UK General Discussion: Rishecession

[Torrain]

Some eye-catching polling from Ipsos today. Labour sitting on double the Conservative vote share, and over 50% again:


Satisfaction in Sunak, and the Government in general, has slumped:


66% of the sample agree that the Conservatives should be replaced at the next election:


Edit: similar numbers from Redfield and Wilton's weekly tracker this evening too - which put Labour on a 21% lead (LAB: 48%, CON 28%)

[oldtimer]

1992 comparisons are made more absurd by the fact that Sunak is no John Major, whose personal appeal at the time was a plus (and even at the lowest point later on, he still polled better than his party and would-be successors). I mean, can anyone imagine Sunak campaigning in the soapbox?

It also doesn't help that Starmer, unlike Kinnock, is not damaged goods - not yet anyway, and likely not by the time of the election - on account of having been LOTO for too long or having the tabloids mercilessly tear him apart on a regular basis.

A simple comparison between Major 1992 and Sunak today:

Major, working class (in theory), chancellor for a few months only, consensus successor to Thatcher, only mess: joining the ERM (would bite later).

Sunak, upper class (comes off as retarded too), chancellor for 2.5 years, couldn't even beat Liz Truss, a bad record: implementing Boris's failed policies, he owns the recession.

Sunak is basically Nick Clegg with a tan, probably with similar results.

[oldtimer]

At the end of the day, the "this is 1992 all over again" cope is based on one actual fact and one only - that Starmer's personal ratings are a lot less impressive than Blair's pre-1997.

But arguably, that just shows how Mr Tony was an unrepeatable one-off.

SKS is also clearly doing better than Kinnock was in the *actual* pre-1992 period, and in *certain* respects the Tories are currently doing worse than before the 1997 GE never mind 1992.

The only 2 reasons for caution:

Labour are not doing as good as 1995, the lead is about 10 points less.
The British economy is much worse than 1995.

The comparison should be with 2015, not 1997.

Labour's lead is about 15 points larger than 2013.
There is no Farage to split the working class vote.
The British economy is doing about the same as 2013.

Labour's comfort is that Sunak had aquired the reputation of a tanned version of Bertie Wooster even before he became PM.

[CumbrianLefty]

At the end of the day, the "this is 1992 all over again" cope is based on one actual fact and one only - that Starmer's personal ratings are a lot less impressive than Blair's pre-1997.

But arguably, that just shows how Mr Tony was an unrepeatable one-off.

SKS is also clearly doing better than Kinnock was in the *actual* pre-1992 period, and in *certain* respects the Tories are currently doing worse than before the 1997 GE never mind 1992.

The only 2 reasons for caution:

Labour are not doing as good as 1995, the lead is about 10 points less.
The British economy is much worse than 1995.

I wouldn't have thought the latter was a reason for Tory *optimism*, though.

[Torrain]

The public appointments commissioner (William Shawcross) has recused himself from the investigation into the appointment of Richard Sharp as BBC Chairman. Apparently they’ve “met on several occasions” in the past.

Whatever the details here - it certainly adds to the impression Johnson was picking key appointments from an inner circle of acquaintances, all running in the same circles.

[oldtimer]

At the end of the day, the "this is 1992 all over again" cope is based on one actual fact and one only - that Starmer's personal ratings are a lot less impressive than Blair's pre-1997.

But arguably, that just shows how Mr Tony was an unrepeatable one-off.

SKS is also clearly doing better than Kinnock was in the *actual* pre-1992 period, and in *certain* respects the Tories are currently doing worse than before the 1997 GE never mind 1992.

The only 2 reasons for caution:

Labour are not doing as good as 1995, the lead is about 10 points less.
The British economy is much worse than 1995.

I wouldn't have thought the latter was a reason for Tory *optimism*, though.

The rationale is that if Labour are ahead by 25 with an economy this bad, if the economy recovers Labour will be in danger.

The Conservatives easily cut Labour's lead by 15-20 points in 1996-97 and 2014-15 thanks to the economy.

But Sunak and Hunt are still sticking to old Boris policies that caused the economic gloom in the first place.

[WD]

https://twitter.com/politlcsuk/status/1620162249720745985?s=46&t=OU0TEmY74z4...

[CityofSinners]

The polling in the runup to 1997 should be treated with caution. The way they designed polls back then lead to a huge labor bias.

Can't really compare them to modern polling that has a much better track record.

[Blair]

I use to be sceptical of it but I think the stories around scandals has really damaged them- the polling collapsed for the Tories before the cost of living crisis really hit.

[Blair]

William Hague had a very good article and I think others have said it’s a mistake to see everything as either 1992 or 1997- the result could easily fall in the middle and is broadly what I expect.

[Pericles]

Meanwhile, the wreckers have learned nothing.

[Lechasseur]

William Hague had a very good article and I think others have said it’s a mistake to see everything as either 1992 or 1997- the result could easily fall in the middle and is broadly what I expect.

If anything at this rate I think it turns out worse than 1997 for the Tories.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

The polling in the runup to 1997 should be treated with caution. The way they designed polls back then lead to a huge labor bias.

Can't really compare them to modern polling that has a much better track record.

Why did it lead to be a big Labour bias?

[Zinneke]

Just out of curiosity I was reading about Respect Party and I'm wondering if they are still active and what are the factional politics like to the left of Labour since Corbyns departure in general?

[EastAnglianLefty]

The polling in the runup to 1997 should be treated with caution. The way they designed polls back then lead to a huge labor bias.

Can't really compare them to modern polling that has a much better track record.

Why did it lead to be a big Labour bias?

You had a phenomenon of "shy Tories", voters who would tell the pollsters they were undecided but in fact planned to vote Tory.

[oldtimer]

The polling in the runup to 1997 should be treated with caution. The way they designed polls back then lead to a huge labor bias.

Can't really compare them to modern polling that has a much better track record.

Why did it lead to be a big Labour bias?

You had a phenomenon of "shy Tories", voters who would tell the pollsters they were undecided but in fact planned to vote Tory.

Not really.

Turnout was a record low in both 1997 and 2001 because a lot of Conservative voters went on strike and didn't vote at all, Labour even got fewer votes in 2001 than 1992.

The pollsters in 1992 were off because they hadn't yet accounted for the 1991 census, they were still using the demographics of the 1981 census.

[Coldstream]

Just out of curiosity I was reading about Respect Party and I'm wondering if they are still active and what are the factional politics like to the left of Labour since Corbyns departure in general?

RESPECT dissolved in the Corbyn years and several people associated with it tried to enter Labour (Salma Yaqoob most notably/successfully). Galloway set up a new party called the Workers Party, which he leads but is effectively a front for the insane Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist Leninist), it was under this brand that he ran in the Batley & Spen by-election.

Respect was a product of its time, a union between Islamists & Communists who were aligned in opposition to the war on terror, but they were never the most comfortable bed fellows for obvious reasons - aside from hating America & Israel they didn’t really have much in common.

Chris Williamson has joined up with TUSC, which is the descendant of Militant and (I believe?) still headed by former Militant MP Dave Nellist. I don’t think he’s expressed any interest in actually doing anything like stand for office etc.

In practise, there isn’t much of an organised movement to the left of Labour. People like Galloway & Williamson were always more interested in speaking to the converted than actually doing things - and are *probably* too tainted to ever come back to parliament - but stranger things have happened.

Those who are interested in actually doing things (say, Matt Zarb-Cousin) seem to be going (back) to the Greens - which may get interesting down the line since in many places the Greens (like the Lib Dem’s 1997-2010) run more as an opposition to established parties than as a particularly left wing one. But in my experience, most of those Corbynites who were involved at the local level have either quit politics or switched focus on less partisan campaigns. I doubt we’ll see something that even rises to RESPECT’s levels of support anytime soon.

[Torrain]

The departure of former Corbyn allies like Zarb-Cousin to the Greens has produced some slightly amusing u-turns:

2019:


2022:

[JimJamUK]

To add the Coldstream’s good summary:

Respect were always a niche party even within the left of Labour protest vote sector (as would be expected from a party of Communists and Islamists). The Lib Dems were much more successful in attracting this vote pre-Coalition. Labour recovered a lot of this vote under Miliband, though a good chunk splintered off into TUSC (more so activists than voters) and the Greens/SNP. Galloway’s Workers Party is incredibly niche, its only electorally significant intervention being the Batley and Spen by-election, where it mobilised disaffected Muslims while banging on about the evils of identity politics.

There’s a few other niche left of Labour post-Corbyn parties like the Northern Independence Party, Breakthrough Party, etc, which attract attention from the terminally online but have no real world impact.

The potential of the Greens as a left of Labour vehicle is interesting. The party’s official policies are objectively well to the left of Labour (even under Corbyn), but the voters are a more mixed bunch. They were a bit to the left of Labour in 2015 but a bit to the right in 2017/2019. Since 2019 they seem to be benefitting from concern about the environment, but their vote is very soft and a lot of it will probably flow to Labour/Lib Dems come the general election. At a local level they essentially function as Lib Dems and I doubt many activists motivated by dislike of Starmer are going to pay much attention and effort to winning council elections. The party remains very weak at general elections, with its target seats being either inner city/university constituencies with a very large Labour majority or random ruralish constituencies where no other party is seriously challenging the Tories. The former has some long-term potential should we get a disappointing middle of the road Labour government, but the latter involves a Lib Dem-esque local campaign for local people, not a remotely left of Labour one.

Essentially, the left of Labour organisation is at its weakest for a long time and electorally looks to have little impact at the forthcoming general election. At the moment it’s too disparate to do much, it’s ‘leading figures’ are mostly cranks, and probably won’t have any real electoral impact until we get an unpopular Labour government and/or proportional representation. Even then, the most likely form it takes would be a still fairly niche green new left party (i.e. the current Green Party), rather than a working class outfit that could appeal to the masses.

[CumbrianLefty]

The polling in the runup to 1997 should be treated with caution. The way they designed polls back then lead to a huge labor bias.

Can't really compare them to modern polling that has a much better track record.

Why did it lead to be a big Labour bias?

You had a phenomenon of "shy Tories", voters who would tell the pollsters they were undecided but in fact planned to vote Tory.

Not really a thing after the 1992 GE tbh.

Labour's lead still being overstated in the run-up to 1997 (something generally forgotten since it was a landslide anyway) was mainly down to other factors.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Meanwhile, the wreckers have learned nothing.

We need to cut Taxes and let Kate Middleton solve child poverty instead of the DWP is fairly on brand for the Mail.

[Silent Hunter]

She is Catherine, Princess of Wales these days. But yes, that's right.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

If the... er... country business... ever leads to a divorce, then the surname given would be Mountbatten-Windsor as well, as per (oh dear) established convention.

[oldtimer]

William Hague had a very good article and I think others have said it’s a mistake to see everything as either 1992 or 1997- the result could easily fall in the middle and is broadly what I expect.

If anything at this rate I think it turns out worse than 1997 for the Tories.

If the economy doesn't turn around or they don't change leader it probably will.

At very low party levels a plain swingometer won't work well because of the 0% barrier.
The model used by Electoral Calculus would be more accurate.

At a 25 point lead even Sunak's seat will be very close according to Electoral Calculus, with just 64 seats left.

[President Johnson]

Happy Third Anniversary, Brexit!

I'm sure it worked out just fine. Especially now that London has "taken back control" and they're "funding [our] NHS instead". Promises made, promises kept.