Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Valmy]

Does nobody care about how Northern Ireland votes? 

No - not really. None of the GB parties run in Northern Ireland.

There are separate Northern Irish polls and I don't think they're expecting that much change (Alliance might do better) because sectarian, power-sharing politics tends not to have many swing voters

Well the DUP did decide the 2017 election 

Not that any Northern Irish parties look to be deciding much in this election. 

[Gups]

Does nobody care about how Northern Ireland votes? 

I hope the SDLP and Alliance do well. That's kind of it.

[Josquius]

Whenever there's man on the street interviews I'm noticing from gammon there's one comment keeps coming up worded basically the same way, a smug "A lot of these people haven't lived under Labour governments. When they've lived as long as I have they'll know what a Labour government does for you so wait and see".
A curious insight into the nonsense going around in their circles. The tory rewriting of history continues.

[Sheilbh]

It was common in 1997 too - "they don't remember the Winter of Discontent".

And I think it's a point I made in 2019 - people of my age were too young really to remember how bad a Tory government with a majority could be.

Edit: Interesting that Sunak's on this now: "keep your voice. Stop the supermajority. Vote Conservative."
https://x.com/rishisunak/status/1808382298229702890?s=46&t=o9GOIj6BKKcLcHiyQTlAoA

On Sunday doing the press round Sunak was very much refusing to talk about a Labour supermajority. He was repeatedly invited to use that line and then didn't. It's been the total focus of all Tory messaging including by Sunak in the last couple of days.

My theory is that the data CCHQ are looking at is either really really bad and we're at the "break glass in case of emergency" stage of the campaign, or possibly that it's a message that is landing perhaps particularly with Tory-Reform ditherers. I have read that it is coming up unprompted in focus groups which is interesting.

[crazy canuck]

A point that Runciman made in his podcast about the 79 election I had not realized is that if Labour had called the election earlier they likely would have won in a landslide because it was the Conservatives who were viewed as poor managers of the economy.  But Labour waited and the winter of discontent set in.

[Josquius]

I do continue to believe Labour will fall short of the promised Tory obliteration.
And there will be some sad reform wins.

[Gups]

A point that Runciman made in his podcast about the 79 election I had not realized is that if Labour had called the election earlier they likely would have won in a landslide because it was the Conservatives who were viewed as poor managers of the economy.  But Labour waited and the winter of discontent set in.

I haven't listend to that but it's not an unusual view but it's certainly disputed by many (e.g. Dominic Sandbrook). I'm not sure that it was that the Tories were viewed as poor managers of the economy rather that they would antagonise the unions. Callaghan also had a huge lead over Thatcher as leader - which he retained during teh election.

Like all counter-factuals, its fundamentally unknowable. If I had to bet I'd say that an October 78 election would have been a draw with nobody getting a majority.

[Tamas]

I do continue to believe Labour will fall short of the promised Tory obliteration.
And there will be some sad reform wins.

With people already out to punish Labour for future bad actions by voting Green, this is inevitable.

[Josquius]

I do continue to believe Labour will fall short of the promised Tory obliteration.
And there will be some sad reform wins.

With people already out to punish Labour for future bad actions by voting Green, this is inevitable.

Past bad actions.
In one of their safest seats in the country.
If Labour lose in my seat I'll eat a toilet.

[Tamas]

Also Rest is Politics had a good point if you are worried about the far left then you want as big a Labour majority as possible so they can't hold Starmer hostage.

Otherwise the supermajority is such nonsense. Is there anything in the UK linked to a two thirds majority? We left the EU on a simple one, FFS.

[Richard Hakluyt]

There was a lot of bad weather that winter, plenty of transport disruption, which Labour was also blamed for. Then Jim Callaghan came back home from a holiday in the Caribbean and gave a press conference looking all sun-tanned and relaxed...bad mistake 

But this really is ancient history at this point and the economy was totally different; for nearly everyone it is not known about or has become folklore.

[Sheilbh]

Also Rest is Politics had a good point if you are worried about the far left then you want as big a Labour majority as possible so they can't hold Starmer hostage.

This is true but only to a point. Starmer has pretty much crushed the parliamentary hard left. I think at most they'll have about 30–35 MPs. You don't need a massive majority for them to be irrelevant.

But complacency is a threat. It's striking that both the Tories and SNP are basically running on a "Labour have already won" line. For the Tories in a stop a supermajority way, and for the SNP make sure there's a loud voice for Scotland.

Otherwise the supermajority is such nonsense. Is there anything in the UK linked to a two thirds majority? We left the EU on a simple one, FFS.

No. On the Brexit referendum there was a simple majority but it didn't do anything. It was an instruction to parliament. In parliamentary terms invoking article 50 had a majority of 384 (498 to 114) as most parties felt bound by the referendum (rightly, in my view). The Withdrawal Agreement was also ratified by 358 - 234.

It's constitutionally meaningless. If there's good party discipline (eg Callaghan) a government can survive and do stuff with a majority of 2, similarly if there's no party discipline (eg 2019-present) a government with a majority of 80 can struggle.

But I think that misses the point. Like a lot of legal/constitutional points it goes right to the heart of the periphery. A government with a bigger majority will fee itself to have a bigger mandate. Positively it may provoke more boldness because it has the political space to do so, negatively it may be complacent - I think we've seen both in the past.

The one constitutional point/issue is that our system is adversarial and the idea of opposition and scrutiny is important. My understanding is that the opposition probably needs about 100-150 MPs to be able to shadow the government and fill all their posts in select committees. That may be a challenge.

[Richard Hakluyt]

Yes, ideally we want a loyal and constructive opposition, the tories may well fail to provide that.

[Sheilbh]

Just read that Andrew Tate's brother has been donating to Galloway's party. It takes real dedication, in an election with Nigel Farage, to somehow be the worst, most loathsome person running.

[Barrister]

Yes, ideally we want a loyal and constructive opposition, the tories may well fail to provide that.

If you're looking for a deep dive in Westminster-style politics, way back in 1987 in New Brunswick the governing Liberals won every single seat in that election.  There was literally no opposition in the legislature.

In the next election, 1991, the upstart, out-of-nowhere Confederation of Regions Party won 8 seats to become the official opposition (PCs won 3, NDP 1).  The COR Party though, as a party that had never expected to win anything, was a dismal failure as an opposition party and by 1995 the PCs were back in opposition, and by 1999 the PCs won.

I feel like there actually might be some lessons here for the UK...