Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A Labour split would have one chance to succeed – but succeed
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A Labour split would have one chance to succeed – but succeed it could
Anyone remember the Pro Euro Conservatives? The Party was formed by two former Tory MEPs opposed to the direction that William Hague was taking the party on Europe. After a good deal more media interest than was due for a tiny splinter party – mainly, presumably, because it allowed a new angle on the never-ending internal Tory conflict on Europe – they polled 1.3% at the 1999 European elections, lost their deposit at the Kensington & Chelsea by-election later that year and was disbanded two years later having failed to break the mould of British politics.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Minor edit point:
Whatever, the meagre Alliance total of 22 MPs in 1983 could have been many more; potentially enough to.
Looks like it was cut short....
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/alex-salmond-accused-touching-womans-13134675
It isn't Chuka. It isn't Cooper. It isn't Kinnock. It isn't Starmer.
Watson walking would make him an interim leader and king/queen maker for whoever emerges from the chaos.
Luciana Berger and Sarah Champion have both stood their ground with a certain amount of integrity of late. I don't know if they have the political vision to become a credible leader. But they would offer something fresh - they would make people take notice.
If Mr Salmond is to win his argument in court, Ms Sturgeon must lose, and vice versa.
Going to court never made any couple happier. It’s unlikely to improve relations between Ms Sturgeon and her mentor.
Nor, if Mr Salmond wins, does it annul the complaints now with the police. Their enquiries roll on regardless of the civil proceedings. The silence from SNP HQ yesterday was as deep as the party’s anguish. Like all memorable media conferences, Mr Salmond’s verged on the surreal.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/16598675.tom-gordon-alex-salmond-and-nicola-sturgeons-relationship-is-changed-forever/?ref=twtrec
On the Tory side the turmoil arises if Brexit starts to go seriously pear shaped, with the conflict between those running for the lifeboats and those who believe the ship can carve clean through the iceberg.
But what there's less precedent for is this situation where both the main government and the main opposition are clearly incompetent and at the mercy of extremists, but the centre has totally evaporated. This becomes even more true if TMay gets knifed by somebody of a hard-brexit persuasion, and the economic results are not entirely to the voters' advantage.
In principle it feels plausible that there could be a lot of latent support for a reconstructed centre, maybe even enough to overcome the inherent hurdle of FPTP. But then when you start to ask who, how, what specific policies, what specific voters, I'm having a hard time seeing how you colour the picture in.
https://twitter.com/keiranpedley/status/1033113790370463744?s=21
https://twitter.com/keiranpedley/status/1033113793449082885?s=21
The last point is particularly intriguing. This was a very big sample, yet YouGov had to apply serious weightings to its sample to get back to the referendum result. Possibilities:
1) YouGov’s panel is unbalanced.
2) Some Leave voters are forgetting or lying about how they voted.
3) Some Leave voters have become shy about their choice.
4) Some non-voters want to correct that retrospectively.
It hints that perhaps Remain’s lead might be a bit understated, as Leave voters might be finding different ways of concealing a change of mind.
Good article, Mr. Herdson. I agree with you. When I read a snippet of Bush's comments my first thought was that I'd believe it when I saw it. Nothing has happened to change my mind on that.
The PLP showed surprising stomach for a fight by challenging Corbyn before the last election, but since then there have been individual attacks but nothing to suggest that they're actually going to walk away from Labour. It seems they love their party name more than they detest Corbyn, and that risks putting him into Downing Street.
I am not persuaded by the claim they'd act as a curb on his power. Many actions can be taken without reference to Parliament at all.
THERESA May was last night urged to sack Philip Hammond for undermining no deal Brexit planning - as senior Tories branded him the “Gerald Ratner of British politics”.
Furious Tory MPs called on the PM to replace the doom-monger Chancellor with Sajid Javid.
https://order-order.com/2011/06/20/why-did-luciana-chuck-her-man-eh/
Which I would say is a perfect metaphor for Boris!
This rather backs up the PB consensus:
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1031458127097606145
It's also quite a Roman-friendly list.
The SDP's problem was always that it's appeal was broad rather than deep, and insofar as there was any concentration (being perjorative, in areas with lots of Waitrose shoppers), these tended to be seats already hard fought between active branches of the two main parties (like York, Cambridge, Oxford and north London).
The changing demographics of the country and the greater age/education basis of leave/Remain might offer somewhat more concentration today (although you could argue to what extent 'remain' is the right and sustainable long-term base for a new party?), but the biggest difference would be that it zooms in on mostly safe Labour seats, rather than marginals as before. The new party would therefore be head-to-head with Labour from the outset and would need to shatter its base in places like north London and university towns in order to secure at least a beachhead.
In terms of "concern" issues, salience about the EU would most likely remain static on the surface but with almost 100% churn underneath. Best to leave for the moment even if the population isn't for it at this moment in time.
I can only assume that Gloucester is being used as shorthand for Cheltenham.
Even so I'd take Bristol over either.
In any case the real question is if they believe they can curb his worst parts in power or not, since having that influence vs having none is a major reason, beyond party loyalty, for not quitting. (And I don't buy the stuff about the movement requiring it - plenty of the current movement didn't vote Labour for ages as they felt the movement was not within the party anymore and someone could take that view now)
Brexit is more likely than not to break apart the Tories. No deal whilst ERG crow about it tears Tory moderates away, fudged BINO sends ERG nuclear. Either way it'll be bloody. At the same time the same events stress test the Labour Party beyond tolerance - Jeremy the Jew hater wants a clean break from the EU so we can renationalise United Utilities PLC.
For both parties the natural alternative is there. ConKIP soaks up the hardcore Brexiteers, especially if we get fudge for Easter. For Labour there may be two choices - the cleanest would be a demerger into the Co-op Party (handy for those members who already are members of both parties...), or perhaps a new Labour/Green/Kennedyite LibDems grouping.
I cant see either party splitting without external factor making it feel like the only option (nobody splits a party over something as silly as a leader, they come and go...) - it'll be a major issue of principle.
In fact, the rather strange nature of the perfect storm that propelled Labour from fourth to first in just 18 years suggests dumb luck has a lot to do with it.
It’s the position of Glasgow and Newcastle that’s striking to me.
Perhaps I should move, I'm within half an hour of 2 places in the top 6
Really it's a sad comment on the vacuity of modern politics that these so-called social democrats don't have much more to say.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45302865
Maybe it's because house prices are so cheap?
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1033235287294529537?s=19
As @Ydoethur says perhaps its to do with the house prices.
To be fair to OGH I severely doubt it'd be Bedford.
Edit - can't see Rochester either although I know there's some dispute as to whether it's a city. But Chelmsford is a pretty glaring omission.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/aug/25/immigration-minister-caroline-nokes-blocked-people-twitter-asking-help-cases
(Technically the property qualification was of course retained for women. You mean, 'abolished it for men.')
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-45303989
Israel and North Korea. Perhaps not Trump himself creating a distraction but a foreign policy neocon hawk taking advantage?
As at that time women were more likely to vote Tory, there was an electoral bias to men, and therefore Labour.
Edit - and Lancaster. Now that is a bad oversight.
Although my recollections of Leicester aren't particularly pleasant.
If you consider the whole sweep of history, the British have more anti Semitic form than the Germans! Oh, the irony.
The Germans aren’t laughing at that, because they have no sense of humour. Oh, the irony.
And yet when they extended the franchise, they came second in seats (although hey won the popular vote). A lot of opprobrium was heaped on Joynson-Hicks for that especially by Churchill. and ironically as you note it was deeply unfair. Even more ironically, the female vote was absolutely crucial in giving Churchill what proved his only general election victory in 1951.
For interest the population of Leicester increased by 17% between the 2001-11 censuses, so immigration does not inevitably push up house prices.
Sure, the Liberal splits helped the supplantation, but the working class enfranchisement helped in a big way too.
To misquote Billy Wilder 'Ok, so he shares platforms with antisemites, he attends memorials to terrorists, he likes antisemitic murals, he loathes the State of Israel and he won't sign up to IHRA's definition of antisemitism.... But what people forget is that he's an absolutely useless Party leader.
If you are looking for racism ,it's right there.
What did change in 1918 was that a large number of younger, more radical men were given the vote, where previously their fathers or even grandfathers would have had the family vote instead.
However, it was certainly not the only or even the most important factor in Labour's rise to the top.
I couldn't express an opinion on many of them, despite being fairly well travelled, though I suspect most of us could express an opinion on London. Except Morris Dancer.
When the Mirror or the Morning Star say the same, he's in trouble.
Chelmsford
Bangor
Llanelwy
Perth
Chelmsford
Newport
That's all of them then.
Edit - no it isn't, like a muppet I put Chelmsford twice. What's the seventh then?