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

[Torrain]

Not terrible for Starmer.

37% 'ready' isn't bad compared to his predecessors particularly as the 'not ready' is low. Corbyn's score was the same for both elections despite one being significantly worse than the other.

Aye - the electoral ceiling for Starmer seems to be a lot higher than it was for Miliband or Corbyn, with more floating voters. I guess it's the question of winning a decent slice of that dithering 20-30% of the electorate that troubles me.

Labour soared to 1997 levels in polling during the two peaks of partygate frenzy (January and June/July 2022), and if the winter gets ugly on the energy supply/costing front, I'd imagine they could establish a healthy lead - not that those circumstances are anything to celebrate. But I think I'd just like to see Labour perform better in between Tory crises (where they've averaged only a 5% lead since pulling ahead in December 2021), rather than simply during them, before I get more confident about predicting anything better for them than a hung parliament in 2024.

[CumbrianLefty]

In mitigation though, its easily forgotten not only how badly Labour lost in 2019 but just how epochal it seemed at the time (all the confident proclamations about "realignment" and so on) and few would have given them much hope of returning to power in just one election then.

It is also far from impossible that what may well be to come breaks the underlying faith that many still have in the Tories as the "default" party of government, as happened after Black Wednesday (or indeed the Winter of Discontent for Labour) In fact, widespread voter enthusiasm for an incoming government was maybe only really seen once post-war - in 1997 -  and the way that ultimately turned out arguably shows that such a thing is not an unalloyed boon in the longer run.

[Badger]

Not terrible for Starmer.

37% 'ready' isn't bad compared to his predecessors particularly as the 'not ready' is low. Corbyn's score was the same for both elections despite one being significantly worse than the other.

He's doing far far worse than Tony Blair did, or even David cameron. He has comparable ratings to Ed miliband. Take that for what it is worth

[Oryxslayer]

I wonder how much Starmer's situation in regards to voter perceptions is similar to Biden's situation - AKA there is a significant section of your base who vehemently disapprove of you for factional reasons, but are partisans and will still turn out to vote straight-line for Labour/Dems. Starmer of course can't exactly get these people to see his side for the foreseeable future, since their disagreements more stem from the fact he replaced Corbyn and is perceived by them to be against Corbyn's policies - whether there is truth or that or not,

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Not terrible for Starmer.

37% 'ready' isn't bad compared to his predecessors particularly as the 'not ready' is low. Corbyn's score was the same for both elections despite one being significantly worse than the other.

He's doing far far worse than Tony Blair did, or even David cameron. He has comparable ratings to Ed miliband. Take that for what it is worth

Except that he doesn't: given how our electoral system works the negative numbers are as important as the positive ones. Amongst other things it has always been the case that a less polarised electorate is better news for Labour than anyone else.

[CumbrianLefty]

Starmer is not doing "far" worse than Cameron, or "about as bad" as Miliband - unless, of course, you are going to do that time honoured online thing of selectively cherry picking your polls.

Yes, he is nowhere near where Blair was - but so what? I'm coming to the conclusion that mention of him in this context should be banned - he was a one off that we will likely never see again.

[pikachu]

In mitigation though, its easily forgotten not only how badly Labour lost in 2019 but just how epochal it seemed at the time (all the confident proclamations about "realignment" and so on) and few would have given them much hope of returning to power in just one election then.

It is also far from impossible that what may well be to come breaks the underlying faith that many still have in the Tories as the "default" party of government, as happened after Black Wednesday (or indeed the Winter of Discontent for Labour) In fact, widespread voter enthusiasm for an incoming government was maybe only really seen once post-war - in 1997 -  and the way that ultimately turned out arguably shows that such a thing is not an unalloyed boon in the longer run.

What would be the minimum result Starmer needs in 2024 to stay as leader considering Labour’s starting from such a low base? Is it form a government or he’s out?

[Torrain]

What would be the minimum result Starmer needs in 2024 to stay as leader considering Labour’s starting from such a low base? Is it form a government or he’s out?

If the Tories lose their majority, and lack enough DUP votes to form a stable majority, Starmer is likely safe, regardless of the size of the Labour recovery:

• Inter-party negotiations on government formation, where Starmer's moderate tendencies make collaboration with the Lib Dems more plausible, and his electoral performance allows him to claim something of a mandate (will be fun to see the two Labour factions switch arguments from 2017 on this topic).
• A probable second election, arising from the incumbent government collapsing around a Queen's Speech or controversial legislation, particularly if the Conservatives try to limp on as a minority government.

Basically, if the Conservatives get under 305 seats, Starmer is ok - if they get any more than 320, he's likely screwed. A Tory majority of any size, even one challenged by a 250-260 Labour opposition (powered by a miraculous Scottish and Northern recovery), would be probably be sufficient for him to lose his job. MPs will praise his role in the party's recovery, but the memory of Kinnock and Corbyn's second attempts at an election (and the ambition of rival MPs) will probably be too strong to allow him to go on.

[pikachu]

What would be the minimum result Starmer needs in 2024 to stay as leader considering Labour’s starting from such a low base? Is it form a government or he’s out?

If the Tories lose their majority, and lack enough DUP votes to form a stable majority, Starmer is likely safe, regardless of the size of the Labour recovery:

• Inter-party negotiations on government formation, where Starmer's moderate tendencies make collaboration with the Lib Dems more plausible, and his electoral performance allows him to claim something of a mandate (will be fun to see the two Labour factions switch arguments from 2017 on this topic).
• A probable second election, arising from the incumbent government collapsing around a Queen's Speech or controversial legislation, particularly if the Conservatives try to limp on as a minority government.

Basically, if the Conservatives get under 305 seats, Starmer is ok - if they get any more than 320, he's likely screwed. A Tory majority of any size, even one challenged by a 250-260 Labour opposition (powered by a miraculous Scottish and Northern recovery), would be probably be sufficient for him to lose his job. MPs will praise his role in the party's recovery, but the memory of Kinnock and Corbyn's second attempts at an election (and the ambition of rival MPs) will probably be too strong to allow him to go on.

Follow-up to point 1, but is there any world where a Con-Lib coalition (or any scenario where the Lib Dems prop up the Tories) happens? My intuition says no way because I’d imagine the scars from the coalition are still there.

[Blair]

What would be the minimum result Starmer needs in 2024 to stay as leader considering Labour’s starting from such a low base? Is it form a government or he’s out?

If the Tories lose their majority, and lack enough DUP votes to form a stable majority, Starmer is likely safe, regardless of the size of the Labour recovery:

• Inter-party negotiations on government formation, where Starmer's moderate tendencies make collaboration with the Lib Dems more plausible, and his electoral performance allows him to claim something of a mandate (will be fun to see the two Labour factions switch arguments from 2017 on this topic).
• A probable second election, arising from the incumbent government collapsing around a Queen's Speech or controversial legislation, particularly if the Conservatives try to limp on as a minority government.

Basically, if the Conservatives get under 305 seats, Starmer is ok - if they get any more than 320, he's likely screwed. A Tory majority of any size, even one challenged by a 250-260 Labour opposition (powered by a miraculous Scottish and Northern recovery), would be probably be sufficient for him to lose his job. MPs will praise his role in the party's recovery, but the memory of Kinnock and Corbyn's second attempts at an election (and the ambition of rival MPs) will probably be too strong to allow him to go on.

His age is also likely to be a factor- I think there was a time where this result might just about let him stay on for a year or two and pick his successor but a combination of partygate, the economic crisis & backlog britain will mean it would be seen as an election that he should have won.

[Torrain]

Follow-up to point 1, but is there any world where a Con-Lib coalition (or any scenario where the Lib Dems prop up the Tories) happens? My intuition says no way because I’d imagine the scars from the coalition are still there.

I don't think so in this election cycle. Alistair Carmichael (a Lib Dem frontbencher) briefly floated the idea that the Lib Dems could work with the Tories earlier this year, but this was refuted by party leadership pretty quickly.

In 1992, a 13 year old Tory Government was predicted to lose it's majority. The Lib Dems came out and said that they were open to forming a confidence and supply agreement, but inferred that the government losing its majority would be tantamount to a loss of confidence, and that Labour were their more natural allies anyways. Right now, they're staying fairly tight-lipped, but the same consensus seems to be in place.

This is backed up by recent by-elections, where both parties have effectively conceded seats to one another, in order to spite the Tories. It's unclear whether the LDs would be up for entering a cast-iron coalition again, but if not, they could still wring some policy wins out of a Labour minority government (electoral reform, and a step towards proportional representation likely being their major goal).

Ironically though, they may not have too much power over a Labour minority. The SNP were raked over the coals in the 80s for voting no-confidence in the Callaghan government, opening the door to Thatcher at Labour's most vulnerable moment, which was one of the factors that led to severely weakened SNP support in the next series of election cycles. If the Tories bring a vote of no confidence in a minority Labour government, while they climb in the polls, all other centre-left parties could find themselves forced into a corner, politically. Vote for a government with fading public approval? Or vote for an election where you could be blamed for letting the Tories return to power?

[afleitch]

Certainly this winter we will see people literally freeze to death in their own homes. If Labour can't maintain an election winning poll lead it should just wind down.

[Tintrlvr]

Follow-up to point 1, but is there any world where a Con-Lib coalition (or any scenario where the Lib Dems prop up the Tories) happens? My intuition says no way because I’d imagine the scars from the coalition are still there.

I don't think so in this election cycle. Alistair Carmichael (a Lib Dem frontbencher) briefly floated the idea that the Lib Dems could work with the Tories earlier this year, but this was refuted by party leadership pretty quickly.

In 1992, a 13 year old Tory Government was predicted to lose it's majority. The Lib Dems came out and said that they were open to forming a confidence and supply agreement, but inferred that the government losing its majority would be tantamount to a loss of confidence, and that Labour were their more natural allies anyways. Right now, they're staying fairly tight-lipped, but the same consensus seems to be in place.

This is backed up by recent by-elections, where both parties have effectively conceded seats to one another, in order to spite the Tories. It's unclear whether the LDs would be up for entering a cast-iron coalition again, but if not, they could still wring some policy wins out of a Labour minority government (electoral reform, and a step towards proportional representation likely being their major goal).

Ironically though, they may not have too much power over a Labour minority. The SNP were raked over the coals in the 80s for voting no-confidence in the Callaghan government, opening the door to Thatcher at Labour's most vulnerable moment, which was one of the factors that led to severely weakened SNP support in the next series of election cycles. If the Tories bring a vote of no confidence in a minority Labour government, while they climb in the polls, all other centre-left parties could find themselves forced into a corner, politically. Vote for a government with fading public approval? Or vote for an election where you could be blamed for letting the Tories return to power?

I will add that I don't think the current Tory leadership (whether Johnson, Sunak or Truss) is suitable to cooperation from the Lib Dems. If you magically brought back Cameron or one of his allies, such as Osbourne, to lead the Tories (and the baggage of the Coalition with those individuals in particular didn't exist), there might be at least semi-serious discussion of the possibility within the Lib Dems, but the Conservative Party as it is has drifted quite far from the party the Lib Dems thought they were signing up with in 2010 (in some ways of course the Lib Dems had expectations even then that turned out to be false). Maybe Truss the chameleon will turn out to be a liberal after all, but she certainly doesn't talk like one now.

The Lib Dems are also a different party now, with much of the economic right of the party having disappeared from prominence after the Coalition.

[Oryxslayer]

Also to add to the uncertainty, it depends upon Labour's personal number in the event that the Tories lose the ability to form a government. A Labour government that requires the SNP and the Lib-Dems is a different beast from one that only needs the SNP or the Lib-Dems, from the position of all parties involved.

[Blair]

Some briefing re Truss’s cabinet.

Kwarteng seems set for the Chancellorship- can’t think he’ll be good at the soft stuff. He’s not a great media performer and gives off strong supply teacher energy when dough media rounds.

Braverman for Home Sec- for people who worry Priti Patel is too effective. Would be a stupidly bad choice- she has struggled in the non job of Attorney General and reminds me of when Jacqui Smith was appointed. We know how that ended.

Various positions floated for Terese Coffey- she is Truss’s best friend in Parliament and imo should be Home Sec! Expect cabinet office/deputy PM or something similar.

Rumours of tugendhat for FCO- I wonder if she’ll give him something like Trade as it would be a big step forward.

Would be shocked if Rishi takes anything- only job he could move to would be FCO.

[ingemann]

Some briefing re Truss’s cabinet.

Kwarteng seems set for the Chancellorship- can’t think he’ll be good at the soft stuff. He’s not a great media performer and gives off strong supply teacher energy when dough media rounds.

Braverman for Home Sec- for people who worry Priti Patel is too effective. Would be a stupidly bad choice- she has struggled in the non job of Attorney General and reminds me of when Jacqui Smith was appointed. We know how that ended.

Various positions floated for Terese Coffey- she is Truss’s best friend in Parliament and imo should be Home Sec! Expect cabinet office/deputy PM or something similar.

Rumours of tugendhat for FCO- I wonder if she’ll give him something like Trade as it would be a big step forward.

Would be shocked if Rishi takes anything- only job he could move to would be FCO.

Why don’t she just keep Priti Patel? Patel seems to me to deliver everything Conservative Home Secretary need to deliver, while having the added benefit of still being too unpopular to being a threat to her PM. Yes she not very competent, but mostly her job is to make the Guardian crowd rage against her and she seems to be great at that.

[CumbrianLefty]

Braverman may actually be a downgrade on Patel, incredible though that does (quite rightly) seem.

[JimJamUK]

Why don’t she just keep Priti Patel? Patel seems to me to deliver everything Conservative Home Secretary need to deliver, while having the added benefit of still being too unpopular to being a threat to her PM. Yes she not very competent, but mostly her job is to make the Guardian crowd rage against her and she seems to be great at that.

Patel’s unpopularity in fairly widespread. Obviously ‘progressives’ don’t like her, but she isn’t very popular among social conservatives/the general public either (perception of illegal immigration still not being stopped, crime out of control etc). She’s also just not a very likeable person. Theresa May did a much better job from a public relations point of view.

[Blair]

Yeah Patel has some of the worse ratings of any frontline politician- something like -47%.

A large reason is that the first piece of news people associated with her was the very messy falling out around the investigation into bullying- which lead to the resignations of an ethics adviser & the chief civil service in the Home Office.

Add on the disaster of the Ukraine Refugee Scheme (I believe this caused a lot of issues for the Tories among their Waitrose types!)

It's really not a surprise that she didn't run when it was clear she was going to struggle to have enough MPs for a respectable showing- imho by the end she wouldn't have had enough nominations to get on the ballot.

[Blair]

A Truss Government does mean the likely end of my dream for Gove to become either Chancellor or Home Secretary.

If he did it would be a fascinating insight into how the two biggest & most troublesome departments could actually get whipped into shape.

[Torrain]

We've had 9 Home Secretaries in the past 20 years - with Theresa May occupying a third of that time. No one else but Patel and Blunkett even made it to 3 years in the role. My father used to joke that the "Home Secretary regenerated more often than Dr Who", and he wasn't far off.

If she really does get tapped for the role (my gut still says Therese Coffey is a safer bet, but I've got a pretty mixed record on predictions, so hey), I think there's a good chance she'll have been reassigned by election day.

I'm hardly breaking new ground by saying I think Braverman would be pretty bad in the role - on both policy and administrative grounds. Her views on human rights and the ECHR makes me concerned about giving her a central role in the cabinet, let alone at the Home Office, where she'd hold significant power over policing, immigration, and aspects of the justice system. But as others have raised, she's not exactly an effective Commons performer or public communicator either.

[Blair]

There was a very good program on Channel 4 about partition last night.

I don’t know what is more damning; how it’s largely airbrushed out of discussion in British politics or how it’s airbrushed out of discussion about the Attlee Government.

[CumbrianLefty]

Truss sticking to the "no handouts when I become PM" line, despite increasingly desperate attempts by some suckers supporters to claim she is being "misinterpreted".

When there are mass deaths from cold/starvation and serious social unrest, what then?

[Blair]

Truss sticking to the "no handouts when I become PM" line, despite increasingly desperate attempts by some suckers supporters to claim she is being "misinterpreted".

When there are mass deaths from cold/starvation and serious social unrest, what then?

I don’t think it’s really dawned on them either how piecemeal these tax cuts will be- and in my case will be cancelled out I imagine by my student loan interest rates.

Let alone not helping those on low pay etc- will be a grim time for civil servants having to explain this. 

[Blair]

I’m very boring but it’s v interesting seeing how even politically engaged people seem to be angry that Bojo isn’t doing anything re the cost of living- he obviously isn’t going to make any fiscal commitments and does anyone really think him appearing on TV would help!

Besides I’m not sure what PM Raab would be doing?

The obvious answer is that the Tories should have got rid a lot earlier or made the contest shorter…