Quo Vadis Labour?

[Montmorency]

The core of the issue is that a Tory party now 11 years in government - having presided over massive and divisive policy problems around austerity/brexit/covid - should not be coming out of local elections with:

Hundreds of new Councillors (when local 'mid-terms' are seen as an opportunity to kick the Gov't).
Control of up to a dozen new councils (ditto above - and the base from which future GE's are fought with advantage).
Increasing its seats and mayoral vote in London (labour stronghold).
Holding firm what should have been short terms gains in Scotland (a rare place where Boris is an electoral negative).
Making huge gains in labour dominated Wales (where Labour's Mark Drakeford is recognised as having had a 'good' pandemic).

There is a problem here, and no-one can really explain why:

Yes, we can point at labour's problems as an effective opposition, and we can point to the incumbency benefit of crisis management, but on the principle that elections are "lost by the gov't, rather than won by the opposition" - what the hell are the tories doing that is making them so popular!

We all sort of recognise that the answer is that:
1. There is a broader social/cultural realignment going on, and the Tories are better able to exloit it in electorally useful ways.
"But how? Tell me what it is that is so bloody appealing about Tories!"
2. Political parties only survive long-term by a ruthless and relentless adaptation to changing circumstances, and Tories are good at it.
"But how? Why do they keep re-inventing themselves when other movements burn out after a century or so!"

It's utterly fascinating, and thoroughly perplexing. The conundrum delights me - as I love the evolution of political culture - but it's driving many people potty...

I'm old enough to have seen a number of prolonged slumps in Tory popularity. Each slump peppered with individual scandals dragging them still further down, that result in glorious exultation from opposition supporters:
"The Tories are obsolescent, through their callous self-interest totally incapable of commanding public support. Terminal decline! This is our time, and the progressive alliance of social-democrats is ascendant."
Heard this before, plenty, and I've learnt enough to smile wryly when i hear it again:
"Really, you haven't noticed how throughout history the Tories have borg'ed their opposition's electoral niche?"

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...sh-welsh-polls

Using the election reporting link above:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...sh-welsh-polls


From the 2019 election Wiki, in those elections the Conservatives lost more than 1000 council seats, mostly to LibDems and other third parties (such as UKIP). From that perspective it was inevitable they should regain some in a reversion to a mean, both from the Euroskeptic UKIP/BP-voting end of the party and from the pro-EU end of the party that tended to support LibDems in 2019.

In 2021 from what I can find the Labour vote share is pretty much the same as it was in 2019. The loss of 250+ seats, alongside 70 Green gains, suggests that overall Conservatives are benefiting in a lot of close elections from voters returning from third parties, whereas the opposite is affecting Labour. The widespread sentiment of recovery from the pandemic will always help an incumbent party here, by the by.

As for Tories undermining their opposition by assimilating policies into their platform, this appears superficial, as the Conservatives rarely live up to their promises (e.g. Johnson and NHS). The political system as a whole does matter here, and it must always be pointed out that neither major party is really capable of commanding majority support under normal circumstances.
Something I don't know: the LibDems, having coalesced in the late 80s/early 90s, became a major third party once more in time for the Blair era, a time of massive Labour majorities; did LibDems mostly poach Conservative voters back then (as compared to Labour voters now)?

As we've discussed before, third parties like LibDems, Greens, and especially SNP participating at elevated levels in all the wrong places makes it almost impossible for Labour to form even a bare majority under any but the heaviest landslides - even as a majority-to-supermajority of the country dislikes the Conservative party. The collapse of reactionary parties on the Tory flank meanwhile consolidates Conservative votes - Brexit is thus a winner for the Brexiting party until the opposition can persuasively demonstrate harms to the country. For a possible analogy, it took around 20 years for US accession to NAFTA to become an animating controversy again!

Speaking of SNP, I think it's inevitable now that Scotland leaves. In 2014, the referendum was 45-55 for Remain. In 2015, the SNP finally became a major party by swapping like 50 seats in Scotland from Labour. Over the past 5 years, Brexit has been a thing, which Scottish people tend to dislike very much. In 2017 and 2019, the SNP more or less entirely maintained its massive gains from 2015 at Labour's expense. What this all amounts to is:

1. The next Labour government will rely on the SNP to form a majority
2. SNP will demand a referendum
3. Leave will be heavily favored to win the referendum
4. Labour will be widely blamed (if unfairly) for losing Scotland
5. Even if that resentment fades in England, the loss of Scottish seats is a permanent handicap for Labour (since so long as Scotland remains in the UK Labour can at least theoretically retrench on SNP)

In terms of (very) vulgar cyclicalism, I might predict Labour ought to take government in 2024/5 on the basis that no Conservative government has lasted more than ~15 years since the the pre-Victorian era (cf. Cameron government from 2010). It's crude reasoning though, and I'll laugh if it works out to be so simple.

[Montmorency]

Note of confusion.

Looking further at the history of local elections, are they actually staggered? That is, 2019 elections involved seats last contested in 2015, which are different than seats contested in 2016, these latter being the ones contested in 2021 (following postponement of elections from 2020)?

[Furunculus]

Note of confusion.

Looking further at the history of local elections, are they actually staggered? That is, 2019 elections involved seats last contested in 2015, which are different than seats contested in 2016, these latter being the ones contested in 2021 (following postponement of elections from 2020)?

Yes, they are staggered.
The English LA elections should have been last year, and there is I think a split between the rural authorities (on year) vs rural authorities (off year).
This was something of a 'super-election' as the delay meant the election coincided with lots of Mayoral and Welsh/Scottish election.

[Furunculus]

From the 2019 election Wiki, in those elections the Conservatives lost more than 1000 council seats, mostly to LibDems and other third parties (such as UKIP). From that perspective it was inevitable they should regain some in a reversion to a mean, both from the Euroskeptic UKIP/BP-voting end of the party and from the pro-EU end of the party that tended to support LibDems in 2019.

In 2021 from what I can find the Labour vote share is pretty much the same as it was in 2019. The loss of 250+ seats, alongside 70 Green gains, suggests that overall Conservatives are benefiting in a lot of close elections from voters returning from third parties, whereas the opposite is affecting Labour. The widespread sentiment of recovery from the pandemic will always help an incumbent party here, by the by.

All of this is true, but it still leaves the following as the biggest question:
"a Tory party now 11 years in government - having presided over massive and divisive policy problems around austerity/brexit/covid - should not be coming out of local elections with [a smile on its face]"
With all labours problems - and the new elecoral boundaries coming soon (finally - far too long!), there is pretty much zero prospect of conservatives not being in power after the next GE.

Speaking of SNP, I think it's inevitable now that Scotland leaves. In 2014, the referendum was 45-55 for Remain. In 2015, the SNP finally became a major party by swapping like 50 seats in Scotland from Labour. Over the past 5 years, Brexit has been a thing, which Scottish people tend to dislike very much. In 2017 and 2019, the SNP more or less entirely maintained its massive gains from 2015 at Labour's expense.

I'm not sure there is any certainty on this.
If they decide to leave, so be it, but i'm relatively confident they will decide not to.

Something I don't know: the LibDems, having coalesced in the late 80s/early 90s, became a major third party once more in time for the Blair era, a time of massive Labour majorities; did LibDems mostly poach Conservative voters back then (as compared to Labour voters now)?

The Liberals (pre Democrats) were THE major force in politics alongside the Tories until the start of the twentieth century, after which point they ceased to be able to represent the interests of a broad and election winning swathe of society.
The labour movement provided better answers. Now, a century later it seems to be that the labour movement has run out of answers to questions that interest a broad and election winning swathe of society.
And yet centuries roll by and Tory's keep winning, why?

If you want my answer - off the back of Baron Hailsham's logic, it is:
"Conservatism is not so much a philosophy as an attitude, a constant force, performing a timeless function in the development of a free society, and corresponding to a deep and permanent requirement of human nature itself."
An attitude doesn't go out of date - and in not being rooted to ideological precepts that circumstance renders obsolete it is easier for 'conservatism' to move with the times.
i.e. to die in a ditch defending now that which they died in a ditch resisting a century previous.

[Montmorency]

With all labours problems - and the new elecoral boundaries coming soon (finally - far too long!), there is pretty much zero prospect of conservatives not being in power after the next GE.

Say more.

I'm not sure there is any certainty on this.
If they decide to leave, so be it, but i'm relatively confident they will decide not to.

Shouldn't the overwhelming - and historically-recent! - success of pro-independence politics, in combination of the near-success of the independence referendum just prior to the maturation of the rise of pro-independence politics, belie this estimation?

The Liberals (pre Democrats) were THE major force in politics alongside the Tories until the start of the twentieth century, after which point they ceased to be able to represent the interests of a broad and election winning swathe of society.
The labour movement provided better answers. Now, a century later it seems to be that the labour movement has run out of answers to questions that interest a broad and election winning swathe of society.

And so were the Whigs before the Liberals, though here it is important to note that Labour continues to draw a swathe of society broad enough to almost match the Conservatives numerically, something the Liberals/LibDems have not been able to claim in over a century - it's just not election-winning. In the history of political parties fading from the scene, I am not aware of any in Labour's contemporary position.

I repeat, indeed intensify: no political party in the United Kingdom is capable of winning a majority of the vote. Structural factors have more relevance than intensional ones.

Edit: To say a little more, the contemporary LibDems seem to have hardly any natural constituency. Their votes tend to be major-party voters protesting against their customary parties. The core base of the LibDems, such as it may be, is possibly hardly bigger than that of the Greens.

And yet centuries roll by and Tory's keep winning, why?

If you want my answer - off the back of Baron Hailsham's logic, it is:
"Conservatism is not so much a philosophy as an attitude, a constant force, performing a timeless function in the development of a free society, and corresponding to a deep and permanent requirement of human nature itself."
An attitude doesn't go out of date - and in not being rooted to ideological precepts that circumstance renders obsolete it is easier for 'conservatism' to move with the times.

Yes, the Right always has a constituency, that's not a groundbreaking observation.

Evergreen observation:

Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit:

There must be in-groups whom the law protectes but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.

There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time.

Conservatism also arguably has the distinction of the longest track record of failure and disaster in philosophical history.

i.e. to die in a ditch defending now that which they died in a ditch resisting a century previous.

This is a rather uncommon sort of conservatism today, raw reaction against modernity having driven it out, but even then it recalls one of those Internet laws (to paraphrase): 'Conservatism is opposition toward what liberals want today.'

[Furunculus]

Quote Originally Posted by Furunculus
"With all labours problems - and the new elecoral boundaries coming soon (finally - far too long!), there is pretty much zero prospect of conservatives not being in power after the next GE."

Say more.

https://boundarycommissionforengland...v.uk/about-us/

Supposed to happen every 5-10 years to reflect demographic change in an electoral system that requires equal constituency sizes.

The general rule is that as people improve their lot they tend to migrate from from poorer areas to wealthier areas - which over time results in it requiring more voters to elect a Tory candidate than is true of a labour candidate.

Requires political cooperation in Westminster to agree the mandate that is given to the Commission, which the lib-dems (in coalition) scuppered, so the process hasn't been done since 2007.

The current mandate for the Commission is likely to result in a structural change that gives the Tories 10-15 more MP's and Labour similarly less.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bounda...nited_Kingdom)

[Furunculus]

Tony Blair (the only Labour leader to win a general election in nearly half a century):

https://www.newstatesman.com/politic...abour-will-die

[InsaneApache]

Good interview...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=en7s...Triggernometry

I'd pay to see Handcocks head flushed down the bog! LOL

[Montmorency]

Interesting historical context.

FINAL LOCAL RESULTS:

Starmer has lost 326 seats (-7%), the worst local election results for a new opposition leader in over 40 years.

CON: 2,345 (+235)
LAB: 1,345 (-326)
LD: 586 (+7)
GRN: 151 (+88)

https://boundarycommissionforengland...v.uk/about-us/

Supposed to happen every 5-10 years to reflect demographic change in an electoral system that requires equal constituency sizes.

The general rule is that as people improve their lot they tend to migrate from from poorer areas to wealthier areas - which over time results in it requiring more voters to elect a Tory candidate than is true of a labour candidate.

Requires political cooperation in Westminster to agree the mandate that is given to the Commission, which the lib-dems (in coalition) scuppered, so the process hasn't been done since 2007.

The current mandate for the Commission is likely to result in a structural change that gives the Tories 10-15 more MP's and Labour similarly less.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bounda...nited_Kingdom)

I recall reading about British districting a little ahead of the issues of 2019, and without further inquiry IIRC:

British districting does not require principles equivalent to those upheld in our Reynolds v Sims, namely that (within-state) constituencies actually be roughly equal in size. Indeed, some provisions effectively prevent this.

Historically the Labour vote has been less efficient in its distribution; Labour-leaning seats suffer more from "cracking" and "packing" than Conservative ones.

While the variance in size of parliamentary units is probably less in the UK than in the US - where it has been up to 100% in contemporary practice - the UK average constituency is much smaller, making differences of a few thousand much swingier.

Tony Blair (the only Labour leader to win a general election in nearly half a century):

https://www.newstatesman.com/politic...abour-will-die

Objectively, that is to say without value judgements on the content of his assertions, this does shed an odor of fighting the last war, so to speak.

The British Labour Party is the embodiment of this progressive challenge. Just 17 months ago it went to the far left and suffered the worst defeat in the party’s history. It has now replaced Jeremy Corbyn, a classic protest politician completely unsuited to leadership, let alone to governing, with Keir Starmer – Sir Keir – intelligent, capable, moderate-minded. He has taken a strong stand against the stain of anti-Semitism from the Corbyn era, been generally reasonable when opposing the government’s handling of Covid-19, and looks and sounds sensible. But he is struggling to break through with the public, and last week’s elections are a major setback.

Hahahahaha

A new survey from YouGov conducted on Monday found Sir Keir has a net rating of -48, with just 17 per cent of voters saying he is doing well and 65 per cent saying he is doing badly.

At around the same point in Jeremy Corbyn's leadership in September 2016, Sir Keir's predecessor had a net rating of -40 per cent.

21 per cent of voters then believed Mr Corbyn was doing well while 61 per cent thought he was doing badly.

Mr Corbyn had by this point survived an attempt by internal opponents to oust him as leader, winning the 2016 leadership contest by 62 per cent to 38 for his rival Owen Smith.

I know basically nothing of what Starmer's been doing during his tenure, but I'm pretty sure this counts as evidence - and Starmer's approval rating has been consistently declining for half a year now - that Blair's fuzzy feelings about Starmer, or what Starmer represents to his mind, don't have the electoral significance he believes they ought to have. Because facts don't care about feelings, or sommat.

How does everyone still get stuck in the level of analysis of their personal political preferences being the election winners?



My comparative studies of Europe and the US all point to the same conclusion: White people want social democracy, but they're panicking about the presence of non-White people (and men about their own role in society, but that's global).

[Idaho]

The simple truth is that England is a right wing country. It is reflectively deferent to the upper classes in culture, politics and law and is xenophobic and eager to align itself with the powerful. There is a very strong streak of egalitarianism, moderation and rooting for the underdog - but these are minority interests. Brexit and Scottish nationalism killed the labour party. Scotland deserted labour in the referendum and the North deserted them with Brexit. All those working class northerners have decided that they may as well vote for their social betters as labour hasn't done anything for them in 60 years.

[Furunculus]

That might be true, but if so it is only a slight bent in the same way we talk about the overton window - a spectrum shifted slightly on one axis.

It feels like there must be a viable fptp election winning internal coalition of positive-liberty interests, i'm just not sure what that looks like...?