Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » It’s (Third) Party Time!!
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » It’s (Third) Party Time!!
I joined the Liberal Party in 1980 and by January 1982 was an activist in south-east London and I remember going out knocking on doors in the bleak midwinter and coming back astonished at the collapse of the Conservative vote in an area which had routinely voted 65-70% Conservative at local elections.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
It would make sense if Labour or the Tories were shedding votes. The opposite is true.
Many of the perpetrators were from Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Asian backgrounds.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-england-tyne-40830816
By many the BBC mean all but one.
In 1979, the Conservatives and Labour polled around 80% yet within two years the SDP was polling 50% on its own.
The duopoly survives not because of FPTP but because if you don't want a Conservative Government, you only have one option and vice versa. When a third party such as the SNP, UKIP or the LDs comes along and shows that not voting for the Conservatives doesn't automatically mean a Labour Government, the rationale for voting Conservative for many people disappears.
The same is true on the Labour side.
Popcorntastic.
The point of detail: the Conservatives were already off the bottom of their polling before the Falklands War broke out.
The point of principle: until the centre has a cause to rally round, nothing's going to happen. It's not good enough to know what you're against, you've got to know what you're for.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeJO8gOLiyc
Do you see the difference?
No it didn't.
According to Mark Pack's UK polling history (https://www.markpack.org.uk/opinion-polls/), the Conservatives' worst position was in a MORI poll in December 1981, which had the parties at 23 (Con), 23.5 (Lab), and 50.5 (SDP/L), i.e. 27.5 points behind the leader.
By March 1982, these figures were 34, 34, and 30. The SDP lost its lead and went from first place to last before the Argentine invasion. The Conservatives went from last to joint first.
By the end of April, it was still 35/30/33. This went to 51/24/23 in June, but stabilised at scores like 42, 30, 22 thereafter all the way to the election.
The Alliance was a busted flush from the beginning of that year and both it and Labour thereafter simply drifted downward in unison.
On the trends already evident in 1982 Thatcher would have won in 1983 or 1984 without the Falklands, just with a 50 or 60 seat majority rather than 100-odd. Labour recovered none of its support from the Alliance, whereas Thatcher recovered it all and more.
The Alliance was where Labour voters went if they despaired of Labour but they never persuaded any Conservatives, pace your anecdata.
Brexit is the opportunity but also the obstacle, any New Party has to have a single, coherent line on Brexit & it has to be identical to that of The Libdems or their will be no prospect of any cooperation. Soft Brexit is not going to be enough.
Even with agreement on Brexit a deal with The Libdems is not a foregone conclusion, any New Party will have lots of Leaders but no Led. The SDP took 6 Years to build up an inexperienced Membership of 60,000; The Libdems already have 100,000. We might just say :" Join us or Stand in some Elections & lets see how well you do."
Except it wasn't, which partially explains the above 3 occurrences.
That former Tories went back after the Falklands I don’t disagree, but I’ve no doubt whatsoever that had Galteri not invaded Mrs T would not have survived. She wasn’t let it recalled, particularly popular with her own party then, either.
Not being seen to admit you were wrong cant be that important?
But it required that Corbyn do well enough to limp on but not prosper. Members needed to conclude that he'd done okay (given the shower of bastards behind him, the MSM, etc) but moderate MPs that it was all utterly hopeless. On the other side, it required that Brexit headbangers be emboldened such that Tory moderates felt they'd lost their party irretrievably.
That didn't happen. Labour moderates accept Corbyn wasn't as toxic as feared, and believe an accommodation might be achievable. Tory moderates feel they have something to fight for.
It could all change, but not that quickly I suspect.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMPDKzdUwpo
But an entertaining thread Stodge.
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/320/cpsprodpb/12166/production/_97268047_sanctuary_18_comp.jpg
It also wrongly compares campaigning and organic membership growth in 1981 with that today. A new party which captured the public mood could sign up four of five times the Lib Dem membership in the time it takes for a meme to go viral.
A reasonably robust new centre party would have the choice to devour or crush the Lib Dems, frankly. Probably devour to take advantage of existing Parliamentary presence, data, activists etc - but it's not essential.
Again no. What a new party would need is a vote catching USP that for some reason can't possibly be usurped by the other parties.
I struggle to think of any policy position a new party could set out that the other parties couldn't possibly adopt even if it looked like a winner. If a juicy USP emerged, sooner than gift it to this new party, one of the others would nick it.
The only way a new party could keep the U of its USP is if it lacked the S, i.e. was clearly a vote loser. So this party's USP could be to drown all puppies, construct space navies, mine interplanetary asteroids, make taxi drivers wear uniforms, or reverse the Brexit result. They're all UPs but serious parties have left things like this to the silly parties because everyone except the members of those parties can see they're completely stupid vote-losing ideas.
Cameron didn't adopt UKIP's USP, and indeed set out to alienate UKIP supporters, because he thought he would be more likely to win without UKIP support than with it. He wanted to be clear that they were no fellow travellers of his party's. In this judgement, he was right.
If he'd thought otherwise, he'd instead have led a Brexitist party. There'd then have been no UKIP, because no need for one. This would have satisfied UKIP supporters because there was now a Brexit party they could vote for, although they wouldn't have stayed satisfied for long when it became clear that no such party could win an election.
An analogy would be with unilateral nuclear disarmament. Labour supported this, but CND attempts to get the SDP to do so largely failed because it was a palpably stupid idea.
USPs only remain U if they aren't SPs.
MORI's last poll before the 1983 general election was on June 8. It predicted 44, 28, 26. The actual result, in round numbers, was 44, 28, 26.
I had a long discussion about this with Justin. He said that in his view the key consequence of the Falklands War in leading to Thatcher's huge victory was that it split the Labour Party asunder between the Bennite pacifists who seemed to want Argentina to win and the more sensible ones who accepted Argentina were the aggressors and the Cabinet were therefore acting fairly in fighting back. This alienated Labour's moderate vote to the SDP. As we used to know, split parties always bomb at elections. That seems plausible.
With the exception of one utter fool who writes history textbooks for AQA I don't think any historians of the period feel that Thatcher was doomed without the Falklands. Indeed, in cabinet terms losing Carrington (who was in the Lords and therefor no threat to her politically) and having to promote Pym in exchange (who was not only a wet but hated her guts) could have weakened her control over the cabinet considerably had it not been for the personal popularity she gained following the war.
Edit - incidentally although he was extremely nasty about her and to her in private, Thatcher didn't feel strong enough to sack Pym until after the election gave her a huge personal mandate. Maybe comparisons with Blair's weakness over Brown?
23 / 23.5 / 50.5
27 / 29 / 43
29.3 / 31.8 / 35.9
27.5 / 29.5 / 39.5
29 / 30 / 40
31.7 / 31.9 / 33.1
27.5 / 34 / 36
30 / 33 / 34
29.7 / 38.7 / 29.4
31.5 / 33 / 33
34 / 34 / 30
32.5 / 33.2 / 31.7
That's a 10-point Tory and Labour recovery, all gleaned from the SDP's poll decline. The Tories then went on to add 11 more points by the GE, taken roughly evenly from both.
All the Falklands did was determine which of Labour and the SDP came last.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/jan/07/grooming-racialising-crime-tradition
pretending to work in that sinecure at Haringey council his father had fixed for hima Parliamentary candidate, not an MP.https://www.emptywheel.net/2017/08/09/on-the-manafort-raid/
The net closing, or just the first stages of the fishing expedition ?
So, if a new party is to be successful I think it will likely have to be if the country's in trouble with both parties have self-immolated. Which isn't too implausible a scenario. The Tories carry on bodging Brexit until the government collapses either before or after being forced into a crap deal entailing all sorts of unpopular other policies. Corbyn or an acolyte gets voted in and the Tories implode into infighting over whose fault the whole thing was. Corbyn quickly also makes a hash of things too as his programme comes into contact with reality and makes a bad situation worse as tax revenues fall and firms start saying 'sod this for a game of soldiers, now we really are off to the EU'. He's forced to break pledges as the sums become too implausible even on his terms and supporters get to see what a nasty piece of work like McDonnell actually does with power. You'd then have MPs on both sides prepared to jump sinking ships and a public crying out for a party that dealt in reality rather than harebrained schemes and ideological passion.
That's plausible - and that's quite worrying to be honest.
If you need the curve between Syston North and East Junctions, here' your chance in October:
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/J02000/2017/10/28/advanced
Not just this service - just and example.
Also diversions between Doncaster and Peterborough via Lincoln and Spalding that weekend.
I doubt very much that Thatcher did it for her own/the party's skin (& she was probably advised that the chances of success were less than 50%) - though equally there's no doubt that she milked it for all it was worth after the event.
I have no idea what the UK political counterfactual might have been, had we just negotiated a deal with Argentina - but it seems entirely possible that Thatcher would still have won the next election with Labour and the SDP splitting the ant-Tory vote, though possibly with very different percentages.
When one's own territory is invaded by a country whose leadership have about as much democratic mandate as a haddock, how is it jingoistic to respond to defend oneself?
It's as natural a reaction as it is to slap a wasp if it lands on your arm.
Why is it ugly to take pride in where you are from? The people you grew up around? The culture that shaped you?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/09/guys-attempt-date-six-women-one-night-backfires-spectacularly/
Thanks for the (mostly) kind comments.
It's disappointing to see one or two individuals trot out some tired old arguments about the Alliance parties and the role of the Falklands conflict.
Roy Jenkins, in his autobiography "A Life at the Centre" admits he won the Hillhead by-election on a slack tide for the Alliance but he did win it. Yes, the Lib/SDP poll ratings had fallen from the stratospheric levels recorded in December 1981 and as we've seen recently poll figures indicating strong support don't always translate into reality.
The 1982 pre-Falklands figures show a broad 3-way equal split and indeed if you're going to quote the polling of that time (which has been largely discredited since) , I'd note the Alliance vote was moving back up immediately after the Argentinean attack on Stanley.
What would have happened had there been no Falklands War ? Some Conservatives claim the Party would have won the election anyway given the parties they were facing (one of which was apparently already a "busted flush" so that's a nice impartial comment and analysis we can quickly ignore) and it's arguable though I would contend not with a majority of 144.
Even with the patriotic fervour of the Falklands conflict, the Conservatives still lost seats and votes in London in May 1982 with the Alliance parties quadrupling their vote share and their total number of seats from 30 to 124 and nearly taking Richmond. Labour lost over 100 seats. It's possible to imagine without the conflict bigger Conservative losses and Alliance gains.
Bruce Douglas Mann might well have held Mitcham & Morden in the by election thus providing the Alliance with a valuable boost in the summer.
The political warp and weft thereafter becomes harder to read - would the Conservatives have been far enough ahead by the summer of 1983 to call an election or would they have had to hold off until the autumn or even the spring of 1984 which was their last possible date ?
It's perfectly possible to argue the Alliance parties in that scenario would have faced the same problems as in 1987 and 2010 - who would they support ? Would Thatcher have stayed at the head of a minority Government ? Seems unlikely. Would Owen and Steel support a minority Foot Government ? Seems very unlikely.
A Conservative-Alliance coalition seems the more likely outcome with Whitelaw or A.N Other taking over. That Government wouldn't have had the votes to carry forward the radical agenda of privatisation the 1983-87 Thatcher Government with its landslide could accomplish and Britain would be a very different place.
My comment therefore should perhaps be that the Falklands War saved the Thatcher Agenda rather than Thatcher itself. It did also save the Labour Party primarily from itself allowing Kinnock and others to begin the long journey back to credibility and eventually the 1997 landslide.
The Limping on Dems.
The position today is much messier. Both the main parties are determined to "respect the vote" on Brexit. No one seems to know what that really means in relation to the details and they are not in our gift anyway as it is a bilateral negotiation. The Lib Dems are not minded to respect the vote but got zero traction at the last election.
Tory economic policy is way more centrist than it was in 1981, arguably too much so in respect of borrowing. Labour's economic policy is more of a magical mystery tour than a coherent thought.
What would a new party stand for? Presumably remain but once we have left then what? Rejoin? I mean, really? I don't see how anyone serious says we should borrow more than the current government already does. They might have much better ideas of how to spend it but we are already well outside the sustainable envelope for spending.
So a new party is left with being competent. Admittedly that is a bar over which pretty much all of our parties currently trip but persuading sufficient people that the new lot will be materially better, maybe even only marginally sub-competent, looks a big ask in the face of modern cynicism.
I think Politics is for people stays on the shelf.
Reminds me of archive-trawling, the New Statesman carried adverts for a new 'Moderate Party' around 1920 or so. Its policies seemed considerably more left-wing than Labour today. Wonder what happened to it...
"Seventy five years ago, the Beveridge Report was issued. Lord Beveridge identified five giant evils: squalor, ignorance, want, idleness, and disease. His report set the basis of the post-war settlement for Britain.
The challenges facing Britain are very different today, but those five giant evils remain. Britain should rededicate itself to slaying them. To this end, the Beveridge Party sets out its guiding principles, as follows:
1. Britain belongs to its people. As such, we should all be able to enjoy every opportunity that the country has to offer, no matter who we are or where we come from. Most people are hardworking and honest. In return, we must respect each other, no matter who they are or where they come from.
2. Britain does best when it works as closely as possible with its international friends and worst when it turns its back on them. This is not just true as a matter of narrow economic self-interest, it is also true of how Britain can exercise moral leadership.
3. The state is sometimes the solution and sometimes the problem. Government shouldn't get in the way of everyday life unless everyday life isn't working. Then it should act decisively.
4. Everyday life doesn't work when only the rich can make effective use of the freedoms that Britain has to offer. We need to make sure those freedoms are properly available to everyone.
5. Britain should work for everyone. That means encouraging successful enterprise and having a proper safety net for the unlucky. Neither is optional. Everyone is entitled to a roof over their heads, everyone is entitled to be cared for when they need it, everyone is entitled to an education. Everyone benefits when a business is successful in an open market.
6. Saying that Britain should work for everyone also means helping everyone have a real chance of achieving their aspirations. Honest workers must get a fair share of the nation's wealth and opportunities.
Governments should be judged not by ideology but by how happy and fulfilled its citizens are. Right now, Britain is divided, directionless and unhappy. The Beveridge Party has much work to do."
The Alliance was bottom of the polls before the Falklands War began, and was bottom of the poll at the 1983 GE on a share that halved. That share was accurately predicted by MORI just before the election. The Alliance was fizzling by January 1982 because they were already squabbling over who was going to contest which easily winnable seat they were sure to win (and who can forget "go back to your constituencies and prepare for government"?).
As a result it lost 20 points of its poll share, a feat unmatched by any party for a further 35 years.
Who cares what happened in the London locals? You might just as well say Labour did well in the Bootle locals so was clearly in good shape to win the next GE.
I presume he's not trying to win people over to his side of the argument.
It's only by the bad stuff happening that a new party that is currently being mooted to stop it will become popular enough to really get off the ground.
They're still in the anger stage.
We need to remove any hope of staying in before people will get to the acceptance stage. Until then, I honestly don't think it is even worth trying to build bridges with Remainers who don't accept the vote.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-40879427
Credit to BBC for not soft-soaping it.
If I were a Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Christian or atheist Asian I wouldn't be happy with that description
The other problem with this manifesto is that paragraph 2 appears to imply "rejoin the EU", but that directly contradicts paragraph 1.
Local elections matter because they set the tone for the national scene at least for a while. The 1995 Conservative leadership contest was the direct result of your beloved party losing 2000 seats in a single night, a feat never bettered or even equalled since (well until 2019 perhaps).
The figures you put up earlier showed the three parties to be level within margin of error (or did your forensic mind forget that little nuance ?).
You seem to be arguing the Falklands was irrelevant and that David Steel cost the Alliance the 1983 election by using a sentence.
Come back when you've learned a little about politics and history and I'll continue your education.
The country is very polarised, and the seesaw will continue, with occasional unstable balances. Half the country, or more, will be unhappy, but that's what they vote for in they way they choose.
You would do better to count to 10, and not attack those who disagree with you, even if you feel provoked.
I clearly remember wondering at the time whether she had risked all those soldiers and money for the sake of her party and her own skin rather than for the country. That's a fact, personal to me. It was an enormous gamble, and she was lucky it paid off.
I agree that it is entirely possible that Thatcher would still have won the next election though possibly with very different percentages. But it is also entirely possible that she would have lost. We don't know.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/margaret-thatcher/11684868/Margaret-Thatcher-papers-BBC-assisted-the-enemy-during-the-Falklands-War.html
No it didn't.
According to Mark Pack's UK polling history (https://www.markpack.org.uk/opinion-polls/), the Conservatives' worst position was in a MORI poll in December 1981, which had the parties at 23 (Con), 23.5 (Lab), and 50.5 (SDP/L), i.e. 27.5 points behind the leader.
By March 1982, these figures were 34, 34, and 30. The SDP lost its lead and went from first place to last before the Argentine invasion. The Conservatives went from last to joint first.
By the end of April, it was still 35/30/33. This went to 51/24/23 in June, but stabilised at scores like 42, 30, 22 thereafter all the way to the election.
The Alliance was where Labour voters went if they despaired of Labour but they never persuaded any Conservatives, pace your anecdata.
That's my clear recollection too. The Falklands War and Thatcher's approach produced a very unsavoury and disturbing jingoism in the right wing press and then in the population as a whole. Thatcher's popularity rocketed and at the time I remember wondering whether she had risked all those soldiers and money for the sake of her party and her own skin rather than for the country.
Recollections are seriously unreliable analogues to reality...
I doubt very much that Thatcher did it for her own/the party's skin (& she was probably advised that the chances of success were less than 50%) - though equally there's no doubt that she milked it for all it was worth after the event.
I have no idea what the UK political counterfactual might have been, had we just negotiated a deal with Argentina - but it seems entirely possible that Thatcher would still have won the next election with Labour and the SDP splitting the ant-Tory vote, though possibly with very different percentages.
Recollections are the next best thing. They are better than mere opinions.
I clearly remember wondering at the time whether she had risked all those soldiers and money for the sake of her party and her own skin rather than for the country. That's a fact, personal to me. It was an enormous gamble, and she was lucky it paid off.
I agree that it is entirely possible that Thatcher would still have won the next election though possibly with very different percentages. But it is also entirely possible that she would have lost. We don't know.
Having stood in my ever first election in the build up to the falklands war i knew beforehand the bubble had burst for the alliance but the campiaign was the worst i ever was involved in being abused on the doorstep for not backing MAggie and our troops. I should have given up then but it all came good in 75!
Either that or he's pissed?
https://twitter.com/jameschappers/status/895342544304967680
https://twitter.com/jameschappers/status/895341582605570048
https://twitter.com/jameschappers/status/895282617955868672
Having said that, I suspect he might be right about more recent history: post-1990, say. The Wikipedia list is rather jumbled by various cases of scandal and whip withdrawal rather than party-switching. I have tried to remove clear-cut cases of scandal followed by whip withdrawal or resignation and a muted parliamentary disappearance, but have been rather inclusive including people who either pledged to stand against their former party, or who supported another outcome at the next election.
Con to Lab: Alan Howarth (1995), Peter Temple-Morris (left Con 1997 as "One Nation" Tory, joined Lab 1998), Shaun Woodward (1999, various factors including Section 28), Robert Jackson (2005, HE funding), Quentin Davies (2007, anti-Cameroon)
Con to Lib Dem: Emma Nicholson (1995), Peter Thurnham (1996)
Con to anti-EU: John Browne (1992 after deselection, stood unsuccessfully at 1992 GE as Independent Conservative and 1992 European Election as "Conservative against European Union") , Sir George Gardiner (1997 as "Referendum"), arguably Charles Wardle (was standing down anyway, but whip removed in 2001 for supporting UKIP in election to replace him), Bob Spink (left Tories 2008, associated with UKIP 2008-9, stood unsuccessfully as "Independent Save our Green Belt" in 2010), Douglas Carswell (2014, successfully held seat at 2014 by-election and in 2015 GE), Mark Reckless (2014, successfully held seat at 2014 by-election but lost in 2015 GE)
Con to DUP: Andrew Hunter (left to support DUP 2002, joined DUP 2004)
Con to Independent: Andrew Pelling (whip suspended 2007 over allegations of assault, "Independent Conservative" til 2008 and then "Independent", included in this list as he contested the 2010 election as an independent)
Lab to Lib Dem: Paul Marsden (2001, over invasion of Afghanistan, but see later). Brian Sedgemore (was standing down in 2005 anyway)
Lab to Respect: George Galloway (expelled 2003, Respect from 2004)
Lab to Independent: Dave Nellist (1991 suspended over Militant, unsuccessfully ran as Independent in 1992 GE), Terry Fields (1991 suspended over Militant, unsuccessfully ran as Independent in 1992 GE), Dennis Canavan (1999, left parliament 2000 to pursue career as independent MSP), Ken Livingstone (2000, stood down in 2001 to pursue career as independent Mayor of London), Clare Short (resigned whip 2006 over policy differences, stood down in 2010 but supporting hung parliament), Bob Wareing (resigned whip 2007 following deselection for next election, intended to contest next GE as independent but in 2010 decided not to), Simon Danczuk (originally suspended 2015 over lewd text messages, stood unsuccessfully as independent 2017 GE)
Lab to SNP: Dick Douglas (1990, felt Labour insufficiently opposed to poll tax)
Lib Dem to Labour: Paul Marsden (was standing down in 2005, declared support for Labour to replace him),
UUP to DUP: Jeffrey Donaldson (resigned whip 2003, joined DUP 2004)
UUP to Independent: Sylvia, Lady Hermon (2010, opposed Tory-UUP pact)
Post 1990, there does seem to have been more willingness of wet Tories to switch party in the conventional sense, than there has been of Labour MPs who disagree with the direction of their party.
But the past is not necessarily a guide to future performance. Whose benches are filled with the most disenchanted bodies right now? I can't see much hope of Lab to Tory switchers, though a couple of Tory to Lab or Lib Dem wouldn't surprise me, but in terms of large numbers who not only dislike their leadership but fear that their factions will never again be able to overthrow it, the Labour party looks more fertile for third-party genesis.
He's like a Remainer version of Stewart Jackson.
Mr Chapman is a delightful fellow, he follows me on twitter for starters, mind you so does Stewart Jackson.
What part of our defence of the Falklands, a territory where 98% of the population wish to remain British, in a circumstance where they were attacked and subjugated to invasion by an unelected and undemocratic military junta, are you objecting to?