The Politics Thread 2020

[LiberalFox]

49 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I was only cracking silly jokes, not seeking an argument. Stop stitching me up! 

 

But since you call me by name....

 

The 1970s Lib-Lab Pact was a confidence and supply agreement, not a coalition, but that's quibbling. The LDs were perfectly entitled to form a coalition with the Tories - and there's a strong argument that it was the responsible thing to do.

Given the electoral numbers, any coalition with Labour in 2010 would've been potentially unstable, as it would have had to also include the SNP and others (Plaid? Greens? SDLP?). The 5-year coalition also gave the LDs a rare opportunity to show the public that they were a competent party of govt - a great opportunity, in theory.

 

With hindsight, where I reckon it went wrong for the LDs was their priorities in coalition - or at least the public perception of them. I'm sure @LiberalFoxwill claim that the LDs softened Tory policy 2010-15 and that there would have been more austerity and more illiberalism without the LD input. There might even be some truth in that - but the perception is that they mainly acted as handmaidens for Tory austerity. They got certain concessions (cabinet posts, alternative vote referendum, fixed-term parliaments act) but apparently not in the areas that really affected people's everyday lives - incomes, living standards, public services etc. And I say that as someone who strongly supports electoral reform.

 

I don't know if any research has been done into the reasons for the slump in the LD vote in 2015, but I assume:

- Those who supported austerity politics saw no reason to vote for the minor austerity party, when they could vote for the major austerity party, the Tories

- Those who opposed austerity politics rejected the LDs and voted for Labour or other parties.

 

2015 election figures are complicated due to the surge in support for UKIP and the SNP, but here are the nationwide vote change figures (2015 v. 2010):

Con +0.8%, Lab +1.5%, LD -15.1% (from 23%), UKIP +9.5%, SNP +3.1%

 

There's clearly a lot of churn there. Lab lost lots of votes to the SNP - and the UKIP votes will have mainly come from the Tories and Labour, not the LDs.

That suggests that most 2010 LD voters switched to either Labour or Tory in 2015 - voting for Labour as the main anti-austerity party (in Eng/Wales) or for the Tories as the main pro-austerity party?

 

Anyway, I was just cracking silly jokes. I don't hate the LDs. For various reasons, I voted for them in 2001 & 2005. Hell, if someone offered me the prospect of LD Govts for my lifetime, I'd be delighted!

They're in a difficult position now, though. The pro-EU stance is unlikely to attract many voters. Labour now have a competent (if unexciting) leader, who'll get a lot more media coverage than the LDs, who have an unexciting leader themselves.

Will they recover some of their support in their SW heartlands, now that Brexit is off the agenda? Looking dubious.....and what happens if they lose most of their few remaining seats in 2024 (a distinct possibility)? Davey needs to come up with some great new ideas within 2-3 years.....

The Lib Dem strategy for coalition was to toe the line with the Conservatives for the first 3 years of government then attempt to differentiate in the final 2. The plan was to be seen as a competent party of government and the rationale was that in the seats that mattered (nearly all Conservative facing) they would win over a portion of moderate Conservatives while retaining a greater portion of tactical votes from left leaning voters in these marginals. Really the big problem was the Conservatives actually took votes from the Lib Dems in many marginals and that led to a collapse in seats with the Conservatives winning an unexpected majority in 2015.

 

While it's true that the left leaning vote collapsed too, most of these votes weren't in marginal seats and merely effected overall vote share and lost deposits.

 

I suspect the issue was that the party had polled well in the South West and other more rural areas by heavy local campaigning and being seen as in favour of localism in general. The party had proudly supported an EU in/out referendum for example. The strategy of emphasising the Lib Dems as a "party of government" and appearing as the face of coalition policy backfired because the party lost its image of being against centralised control/ the establishment. There was also a backlash against the sudden surge in the SNP vote after the Scottish Independence referendum and the Tories ran a successful campaign arguing that only a vote for them would maintain stability against Milliband's "coalition of chaos".

 

It's a popular narrative on the left that the Lib Dems were punished for supporting austerity or simply enabling a Tory government but the evidence isn't really there to support that. 

[yorkie1999]

On 23/03/2021 at 21:33, Foxy_Bear said:

Nothong you've said here is unreasonable. 

 

I think Brexit on its own IS a thin excuse but when coupled with the fact that prior to the Imdyref vote, the No campaign pushed hard on our EU status being a reason for remaining within the UK, and then yanking it away when the vast majority of Scotland voted to remain within the EU. I think it's the perfect excuse for the SNP to push for another. 

 

Like I said, I vote for the SNP. I desperately want to be an independent nation but I also believe that nows not the time. 

Let the coronavirus settle. Let the dust from Brexit settle. Let people forget how much of a nightmare it was and then regroup in a couple of years but no-one should be surprised at what the SNP will do to get independence. This is their primary goal and its the deciding factor on why they win elections comfortably. 

The only way for Scotland to gain independence in a referendum is to allow the English to vote.

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-56532569

 

How far is the UK willing to push this, I wonder?

[Scotch]

14 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

The only way for Scotland to gain independence in a referendum is to allow the English to vote.

That would be ideal. 

[UpTheLeagueFox]

Monthly poll tracker via Britain Elects.

 

 

[Voll Blau]

 

 

People seem to be loving it/bricking it about this splitting the pro-independence vote, but surely he's not going to put any dent in the SNP, is he? 

[Jon the Hat]

11 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

 

 

People seem to be loving it/bricking it about this splitting the pro-independence vote, but surely he's not going to put any dent in the SNP, is he? 

A lot of people only seem to vote SNP as they are pro-independence.  He has a pretty good following in the past.  Who knows?

[Alf Bentley]

7 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

 

 

People seem to be loving it/bricking it about this splitting the pro-independence vote, but surely he's not going to put any dent in the SNP, is he? 

 

Blimey, that could get interesting/nasty....

 

The Scottish Parliament elections use the Additional Member System (individual constituencies, then additional members from regional lists to make the result more proportional).

 

Previous polls suggested that the SNP might narrowly achieve or narrowly miss out an absolute majority under that system.

So, Salmond could potentially win just a couple of MSPs (including himself, no doubt) via the regional lists - and hold the balance of power.

Or, depending on the numbers, a small number of votes for his new party might deny the SNP a majority and the "moral right" to demand IndyRef2, even if he doesn't hold the balance....high stakes stuff? 

[Dunge]

I’m a little surprised Salmond hasn’t just gone all out and called his new party the People’s Front of Scotland.

[Innovindil]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-56532569

 

How far is the UK willing to push this, I wonder?

Hopefully as far as the eye can see.

 

Past time the democratic world was done with China. Between this, Hong Kong and rowdyness towards their neighbours it's time we collectively started moving away from relying on China for anything.

[Alf Bentley]

Salmond's tactics in launching this new party could make sense, thinking of it.

 

By only standing candidates in the regional lists, he can play the electoral system.

 

If the result is anything like expected, the SNP will win a higher proportion of the constituency seats than their proportion of the Scottish vote - so they'll win few, if any MSPs via the regional lists.

Whereas Salmond's Alba Party wouldn't have any constituency seats, so could easily win seats on the regional lists.....in particular, he'll be hoping that SNP voters understand this, vote SNP at constituency level and Alba in the regional lists.

 

That could potentially ensure a pro-independence majority at Holyrood....quite possibly with Salmond holding the balance of power. 

[leicsmac]

14 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Hopefully as far as the eye can see.

 

Past time the democratic world was done with China. Between this, Hong Kong and rowdyness towards their neighbours it's time we collectively started moving away from relying on China for anything.

Totally agree in principle. However, if the overall objective is to get China to change its ways that is going to be a long slog and is probably going to hurt. A lot.

 

I just hope that the powers that be are ready for that.

[String fellow]

1 hour ago, Dunge said:

I’m a little surprised Salmond hasn’t just gone all out and called his new party the People’s Front of Scotland.

I'm a little surprised that it's okay to have a political party with the same name as a TV channel.

[Scotch]

Saw it coming. Thats what all this nonsense has been about. He's tried to discredit NS before then offering an alternative. 

 

Despite being pro indy, I have my issues with how the SNP has handled some of the stuff in the last year.... Still wouldnt vot for Salmond though!

[Spudulike]

Question time last night. What has happened to that programme? Used to be worth a watch but cba with it anymore. Perhaps due to no live audience but mostly rubbish panelists. 

[Carl the Llama]

4 hours ago, LiberalFox said:

It's a popular narrative on the left that the Lib Dems were punished for supporting austerity or simply enabling a Tory government but the evidence isn't really there to support that. 

Hang on, if the people stringing that narrative are on the left is there not a good chance they're talking from personal experience?  I mean if it was a Tory saying it then fair enough that you might assume they're trying to poison the well, but when you have the people who will have seriously considered voting Lib Dem/might even have done so saying it that's not something you should so easily dismiss.

[StanSP]

 

 

 

 

Do any of the stuff politicians use expenses for get vetted? Like, how much is and isn't allowed but how much do they get away with? 

 

 

 

[surrifox]

2 hours ago, Dunge said:

I’m a little surprised Salmond hasn’t just gone all out and called his new party the People’s Front of Scotland.

It might get confused with the Scottish People’s Front ( w....rs)

[Kopfkino]

11 minutes ago, StanSP said:

Do any of the stuff politicians use expenses for get vetted? Like, how much is and isn't allowed but how much do they get away with? 

 

 

Let's be clear on the difference given the original tweets are a disingenuous misrepresentation (she's either a few bob short of a pound or has no intention of accuracy). MP's expenses have to be approved by an independent body and have limits. These are not her own expenses, but Home Office expenditure, i.e anyone that works for the Home Office and is able to expense (which I'm sure includes the SoS). Now why people at the Home Office are spending 5k at Primark, or 1k at a garden centre is anybody's guess

[String fellow]

Between 1/6/19 and 31/5/20, six of the top ten highest claimers of expenses were SNP MPs, all claiming just under £100k each. In the same period, seven of the ten lowest claimers of expenses were Conservative MPs, including several who claimed nothing. Not even sure why the SNP take their seats, considering their hostility to Westminster. Maybe it's for the money.

[Parafox]

1 hour ago, surrifox said:

It might get confused with the Scottish People’s Front ( w....rs)

Can I exercise my right as a man, to be a woman? It's symbolic of our struggle against oppression.

[Alf Bentley]

5 hours ago, LiberalFox said:

The Lib Dem strategy for coalition was to toe the line with the Conservatives for the first 3 years of government then attempt to differentiate in the final 2. The plan was to be seen as a competent party of government and the rationale was that in the seats that mattered (nearly all Conservative facing) they would win over a portion of moderate Conservatives while retaining a greater portion of tactical votes from left leaning voters in these marginals. Really the big problem was the Conservatives actually took votes from the Lib Dems in many marginals and that led to a collapse in seats with the Conservatives winning an unexpected majority in 2015.

 

While it's true that the left leaning vote collapsed too, most of these votes weren't in marginal seats and merely effected overall vote share and lost deposits.

 

I suspect the issue was that the party had polled well in the South West and other more rural areas by heavy local campaigning and being seen as in favour of localism in general. The party had proudly supported an EU in/out referendum for example. The strategy of emphasising the Lib Dems as a "party of government" and appearing as the face of coalition policy backfired because the party lost its image of being against centralised control/ the establishment. There was also a backlash against the sudden surge in the SNP vote after the Scottish Independence referendum and the Tories ran a successful campaign arguing that only a vote for them would maintain stability against Milliband's "coalition of chaos".

 

It's a popular narrative on the left that the Lib Dems were punished for supporting austerity or simply enabling a Tory government but the evidence isn't really there to support that. 

 

You make some good points: the 5-year strategy, image as local campaigners v. central govt establishment, successful Tory "coalition of chaos" campaign.

I certainly wouldn't be so simplistic as to claim that it was all down to punishment for austerity or supporting the Tories - and the points you've made were part of the explanation.

 

But...

- The LD vote fell from 23% to 7.9%, losing 2/3 of those who voted for them in 2010

- The Lab vote increased overall, despite being an establishment party & leading Miliband's "coalition of chaos" (& losing lots of votes to SNP & UKIP)

- The Green vote rocketed, despite being potential members of the "coalition of chaos"

 

Where did those lost 2/3 of 2010 LD voters go? Only some went to the Tories, whose vote rose just 0.7% (albeit that this understates the LD votes gained, as the Tories lost plenty to UKIP).

Labour lost stacks of votes to the SNP and no small number to UKIP, yet its vote was up overall.....where did all its extra votes come from?

 

Re. LD marginal seats: I had a look at 3 random seats that they lost to the Tories - Cornwall North, Devon North & Twickenham.

In those 3 marginals, the LDs lost a 16-18% vote share, Labour gained votes and the Greens gained 3-4%. In Twickenham, Labour's vote gain was bigger than Cable's margin of defeat.

Personally, I'd have voted LD if I'd been living there, but disillusionment with LD "support" for Tory austerity is surely part of the explanation. 

 

Maybe, with hindsight, the LDs would've done better if they'd fought austerity more or ensured that they got into some public rows with the Tories in those last 2 years, by rejecting Tory austerity?

I have a keen interest in politics and didn't notice the LDs fighting their corner on that, so it's unsurprising if a lot of anti-Tory voters saw them as going along with Tory policy, however much they might have argued behind the scenes.

[Wymsey]

Just unfortunate..

https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/local-news/sleepy-leicestershire-county-councillor-nods-5230091

[CosbehFox]

4 hours ago, String fellow said:

Between 1/6/19 and 31/5/20, six of the top ten highest claimers of expenses were SNP MPs, all claiming just under £100k each. In the same period, seven of the ten lowest claimers of expenses were Conservative MPs, including several who claimed nothing. Not even sure why the SNP take their seats, considering their hostility to Westminster. Maybe it's for the money.

A considerable chunk of those expenses will be on travel and accommodation. Of those MPs you state - some of them represent Inverness, the Orkney Islands, Isle of Bute and Isle of Skye. Equally a Tory MP represents Thirsk which isn’t an easy journey either. The two you’d say are pushing their luck is the Tory MP representing Yeovil and the Labour MP with Bootle. 
 

Particularly in the period you state where Parliament was subject to an election and multiple readings on Brexit. So travel expenses are expected to be high. 
 

Equally it’s not a surprise about Tory MPs being in the lowest claims when there is a larger concentration in the south of the country and therefore journeys to parliament are shorter. Within those who didn’t claim, we have Jacob Rees Mogg with a reported £150 million worth and Zack Goldsmith whom inherited £300 million from his father (he’s married to a Rothschild family member). Another George Hollingbury has his own property portfolio 

 

As a result they maybe lucky enough to be in a position of owning property within or nearby London. Rees Mogg owns a property worth £5million nearby Buckingham Palace. Goldsmith luckily enough to live in Barnes 

Edited 26 March 2021 by Cardiff_Fox

[CosbehFox]

5 hours ago, Kopfkino said:

 

Let's be clear on the difference given the original tweets are a disingenuous misrepresentation (she's either a few bob short of a pound or has no intention of accuracy). MP's expenses have to be approved by an independent body and have limits. These are not her own expenses, but Home Office expenditure, i.e anyone that works for the Home Office and is able to expense (which I'm sure includes the SoS). Now why people at the Home Office are spending 5k at Primark, or 1k at a garden centre is anybody's guess

This is the baffling part - like really baffling.   
 

Like what the **** is occurring to spend that much money with an Albanian Curry’s?