UK General Discussion: 2019 and onwards, The End of May

[Blair]

I'll also note quickly, because this is often missed, that a lot of the public dissatisfaction with the two big parties on this issue stems from irritation that they have not 'solved' it yet. This isn't the most coherent of sentiments, but it is widespread.

Which is exactly why I'm convinced that the best move for Labour, no matter how crazy that sounds, would have been to back May's deal. Sure, it would have made it a little more unpopular in the short term, but then everybody would have moved on from Brexit and the discussion could have shifted back to economic issues.

Instead, by sinking a deal that, while flawed, represented the only practicable middle ground between no deal and a second referendum, it has all but ensured that polarization on the issue will continue - something that, as we're seeing, spells doom for a party like Labour.

Genuinely interesting because this is argument that makes sense if you present it as a simple vote but as I said before Brexit is much bigger than that.

1.) Wouldn’t have solved Brexit- it would have moved us onto round 2 of trade deal talks which we expect to take 5 years, and seeing how well we handled this round....

2.) If labour signed the deal, May still would have left. We then have Raab/Johnson as PM who would seek some kind of awful deal which wouldn’t give us the economic relationship we want with the EU whilst scrapping workplace rights- Tories have openly said they want the working time directive gone. How do we stop that one we’ve signed the cheque?

3.) ignore the above; the discussion would not shift. We’d still be talking about Brexit; Farage would call the deal a betrayal, and every Lib Dem leaflet would be pre-written. Have you seen the EU results in London/Bristol/Brighton etc would be a bloodbath for labour.

4.) It would have ended JC’s leadership; half the shadow cabinet would have quit, and we’d have another summer coup.

[CumbrianLefty]

I agree, Labour backing *May's* Brexit deal was always a total non-runner.

[Citizen (The) Doctor]

I'd also argue that a lot of the working class folks that Labour is supposedly representing doesn't really have an opinion on Brexit, or at least, not particularly strong ones. Unless they've been politicized for a particular party/faction at this point, they're more or less as aware as the peasants of King's Landing sitting between Daenerys and Cersei.

[OSR stands with Israel]

It's official.

Westminster voting intention:

LDem: 24% (+6)
Brex: 22% (+4)
Con: 19% (-5)
Lab: 19% (-5)
Grn: 8% (+2)

via @YouGov
Chgs. w/ 17 May

say those are the results, then how many seats would each party get

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'll also note quickly, because this is often missed, that a lot of the public dissatisfaction with the two big parties on this issue stems from irritation that they have not 'solved' it yet. This isn't the most coherent of sentiments, but it is widespread.

Which is exactly why I'm convinced that the best move for Labour, no matter how crazy that sounds, would have been to back May's deal. Sure, it would have made it a little more unpopular in the short term, but then everybody would have moved on from Brexit and the discussion could have shifted back to economic issues.

Instead, by sinking a deal that, while flawed, represented the only practicable middle ground between no deal and a second referendum, it has all but ensured that polarization on the issue will continue - something that, as we're seeing, spells doom for a party like Labour.

Genuinely interesting because this is argument that makes sense if you present it as a simple vote but as I said before Brexit is much bigger than that.

1.) Wouldn’t have solved Brexit- it would have moved us onto round 2 of trade deal talks which we expect to take 5 years, and seeing how well we handled this round....

2.) If labour signed the deal, May still would have left. We then have Raab/Johnson as PM who would seek some kind of awful deal which wouldn’t give us the economic relationship we want with the EU whilst scrapping workplace rights- Tories have openly said they want the working time directive gone. How do we stop that one we’ve signed the cheque?

3.) ignore the above; the discussion would not shift. We’d still be talking about Brexit; Farage would call the deal a betrayal, and every Lib Dem leaflet would be pre-written. Have you seen the EU results in London/Bristol/Brighton etc would be a bloodbath for labour.

4.) It would have ended JC’s leadership; half the shadow cabinet would have quit, and we’d have another summer coup.

All fair points (especially #4 which I don't dispute at all - then again, Corbyn has shown he can survive summer coups and actually use them as opportunities to consolidate his leadership). Still, I think you're missing how the dynamic would change if Brexit actually happened and negotiations moved on to the next stage. First of all, a second referendum would be out of the picture. I doubt a movement to reenter the EU after having formally left could garner nearly the same support as a movement to cancel the whole project while it's still in limbo. This would mean that one of the core sources of polarization over Brexit would disappear, making it a lot easier for Labour to stake out a position that caters to Remain interests while being more palatable to Brexiteers (eg, going all in on a strong customs union). Further, with much longer deadlines in sight, the debate would lose its intensity, and there would be more focus on day-to-day issues in the 3-5 years before a full deal is agreed. Things would probably heat up again once the next round of talks is finalized, but by then the situation should be a lot easier for Labour. Having a hard-right Tory try to sell out workers' rights would actually play right into Corbyn's hand, since he could criticize the government's Brexit strategy in a way that appeals to people's livelihood rather than on symbolic culture war bullsh*t. And given the kind of timeline we're talking about, it's highly likely that such a debate would feature prominently in the 2022 election, meaning that Labour could win it and then proceed to scrap that deal and enact one that's much more consistent with its priorities.

I'm going to stop posting now, because I'm about to hit my 50k ceiling again, but I hope that explains where I'm coming from with this. Obviously if you care more about Brexit itself as an issue in its own right, as opposed to the bread-and-butter issues I'm interested in, I don't expect you to agree that this is a desirable outcome. But I hope you understand why it would for me.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It's official.

Westminster voting intention:

LDem: 24% (+6)
Brex: 22% (+4)
Con: 19% (-5)
Lab: 19% (-5)
Grn: 8% (+2)

via @YouGov
Chgs. w/ 17 May

say those are the results, then how many seats would each party get

https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/userpoll.html

Gives this:

[Green Line]

It's official.

Westminster voting intention:

LDem: 24% (+6)
Brex: 22% (+4)
Con: 19% (-5)
Lab: 19% (-5)
Grn: 8% (+2)

via @YouGov
Chgs. w/ 17 May

say those are the results, then how many seats would each party get

https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/userpoll.html

Gives this:

Why does a tie between labor and the Tories give them double the seats?  Very Bad.

[OSR stands with Israel]

It's official.

Westminster voting intention:

LDem: 24% (+6)
Brex: 22% (+4)
Con: 19% (-5)
Lab: 19% (-5)
Grn: 8% (+2)

via @YouGov
Chgs. w/ 17 May

say those are the results, then how many seats would each party get

https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/userpoll.html

Gives this:

Given those numbers basically, no party really will be able to form a government because I doubt Lib Dems would agree to enter any coalition which has SNP in it and I doubt they would enter in a coalition with the tories again.


So basically you probably would have to call a new election immediately after the conclusion of this one   

[junior chįmp]

Insanity

https://twitter.com/markpack/status/1134210439460655105

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It's official.

Westminster voting intention:

LDem: 24% (+6)
Brex: 22% (+4)
Con: 19% (-5)
Lab: 19% (-5)
Grn: 8% (+2)

via @YouGov
Chgs. w/ 17 May

say those are the results, then how many seats would each party get

https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/userpoll.html

Gives this:

Why does a tie between labor and the Tories give them double the seats?  Very Bad.

Because Labour has a stronger base in their safe seats. The Tories would have a bloodbath in seats lost to Brexit, but the rock solid Labour seats are almost impossible to crack.

It'd be like if the Republicans and Democrats both lost massive ground to a new third party that came in first place, but the Democrats had barely any collapse in all their heavily black seats.

[YL]

Don't take projections like that very seriously.  They have no local data (not that it would be reliable if they did) and the details of what would actually happen with headline numbers like that are not easy to predict.  There is another one out there (Flavible Politics) which has a lot more Lib Dem seats.

I think it is probably true that Labour on 19% hold up better than the Tories on 19%, for the reason that Labour's safe seats are generally more robust.  But both of them on 19% is well into uncharted territory.

Also, it is of course just one poll, and while there might be a General Election round the corner there may well not be.  If we keep seeing figures like this a lot of people won't want there to be one.

[Joe Republic]

This has been... uh, quite a decade for the Lib Dems.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

all you can say if that result did come to pass would be that three and four way marginals would become the norm, tactical voting would become impossible and there would be loads of fluke winners (and Onasyana/O'Mara style flameouts in the ensuing parliament) and high profile losses from both Labour and the Tories.

Agree that it would be far worse for the Tories than Labour though, because the former would have no real safe regions to fall back on - even blue counties like Surrey would collapse.

[Angel of Death]

If this whole Brexit saga doesn't end up changing the electoral system for the House of Commons to a proportional one, it would be such a waste of opportunity, it would only be exceeded by something like *not* abolishing slavery after having a four-year civil war over it.

[CumbrianLefty]

One other thing that might be worth noting - this poll has Change UK (remember them?) at a mighty 1%.

(until now, YouGov have regularly been one of their best pollsters)

[morgieb]

all you can say if that result did come to pass would be that three and four way marginals would become the norm, tactical voting would become impossible and there would be loads of fluke winners (and Onasyana/O'Mara style flameouts in the ensuing parliament) and high profile losses from both Labour and the Tories.

Agree that it would be far worse for the Tories than Labour though, because the former would have no real safe regions to fall back on - even blue counties like Surrey would collapse.

The places where the Tories would probably hold up best would be in affluent exurban/rural seats where the Brexit vote was around 50/50 or so. For Labour you're looking at minority and urban post-industrial working class areas. So in the event of both parties crashing, Labour do better than the Tories.

Would Corbyn lose if Labour got 19% and the Lib Dems 24%?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

all you can say if that result did come to pass would be that three and four way marginals would become the norm, tactical voting would become impossible and there would be loads of fluke winners (and Onasyana/O'Mara style flameouts in the ensuing parliament) and high profile losses from both Labour and the Tories.

Agree that it would be far worse for the Tories than Labour though, because the former would have no real safe regions to fall back on - even blue counties like Surrey would collapse.

The places where the Tories would probably hold up best would be in affluent exurban/rural seats where the Brexit vote was around 50/50 or so. For Labour you're looking at minority and urban post-industrial working class areas. So in the event of both parties crashing, Labour do better than the Tories.

Would Corbyn lose if Labour got 19% and the Lib Dems 24%?

Probably not. There's a a few quite deprived wards in Islington North that could cap lib dem growth; Islington South (the seat of Emily Thornberry) could fall though.

[DINGO Joe]

all you can say if that result did come to pass would be that three and four way marginals would become the norm, tactical voting would become impossible and there would be loads of fluke winners (and Onasyana/O'Mara style flameouts in the ensuing parliament) and high profile losses from both Labour and the Tories.

Agree that it would be far worse for the Tories than Labour though, because the former would have no real safe regions to fall back on - even blue counties like Surrey would collapse.

If the above estimate of vote/seat share is true then it seems like the 8% Green vote would have considerable incentive to engage in tactical voting

[Former President tack50]

all you can say if that result did come to pass would be that three and four way marginals would become the norm, tactical voting would become impossible and there would be loads of fluke winners (and Onasyana/O'Mara style flameouts in the ensuing parliament) and high profile losses from both Labour and the Tories.

Agree that it would be far worse for the Tories than Labour though, because the former would have no real safe regions to fall back on - even blue counties like Surrey would collapse.

The places where the Tories would probably hold up best would be in affluent exurban/rural seats where the Brexit vote was around 50/50 or so. For Labour you're looking at minority and urban post-industrial working class areas. So in the event of both parties crashing, Labour do better than the Tories.

Would Corbyn lose if Labour got 19% and the Lib Dems 24%?

From Flavible Politics, inputting the data from the poll, Islington North would look like this

Labour: 32%
Brexit: 26%
Lib Dem: 22%
Green: 9%
CUK: 8%
Conservatives: 3%

As a bonus, here's Maidenhead as well (May's seat)

Conservative: 30%
Lib Dem: 29%
Brexit: 26%
Green: 6%
Labour: 6%
CUK: 1%
UKIP: 1%

Of course, take all of this with a huge amount of caution as models do break down with these huge swings. But Theresa May would be more likely to lose her seat than Corbyn. In fact, the Tories would only get 70 seats with these numbers

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

all you can say if that result did come to pass would be that three and four way marginals would become the norm, tactical voting would become impossible and there would be loads of fluke winners (and Onasyana/O'Mara style flameouts in the ensuing parliament) and high profile losses from both Labour and the Tories.

Agree that it would be far worse for the Tories than Labour though, because the former would have no real safe regions to fall back on - even blue counties like Surrey would collapse.

If the above estimate of vote/seat share is true then it seems like the 8% Green vote would have considerable incentive to engage in tactical voting

Yeah, outside a few target areas (Bristol West, Norwich south, Sheffield Central) that won't hold up, and even those could be brought back into the Lib Dem fold if things go great for them.

[Tintrlvr]

all you can say if that result did come to pass would be that three and four way marginals would become the norm, tactical voting would become impossible and there would be loads of fluke winners (and Onasyana/O'Mara style flameouts in the ensuing parliament) and high profile losses from both Labour and the Tories.

Agree that it would be far worse for the Tories than Labour though, because the former would have no real safe regions to fall back on - even blue counties like Surrey would collapse.

The places where the Tories would probably hold up best would be in affluent exurban/rural seats where the Brexit vote was around 50/50 or so. For Labour you're looking at minority and urban post-industrial working class areas. So in the event of both parties crashing, Labour do better than the Tories.

Would Corbyn lose if Labour got 19% and the Lib Dems 24%?

From Flavible Politics, inputting the data from the poll, Islington North would look like this

Labour: 32%
Brexit: 26%
Lib Dem: 22%
Green: 9%
CUK: 8%
Conservatives: 3%

As a bonus, here's Maidenhead as well (May's seat)

Conservative: 30%
Lib Dem: 29%
Brexit: 26%
Green: 6%
Labour: 6%
CUK: 1%
UKIP: 1%

Of course, take all of this with a huge amount of caution as models do break down with these huge swings. But Theresa May would be more likely to lose her seat than Corbyn. In fact, the Tories would only get 70 seats with these numbers

Well... maybe. In Corbyn's seat, BXP wouldn't do anywhere near that well, but the LDs would do much better (extremely heavily Remain seat), so the projection is probably way off. On the other hand, in May's seat, the projection is probably about right because it's the sort of seat where both the LDs and BXP would make substantial gains roughly proportionately to the national result (narrowly Remain seat).

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

all you can say if that result did come to pass would be that three and four way marginals would become the norm, tactical voting would become impossible and there would be loads of fluke winners (and Onasyana/O'Mara style flameouts in the ensuing parliament) and high profile losses from both Labour and the Tories.

Agree that it would be far worse for the Tories than Labour though, because the former would have no real safe regions to fall back on - even blue counties like Surrey would collapse.

The places where the Tories would probably hold up best would be in affluent exurban/rural seats where the Brexit vote was around 50/50 or so. For Labour you're looking at minority and urban post-industrial working class areas. So in the event of both parties crashing, Labour do better than the Tories.

Would Corbyn lose if Labour got 19% and the Lib Dems 24%?

From Flavible Politics, inputting the data from the poll, Islington North would look like this

Labour: 32%
Brexit: 26%
Lib Dem: 22%
Green: 9%
CUK: 8%
Conservatives: 3%

I know Brexit and the Lib Dems would normally have near zero crossover voters, but could there be tactical votes for the Lib Dems just as anti-Corbyn?

[CumbrianLefty]

Stop getting excited about Corbyn losing his seat people, its not happening.

(nor is May losing hers, come to that)

[YL]

Stop getting excited about Corbyn losing his seat people, its not happening.

(nor is May losing hers, come to that)

I think it's quite likely that she won't be the candidate, but I wouldn't entirely rule out the Tories losing Maidenhead if things are going very wrong for them.  It was fairly close in 2001 and somewhat optimistically targeted in 2005.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Stop getting excited about Corbyn losing his seat people, its not happening.

(nor is May losing hers, come to that)

I think it's quite likely that she won't be the candidate, but I wouldn't entirely rule out the Tories losing Maidenhead if things are going very wrong for them.  It was fairly close in 2001 and somewhat optimistically targeted in 2005.

That was part of the Lib Dem's hubristic "decapitation strategy" which I assume they won't bother with again.