The UK with Dems/GOP

[morgieb]

Anyone brave enough to do the US with UK parties? Or at least the English parties since NI and the Plaid Cymru/Scottish National Party wouldn’t really work well in any serious fashion.

The original twitter poster of this regression did it in inverse as well for the US, but using only the 3 main English Parties.

That map doesn't see to make a lot of sense. Surely NE Ohio would be better for a social democratic/union dominated than Southern Ohio? Why would Labor do better in say Denton + Collin? A lot of the assumptions are whack.

[morgieb]

Anyone brave enough to do the US with UK parties? Or at least the English parties since NI and the Plaid Cymru/Scottish National Party wouldn’t really work well in any serious fashion.

Al tried.

Then there's this thread.

[morgieb]

Even in 2019 Labour didn't lose the most abjectly poor parts of 'traditionally working class' Britain (although their position did weaken considerably). The places in the red wall that fell were generally the areas with high homeownership, lower poverty and an elderly age profile. I'm not an expert on West Virginia but if one of the districts is considerably less poor than the state then that one would have fallen, but in general even in 2019 the Tories still fell short in areas as deprived as West Virginia is.

WV-2 is very likely the most likely bit of West Virginia to fall--it has Putnam County and a lot of the not-traditionally industrial parts of eastern WV, plus the DC exurbs near Harpers Ferry which seem like a Tory sort of place. There's a good argument too for flipping PA-17 and PA-14 too then in that case, as well as maybe VA-09 and maybe PA-12?

On the other hand the Tories would easily be winning districts like ME-02, NH-02 (the college towns would easily get outvoted) and CT-02. These are the type of districts which would have long been Tory as they aren't poverty stricken and aren't anchored on major urban centres. They *may* have gone Labour in the Blair landslides but in general they are the type of area that Labour would have been dead and buried in since roughly the time Harold Wilson was PM.

I agree the two NOVA districts should be Labour though, the Tories do horribly with government workers even affluent ones. They probably would still hold VA-10 though.

I kind of have to beg to difffer here. ME-2 in particular is a pretty poor area--lowest median household income in New England, and more in line with the WV districts discussed above--and historically a major center of industry. I suppose there's an argument for it having flipped in 2019 but a place like that doesn't seem like somewhere where Labour would have been "dead and buried."

NH-02 is a bit more mixed, but has some similar areas (thinking of Coos County) and the ex-industrial but suburban weird place of Nashua which doesn't honestly make much sense in the American context either. I don't know much about CT-02 to be honest, but it voting Conservative would make some sense.

Wrt: Virginia, that's a hard area. A big thing which made me put those inner suburban districts in the Con column was that a lot of the suburban employment in NOVA is in industries which lean more right-wing, at least in the American context--a lot of corporate headquarters, military contractors, engineering, in addition to your typical government employees. Are there equivalent dynamics in parts of London?

I would've thought PA-12 (and PA-09) would've been more likely to flip than say PA-14, though admittedly PA-14 does have some exurban areas so could've been a narrow 2019 flip (after being quite comfortably Labour in 2017).

Agree that NOVA isn't just government employees, though I think in a climate like 2017/19 that could mean better things for the Lib Dems? Flipside of that is that Labour probably do better in Maryland than you expect, though I don't know for sure.

[morgieb]

The embarrassment of revealed ignorance continues, with a pass at the South (excluding the southern states which are a part of the Northeast corridor, like Maryland, Virginia, and Delaware).



There were also some very difficult elements here. In particular, there are several parts of Southern states, particularly in Alabama, the Carolinas, and Tennessee, which had and still have to some extent an industrial economy, one which developed in the early and mid 20th due to the South's ununionized and cheap labor. These places mostly vote Republican these days--the industrial labor isn't and never really has been unionized to the same extent as the North, except in Alabama iirc. I most went with giving these areas to the Conservatives, with exception of urban centers and areas with a union tradition.

The other big question is racial polarization, and that was a bit easier because I just decided that it would basically pattern in the same way as the Democrats and Republicans do irl. That said, I did decide that Cubans would likely be Tory-leaning in a stronger way than irl, with a more overtly socialist Labour and a less overtly racist Conservative party.

Again, this is a rough election year for Labour (or should it be Labor?). In a better year they'd have MO-05, MO-08, KY-01, KY-02 and AL-05, with a decent shot at winning classic marginals NC-02, NC-08, NC-09, and mayyybe TX-14.

It's funny how in a lot of places these actually look a lot more like real results--that may actually be a Texas congressional map from the earlier part of last decade, and Georgia is of course identical to the map from 2015 to 2019. Really shows how much more the GOP has held up rich southern urban areas until the recent past.

NC-02 looks to be coloured in red in your map. Which I'm guessing is a mistake. I could see it being LD though.

Also I think Labour would be stronger in KY-06 than KY-02? From memory KY-06 has part of the big coal region?

Yeah the non-union industrial areas are interesting. From memory outside of Alabama the industry tends to be lighter (and therefore possibly less Labour/social democratic friendly), but I could be wrong. Certainly the nature of unionisation could be very different in the South if one party was pushing harder for unionisation.

[morgieb]

The embarrassment of revealed ignorance continues, with a pass at the South (excluding the southern states which are a part of the Northeast corridor, like Maryland, Virginia, and Delaware).



There were also some very difficult elements here. In particular, there are several parts of Southern states, particularly in Alabama, the Carolinas, and Tennessee, which had and still have to some extent an industrial economy, one which developed in the early and mid 20th due to the South's ununionized and cheap labor. These places mostly vote Republican these days--the industrial labor isn't and never really has been unionized to the same extent as the North, except in Alabama iirc. I most went with giving these areas to the Conservatives, with exception of urban centers and areas with a union tradition.

The other big question is racial polarization, and that was a bit easier because I just decided that it would basically pattern in the same way as the Democrats and Republicans do irl. That said, I did decide that Cubans would likely be Tory-leaning in a stronger way than irl, with a more overtly socialist Labour and a less overtly racist Conservative party.

Again, this is a rough election year for Labour (or should it be Labor?). In a better year they'd have MO-05, MO-08, KY-01, KY-02 and AL-05, with a decent shot at winning classic marginals NC-02, NC-08, NC-09, and mayyybe TX-14.

It's funny how in a lot of places these actually look a lot more like real results--that may actually be a Texas congressional map from the earlier part of last decade, and Georgia is of course identical to the map from 2015 to 2019. Really shows how much more the GOP has held up rich southern urban areas until the recent past.

NC-02 looks to be coloured in red in your map. Which I'm guessing is a mistake. I could see it being LD though.

Also I think Labour would be stronger in KY-06 than KY-02? From memory KY-06 has part of the big coal region?

Yeah the non-union industrial areas are interesting. From memory outside of Alabama the industry tends to be lighter (and therefore possibly less Labour/social democratic friendly), but I could be wrong. Certainly the nature of unionisation could be very different in the South if one party was pushing harder for unionisation.

Yeah NC-02 was a mistake. I had initially colored it yellow, but upon reflection it seemed like the sort of place which would have flipped fairly recently but stuck around, a bit like other heavily university influenced constituencies. Lib Dems and Cons would certainly have a shot there too.

Wrt: KY-06, I had forgotten that they had added those areas! Certainly makes it more winnable for Labour, but the bulk of the seat is in Lexington and surrounds, which maybe don't seem as friendly?

KY-01 and KY-02 are due to the western coalfield.

Yeah that's fair with NC-02. Certainly would've leant Tory before 2017, anyway. There aren't really many areas in the UK like the Research Triangle AFAIK which makes it tricky to decipher, but yes most uni constituencies are either Labour or LD at this point.

WRT KY-02/06 - yes the Western coalfield would generally mean good things for Labour (but obviously not in 2019), but IIRC KY-02 also has a fair bit of more standard rural areas compared to KY-01? I think Lexington could definitely vote Labour as the party currently stands, though on the flipside some of the mining areas might've flipped (or at least tightened) which makes it a tricky balancing act for Labour, perhaps. But I think in a good year Labour win all three (plus KY-03/05)

[morgieb]

Tbh thinking about it it's exceedingly unlikely that Vermont would even be Labour. Sure, they'd win Burlington but get nowhere elsewhere, even in Hipster-leaning Windham County opposition to the Tories would come from the Lib Dems or the Greens .

People forget that the absolute immoveable base of the Tory party (as has been for as long as living memory) is aesthetically pleasing, fairly affluent/lacking in deprivation rural (note rural instead of remote) small towns and villages. Vermont, and New England in general, has this in spades. To American readers I can't stress enough how badly Labour does in these type of places, even when it is doing well nationally the party is basically non-existent. So I'm pretty sure that the Tories would win Vermont comfortably (at least as well as Phil Scott did, probably better in the rural areas) with the Lib Dems in second, with the Greens maybe getting 10% in a good year for them and Labour absolutely nowhere.

Vermont's just an incredibly weird, 'only in America', sort of place that makes comparative politics very difficult. It is obviously a fairly rural state (at the very least it ain't metropolitan) and has a rural agricultural/tourist industry that all suggest safe Conservative. However, its also very socially liberal and votes a hell of a lot more Democratic that its demographics/neighbouring states would suggest. Vermont also has some industrial history in its small cities so that would be a potential Labour base (these sorts of places can have erratic local politics and how they vote nationally varies greatly between each place). My best/least worst comparison to Vermont would be places like Stroud or the Peak District where Labour are competitive in places that they aren't elsewhere or to be expected on pure demographics. Therefore, I think Vermont could be competitive between Labour and the Conservatives, though I concede its the sort of place that the Lib Dems could do well and the Greens above average.

Vermont vaguely reminds me of some of the Celtic fringe areas with very long standing Lib Dem support. I could see it kind of like Portsmouth South, having been Lib Dem for years, flipping in 2015 to the Tories in a crisis year and then being a surprise Labour flip in 2017. Or even somewhere like Orkney & Shetland, staying Lib Dem in perpetuity without care for trends elsewhere.

I can imagine the Driftless being as close to a base region for the Lib Dems as one can get prior to 2015, then being generally Tory since then with a Lib Dem base that's bigger than you expect.

I thought of the reverse scenario also being explored in this thread myself the other day; wondered if the ancestrally Democratic parts of the Upper South like Middle Tennessee might provide an equivalent to the holdout liberalism of the Celtic fringe.

Yes, those are areas which I always find difficult with exercises like these (same applies for rural Arkansas). Too rural to vote Labour, arguably too poor to vote Conservative. I think they'd be a good fit for Conservative now, but in Tony Blair's time? Much more ambiguous. Could really do anything and might come down to how Southern traditions would've blossomed in this hypothetical scenario.

[morgieb]

It's a little bit disappointing that this exercise is based on 2019, since it seems like the size of that result is obscuring patterns that might otherwise be interesting. The Liberal Democrats seem like mostly an afterthought so far; the enormous size of American districts would certainly hurt them, but it seems like they should be a factor in the sort of places that might be too rich to vote Labour (Westchester County, Connecticut, the northern suburbs of Chicago, maybe the rich parts of Southern cities).

I feel that this exercise could be even more interesting before the Lib Dems imploded/patterns became very predictable - the map in say 2005 or 2010 would look rather fun.

[morgieb]

Yeah I can't see a place with the cultural + political history of San Francisco or Seattle voting anything but Labour outside of 2005/10 style scenarios, even if the Greens might do well now. Like most Greens-friendly seats outside of Brighton Pavillion have them a very distant 2nd to Labor who are over 60%+. Maybe 2024 could be different in this regard because of how a certain breed of leftist has behaved since Starmer became leader, but even that I highly doubt it.

[morgieb]

So this was the figures I got for each election based on the guess I made since 1997:

1997   
   
Labour   233
Conservative   170
Liberal Democrats   32
   
2001   
   
Labour   224
Conservative   176
Liberal Democrats   35
   
2005   
   
Labour   189
Conservative   207
Liberal Democrats   39
   
2010   
   
Labour   152
Conservative   247
Liberal Democrats   36
   
2015   
   
Labour   161
Conservative   274
Liberal Democrats   
   
2017   
   
Labour   173
Conservative   255
Liberal Democrats   7
   
2019   
   
Labour   141
Conservative   287
Liberal Democrats   7

Either America's political geography is hideously Conservative or I've dramatically overestimated the Tories....realistically it's probably a bit of both.

[morgieb]

The Democrats would win in a landslide. The UK might be one of the more right-wing countries in Europe, but it's not that right-wing to support the GOP on any level.

They would run against the Democrats, the Democrats would be radioactive level of toxic outside the USA.

Depends on the climate. In a year like 2016 it's possible that the Republicans might look better towards the average European, but I don't think that necessarily applies to 2020 (though o/c they would be having serious problems now). And from 1992-2012 it basically would've been years of big Democratic wins as the Republicans message was a lot more traditionally right-wing and the Dems not as "woke".