 (the former Tory PPC sent letters to tory voters saying 'vote for Nick' as they needed him for a coalition, and to deprive Labour 3.) The tory vote share went up by 5k, so less voted tactically.
4.) Labour did a lot better. Sheffield Hallam is the stereotypical Corbyn seat; affluent, with enough young people to make a difference, higher turnout, switches from the Green party etc

[YL]

Clegg lost for four reasons
1.) The Lib Dem vote share actually dropped between 2015 and 2017
2.) A lot of tories in Sheffield Hallam voted Lib Dem tactically in 2015 (the former Tory PPC sent letters to tory voters saying 'vote for Nick' as they needed him for a coalition, and to deprive Labour
3.) The tory vote share went up by 5k, so less voted tactically.
4.) Labour did a lot better. Sheffield Hallam is the stereotypical Corbyn seat; affluent, with enough young people to make a difference, higher turnout, switches from the Green party etc

2 and 3 are the key points.

Basically, in Sheffield Hallam there was a long history (back to at least 1992) of people who would have voted Labour in typical constituencies voting Lib Dem tactically (or semi-tactically; some would have been basically anti-Tory voters who didn't have a strong preference between Labour and the Lib Dems).  The Coalition and specifically Clegg's role in it, together with a very effective Labour campaign run by their 2015 candidate Oliver Coppard and, surprisingly enough,  the local Labour students, caused this vote to transfer pretty much en bloc over to Labour in 2015.  This would have been enough for Labour to win the seat then, if it hadn't been for the tactical shift among Tories you mention.

Then in 2017 Clegg's appeal to Tories was considerably weaker: there was no discussion of a potential coalition, he was less relevant anyway as he was no longer leader, and his Brexit stance won't have appealed to many of them.  (Hallam is fairly strongly anti-Brexit overall, but that would be less true among the natural Tory supporters.)  So the tactical votes went back to the Tories, and Clegg was lost without them.  The Labour vote didn't actually go up that much compared with the national result, but it didn't need to.  Student turnout was already quite high in Hallam in 2015.

[IceAgeComing]

Also another new MP who is embarrassment is Laura Pidcock who said she won't hang out with Tories.  From what I've read on her she seems like a real left wing firebrand and SJW, sort of Britain's version of Niki Ashton here in Canada.

The other nutty one but has been around for a long time is Dennis Skinner who seems to be fairly far out there.  Ironically his constituency has become more competitive so the Tories might have a shot at it if he resigns or dies (he is in his 80s now).

I mean; 'not hanging out with Tories' isn't exactly something that's going to annoy a significant amount of Pidcock's constituents - especially those that vote for her.  Also its hardly surprising that the 2017 Labour intake is going to tend to have a few left wingers in it - that's been the trend of the last few elections after all!

Also assuming that Skinner has got a strong personal vote is likely to be a mistake: indeed the story from the campaign was that the national Labour party were a little worried about Bolsolver and were not at all happy with the quality of the data from the seat: so I don't think that even they really know whether Skinner departing (which at this point will only be his choice) would benefit or hurt them.

[Phony Moderate]

Bolsover turned out to be tighter than I expected after seeing the exit poll; I was expecting maybe an 8,000 majority or so.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

The Tories threw the kitchen sink at Bolsover, but it was a tactical error in retrospect, more motivated by a desire to oust Skinner than serious reasons.

[mileslunn]

With Sheffield Hallam, could this trigger a by-election?  I suspect Labour would probably hold it but with lower turnout do you think the Liberal Democrats if Clegg runs or the Tories if he doesn't have any chance.

As for Dennis Skinner, the only reason I brought this up is I noticed in the traditional blue collar small towns in Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire, Tories made gains picking up Northeast Derbyshire, Mansfield and almost winning Ashfield thus why I thought Skinner's and perhaps longer term Basseltaw might be vulnerable.  On the other hand the suburban Nottingham constituencies saw a positive swing towards Labour so Broxtowe and perhaps Erewash could easily flip and if a strong enough swing maybe Sherwood but not likely.  Even Rushcliffe could become vulnerable once Kenneth Clarke retires, especially under the proposed boundary changes which lop off a lot of the southern rural parts where the Tories are strongest.

As for Laura Pidcock, if listened to her speeches and she sounds pretty far out there and pretty bitter towards the Tories, so not sure the 34% who voted Tory in her riding particularly like that.  Mind you considering how hard in the past especially under Thatcher the Northeast was hit, I've heard a fair number of Labour in the North do hate the Tories with that or greater passion.  Some even celebrated Thatcher's death (not suggesting she did, but there were people who did which I think is below anyone, I hate Donald Trump with a passion but I wouldn't celebrate when he dies) so perhaps maybe she is a reflection of many of her constituents, perhaps more her age group, or maybe she just is a millennial type Tony Benn.  I just know the tabloids owned by Murdoch love to mock her as well as Skinner

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

very little chance, unless O'Mara is accused of anything worse than being an edgy gobsh**te (i.e. if he turns out to be a sex pest or the like). More likely he'll be given the Naz Shah treatment.

It's been true for quite some time that the Midlands respond very well to "culture war" based campaigns, so it's no surprise they swung Toryways. Whether it is indicative of a broader trend is another matter.

As for Pidcock, well, I suppose it would be difficult for outsiders to get, but the sort of tribal anti-Toryism plays well in those sort of areas, even amongst more moderate members of the PLP.

[mileslunn]

very little chance, unless O'Mara is accused of anything worse than being an edgy gobsh**te (i.e. if he turns out to be a sex pest or the like). More likely he'll be given the Naz Shah treatment.

It's been true for quite some time that the Midlands respond very well to "culture war" based campaigns, so it's no surprise they swung Toryways. Whether it is indicative of a broader trend is another matter.

As for Pidcock, well, I suppose it would be difficult for outsiders to get, but the sort of tribal anti-Toryism plays well in those sort of areas, even amongst more moderate members of the PLP.

I kind of thought with Laura Pidcock location and age were a big factor.  Certainly in her neck of the woods Margaret Thatcher still remains quite hated.  Also age as at least here in Canada, maybe UK is different, I find the younger partisans tend to be a lot more rabid.  Back in my university days 15 years ago we would have lively debates with those of different views but still go out for drinks after whereas now it seems both sides seem to want nothing to do with the other side and she is a bit younger than me and a millennial as opposed to border Gen X/Millennial, which I am.  I also would be a Tory if I lived in Britain as I am centre-right and I only support the Democrats in the US because of how far right the GOP has swung and in Canada I am sort of torn as I don't like how the Liberals have swung leftward, but not happy with the strong Reform party element in the Tories which the British Tories have those types, but it seems not as many as ours and they also seem to still have more One Nation Conservatives or as we call Red Tories which have largely been banished from conservative parties in North America.  Still I doubt she will pick up very many soft Tory voters next time around, but probably doesn't need to although the boundary changes depending on how they go could either make her constituency more safe if it is centred more around the industrial towns or more marginal if it includes a larger rural portion than now.

[parochial boy]

I loved Laura Pidcock before finding out that she voted for a £42m worth of cuts in her time on Northumberland county council. And no, nothing about her comments on Tories are in any way objectionable.

I've always found it a little unfair to blame Labour councils for cutting spending over the last 7 years - given it was a direct result of being starved of funds by the Tory government (and for some reason, the funds that Labour councils were getting cut by a lot more more than Tory councils)

[mileslunn]

I loved Laura Pidcock before finding out that she voted for a £42m worth of cuts in her time on Northumberland county council. And no, nothing about her comments on Tories are in any way objectionable.

Doesn't that just debase politics.  Maybe I am looking at it from too much of a North American angle, but the extreme polarization you see in US politics is in large part because people from the other sides don't wish to talk to each other, so I fail to see how it is a good thing.  Part of the reason the GOP has become so extreme is they stay in their echo chambers and don't hear from anything that doesn't support their views or communicate with those with different views, so I think for Labour or as a matter of fact any party this not the way to go.

[Leftbehind]

I loved Laura Pidcock before finding out that she voted for a £42m worth of cuts in her time on Northumberland county council. And no, nothing about her comments on Tories are in any way objectionable.

I've always found it a little unfair to blame Labour councils for cutting spending over the last 7 years - given it was a direct result of being starved of funds by the Tory government (and for some reason, the funds that Labour councils were getting fell by a lot more more than Tory councils)

Fair enough. Also: Mileslunn, learn paragraph structure, please.

Yeah, local councils are powerless to plug those gaps, extra funding would come from a non progressive tax or flogging off all public assets to make some money to keep services running - and the size of the cuts has meant that's only a stop gap. It's been completely demoralising but at least electing these councillors has meant more money and activists for the party so it could effectively fight 2017. Even outright rebellion as tried in the eighties would just see Labour councillors removed from any influence as its put into special measures.

[mileslunn]

The other Labour MP or newly elected one who seems pretty far out there is Chris Williamson and he interestingly enough actually regained a seat for them.  Maybe its my bias but a lot of the Corbynites seem a little loony to me, but perhaps I am more used to the new Labour under the Blair era which were moderate centre-left progressive, but fairly centrist.  The one big time Corbyn supporter who seems alright is Cat Smith.  She is fairly left wing, but doesn't come across as a firebrand and she only bare won her seat in 2015 while won by almost 15 points in 2017.  Emily Thornberry seems fairly left wing although despite standing strongly behind Corbyn, not sure if she was a supporter of him initially.  I did like her Boris joke at the Labour conference though.  And off course there is John McDonnell who has always been one of the more left wing members.

Does anyone know how many Blairites are still left or have most of them moved on?  I don't mean MPs who were members during the Blair government, but rather people who were strongly supportive of Tony Blair's agenda.  In particular are there any pro-war Labour MPs who voted for Iraq still there?

[Vega]

The other Labour MP or newly elected one who seems pretty far out there is Chris Williamson and he interestingly enough actually regained a seat for them.  Maybe its my bias but a lot of the Corbynites seem a little loony to me, but perhaps I am more used to the new Labour under the Blair era which were moderate centre-left progressive, but fairly centrist.  The one big time Corbyn supporter who seems alright is Cat Smith.  She is fairly left wing, but doesn't come across as a firebrand and she only bare won her seat in 2015 while won by almost 15 points in 2017.  Emily Thornberry seems fairly left wing although despite standing strongly behind Corbyn, not sure if she was a supporter of him initially.  I did like her Boris joke at the Labour conference though.  And off course there is John McDonnell who has always been one of the more left wing members.

Does anyone know how many Blairites are still left or have most of them moved on?  I don't mean MPs who were members during the Blair government, but rather people who were strongly supportive of Tony Blair's agenda.  In particular are there any pro-war Labour MPs who voted for Iraq still there?

When you get to the far-left (or far-right, for that matter) you're going to have some loons along the way, not to discount the ideas or overall spirit of the ideology. An argument could be made that it's better to have some unique but flawed MPs who are actually real people, or were at some point, rather than perfectly clean cut pressboards.

[Silent Hunter]

Apparently O'Mara was not interviewed by a panel before the election; the selection was done solely on CVs.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Besides its a silly comparison: there's been a reduction in the number of by-elections in time (62 between 1959-1964; 30 between 1974O-1979, 24 between 1987-1992; 18 between 1992-1997; 14 between 2005-2010, and 21 between 2010-2015 - but that includes two by-elections where Tory MPs stood down after defecting to UKIP and a few where Sinn Fein MPs stood down to either end double jobbing or to contest Dail seats so I'd to loath to include them: also limiting my sample to parliaments that went at least four and a half years although the shortest lasting of these was the 1974-79 one) as MPs are typically younger, tend to live longer and are also healthier than they once were.

There's also the factor that the main difference between this parliament and the 1992-1997 one is that then the Tories went in to the parliament with a majority of over 20 which generally is workable in most cases and only lost that late in their term after eight by-election losses (four to the Liberals, three to Labour, one to the SNP: they retained no Tory-held by-election seats) and three defections (Alan Howarth to Labour, Emma Nicholson to the Liberals, and George Gardiner technically to the Referendum Party although he never spoke in parliament as a Referendum Party MP) while in this one they need to get a few opposition votes to pass anything, and the deal with the DUP isn't a coalition or anything strong: its supply and confidence and that's no guarantee for ordinary legislation.  Even in the 1992-1997 parliament it took until October 1996 for them to officially lose their majority for good (technically lost it a few times before that as they suspended the whip from Tory MPs, but they still mostly voted with the government in this time) and then they got through the next few months with support from the UUP.  The DUP aren't likely to pull their support from the Tories until after March 2019 but once they do the government is defeated: and the DUP - especially the parliamentary DUP which is incredibly old and very very odd - are exactly the sort of party that would probably pull their support over something incredibly odd.

As I wrote on AAD, the big issue here could be Farm Subsidies.

[cp]

Link?

[NewYorkExpress]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/29/europe/mark-garnier-uk-trade-minister-allegations/index.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So if Garnier is forced to resign, could Labour pick up the seat in a by-election (or for that matter, any other party, like UKIP or the Liberal Democrats)? And how badly will this hurt Prime Minister May?

[Boston Bread]

The Tories can’t force Garnier out of his seat. They may kick him out of the party, like Labour did with O’Mara, leaving him as an Independent.

[Lumine]

If there was a by-election Garnier would leave a 13,000 majority in Wyre Forest, so I really doubt Labour could pick-up the seat even if they make significant gains.

The Tories should have dumped May long ago, but if she loses that by-election I can't see how they could continue the argument that she needs to stay.

[wxtransit]

If there was a by-election Garnier would leave a 13,000 majority in Wyre Forest, so I really doubt Labour could pick-up the seat even if they make significant gains.

The Tories should have dumped May long ago, but if she loses that by-election I can't see how they could continue the argument that she needs to stay.

If they didn't get rid of her then, when will they? A good time might have been...I don't know...a few hours after the exit poll.

Because they didn't force her out, it leads me to believe that she is the Perpetual Emperor Of The Conservative Party...or at least until Boris puts his ambitions into overdrive or the next election is called.

[IceAgeComing]

The thing is; I don't know whether removing her would have been particularly popular. 

Also remember that the election was held after Article 50 was triggered so the two year negotiation clock had already been triggered (and that further shows the arrogance of the election call really; if she believed that she had any risk of losing then she'd not have risked it because of that fact), by the time that the Tories would have elected their next leader it'd have been late September at the earliest before a new Prime Minister would be in place (I'm assuming that there'd have been a need for a Party Members vote in this hypothetical leadership election and that you'd not have the other person withdraw after MPs vote) and then you've got three months of a lame duck Prime Minister trying to negotiate very important things with the EU while future government policy on those issues remains up in the air because no one knows who the Prime Minister will be.  That strikes me as being something that, if you look beyond pure partisan interests for a moment, is not really in the national interest regardless of what you think of Brexit.  Add in that the Tory bench is, well, hardly stacked with talent there's no guarantee that some fresh face would do any better.

Here's what I think likely happened: when it became clear that the best the Tories could have hoped for was to retain a slim majority (and they failed even that) agreements were made by the prominent figures in the party that'd go for the leadership - and possibly with the agreement or knowledge of the Prime Minister or her close staff - that she'd stay around, lead the Brexit negotiations and then leave in mid 2019 and have a leadership election then.  Means that you don't have an awkward and very costly leadership challenge right in the middle of the Brexit negotiations which would be toxic for the party and give Labour lots of ammunition to use in the next election ("instead of getting the best Brexit deal, they decided to fight amongst themselves and look at how bad it went!", that sort of thing) plus it'd rip the party right down the middle on the issue and that's not what you really want when you're governing as a minority.  Also conveniently means that the Tories have a scapegoat for Brexit being terrible as well...

In terms of who'd win, well, the Tory election system is designed to make sure that the two most boring candidates go through so you'd probably end up with the final round being David Davis vs Amber Rudd or something equally uninspiring.  This isn't the Labour party system where party members and supporters have more choice, the MPs will knock the ballot down to two which hurts the chances of someone like a Boris winning.

[wxtransit]

The thing is; I don't know whether removing her would have been particularly popular. 

Also remember that the election was held after Article 50 was triggered so the two year negotiation clock had already been triggered (and that further shows the arrogance of the election call really; if she believed that she had any risk of losing then she'd not have risked it because of that fact), by the time that the Tories would have elected their next leader it'd have been late September at the earliest before a new Prime Minister would be in place (I'm assuming that there'd have been a need for a Party Members vote in this hypothetical leadership election and that you'd not have the other person withdraw after MPs vote) and then you've got three months of a lame duck Prime Minister trying to negotiate very important things with the EU while future government policy on those issues remains up in the air because no one knows who the Prime Minister will be.  That strikes me as being something that, if you look beyond pure partisan interests for a moment, is not really in the national interest regardless of what you think of Brexit.  Add in that the Tory bench is, well, hardly stacked with talent there's no guarantee that some fresh face would do any better.

Here's what I think likely happened: when it became clear that the best the Tories could have hoped for was to retain a slim majority (and they failed even that) agreements were made by the prominent figures in the party that'd go for the leadership - and possibly with the agreement or knowledge of the Prime Minister or her close staff - that she'd stay around, lead the Brexit negotiations and then leave in mid 2019 and have a leadership election then.  Means that you don't have an awkward and very costly leadership challenge right in the middle of the Brexit negotiations which would be toxic for the party and give Labour lots of ammunition to use in the next election ("instead of getting the best Brexit deal, they decided to fight amongst themselves and look at how bad it went!", that sort of thing) plus it'd rip the party right down the middle on the issue and that's not what you really want when you're governing as a minority.  Also conveniently means that the Tories have a scapegoat for Brexit being terrible as well...

In terms of who'd win, well, the Tory election system is designed to make sure that the two most boring candidates go through so you'd probably end up with the final round being David Davis vs Amber Rudd or something equally uninspiring.  This isn't the Labour party system where party members and supporters have more choice, the MPs will knock the ballot down to two which hurts the chances of someone like a Boris winning.

Yes.

[Phony Moderate]

[Tintrlvr]

If there was a by-election Garnier would leave a 13,000 majority in Wyre Forest, so I really doubt Labour could pick-up the seat even if they make significant gains.

The Tories should have dumped May long ago, but if she loses that by-election I can't see how they could continue the argument that she needs to stay.

Perhaps Richard Taylor would try to make a comeback if there were a by-election, though he is now quite old. That's more plausible than Labour winning the seat, IMO.

[Hnv1]

This fast becoming a ramake of the 90’s