British Politics Guide

[Salmoneus]

Well, what does Chris mean by 'strategy'? Are we talking about why they want Brexit, or about why they're probably going to call an election in the next few months?

Regarding the first: mostly, they want brexit for ideological reasons. However, they also believe it's good strategy, and they're right. Brexit is, to be honest, an existential issue right now for the Tories: no matter how bad things get for them after brexit, it cannot be worse than how things will be for them if they do not have brexit. Having overtly defied the will of the people as expressed in a referendum, and having cast aside all their former promises, and having in the process driven a lot of Remainer tories toward the Lib Dems, they will be annihilated at the next election. They would still have some MPs, but not very many, and they would likely never again have power.

Regarding the second: well, for one thing, once brexit happens there will be no more crime, poverty, cancer, or hangovers, so naturally the Tories will win a massive majority fo delivering this.

But even among those who fear that the wonderful benefits of brexit may be temporarily obscured by some short-term disruption, I think there's confidence that they could win an election. They may not be wrong. Key things to consider include:

- the Tories are already ten points ahead of Labour in the polls.
- Labour are continuing to implode - now Corbyn's apparently been hinting that if there were an election before Brexit, he'd make sure they contested it as a pro-Brexit party. If Brexit does happen, and particularly if it's bad, there will be mass outrage and disgust - directed at Corbyn. Remainers will desert his party in droves, and Remainers ARE the Labour Party (85% of the party last I checked). The anti-Tory vote would be even more split this time, between Labour, Lib Dem, and another surge for the SNP.
- expectations for No Deal Brexit are now so low that in effect, unless the sea literally catches fire on All Souls Day, it will be viewed as an anticlimax. Remainers will be derided for their support of "Project Fear", and "naysayers" blamed for causing short-term disruption through things like stockpiling.
- any disruption that does occur will be explained away as a temporary issue that will soon be resolved
- the EU will be blamed for its 'vindictive' and 'punitive' actions, stoking Leaver anger
- if things DO get bad, a rally-round-the-flag effect will kick in as people show support for Our Dear Leader
- but while there may be short-term problems, any long-term effects (like a recession and unemployment) won't have kicked in yet
- most importantly, the Brexit Party vote will collapse, as the UKIP vote did after the referendum. Why vote 'Brexit Party' when Boris the Messiah has delivered the hardest, most emphatic Brexit you could desire?

I think if there's an election in November or early December, it's actually hard to see the Tories NOT winning!

Contrariwise, by 2022 things may well look different. We may well have had a big recession. Labour may well have gotten their act together. The Brexit Party or its successor may well be back in the saddle, complaining that we haven't had a 'real' Brexit because we haven't bombed Belgium yet. People's fondness for Boris may well be impaired by having seen him making a mess of things on the nightly news every day for three years.

For any Tory who isn't ABSOLUTELY convinced that Brexit will be an untarnished, effulgent triumph, it makes sense to have an election as quickly as possible because things are likely only to get worse for them from this point on...

[Travis B.]

So you expect the utter collapse of the British economy will drive the Tories to even greater victory and crush Labour for doubting just how great Brexit really is (even if it is how great an implosion of Britain it is)?

[chris_notts]

OK. I can see it as a "least bad" strategy for them, but once you're in a world of picking between bad and terrible you know you're probably going to lose the war even if you win the battle. And I personally don't think that a November or December election would be as conclusive as you suggest above, since I think the impact of Brexit will be deeper and more immediate, so harder to shrug off. Of course I could be wrong.

But even if I am wrong, then I think we're in the pyrrhic victory scenario I mentioned in my previous post. The Conservatives might win back a lot of Brexit party votes but lose more of their moderate wing, and get a majority on quite a low share of the vote. But then what? How would they have any legitimacy, especially for their post-Brexit experiments? To win, Boris has thrown his lot in with a bunch of extremists who'll prevent any attempt to unite the country and build a base for future electoral success.

We have a cabinet full of people who famously wrote a book (Britannia Unchained) about why British people are lazy and need to motivated by taking away the social safety net, who are busy taking advice from the US right (Liz Truss), and who are going to be begging Trump for a trade deal as soon as we're out. We have a PM who sold himself as a One Nation Conservative who'd heal the party, then promptly selected one of the most right-wing, unrepresentative cabinets ever. Can you imagine these people not deciding to use a majority, if they won one, to carry out their experiments in revolutionary free market neo-feudalism? And how is that going to work out when they're doing it and two thirds of voters didn't vote for them?

I don't think they'll win a clear victory (perhaps another hung parliament), but if they do then they'll be f***** by their own hubris and extremism. And you can expect a lot more million man marches through London, if people can afford the bus fares.

[chris_notts]

One interesting thing about Brexit is how it's mobilised a lot of previously politically inert people. My parents, who haven't been that interested in politics since my father's idealism was crushed by a failed life in politics as an SDP council candidate in the 80s, went down to London for the last big Brexit march and plan to do so again for the next one. There's more sustained energy and political passion than at any time since the 80s. It's really strange since I'm used to being the only person in my family actually interested in politics...

[zompist]

- the Tories are already ten points ahead of Labour in the polls.

That's true, but even with your rapid-fire elections it's a big stretch to think that the same will hold in an election in November.

Just grabbing recent results from YouGov:

29 July: Con 32, Lab 22, Lib 19, Brex 13
25 July: Con 31, Lab 21, Lib 20, Brex 13
23 July: Con 25, Lib 23, Lab 19, Brex 17
16 July: Con 25, Lab 21, Lib 20, Brex 19
9 July: Con 24, Brex 21, Lab 20, Lib 19
24 June: Brex 22, Con 22, Lab 20, Lib 19
18 June: Brex 23, Lib 21, Lab 20, Con 20
9 June: Brex 26, Lib 22, Lab 19, Con 17
5 June: Brex 26, Lab 20, Lib 20, Con 18

(For those who haven't memorized the dates— May gave up on 24 May, and Boris became PM on 24 July.)

So if you're the Conservative Party, you're all "Yay we're 7 points up from six days earlier." That's... not a solid trend. It's a crapshoot.

Plus, to have an election in late November it has to be called in early October, right? I.e. in the immediate fortnight after Brexit, which is almost certainly going to be a chaotic mess? (Not even a recession yet, just a mess— but the above numbers suggest that the voters panic pretty easily.)

Is the Brexit party likely or able to make gains by criticizing Johnson as not doing Brexit right?

[Salmoneus]

Anything can change, of course - last time, the Tories lost 20 points over the course of the election campaign. But 'anything can change' is always true, and the polling numbers can go up as well as down. I think they're almost certain to go up, in fact, or at least not significantly down. [the big swing from Brexit to Tory was Tory voters coming home once Boris was clearly taking control and clearly sticking to his earlier Brexit policy, and this was widely expected; the same thing could happen for Labour if Corbyn comits to anti-Brexit]

I'd put it this way: the Tories are so high in the polls - only 5 points higher would give them their highest share sine 1992, and the highest share any party has had since 2001, while Labour are facing their worst result in a century, plus the electoral system is designed to give the Tories more seats per vote than the other parties - that they're not likely to lose just because Labour get their act together. They'll only lose if the people currently voting for them decide to leave them, and aren't replaced.

Lots of people will be angry and furious and bitter after Brexit - but, mostly, not Tory voters. Tory voters LIKE Brexit. They'll lose a few rural farming seats because of the meat exports issue, but for the most part if you weren't OK with No Deal, you've already left. Certainly once Boris came to power. Meanwhile, there's nearly 20% of the vote locked up in the Brexit party, and you could easily predict at least half of it will come back to the Tories.

Best case for them, a historic, 45% landslide isn't impossible. Worst case scenario, it evens out and they stay about where they are now. But Labour would have to be at something like 36, 38 to beat them, and I don't see that happening, so they're likely to still gain seats even if their vote share drops from last time. Worst worst case, they even lose a few seats and don't have a working majority - but that's not MUCH worse than their current working majority of 1 (which will eventually be lost through byelections anyway).


As for Chris' question about the Tories continuing to be right-wing despite not having the support of the majority of the population: well, that didn't stop Cameron, or Thatcher (who, to be fair, got over 40%, but still only a minority)...

[MacAnDàil]

The Tories aren't that high in the polls. They got much more in 2017. And, as you say in your first paragraph, they lost a 20% lead in the last election.

Sure, a part of the former Tory vote is currently going for the Brexit Party, who are currently (in these volatile times) polling between 9% and 17%, but that includes Farage, who obviously won't go back.

And the main relative gains for the Tories are due the Remainer split, with many Remainers moving to Lib Dems. And a newcomer prime minister generally receives a boost in polls, which is not necessarily sustainable. (both from here: https://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/10084)

Also, I think there are some who don't believe things until they see them. I think there will be some who, on the 1st of November, who will say "Oh so No-deal Brexit really is bad for the economy". Far from every Brexiteer will make this change of heart of course, but a significant proportion.

[MacAnDàil]

Then again, all of the most recent polls were conducted prior to the msot recent byelection, which saw a Lib Dem gain in a previously Tory seat. This could have repercussions on national voting. I expect at least one or two polls in the next batch showing the Lib Dems close to the Tories, partly due to Lib Dem rise and partly due to a loss in Tory support.

At the moment, the next parliament will likely be hung, no matter whoever has the plurality of seats. This can be an opportunity for us Scots independentists.

[KathTheDragon]

My sympathy for Scottish independence waxes and wanes, but given the shitshow we've got ourselves into, you'd probably be better off without the rest of us morons.

[Travis B.]

I tend to have my doubts about nationalism, and in other times would have doubted how an independent Scotland run by the SNP would be better than a United Kingdom governed by Labour, but in these times it seems like Scotland is best off separate from England - and Northern Ireland is best off part of Ireland - with how the British politicians either seem set on running the country into the ground or seem to lack the competence to prevent this.

[zompist]

I tend to have my doubts about nationalism, and in other times would have doubted how an independent Scotland run by the SNP would be better than a United Kingdom governed by Labour, but in these times it seems like Scotland is best off separate from England - and Northern Ireland is best off part of Ireland - with how the British politicians either seem set on running the country into the ground or seem to lack the competence to prevent this.

Ironically, I just read an article about the Irish PM throwing cold water on a vote on Irish unity. Ireland isn't in any hurry to try to absorb a difficult bit of territory where a bunch of the people don't want to be absorbed anyway.

For Scotland, I'd think the big question is whether they could fast-track EU membership. There used to be a lot of concern from the Spanish who didn't want to make the Catalans hopeful. (This still seems to be tricky but may not be intractable.)

[mèþru]

I've long thought that NI is best off as an independent member in some kind of association with both Britain and Ireland*. Also maybe the President of Ireland (elected by the whole island) and the British Monarchy could be co-heads of state.

*Some sort of Irish-British Union, consisting of Northern Ireland, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England and Cornwall and British Overseas territories, Gibraltar, Jersey, Guernsey and Mann, each being an independent entity. EU membership would be up to each member.

[MacAnDàil]

The scenario you propose seems to have some similarities with Andorra, where the French president and Spanish king are co-princes. But significantly larger and with significantly more issues.

[Raphael]

I tend to have my doubts about nationalism, and in other times would have doubted how an independent Scotland run by the SNP would be better than a United Kingdom governed by Labour, but in these times it seems like Scotland is best off separate from England - and Northern Ireland is best off part of Ireland - with how the British politicians either seem set on running the country into the ground or seem to lack the competence to prevent this.

Ironically, I just read an article about the Irish PM throwing cold water on a vote on Irish unity. Ireland isn't in any hurry to try to absorb a difficult bit of territory where a bunch of the people don't want to be absorbed anyway.

Keep in mind that Varadkar is a Fine Gael politician, which means he's a political descendant of the people who supported the Treaty with Britain at the end of the Irish War of Independence that led to Ireland being partitioned in the first place. He might be expressing the views of his political camp, rather than the views of the Republic as a whole.

[Raphael]

The scenario you propose seems to have some similarities with Andorra, where the French president and Spanish king are co-princes. But significantly larger and with significantly more issues.

I think it's the French president and some nearby Spanish bishop.

[Linguoboy]

The scenario you propose seems to have some similarities with Andorra, where the French president and Spanish king are co-princes. But significantly larger and with significantly more issues.

I think it's the French president and some nearby Spanish bishop.

Yeah, the Bishop of Urgell in Catalonia. Originally it was a power-sharing relationship between him and the Counts of Foix, but a series of dynastic mergers made their possessions a personal fief of Henry III of Navarre, who unified them to the French crown.

[alice]

Getting off-topic here, but did you know that Andorra was still fighting the First World War when it joined the Second?

[alice]

https://voxpoliticalonline.com/2019/08/ ... fortunate/

[KathTheDragon]

Omg.

[chris_notts]

Sal: my previous posts were based on an assumption that if they do win a majority, they won't win 40% of the vote, but will get in on around 30% or less due to fragmentation of the rest of the vote. My point was, given the composition of Boris' government as more extreme and more revolutionary in inclination than the previous Tory administration, the potential for a government with very little legitimacy to embark on some very questionable policies with very little public support, and for a large amount of unrest.

The route to a landslide looks very narrow, and the suggestions are that the current cunning plan is an election immediately after Brexit (within days or less than a week of leaving, and after a load of short-term spending promises which people won't realise will be negated by high inflation and a rapid drop in the value of the pound):

http://eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=87321
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -democracy
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... ings-live/

Whatever they say, the chief idiots know that things are likely to get bad quickly, so there's an incredibly small sweet spot where they may get the rewards for Brexiting without the full electoral penalty for Brexiting. The flight of moderate Conservatives to the Lib Dems in particular probably poses a threat to the idea of them winning 40% of the vote, but with luck they might keep a few of those votes out of habit if the election happens before the excrement hits the fan:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... n-election

To me, this also reinforces the belief that the Lib Dems are basically going to move towards being pro-EU One Nation Tories in all but name to fill the hole on the centre right, as the Conservatives vacate it in favour of populist English nationalism.

Sal suggested an election within a month or two, but that's almost certainly too late. In fact, I think a week after leaving may be too late, as a number of problems will become obvious quite quickly, even if they don't become extreme by that point. If Labour are smart, they won't rush into a vote of no confidence since an election within a few days of Brexit day is the worst possible timing. They've missed their chance now to depose Boris before Brexit happens.