Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Tamas]

Sheilbh, you have often commented that the UK Conservatives are fascinated by our own PP. Are the Reform folks there trying to do what the Reformers did here?

Recent scandals indicate a lot of Tories are fascinated by PPs indeed. Not sure if they are particular for Canadian ones though.

[crazy canuck]

 

[Barrister]

I recall back in the noughties when I'd dream of a golden age where the Tories are dead and buried and the Lib Dems take their place as the other main party.
If only the Lib Dems had their shit in order then we could actually be heading there.

But yes. The Tories have a floor that is even harder to break than the Labour one.

The thing is - if this happened the Lib Dems would eventually be pretty much exactly like the Tories.

I can point to an example of this: British Columbia.  There wasa long-time "Conservative" Party that ruled the province for a number of years called the SoCreds.  SoCreds collapsed in scandal, leading to a left-wing NDP government.  With a giant void on the right side of the spectrum the provincial Liberals stepped in - but this pretty quickly made the Liberals the "Conservative" party in BC.

[Josquius]

I recall back in the noughties when I'd dream of a golden age where the Tories are dead and buried and the Lib Dems take their place as the other main party.
If only the Lib Dems had their shit in order then we could actually be heading there.

But yes. The Tories have a floor that is even harder to break than the Labour one.

The thing is - if this happened the Lib Dems would eventually be pretty much exactly like the Tories.

I can point to an example of this: British Columbia.  There wasa long-time "Conservative" Party that ruled the province for a number of years called the SoCreds.  SoCreds collapsed in scandal, leading to a left-wing NDP government.  With a giant void on the right side of the spectrum the provincial Liberals stepped in - but this pretty quickly made the Liberals the "Conservative" party in BC.

In time sure.
But it would 'recenter' the power on the right for a while. And in that time maybe we could get some positive reform to ensure the country would be more democratic in the future.

[Sheilbh]

Sheilbh, you have often commented that the UK Conservatives are fascinated by our own PP. Are the Reform folks there trying to do what the Reformers did here?

To be clear I don't think the Tories as they're in office now are that interested in PP. I think they're still very focused on re-running the 2010s playbook and also, perhaps, realise that they can't do it after 14 years in office.

The interest is in the sort of right-wing think tank/commenter world who are starting to think about what comes next - and there is a group there that's very interested in PP.

On Reform - I don't know if it's something they're looking at or thinking about. But I would say that I've seen at least one piece basically saying the last piece for a Canada 93 scenario would be Farage returning to lead Reform where they would play exactly the role of Reform in 93. Though I think it's unclear whether or not Reform UK have a real geographic base in the way Reform Canada did which, I think, is necessary in a FPTP system. Farage is personally pretty toxic with a lot of voters - he's run in many elections and never won a seat and it's not clear that, say, the Red Wall would swing Reform given that they've swung pretty hard to Labour so far.

It's also worth saying on PP which may be counter-intuitive for the Canadians that it's not the populist wing who are interested in him (they have Farage and Johnson, after all). It's more the policy focused/centre-right to libertarian wing who have been saying for years that housing is causing problems for the conservatives among young people (reinforced by banging on about Brexit and cultural issues that they don't care about). The appeal of PP is that by focusing on real issues like housing they have an example of a right wing leader winning over younger voters and looking set to win. In a way, it's basically an argument of expanding your elderly base to include the elderly working class (Farage and Johnson), or trying to form an inter-generational party on the right which means having to have an offer for young people whose biggest issue is housing.

[Barrister]

On Reform - I don't know if it's something they're looking at or thinking about. But I would say that I've seen at least one piece basically saying the last piece for a Canada 93 scenario would be Farage returning to lead Reform where they would play exactly the role of Reform in 93. Though I think it's unclear whether or not Reform UK have a real geographic base in the way Reform Canada did which, I think, is necessary in a FPTP system. Farage is personally pretty toxic with a lot of voters - he's run in many elections and never won a seat and it's not clear that, say, the Red Wall would swing Reform given that they've swung pretty hard to Labour so far.

Just re '93 election.  Reform (Canada) did have a regional base in western Canada (and it had started as a western-only party) but by 93 it had opened itself up to everywhere (except Quebec).  In order to get the conservatives to 2 seats Reform still got large enough numbers of votes in Ontario in particular to prevent the PCs from winning (and people forget that Reform even won a seat in Ontario).  This was also the first election for the BQ which helped take down the PCs in Quebec, which had been a stronghold.

It's also worth saying on PP which may be counter-intuitive for the Canadians that it's not the populist wing who are interested in him (they have Farage and Johnson, after all). It's more the policy focused/centre-right to libertarian wing who have been saying for years that housing is causing problems for the conservatives among young people (reinforced by banging on about Brexit and cultural issues that they don't care about). The appeal of PP is that by focusing on real issues like housing they have an example of a right wing leader winning over younger voters and looking set to win. In a way, it's basically an argument of expanding your elderly base to include the elderly working class (Farage and Johnson), or trying to form an inter-generational party on the right which means having to have an offer for young people whose biggest issue is housing.

OK fair enough.  From a Canadian perspective Poilievre will dabble in more populist and culture issues as well as emphasizing some policy views like on housing.  That's why your analysis wouldn't necessarily have been obvious to me, although it makes sense when you say it that way.

[Sheilbh]

Just re '93 election.  Reform (Canada) did have a regional base in western Canada (and it had started as a western-only party) but by 93 it had opened itself up to everywhere (except Quebec).  In order to get the conservatives to 2 seats Reform still got large enough numbers of votes in Ontario in particular to prevent the PCs from winning (and people forget that Reform even won a seat in Ontario).  This was also the first election for the BQ which helped take down the PCs in Quebec, which had been a stronghold.

That makes sense and points to a key difference. Reform UK don't really have a base to build on. They've been going since 2018 and have one MP who was a Tory defector and one Member of the London Assembly (which has a PR element).

They've consistently under-performed in real elections compared to how they should perform in those elections given the national polling numbers. I don't really know that they have a geographic base and I'm not even sure if they really have a voter coalition. I don't know who their base is at this point. I think Reform Canada had that sorted out well in advance of 1993.

There was an Economist piece recently, which I think is true, that they're (currently) less a political party than a ghost at the feat to terrify Tory MPs and lure them to go right which wouldn't necessarily work and would help Labour who are absolutely dominating the centre now.

[Barrister]

Just re '93 election.  Reform (Canada) did have a regional base in western Canada (and it had started as a western-only party) but by 93 it had opened itself up to everywhere (except Quebec).  In order to get the conservatives to 2 seats Reform still got large enough numbers of votes in Ontario in particular to prevent the PCs from winning (and people forget that Reform even won a seat in Ontario).  This was also the first election for the BQ which helped take down the PCs in Quebec, which had been a stronghold.

That makes sense and points to a key difference. Reform UK don't really have a base to build on. They've been going since 2018 and have one MP who was a Tory defector and one Member of the London Assembly (which has a PR element).

They've consistently under-performed in real elections compared to how they should perform in those elections given the national polling numbers. I don't really know that they have a geographic base and I'm not even sure if they really have a voter coalition. I don't know who their base is at this point. I think Reform Canada had that sorted out well in advance of 1993.

There was an Economist piece recently, which I think is true, that they're (currently) less a political party than a ghost at the feat to terrify Tory MPs and lure them to go right which wouldn't necessarily work and would help Labour who are absolutely dominating the centre now.

OK, but my point wasn't "you need a base".  I mean you do if you want Reform to grow as a viable political party.

But if you want Jos's dream scenario of a total Conservative destruction you need Reform to do reasonably well across the country in order to draw votes from the Conservatives and allow Labour (or LibDems) to win a plurality even in what were once Conservative safe seats.

[Jacob]

The thing is - if this happened the Lib Dems would eventually be pretty much exactly like the Tories.

I can point to an example of this: British Columbia.  There wasa long-time "Conservative" Party that ruled the province for a number of years called the SoCreds.  SoCreds collapsed in scandal, leading to a left-wing NDP government.  With a giant void on the right side of the spectrum the provincial Liberals stepped in - but this pretty quickly made the Liberals the "Conservative" party in BC.

My understanding is that ex-SoCred folks directly took over the BC Liberal party. It's not that the BC Libs "stepped in", it's that the SoCreds continued as they were, wearing the skin of the BC Liberal party which they took over after the collapse of the SoCreds.

[Barrister]

The thing is - if this happened the Lib Dems would eventually be pretty much exactly like the Tories.

I can point to an example of this: British Columbia.  There wasa long-time "Conservative" Party that ruled the province for a number of years called the SoCreds.  SoCreds collapsed in scandal, leading to a left-wing NDP government.  With a giant void on the right side of the spectrum the provincial Liberals stepped in - but this pretty quickly made the Liberals the "Conservative" party in BC.

My understanding is that ex-SoCred folks directly took over the BC Liberal party. It's not that the BC Libs "stepped in", it's that the SoCreds continued as they were, wearing the skin of the BC Liberal party which they took over after the collapse of the SoCreds.

OK, could be.

But same difference.  There are many people "of the right".  If the UK Conservative Party is utterly destroyed, those people won't just go away.  Most likely they take over the LibDems, or else they build up a new party.

[Sheilbh]

OK, but my point wasn't "you need a base".  I mean you do if you want Reform to grow as a viable political party.

But if you want Jos's dream scenario of a total Conservative destruction you need Reform to do reasonably well across the country in order to draw votes from the Conservatives and allow Labour (or LibDems) to win a plurality even in what were once Conservative safe seats.

Totally agree but I'm not sure you even need that at the minute.

I think there are signs that's already happening. So Labour is winning back the Red Wall,  but it also looks on course to win back what were swing seats pre-2015 (especially in the Midlands - Nuneaton, for example), but also working class Southern seats that only really went Labour under Blair (Basildon, Braintree, Dover).

At the same time the Lib Dems came third in votes in the recent local elections - but second in councillors won. That suggests to me that there's an anti-Tory vote (as in 1997-2005) that is voting tactically. But also simply that the Lib Dems know what they're doing again. Which will target the Blue Wall seats.

And the challenge for the Tories is going to be that resources are limited, activists are limited - where do you try and defend because at the minute it looks like they're at risk of losing the new areas they won post-Brexit, the areas they won under Miliband and the Southern working class votes that have been a key part of the party since Thatcher. At the same time they're under pressure in the stockbroker belt from the Lib Dems.

Reform would definitely make that worse although I'm not sure where or with which voters.

But same difference.  There are many people "of the right".  If the UK Conservative Party is utterly destroyed, those people won't just go away.  Most likely they take over the LibDems, or else they build up a new party.

100%. I'm still baffled by why hardcore remainers/rejoiners haven't taken over the Lib Dems tbh.

[Jacob]

But same difference.  There are many people "of the right".  If the UK Conservative Party is utterly destroyed, those people won't just go away.  Most likely they take over the LibDems, or else they build up a new party.

For sure.

[Jacob]

Yeah, Sheilbh - I think you (or maybe the Tory think-tankers you're talking about) are overstating what Poilievre is offering the younger generation on housing. It's mostly "housing sucks and that's Trudeau's fault, amirite" and "insofar as there's a housing crisis, how about we solve it by applying vague right wing generalities. Also woke Trudeau sucks and the cost of living crisis is his fault; it'll be totally different if you vote for us!"

For that to work for the UK Tories it'll require a Labour government in power for a while while that crisis continues unabated.

[Josquius]

Yeah, Sheilbh - I think you (or maybe the Tory think-tankers you're talking about) are overstating what Poilievre is offering the younger generation on housing. It's mostly "housing sucks and that's Trudeau's fault, amirite" and "insofar as there's a housing crisis, how about we solve it by applying vague right wing generalities. Also woke Trudeau sucks and the cost of living crisis is his fault; it'll be totally different if you vote for us!"

For that to work for the UK Tories it'll require a Labour government in power for a while while that crisis continues unabated.

Which I expect they are planning for.
They've written off the next 5 years as lost to them and are actively salting the earth to make it as painful as possible for labour.
As it really seems the best a government can do for the immediate future is stop things declining quite so hard. Years of under investment is stating to really blow up and basically everything on a national level that can be privatised has already been sold.
I'm just hoping voters are smart enough to recognise this and judge the next government (assuming it's non tory) accordingly

[Sheilbh]

Yeah, Sheilbh - I think you (or maybe the Tory think-tankers you're talking about) are overstating what Poilievre is offering the younger generation on housing. It's mostly "housing sucks and that's Trudeau's fault, amirite" and "insofar as there's a housing crisis, how about we solve it by applying vague right wing generalities. Also woke Trudeau sucks and the cost of living crisis is his fault; it'll be totally different if you vote for us!"

For that to work for the UK Tories it'll require a Labour government in power for a while while that crisis continues unabated.

Yeah I think that's fair. But I'd say that's inevitable whenever lessons from politics in one country are then "learned from" in another - the context for its reception is always going to be different. But also politics isn't (and has never been) about policy and I think what Poilievre suggested was political vindication for that group of nerds.

These are on the centre-right libertarian-ish think tankers who have fantastically detailed policy ideas about how to fix planning and build more housing but also that fixing planning helps deal with the biggest supply side constraint on the British economy (and I'm persuaded on some points and dubious on others). Their policy argument is wildly involved in the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 and the Green Belt etc. But what Poilievre showed wasn't a policy solution (he's not in power) but that you could make that argument from the right, it wouldn't necessarily blow up your existing base and it could attract new voters. That actually it could be a winning political issue that creates the conditions that allow you to implement those policies. They already had this agenda but it helps convince Tory world that maybe there's a political agenda there - and I think it's also partly why, in the last year or so, Starmer has gone in so much on planning as a big issue. The policy agenda is there (and obviously will be worlds away from Canada's), what Poilievre shows is that there may be votes in making the argument and maybe how to do it.

And having said all of that - this government with an 80 seat majority tried planning reform, had to back down and have no made things worse because of a backbench revolt. I think it is a very challenging issue that will cost a lot of political capital. So whether Labour can succeed on it probably depends on how big a majority they have - and who Starmer is and if he believes it's key to his growth goal. A lot comes to which reading of Starmer is right - because if the naive and mugged by reality reading is correct then he might drop planning reform at the first touch of opposition, if the ruthless reading is right then he might do it. But I think there is a possibility that Labour fails.

Also having said all of that and on the other hand (and slightly separate from the Poilievre/planning thing) I also think there's a real possibility Starmer might be lucky. The Tories have raised taxes to record levels, the IMF projection is not outstanding for the UK but is solid (and not far off Starmer's goal of fastest growth in the G7) - and it wouldn't take much in the global economy for that to look better (I think of the BofE Chief Economist noting there were no surprises in the data this quarter for the first time since covid):

I think there's a non-trivial possibility that some of the growth and spending constraints that currently dominate might be easier than we currently expect which makes everything a little bit easier in politics.

Edit: Obviously I'd add that Labour could fail catastrophically. It could be a one term government. And because of that risk, I would rather the Tory faction inspired by Poilievre and banging on about housing and planning are there to take advantage, not the one wondering if they should try to merge with Farage-ism.  I might not agree with them but I think they're dealing with real issues and wanting to fix them. As I say I get that from a Canadian perspective he's primarily seen through the populism lens - that's not how he's been received on the right here because, bluntly, we don't need a vision from overseas of what right wing populism looks like. We have it and that faction is already pretty developed.

I'm just hoping voters are smart enough to recognise this and judge the next government (assuming it's non tory) accordingly

I don't think voters are particularly kind in their judgements of current governments. But I also think they have pretty long memories. I think I remember Cecil Parkinson or some other Tory grandee, saying in the 2005 election that fundamentally voters hadn't forgotten Black Wednesday and I think in a large part in 2017 and 19 voters hadn't forgotten the financial crisis. I think voters will remember the cost of living crisis (broadly no more the Tories fault than Canada's is Trudeau's), and the perception of what went on with Truss (I think she was a disaster but there's a lot going on there). I think the same goes for the Winter of Discontent and other examples to.

I don't think they judge the government kindly but I think (unless they really fuck it up) they don't move on from the crisis of the opposition's last period of government quickly.