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

[Annatar]

Just something interesting I noticed looking at UK election data, turnout has gone up consecutively in every election since 2001:

2001: 59.4%
2005: 61.4%
2010: 65.4%
2015: 66.4%
2017: 68.8%

Not sure whether this has happened in any other country, I think this streak may be broken at the next election, I'm not sure for how long turnout can just keep rising.

[CumbrianLefty]

Can't the Tory leadership stuff stay in its own thread?

In other news, Change UK is changing its name again.  They now want to be "The Independent Group for Change"; this is apparently because of confusion with change.org but you suspect also that they are no longer so keen on their name being abbreviated to ChUK since Umunna left the party.

These clowns are a gift that keeps on giving

If only there was a way they wouldn't need to exist. If only they were a reaction to something specific that they repeatedly warned people about. IF ONLY.

With just one admitted exception, the Labour defectors at least were a "reaction" to the people in question being miffed they weren't going to get "their" party back in the forseeable future.

The staggering, and overwhelmingly unjustified, sense of entitlement that so many centrists possess really can't be overstated.

[Silent Hunter]

Some of us want to see a long term Labour government; we don't believe Corbyn can provide that.

[CumbrianLefty]

I quite understand where Corbyn scepticism comes from, I didn't vote for him as leader myself.

But since 2015* too many Labour "moderates" have been their own worst enemies again and again.

(* and in some cases, well before that)

[Silent Hunter]

I can agree with this. The party has become a shambles.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

My extremely Problematic opinion, one carefully calculated to cause the widest possible offence, is that there are parallels between what's happened to Labour of late and the manner in which Dutch Elm Disease spreads and, well, functions...

[CumbrianLefty]

My extremely Problematic opinion, one carefully calculated to cause the widest possible offence, is that there are parallels between what's happened to Labour of late and the manner in which Dutch Elm Disease spreads and, well, functions...

Well, if the party's real "disease" is factionalism that could have some truth.

(which is not great news, I agree)

[IceAgeComing]

Its not even really factionalism based on meaningful policy differences on domestic policy - as far as substantive policy proposals a Labour party lead by Corbyn would have similar policies to one lead by a potential future leader who comes from somewhere further right in the party - I'll use Emily Thornberry as a possible example here.  Its based on a mixture of historical differences and foreign policy more than anything - which is probably why it appears so bad since for most people its bickering about things that the people don't really see as important.

[PSOL]

Its not even really factionalism based on meaningful policy differences on domestic policy - as far as substantive policy proposals a Labour party lead by Corbyn would have similar policies to one lead by a potential future leader who comes from somewhere further right in the party - I'll use Emily Thornberry as a possible example here.  Its based on a mixture of historical differences and foreign policy more than anything - which is probably why it appears so bad since for most people its bickering about things that the people don't really see as important.

Foreign policy is relevant to the national scene, even if voters remained uncaring for it.

[Zinneke]

Its not even really factionalism based on meaningful policy differences on domestic policy - as far as substantive policy proposals a Labour party lead by Corbyn would have similar policies to one lead by a potential future leader who comes from somewhere further right in the party - I'll use Emily Thornberry as a possible example here.  Its based on a mixture of historical differences and foreign policy more than anything - which is probably why it appears so bad since for most people its bickering about things that the people don't really see as important.

Foreign policy is relevant to the national scene, even if voters remained uncaring for it.

Yeah, in fact leaders should be running more on foreign policy platforms, since the "real" change happens there due to the interconnectedness of policy impacts these inevitably have. Blair, for all his faults, understood this, while Brexiteers don't seem to understand you can be a rule follower while still exiting all the "binding" IOs. He realised the way you had an impact was through building a solid international image and Britain playing a leading role in EU regulation and foreign policy enough to secure wins at Council or UN level...its a shame the hubris got to his head when he was finally stopped by Iraq and went over the acceptable line anyway.

I think in this case though its to do with age old debates about Israel-Palestine and colonialism that pester the Labour party. I may be wrong. But I would like to see more politicians hold their hands up and say their domestic policy is nothing without driving international change with it. Or just hold up their hands and admit a lot of things are out of their hands anyway.

[YL]

Its not even really factionalism based on meaningful policy differences on domestic policy - as far as substantive policy proposals a Labour party lead by Corbyn would have similar policies to one lead by a potential future leader who comes from somewhere further right in the party - I'll use Emily Thornberry as a possible example here.  Its based on a mixture of historical differences and foreign policy more than anything - which is probably why it appears so bad since for most people its bickering about things that the people don't really see as important.

Isn't that often the way with factionalism though?  It becomes more about faction membership and certain issues which become effectively proxies for faction membership.  The Blairite/Brownite divide of a few years ago was if anything even worse for not really being about ideology, though I didn't get the impression that that infected the wider party in the same way.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Just something interesting I noticed looking at UK election data, turnout has gone up consecutively in every election since 2001:

2001: 59.4%
2005: 61.4%
2010: 65.4%
2015: 66.4%
2017: 68.8%

Not sure whether this has happened in any other country, I think this streak may be broken at the next election, I'm not sure for how long turnout can just keep rising.

In Sweden it has kept rising every general election since 2002, when it was at its lowest levels since the 60's. So it's not unique. 

2002: 80,1%
2006: 82,0%
2010: 84,6%
2014: 85,8%
2018: 87,2%

Of course the UK used to have turn-out around 75% before the 2001 election so they still have a bit to go before they're back to their historic norm, so I wouldn't be too surprised if it kept crawling upward for a few more election cycles.

Sweden on the other hand is now pretty close to our all-time highest record, which was 91,8% turn-out in the general election of 1976. So I think it's more unlikely that we continue our streak.

[Former President tack50]

So, apparently Boris Johnson is the favourite for the Conservative leadership election.

After looking at his district, it doesn't seem like a particularly safe district. He "only" won it by 10 while the Conservatives were winning by 2 points nationally. Hypothetically, on a Labour wave on the scale of 2001 Johnson could lose; and with the chaos of Brexit who knows what will happen.

Any chance Johnson loses his seat in the next election? It is a 57% Leave seat though, so I guess that makes it safer?

[beesley]

Ahead of the second ballot.

So, apparently Boris Johnson is the favourite for the Conservative leadership election.

After looking at his district, it doesn't seem like a particularly safe district. He "only" won it by 10 while the Conservatives were winning by 2 points nationally. Hypothetically, on a Labour wave on the scale of 2001 Johnson could lose; and with the chaos of Brexit who knows what will happen.

Any chance Johnson loses his seat in the next election? It is a 57% Leave seat though, so I guess that makes it safer?

Depends - I don't think a Labour victory of that scale is likely. It's number 83 on the Labour target list too. Hillingdon has been a better borough for the Conservatives, so I don't think its likely, but making projections in British politics at the moment could be unwise. He is however the most vulnerable of the leadership contenders.

[DaWN]

The seat is safer than the majority makes it seem. None of the parties really have much of a path to a majority there: too urban for Brexit, too leaver for a Remainer party and given the shambles Labour are in right now I wouldn't bet on them. He'll probably get a boost to his majority as PM as well.

[CumbrianLefty]

Labour failed to win a single seat in Johnson's constituency in last year's local elections, so he is quite possibly safer than he looks even before any possible "leader's bounce" is factored in (though having said that, two years ago neither May or Farron got one - indeed the latter nearly lost)

Back on the immediate topic, much excited talk in the last 24 hours of a "Stewart surge". He might have done enough to stay in it after today's result is announced - but beyond that I remain sceptical.

[beesley]

Labour failed to win a single seat in Johnson's constituency in last year's local elections, so he is quite possibly safer than he looks even before any possible "leader's bounce" is factored in (though having said that, two years ago neither May or Farron got one - indeed the latter nearly lost)

Back on the immediate topic, much excited talk in the last 24 hours of a "Stewart surge". He might have done enough to stay in it after today's result is announced - but beyond that I remain sceptical.

Hancock's supporters have split between Rory and Boris - Green, Crouch, Bowie and Hancock himself going for Boris, Lidington, Spelman, James, and Masterton going for Stewart. Raab and Gove have no new supporters.

[IceAgeComing]

Labour didn't win the old Uxbridge seat in 1997 (missed out by a few hundred in the general election and then in the by-election later that year there was a swing towards the Tories - I believe that the Tory candidate in the General Election had some... personal difficulties that resulted in a negative personal vote) and the new one is safer for the Tories so I think that its probably out of reach: especially when you factor in the Labour performance in London over the last few elections.  I don't think its impossible if they royally screw things up though!

[CumbrianLefty]

The main reason Labour didn't win Uxbridge in the 1997 byelection was messing their own selection up. Their candidate at the GE that year would very likely have taken it for them, but Blair became paranoid because they had a few leftish inclinations and made sure his own choice (an outsider) was de facto imposed. Tories then reacted to that by picking a genuinely local candidate, a rare instance of quick wittedness from them in those dog days (despite the fact a number of ex-MPs/ministers went for the selection)

The same control freakery on a larger scale would cost Mr Tony in Wales and London come the next few years.

[beesley]

The main reason Labour didn't win Uxbridge in the 1997 byelection was messing their own selection up. Their candidate at the GE that year would very likely have taken it for them, but Blair became paranoid because they had a few leftish inclinations and made sure his own choice (an outsider) was de facto imposed. Tories then reacted to that by picking a genuinely local candidate, a rare instance of quick wittedness from them in those dog days (despite the fact a number of ex-MPs/ministers went for the selection)

The same control freakery on a larger scale would cost Mr Tony in Wales and London come the next few years.

Does that explain the heavy losses for Eileen Gordon and Keith Darvill in 2001?

[CumbrianLefty]

Not really, given that Labour generally did well in the capital then despite the previous year's events.

That was a distinctly localised thing (Labour were run close in Hornchurch as well) and the party's subsequent decline in Havering has been pretty precipitous.

[YL]

Not really, given that Labour generally did well in the capital then despite the previous year's events.

That was a distinctly localised thing (Labour were run close in Hornchurch as well) and the party's subsequent decline in Havering has been pretty precipitous.

Yes, in other parts of London seats Labour had gained in 1997 often swung further to Labour in 2001, in some cases quite strikingly (e.g. Brent North).

I presume you were talking about the 2000 Mayoral election and the 1999 Welsh Assembly election.

[beesley]

Not really, given that Labour generally did well in the capital then despite the previous year's events.

That was a distinctly localised thing (Labour were run close in Hornchurch as well) and the party's subsequent decline in Havering has been pretty precipitous.

Yes, in other parts of London seats Labour had gained in 1997 often swung further to Labour in 2001, in some cases quite strikingly (e.g. Brent North).

I seem to remember that in 2015, only Mitcham and Morden and Ilford South were better for Labour than they were in 1997 - but in 2017, there were loads of seats (Kensington and Chipping Barnet were the obvious ones), and so the fact that Romford wasn't one must show how the area's changed, as per your view.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I mean, Romford was a safe Conservative seat going into the 1997 election. It's part of a wider belt of humdrum but prosperous outer suburbia that swung sharply towards the Conservatives in the 1970s and where Labour's good performances in 1997 were as much of a fluke landslide one-off as Labour's good performances in e.g. rural East Anglia that same election.

[Silent Hunter]

Parts of Havering have elected BNP councillors in the past.

I live there; there's definitely bits that aren't so prosperous, such as the post-war housing in Harold Hill and parts of Rainham near the river.