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