UK General Election 2024

[The Ham]

The government failed to tackle immigration - arguably they had one job in this Parliament given to them by voters - and are paying very dearly. It wasn’t for the want of ideology or a political manoeuvre either, but I don’t think you can look at this, see a ton of voters going to Farage’s party, and conclude “well the Tories moved too far right”.

The problem is that their words don't match their actions.

A percentage of people thought that Brexit would result in fewer people coming here (it may not be a big percentage but it's also not zero), they are now mostly upset that net migration is higher.

However it's no surprise that it is, it's been shown that if you make it harder for people to move they'll settle where they "need" to be. Whilst not as easy to move back and forwards between the EU and the UK as between Mexico and the US, when experience from the US e that by making the boarder harder to cross they stop crossing. Only they do so by crossing the boarder into the US and then staying there.

Whilst the numbers coming here from the EU are down, those doing so are generally staying rather than coming for a bit and then going back and possibly even then maybe coming again for a bit and then going back.

For instance by making it hard to find here to do seasonal work, people either have to come here or not. If they aren't coming from the EU, then they'll be coming from elsewhere. Add to that making it harder for people to move abroad, then the numbers leaving could well be down.

The outcome is that migration is up.

Unless the government were to limit migration (and the impact that could have on the economy) then this was a likely outcome of Brexit.

In government they possibly understood this, but wanted to look like they were doing something, so take a lot about small boats, which was never going to change the numbers by much but took up a lot of time and coverage so looks like they were doing something.

Thing is that will only let you get away with it for a short time before people start to see what you're doing and shift away from that thinking or demand someone else to do what they want (of course given age is a factor on people's thinking time may well alert the overall perception - especially given that getting older doesn't have such a strong link to becoming more right wing at it once did).

 

[jfollows]

Where have most “lost” Tory voters gone? Reform, or been converted into non voters. It’s a bit strange to say they’ve gone too far right, because they’re leaking votes to a properly mental populist right party.

The Tories didn’t move to the centre or the right so much as rather lose all steam ideologically and politically.

There is no cohesive “offer” behind the Tories. They’re just “doing the government”, becoming ever more reactive, losing all sight of a worldview, and cannibalising all of their political capital.

They have moaned relentlessly that they can’t get anything done - with an 80 seat majority! They’re just useless and feckless and have adopted the communication style of the opposition for the last two years.

Almost everything has got worse since Brexit, and not just as a direct consequence. Brexit and the fallout has consumed a huge amount of parliamentary time, rendering the government fractured and sclerotic.

The government failed to tackle immigration - arguably they had one job in this Parliament given to them by voters - and are paying very dearly. It wasn’t for the want of ideology or a political manoeuvre either, but I don’t think you can look at this, see a ton of voters going to Farage’s party, and conclude “well the Tories moved too far right”.

I think that's right - I don't think that the Conservatives' undoing has been that they've "moved right", I think it's because they've become liars and hypocrites and have seen elections as a means to getting power, after which they've done what they wanted to do.

And there is some merit in their argument today that Labour shouldn't get too big a majority and do likewise, but it makes me laugh a bit given what they've done themselves and in any case I want to see them severely trounced so I don't care how big a majority Labour gets.

In my view, Boris Johnson was the cause, but Rishi Sunak missed an opportunity and since he took over they've gone nowhere. The Windsor Agreement was good, but that's about it. And he's pandered to the right and that's been a mess.

If they'd had coherent "right wing" policies which were seen to have a foundation in reality and in some kind of electoral approval and backing, they could have progressed. But they haven't.

 

[Bantamzen]

For good or ill the UK is predominantly a market economy. In a market economy businesses open and close all the time. The main way this happens is through the price mechanism, can businesses charge enough for their goods and services to cover their costs and make some profit?

But government policy intervenes all the time to create incentives and disincentives that favour some parts of the economy over others. A lot of this is in response to special pleading from industries that can only make money if the playing field is tilted in their favour. Some of them do this very loudly, in particular the hospitality industry. They were doing it on Radio 4 this morning and what they were pleading for was more migrant labour.

That's because the labour market is one of the most important components of a market economy, and it is a market with lots of government interventions, including the availability of migrant labour. These impact on people's decisions on which jobs to take. People are starting new jobs and leaving old jobs all the time, there is no need for jobs to be forbidden. However, there is nowhere near enough of this, mainly because the housing shortage makes it very difficult to move.

It would be far better for the UK economy if a few baristas and waiters were operating a digger instead. What doesn't make sense is government policy tilting the playing field in favour of hospitality compared to construction. Unfortunately Radio 4 journalists would rather give air time to the hospitality industry in a nice warm restaurant, not the construction industry on a building site!

Well that explains what you are hoping for, but not the how you aspire for this to happen. And it raises a new question, just how is the government tilting in favour if hospitality over construction?

Now I'll be the first to say I would love to see new investments in construction, there's so much needed infrastructure-wise around the country. But this needs to be a sustained, long term programme of bringing our public transport networks, hospitals, schools and other public facilities up to date and suitable for the future. And that's going to take time as well as a lot of financial commitments going forward. I know Labour have pledged 1.5 million new homes, but all that will do is help inflate the housing market further (making it even less affordable for those at the bottom) as the housing construction industry isn't interested in building low-cost, low-yield homes. They want to build properties that are going to go for £250K and more, so I can see any low-cost builds being fudged and their numbers kept to an absolute minimum.

 

[sor]

I received a personally addressed Lib Dem letter today, about an hour ago.

Looked like I was the only person inside my block to get one: the guy had a pile of around 20 but was going all round the neighbourhood.

Guess they somehow identified (correctly) that I was a target voter. I do remember saying to the Lib Dem councillor then-candidate last year "good luck" or "hope you win" or somesuch: possible it's something to do with that.

In general, I'd echo others' observations that the Lib Dems are trying quite hard here, while the Tories don't seem to be bothering. And it's a knife-edge seat according to projections; could go either way.

They can do this for registered postal/proxy voters too - candidates are entitled to a list of such voters and their addresses. I had a postal vote (changed back to in person for this election) and I seem to remember getting individually addressed campaign stuff from multiple parties, not just the one I'm actually a member of.

 

[nw1]

Where have most “lost” Tory voters gone? Reform, or been converted into non voters. It’s a bit strange to say they’ve gone too far right, because they’re leaking votes to a properly mental populist right party.

The Tories didn’t move to the centre or the right so much as rather lose all steam ideologically and politically.

There is no cohesive “offer” behind the Tories. They’re just “doing the government”, becoming ever more reactive, losing all sight of a worldview, and cannibalising all of their political capital.

They have moaned relentlessly that they can’t get anything done - with an 80 seat majority! They’re just useless and feckless and have adopted the communication style of the opposition for the last two years.

Almost everything has got worse since Brexit, and not just as a direct consequence. Brexit and the fallout has consumed a huge amount of parliamentary time, rendering the government fractured and sclerotic.

The government failed to tackle immigration - arguably they had one job in this Parliament given to them by voters - and are paying very dearly. It wasn’t for the want of ideology or a political manoeuvre either, but I don’t think you can look at this, see a ton of voters going to Farage’s party, and conclude “well the Tories moved too far right”.

Except they have lost the centrist Tory voters of, say, 2010, 2015 and 2017, by moving too far to the right. The kind of socially liberal but economically somewhat conservative voters that live in places like Esher, Woking, Guildford or Winchester (all four of which I predict to be Lib Dem gains).

Granted they couldn't seriously move back to the centre earlier this year, just months before the election. Nobody would take them seriously. I suppose Sunak did have that opportunity when he was first installed as PM, but he chose not to (which was a bad decision for the Tories, IMO)

The rightwards move won them the 2019 election. But they are paying dearly now the cult of Boris has been exposed as an empty vessel - it did them good in the short term but long term it's not working for them.

I'm no Tory but I hope they'll learn from this and move back towards the centre. For one thing, if we got another Tory government in 2029 it might be relatively palatable.

 

[renegademaster]

Except they have lost the centrist Tory voters of, say, 2010, 2015 and 2017,

How many of these actually exist, especially post referendum? Even pre referendum quite a lot of the remain tory camp where right wing on other issues, remember Liz Truss and the rest of the neo-thatcherite camp were remainers

 

[AlterEgo]

Except they have lost the centrist Tory voters of, say, 2010, 2015 and 2017, by moving too far to the right. The kind of socially liberal but economically somewhat conservative voters that live in places like Esher, Woking, Guildford or Winchester (all four of which I predict to be Lib Dem gains).

They haven't lost nearly as many of these as they have to the right and to apathy.

Granted they couldn't seriously move back to the centre earlier this year, just months before the election. Nobody would take them seriously. I suppose Sunak did have that opportunity when he was first installed as PM, but he chose not to (which was a bad decision for the Tories, IMO)

Sunak's problem is he isn't a politician. He's a finance bro; a contemptuous, hollow, non-politician who just feels he should be in charge. He has no ideas. I cannot seriously believe Sunak has opinions on stopping the boats, or Rwanda, or environmental damage caused by sewage pollution, or the gender wars, or how the Empire should be taught in school - but he talks about it and sounds insincere. He just wants to tinker with tax and spending and thinks the balance sheet will fix everything else.

They don't have any ideas, and they don't have any political capital left. They are done - and they have been for a couple of years. I've been calling it for a long time.

For one thing, if we got another Tory government in 2029 it might be relatively palatable.

...no? Because they are Tories.

In an ideal world these people would be drummed out of office and made to crawl on the streets back to their former constituencies as penance. A grotesque, incompetent, flailing group of people not worthy of serious consideration for political office.

My wish is for the Conservative Party to be destroyed, and the fragments scatterable into easily identifiable smaller parties whose agendas are much clearer.

 

[HSTEd]

Errr.

The Tory vote had collapsed because:
1 - they have moved to the right.

I'm not sure moving to the right is what has caused them to shed nearly 20% of the electorate to Reform!

If the Reform split hadn't happened they'd be neck and neck with Labour!
The Tories have done the opposite of the Labour SDP split, the breakaway party is on the right wing, not the centre.

Certainly not because they have moved to the centre (because they haven't!).

Relativel to the voter base, they have.

They moved to the centre under Cameron and then even further under the likes of Boris.
Eventually the base has got fed up and defected.

 

[nw1]

They haven't lost nearly as many of these as they have to the right and to apathy.

Perhaps; I say that as I actually personally know a few people who did indeed vote Tory in 2010 and/or 2015 and now can't stand the sight of them - reasons being a mix of Brexit and incompetence.

Sunak's problem is he isn't a politician. He's a finance bro; a contemptuous, hollow, non-politician who just feels he should be in charge. He has no ideas. I cannot seriously believe Sunak has opinions on stopping the boats, or Rwanda, or environmental damage caused by sewage pollution, or the gender wars, or how the Empire should be taught in school - but he talks about it and sounds insincere. He just wants to tinker with tax and spending and thinks the balance sheet will fix everything else.

I wonder why he was so into all that reactionary stuff? Presumably weakness - being afraid of being stabbed in the back by Braverman et al.

My wish is for the Conservative Party to be destroyed, and the fragments scatterable into easily identifiable smaller parties whose agendas are much clearer.

This is a good point - I can envisage it splitting a new party which is economically right-of-centre but socially liberal, and an unashamedly hard-right populist party in the Le Pen mould. Perhaps that indeed will happen, with Farage doubtless heavily involved in the latter.
The Tory Party is too much of a catch-all for all varieties of right-of-centre politics, and it has been for some time (cf. Thatcher and the "wets", Major and the "dinosaurs", Cameron and the Eurosceptics).

 

[DC1989]

The problem with flats is the awful leasehold system (at least in England, I don't know about the rest of the UK), and the management system which often imposes silly rules and unnecessary costs, for example it was a complete waste of money for my previous complex to hire someone to mop the communal lobby every morning, getting in the way of everyone trying to go to work/school and making it dirty again the minute after the cleaner finished. Even when 100 flat owners can agree to replace a management company, only the people with the most time and able to shout the loudest get their way and impose constraints on everyone else.

I had the impression the Tories were going to meddle with the leasehold system but I don't think anything ever came of that. Tens of thousands of flat owners are still unable to sell (some because they would end up in negative equity) because of the cladding problem too

The Government passed The Leasehold Reform bill during washup but it was gradually watered down so much that it's just a step in the right direction (Lease extension to 990 years, abolition of marriage value)

Labour are planning to abolish leasehold entirely should they win

 

[AlterEgo]

I wonder why he was so into all that reactionary stuff? Presumably weakness - being afraid of being stabbed in the back by Braverman et al.

I don't think he was even into it. But it seems clear he was worried about the more right wing and populist sections of the party!

This is a good point - I can envisage it splitting a new party which is economically right-of-centre but socially liberal, and an unashamedly hard-right populist party in the Le Pen mould. Perhaps that indeed will happen, with Farage doubtless heavily involved in the latter.
The Tory Party is too much of a catch-all for all varieties of right-of-centre politics, and it has been for some time (cf. Thatcher and the "wets", Major and the "dinosaurs", Cameron and the Eurosceptics).

There is nothing inherently wrong with a broad church, but we saw for a long time how Labour were unable to offer a cohesive offer as it contained so many people from Blue Labourites to people who made Lenin look like a centrist.

This has now happened to the Tories, and it is good news. Once you isolate the howl at the moon types who want to shoot at dinghies in the Channel into a lunatic party you can then deal with the rest. Hopefully we eventually get some form of PR one day - Labour could be three parties, for example. Coalition is not a bad way to govern.

 

[renegademaster]

I wonder why he was so into all that reactionary stuff?

Because opinion polling shows it broadly popular

 

[DynamicSpirit]

A percentage of people thought that Brexit would result in fewer people coming here (it may not be a big percentage but it's also not zero), they are now mostly upset that net migration is higher.

I'd imagine that most people thought that Brexit would result in lower EU migration, and that is exactly what happened. It's silly to pretend otherwise when the migration statistics clearly show that. Of course Brexit has not reduced non-EU migration, but no-one ever claimed it would.

Whilst the numbers coming here from the EU are down, those doing so are generally staying rather than coming for a bit and then going back and possibly even then maybe coming again for a bit and then going back.

I'd like to see evidence of that assertion - particularly given that any EU citizen settled in the UK can still freely and legally visit EU countries: Brexit has not changed that, so there shouldn't be any reason to prevent EU citizens legally resident here from coming and going as before. But either way the fact remains that net EU migration (net figures so that would take account of anyone leaving the UK) have gone down to near zero. Brexit has succeeded in at least that regard.

For instance by making it hard to find here to do seasonal work, people either have to come here or not. If they aren't coming from the EU, then they'll be coming from elsewhere. Add to that making it harder for people to move abroad, then the numbers leaving could well be down.

The outcome is that migration is up.

Yes, total migration is up because non-EU migration has gone up massively. There are lots of reasons for that increase, but almost none of them have anything to do with Brexit. So yes migration is up, but no, that's not an outcome of Brexit. Rather, it appears - so far as we can tell - to be something that would have happened anyway. (Except that without Brexit, the total increase would have been even greater because the sharp increase in non-EU migration would not have been offset by the fall in EU migration).

 

[nw1]

Because opinion polling shows it broadly popular

Not with everyone, of course. Most people I know found Rwanda and the culture war stuff tedious at the very best.

 

[Bantamzen]

I'd imagine that most people thought that Brexit would result in lower EU migration, and that is exactly what happened. It's silly to pretend otherwise when the migration statistics clearly show that. Of course Brexit has not reduced non-EU migration, but no-one ever claimed it would.

I'm not so sure about that. Remember those posters showing long queues of people not looking like they were coming from the EU that the Leave campaign commissioned? Plenty of people thought that Brexit would deliver reductions in EU and non-EU migration, "Take back control of our borders" is one strapline I seem to remember. It would be naïve to think this wasn't a major driver for at least a significant proportion of the population.

 

[DC1989]

I'd imagine that most people thought that Brexit would result in lower EU migration, and that is exactly what happened. It's silly to pretend otherwise when the migration statistics clearly show that. Of course Brexit has not reduced non-EU migration, but no-one ever claimed it would.

For many Brexit was an anti-immigration vote (The vote was during the migrant crisis!) Link

For the tories to assume that the vote meant they could reduce French waitresses and Polish plumbers for 3 times the amount of Bangladeshi deliveroo drivers is one of the main reasons they are about to be wiped out

 

[ainsworth74]

Probably time for me to gently suggest that we're starting to get in a bit of danger of going well down the Brexit rabbit hole in which case I would suggest taking the discussion over to the dedicated thread here.

 

[Blindtraveler]

I'm in the fortunate position to not be a member of any political party but to have friends or colleagues who are members of pretty much all of them and who forward me their emails because they know I'm interested
Given that reform are really pulling ahead in the polls at the moment. I wonder if the conservatives are closely guarding their back door just at this minute as they seem obsessed compulsively. So in fact about keeping labour out but are either not bothered if we form muscle in on their territory or don't see them as a threat. Whereas the pollsters with some variation, of course, depending on who you speak to, are pretty convinced that they are going to pick up a good number of seats for a party of such insignificance

 

[AlterEgo]

I'd imagine that most people thought that Brexit would result in lower EU migration, and that is exactly what happened. It's silly to pretend otherwise when the migration statistics clearly show that. Of course Brexit has not reduced non-EU migration, but no-one ever claimed it would.

Gove promised net migration would be in the tens of thousands, and that Brexit would allow the Government to bring immigration down. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36454908

Leaving the EU would allow the UK to get net migration under 100,000 - a promise PM David Cameron has not been able to keep, Michael Gove has said.

Asked by ITV's Robert Peston if that meant cutting EU and non-EU migration, the justice secretary said: "Yes".

The fact is, voters chose the Tories partly because they were concerned about immigration, and Brexit was supposed to give the government the tools to keep the numbers down. In fact, net migration in 2022 was 745,000!!! Let that sink in - 745,000. They aren't in the least bit interested or equipped to handle this.

This is leading into the chief accusation against the Tories that they are quite simply, incompetent. They don't stand for anything and they can't even manage a single core issue.

 

[Magdalia]

I would love to see new investments in construction, there's so much needed infrastructure-wise around the country. But this needs to be a sustained, long term programme of bringing our public transport networks, hospitals, schools and other public facilities up to date and suitable for the future. And that's going to take time as well as a lot of financial commitments

One of the biggest obstacles to that is going to be labour shortages, especially skilled labour.

In this respect, being outside the EU single market is an advantage, as it allows an inward migration policy that can, for example, prioritise digger drivers over baristas.

Another aspect that should be given priority is giving the skilled workers currently employed in the oil and gas extraction industries a quick and clean pathway into the construction industry. People used to doing long stints out on oil and gas rigs in the North Sea could instead do those long stints on construction sites, without otherwise changing their lifestyles.

Longer term, the skilled labour should be coming out of the education system, but there are no instant results there.

Labour have pledged 1.5 million new homes, but all that will do is help inflate the housing market further (making it even less affordable for those at the bottom) as the housing construction industry isn't interested in building low-cost, low-yield homes. They want to build properties that are going to go for £250K and more, so I can see any low-cost builds being fudged and their numbers kept to an absolute minimum.

On the face of it, increasing the supply of homes should not inflate prices in the housing market, but you are right that the impact on prices will depend on the size (and location) of new homes constructed. There is also a risk that labour shortages will inflate wages and push up the costs of new construction.

 

[Cross City]

Given that reform are really pulling ahead in the polls at the moment.

Ahead of who?

 

[HSTEd]

I know Labour have pledged 1.5 million new homes, but all that will do is help inflate the housing market further (making it even less affordable for those at the bottom) as the housing construction industry isn't interested in building low-cost, low-yield homes.
They want to build properties that are going to go for £250K and more, so I can see any low-cost builds being fudged and their numbers kept to an absolute minimum.

We've reached the point where £250k is now less than the average house price in England, which is around ~£300k.
It is lower in Scotland and Wales but even there £250k would not go as far as it used to.

But the fundamental point is that a house is a house, it doesn't particularly matter what segment of the market they are aimed at, because any new housing would depressurise the market.
Housing is just as susceptible to supply and demand as anything else, and I don't see how increasing supply would lead to increased prices.

I do question whether Labour will actually be able to build 1.5 million new houses without breaking the existing oligopoly of housebuilders though.

 

[nw1]

Ahead of who?

Themselves a few weeks ago, I guess.

 

[renegademaster]

Not with everyone, of course. Most people I know found Rwanda and the culture war stuff tedious at the very best.

Most people agree something should be done with boat arrivals and a third country is the only thing that can be done that doesn't depend on the good will of France or tearing up the refugee convention. The Tories failure being having done it very incomptently. Some of the culture war issues while less important than more real issues, stuff like Self ID have become quite unpopular across the spectrum

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Jun 2024 ==

They want to build properties that are going to go for £250K and more, so I can see any low-cost builds being fudged and their numbers kept to an absolute minimum.

Theirs only a finite (and shrinking) number of wealthy people. Even if housebuilders only ever built stuff aimed at the upper middle class , it would stop then from gentrifying inner city areas

 

[The Ham]

I'd imagine that most people thought that Brexit would result in lower EU migration, and that is exactly what happened. It's silly to pretend otherwise when the migration statistics clearly show that. Of course Brexit has not reduced non-EU migration, but no-one ever claimed it would.

They may not have claimed it would, however it was certainly thought by some (again that non zero number) that it wouldn't have resulted in a big spike in non EU migration.

I'd like to see evidence of that assertion - particularly given that any EU citizen settled in the UK can still freely and legally visit EU countries: Brexit has not changed that, so there shouldn't be any reason to prevent EU citizens legally resident here from coming and going as before. But either way the fact remains that net EU migration (net figures so that would take account of anyone leaving the UK) have gone down to near zero. Brexit has succeeded in at least that regard.

Difference of duration, for short trips, certainly, but someone comes here for uni, then returns, then comes back for a few years work before returning again is a lot harder, so at the end of uni people maybe inclined to stay. Once they stay, it's harder to move back, as if it doesn't work out you may not be able to come back to the UK again.

Yes, total migration is up because non-EU migration has gone up massively. There are lots of reasons for that increase, but almost none of them have anything to do with Brexit. So yes migration is up, but no, that's not an outcome of Brexit. Rather, it appears - so far as we can tell - to be something that would have happened anyway. (Except that without Brexit, the total increase would have been even greater because the sharp increase in non-EU migration would not have been offset by the fall in EU migration).

Part of the big rise (excluding Ukraine and Hong Kong) is down to student visas, EU citizens didn't need them and they wouldn't be counted in the net migration until they had stayed here long enough to count (not sure if they would have counted before if they return home for 2 months during the summer).

As such, without Brexit some of the "growth" recently would have been hidden.

However, the point comes back to the fact that by trying to appease those who didn't want migration, something which either people are getting wise to, or are now unhappy that it hasn't been delivered in the way that they want.

Either way it's going to upset the electorate and make people either look for a party which will be more honest about what they are going to do, or one who will double down and promise further reductions - without explaining that actually some immigration is likely to be needed unless you want price inflation.

As there's only one place you can get money to pay people from, the customers of those goods and services.

Likewise, unless you are going to remove benefits from those scroungers who are being paid over £10,000 a year and will never get a job (also known as pensioners*) then you'll have to tax everyone more as the ratio between working aged people and retired aged people changes (2.7:1 now, 2.0:1 in 2050 and 1.7:1 in 2100).

* For clarification I have no issue with pensioners, I'm just using the language of those who don't like the fact that there's a need for a significant number of people to have in work benefits, or the fairly limited number of people who are economically inactive - even though a lot (which are 16-64) who fall into this camp are either in full time education, are carers (and so likely costing less than paying for care for that person) or have retired early - to make a point.

 

[brad465]

Why would a government that benefits from the existence of a problem ever want to solve that problem? This is especially true of issues around legal and/or illegal migration. When all the attention is on this, it's not on corruption/exploitation being carried out at government level, it's not on failure to improve public services and/or cost of living and a whole host of other issues voters care about. This is not just true in the UK either.

 

[D6130]

Why would a government that benefits from the existence of a problem ever want to solve that problem? This is especially true of issues around legal and/or illegal migration. When all the attention is on this, it's not on corruption/exploitation being carried out at government level, it's not on failure to improve public services and/or cost of living and a whole host of other issues voters care about. This is not just true in the UK either.

That is so true!

 

[Gloster]

To bring the elephant into the room. A problem amongst many is that there is a perception since Brexit that the colour and status (‘asylum seeker’) of those coming here seems to have changed: they could put up with Italian barmen or Danish tour guides, but someone from Mali or Mauritania… That is why some people are now so keen to stop the boats and their voting intention is being affected by this. The Conservatives are seen to have failed or even worsened the situation by their handling of Brexit and so some are moving towards the party that offers a simple answer.

Note: this is my observation/opinion of at least a significant minority of the voters thinking. It does not reflect mine.

 

[renegademaster]

that it wouldn't have resulted in a big spike in non EU migration.

It didn't result in it, we've has a spike in non eu migration due to reasons unrelated to brexit

 

[jfollows]

I read the attached (https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ection-keir-starmer-rishi-sunak-politics-live) and thought it might be of interest; it's an analysis of how large Labour's majority will compare with historic majorities, and conversely how the Conservative minority will compare with past poor performance, sometimes adjusted for a smaller number of MPs.

Personally I think that Conservative numbers will be below 100, or at least there's now a strong possibility of this, whereas earlier in the campaign I thought that their number would exceed 100 as the worst case.

The Conservative tactics have changed to suggesting that too large a majority for Labour would be a "bad thing" and trying to prop up some of its MPs in more marginal seats, which probably include even mine - Tatton - and I'd love to see Esther McVey lose (again!).

Given that we don’t know what the result it yet, we can’t say, but if the opinion polls and MRP surveys are even broadly right, you will have to reach quite far back into the history books to find any precedent.

For example, Electoral Calculus currently has Labour on course for a majority of 272. Its MRP with Find Out Now had Labour on course for a majority of 302. The YouGov MRP had Labour heading for a majority of 194. More in Common’s MRP was much more pessimistic – pointing to a Labour majority of just 114. But the Survation MRP for Best for Britain, published in the Sunday Times this weekend, had Labour looking at a majority of 262.

The More in Common projection (the worst for Labour from these five) has Labour winning 382 seats. The Find Out Now one (the best of the five for the party) has Labour getting 476 seats.

In a fascinating post on the Comment is Freed Substack yesterday, the elections expert Dylan Difford examined in detail all the various electoral records the result next week might break. His article is well worth reading in full, but this is what he says about milestones that Labour might pass.

Getting into the 390s [number of seats] puts Starmer on a par with the landslides of Clement Attlee in 1945 and Margaret Thatcher in 1983.
420 seats are needed to top Blair’s seat haul, but owing to there being fewer seats than in 1997, 415 will be enough to secure the largest majority in post-war Britain.
Climbing to 430 seats would see Starmer in charge of the largest single-party majority since the introduction of majority male suffrage, overtaking the Conservatives’ landslide from a century ago, while 447 would create a majority larger than that attained by the National Government parties in 1935.
Surpassing the 493-seat majority of the National Government in 1931, however, seems fanciful, requiring Labour to take 540 seats. However, some models do suggest that overtaking the 470 seats won by the Conservatives in that election is not wholly implausible, which would be the most seats ever won by one party in a western democratic election.
And this is what Difford says about precedents for how few seats the Conservatives might be left with.

Falling below a third of seats (217) would be fairly universally regarded as a severe defeat, but it is collapsing beneath the 165 seats won in 1997 that would indicate the worst result for the party in living memory. Returning fewer than 156 MPs, or 151 if you wish to be proportional to the size of the Commons, would replace 1906 as the party’s worst result since it was founded in 1834; this should be the expectation according to most prediction models. Surpassing the 106 seats (proportionally 123) won by the Tory faction in the 1754 election would truly be hitting rock bottom, while not being able to top the 52 seats clung on to by the remnants of Labour in the 1931 election would signify a wipeout.
The More in Common projection has the Tories winning 180 seats this time. Find Out Now has them down to 66.

The Guardian attributes this analysis to

In a fascinating post on the Comment is Freed Substack yesterday, the elections expert Dylan Difford examined in detail all the various electoral records the result next week might break. His article is well worth reading in full, but this is what he says about milestones that Labour might pass.