UK General Discussion:The Rt. Hon Alex Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, Populist Hero

[Joe Republic]

Winchester is a good example of where a pact might have helped.  In 2019 Labour lost their deposit and won only 2.7k votes, but the Tory beat the LD with a majority of 985.

[YL]

Winchester is a good example of where a pact might have helped.  In 2019 Labour lost their deposit and won only 2.7k votes, but the Tory beat the LD with a majority of 985.

The thing is that that rump of Labour voters will mostly have been aware of the situation and decided to vote Labour anyway.  It's not at all clear that such people will vote Lib Dem even if there is no Labour candidate.

Also an explicit pact may drive some Tory/Lib Dem floating voters into the Tory camp.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Yes this is the critical thing: there is an observable tendency for the total vote of a formal electoral pact to be lower than that which the parties forming it would get on their own no matter the electoral system and it is the case that Con/Lib swing voters are, as a group, a lot more hostile to the Labour Party than average.

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

Yes this is the critical thing: there is an observable tendency for the total vote of a formal electoral pact to be lower than that which the parties forming it would get on their own no matter the electoral system and it is the case that Con/Lib swing voters are, as a group, a lot more hostile to the Labour Party than average.

I don't understand that, what's the difference between labour/con voters and liberal/con voters demographically? And what makes that group more hostile to labour ?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I don't understand that, what's the difference between labour/con voters and liberal/con voters demographically? And what makes that group more hostile to labour ?

Well the latter higher professionals (or people with managerial jobs of one sort or another) with money and big houses, as a general rule. Which happily answers both questions in one go.

[Alcibiades]

I think it’s worth noting that Con/Lib voters are a pretty small proportion overall of the Lib Dems’ electorate (see Blair’s point about transfers in the Cambridgeshire mayoral election); but where they do exist, they happen to be important in giving the Lib Dems that final push over the top in a number of their key targets.

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

I think it’s worth noting that Con/Lib voters are a pretty small proportion overall of the Lib Dems’ electorate (see Blair’s point about transfers in the Cambridgeshire mayoral election); but where they do exist, they happen to be important in giving the Lib Dems that final push over the top in a number of their key targets.

Well the current party electorate leans left but during the 2015 collapse more of their lost voters went conservative rather labour. And their by election victories have relied heavily on winning over conservative voters.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Equally, of course, the opinion of Con-Lab swing voters of the Liberal Democrats is generally not very high - though many will happily vote for a LibDem candidate in a local election if said candidate is extremely hostile to the next town/village/suburb/estate and promises swift action on dog shit/bins/Travellers/etc. But only in a local election, because they don't matter to most people except as an occasion expression of petty grievance.

[CumbrianLefty]

Winchester is a good example of where a pact might have helped.  In 2019 Labour lost their deposit and won only 2.7k votes, but the Tory beat the LD with a majority of 985.

The solution to that was fewer people voting Tory. Which is why "progressive alliances" work best when the Tories are on a downward trajectory in any case (as could plausibly be so at the next GE)

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

I can understand both con/lib voters and Lab/con voters, Con/lab voters seem a total mystery. Are these kind of voters more politically disengaged like I'm imagining.

[CumbrianLefty]

Some are in the "authoritarian left" quadrant that is ill-served by most Western party systems.

[Cassius]

The vast majority of them are fairly un-ideological people who vote on the basis of valence (not that they’d call it valence because they’re normal). Whilst I think there has been some degree of polarisation on the part of the broader electorate between the parties in the last decade, it’s nothing like the turbo-polarisation that has occurred in the media and between ‘Left Britain’ and ‘Right Britain’ (the latter being a good bit smaller than the former). Swing voters still exist in some numbers, as shown by the polls in the last couple of years.

[beesley]

In other news, Andrew George has been reselected to fight St Ives for the Lib Dems.

[Cassius]

Jellyback is getting quite excitable indeed over Russia and Ukraine.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I can understand both con/lib voters and Lab/con voters, Con/lab voters seem a total mystery. Are these kind of voters more politically disengaged like I'm imagining.

What needs to be understood is that voting Conservative and voting Labour are fundamentally normie options. Hardcore supporters of both parties, of course, have a certain caricature in their heads of what people who vote for the other big party are like and their reasons for voting as they do, but these caricatures are generally very far from the truth. Most voters for both parties are perfectly ordinary people who work in ordinary jobs (or did so before they retired) and have thorough ordinary, in a British context, political views. On average a loyal Conservative will earn more and work in a more pleasant environment (one way or another) than a loyal Labour voter and in recent elections we can add 'will also be older', but these are fairly small differences in the end and that you find between the two a substantial block of people who will sometimes switch between the two makes sense in this context.

What makes rather less sense is the fact that when different groups of Con/Lab swing voters swing they tend to do so all at once, the effect of which is amplified by the tendency of them to cluster together to a slightly weird extent. These things cannot be entirely explained and politicians of both parties spend their careers trying not to think about it.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The vast majority of them are fairly un-ideological people who vote on the basis of valence (not that they’d call it valence because they’re normal). Whilst I think there has been some degree of polarisation on the part of the broader electorate between the parties in the last decade, it’s nothing like the turbo-polarisation that has occurred in the media and between ‘Left Britain’ and ‘Right Britain’ (the latter being a good bit smaller than the former). Swing voters still exist in some numbers, as shown by the polls in the last couple of years.

It's also important to note that this polarised climate is definitely winding down, at least as far as Normie Politics is concerned.

[Joe Republic]

Winchester is a good example of where a pact might have helped.  In 2019 Labour lost their deposit and won only 2.7k votes, but the Tory beat the LD with a majority of 985.

The thing is that that rump of Labour voters will mostly have been aware of the situation and decided to vote Labour anyway.  It's not at all clear that such people will vote Lib Dem even if there is no Labour candidate.

Also an explicit pact may drive some Tory/Lib Dem floating voters into the Tory camp.

Yes, though I imagine many of those Labour voters are the type who are motivated enough to vote, but not informed enough to know anything beyond "ooh I like that Starmer fellow over that wanker Boris".  I'm not suggesting that taking the Labour candidate off the ballot in Winchester in 2019 would have increased the LD vote by exactly the same number of votes, but I do believe that enough of them would have switched to make all the difference.

[Blair]

The reason why Liberal Democrat support was so weird was because they won in seats largely off the back of years of hard work by activists.

The typical model was to find someone like a local GP, who would run a campaign for a new health centre/relief road/village hall*- they would then run for a council seat, run several more campaigns and they would then eventually run to become an MP- and would often win!

Hence Al's joke about potholes & dogpoo! The liberals are responsible for MPs becoming social workers & glorified councillors.

This was ultimately their downfall as in 2015 their vote not only bottomed out but their voters defected to the Conservatives often with the message 'I like [insert generic Liberal MP] but I hate Ed Miliband/Alex Salmond etc so I have to vote tory'.

The same happened to a degree with Brexit & was the reason why Tom Brake lost- he was often seen as one of the best constituency MPs in the country.

*Their is a reactionary side to this; Lib Dem MPs were infamous for opposing virtually every planning application in their patch & generally took the view that if the majority of their constituents supported/opposed something locally then the MP should to. This actually translated nationally into their brand- they tried to be everything to everyone (their 2005 manifesto talks at great length about 'New Labour waste' and the need to cut 'excessive spending') and ultimately well it fell apart.

Their voter base & how it has changed since 2010 is another story- but it's hard to have a coherent story behind a party that went from 23% of the vote & 59 seats to one that went to 8% & 12 in only 7 years- not withstanding that they won seats in 2017 that they weren't even close to in 2010... but that's the story for all three parties

Winchester is a good example of where a pact might have helped.  In 2019 Labour lost their deposit and won only 2.7k votes, but the Tory beat the LD with a majority of 985.

The thing is that that rump of Labour voters will mostly have been aware of the situation and decided to vote Labour anyway.  It's not at all clear that such people will vote Lib Dem even if there is no Labour candidate.

Also an explicit pact may drive some Tory/Lib Dem floating voters into the Tory camp.

Yes, though I imagine many of those Labour voters are the type who are motivated enough to vote, but not informed enough to know anything beyond "ooh I like that Starmer fellow over that wanker Boris".  I'm not suggesting that taking the Labour candidate off the ballot in Winchester in 2019 would have increased the LD vote by exactly the same number of votes, but I do believe that enough of them would have switched to make all the difference.

Some Labour voters will still remember the coalition; it was used quite a lot in 2019 to deter Labour voters defecting.

On the subject of tactical voting in 2015 if I was given a ballot with two options for 'Conservatives or Liberal Democrats' I would have abstained- I hated them that much in 2015 & thought they deserved to lose every seat.

I have mellowed ofc then and would vote tactically now if forced but it's a sign of how pacts can have an adverse impact.

[CumbrianLefty]

Winchester is a good example of where a pact might have helped.  In 2019 Labour lost their deposit and won only 2.7k votes, but the Tory beat the LD with a majority of 985.

The thing is that that rump of Labour voters will mostly have been aware of the situation and decided to vote Labour anyway.  It's not at all clear that such people will vote Lib Dem even if there is no Labour candidate.

Also an explicit pact may drive some Tory/Lib Dem floating voters into the Tory camp.

Yes, though I imagine many of those Labour voters are the type who are motivated enough to vote, but not informed enough to know anything beyond "ooh I like that Starmer fellow over that wanker Boris".  I'm not suggesting that taking the Labour candidate off the ballot in Winchester in 2019 would have increased the LD vote by exactly the same number of votes, but I do believe that enough of them would have switched to make all the difference.

The point is it might also have caused some 2019 LibDem voters to go Tory.

[TheTide]

Her Majesty has tested positive for Covid. Charlie Boy and Camilla both tested positive some days ago. Always a concern at her age.

[Torrain]

Her Majesty has tested positive for Covid. Charlie Boy and Camilla both tested positive some days ago. Always a concern at her age.

Johnson was (and is still scheduled) to give his big ‘living with COVID’ statement tomorrow where he sets out the rollback of all remaining restrictions. Going to make an odd political contrast now.

The plan was to have a Commons vote on the rollback - which has been set up as a trap for Labour, who either have to join the government on the rollback (if it all goes wrong, Tories can say they voted for it, and bear some responsibility), or vote to maintain restrictions (letting Johnson spend the next two years saying that Labour would have “kept us in permanent lockdown etc” in PMQs etc). Don’t think Labour will have to worry too much now - political scrutiny will probably be elsewhere now.

[Meclazine for Israel]

Her Majesty has tested positive for Covid. Charlie Boy and Camilla both tested positive some days ago. Always a concern at her age.

This could be the end of an amazing legacy.

Thoughts and prayers for Lizzy.

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

I doubt it'll have much political effect unless the worst happens, covid infections have become too normalized.

[CumbrianLefty]

Her Majesty has tested positive for Covid. Charlie Boy and Camilla both tested positive some days ago. Always a concern at her age.

This could be the end of an amazing legacy.

Thoughts and prayers for Lizzy.

She can jolly well stay alive until we get our four day holiday in the summer, thanks.

[beesley]

https://twitter.com/steviemac1122/status/1495391710255460354?s=20&t=uIgwtGxa...

Christopher Stalford, DUP MLA (and presumptive candidate) for South Belfast and Deputy Speaker has died aged 39.