Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

Interesting that in England Labour is gaining most votes in areas that were more Leave-y, while the Toires are losing most votes in areas that were Remain-y.

Very reminiscent of the pincer movement faced by the Liberals in Australia between Labor returning in Australia's equivalent of the "red wall" and the Teal independents picking off Liberals in well-to-do "blue wall"-ish areas.

[Tamas]

Interesting that in England Labour is gaining most votes in areas that were more Leave-y, 

Almost as if the Brexit vote was about contrarian anti-elite feelings instead of elaborate views on sovereignty. 

[Sheilbh]

Almost as if the Brexit vote was about contrarian anti-elite feelings instead of elaborate views on sovereignty. 

For sure - but also why the most lethal thing for Labour/one get out of jail free for the Tories would be for Labour to start banging on about Brexit.

Edit: Of course I don't personally believe anyone has complicated view on anything. The number of people who have clear ideas on policies and vote to deliver them could dance on the head of a pin.

We are rationalising not rational creatures (which is where the elaborate views come in - like the elaborate lies of a child who's been caught doing something naughty). I think people vote (and do most things) on instinct and, for want of a better word, gut reaction and then backfill the reasoning. I think there's a reason the two core messages in politics are "time for a change" and "don't rock the boat".

Edit: Also interesting that there seems to be a lot of tactical voting going on - I think people often underestimate voters' sophistication in their ability to get what they want. Most extreme example appears to be Bracknell where the Tories won 46% of the vote but only got 3 of 13 seats. Labour got 5 on 20% of the vote, the Lib Dems 3 on 21% and the Greens 2 on 12% of the vote. That suggests to me that the key figure right now is the "anti-Tory" vote (which hasn't been this high since the 90s) because voters are and will work out who they need to vote for locally to get rid of the Tories.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Seeing some analysts for the Telegraph say that while the results are good for Lab, they don't necessarily mean they will win a majority at the next general. I have to think if that happens, in the current climate, the Libs would likely coalition with Labour?

[Sheilbh]

Seeing some analysts for the Telegraph say that while the results are good for Lab, they don't necessarily mean they will win a majority at the next general. I have to think if that happens, in the current climate, the Libs would likely coalition with Labour?

They would but they'd need to do very well in order to win enough seats to be decisive - they're currently have 11 MPs. And I think that's a wider point that the Lib Dems and Labour are trying to take different seats from the Tories and they're not getting in each other's way. I'd struggle to see a situation where the Lib Dems have done well enough to play a kingmaker role, in which Labour also haven't probably done well enough to win a majority.

I'd handle that analysis with care. There are only local elections in England this year and the position in Scotland is vital for Labour. There have been some polls recently that Scottish Labour look on course to win a plurality in Scotland which makes getting a majority a lot easier. But we don't have any locals in Scotland (or Wales) so that side of the analysis is absent because there's no evidence - we just have standard opinion polls.

But also I think I'd wait a bit to see what the analysis of regional swings are. There are only local elections in England and even then only in parts of England - so there'll be a bit of analysis of breaking down regional votes and trying to extrapolate what that could mean nationally. It will take a while to count all the votes and even have a reasonably comprehensive view of the election from all those results. There are 8,000 seats up for grabs and so far we've had about a quarter of the results. It's a thing that often happens with local elections here that the initial narrative is later dumped as wrong - either because it was actually just very good spin from one party (Labour in 2007 is the gold standard for this) or it's missing key regions and there are regional differences.

I mentioned the Brexit divide but that, and a lot of our politics, reflects polarisations on education and I think this is probably going to be the most important stat (we'll see how it plays out in different regions) - Labour are doing best in areas with the lowest numbers of graduates, but the Tories are doing worst in the areas with the highest number of graduates. It feels very "heads the Tories lose, tails Labour win":


I'd add that Labour are winning in key target areas - like Plymouth, Medway - which (in the case of Medway) they've not since 1997. The Lib Dems are also winning incredibly solid Tory areas in the stockbroker belt - Windsor and Maidenhead (Windsor Castle, Eton College and Tory MPs since the 1870s), for example has swung quite strongly Lib Dem.

I get the point that it looks very bad for the Tories but that people aren't yet enthused by Labour. I think that's true. But I suspect the big headline point is that pincer movement of Labour winning back working class, less well educated areas and the Lib Dems running strongly in affluent areas with lots of grads - which is, I think, the nightmare scenario for Tories because obviously it squeezes their vote but it also presents a decision for their election campaign and resources, which is going to be tough. I'm not sure what the right answer is.

[mongers]

Edit: Of course I don't personally believe anyone has complicated view on anything. The number of people who have clear ideas on policies and vote to deliver them could dance on the head of a pin.

A somewhat elitist view there?

[Josquius]

I strongly suspect (/hope) a lot of the non-tory vote that in the locals went Green or Lib Dem in a national would go Labour.
Shielbh says there's a lot of tactical voting going on, but I'm not so certain. There just isn't the sheer quantity of information about this in local elections as there is in nationals- I kind of voted tactically for Labour but that was because nutters were making a push in my ward. Otherwise I'd have gone Green. Turns out from the results there was zero concern.
When you've dozens of elections with a few hundred voters then its harder to inform about everything and given the lower stakes and better odds of small parties winning people feel a lot braver about voting with their heart.
In a national election I think people will get the point that they have a choice between two parties, which in most places will see more labour support- contrast to 2019 where the "which is least shit..." balance fell the other way.

Edit: Of course I don't personally believe anyone has complicated view on anything. The number of people who have clear ideas on policies and vote to deliver them could dance on the head of a pin.

A somewhat elitist view there?

Surely he was talking about the elite?

[Sheilbh]

A somewhat elitist view there?

I don't think so. If anything I'd say anti-elitist. I find the elitist view is the "I make informed views based on the issues and deep study of policy, the great unwashed masses, on the other hand, are bamboozled by lies or propaganda".

My view is that everyone - including me and you - have our politics formed by things like instinct, attitudes, aesthetics, what we feel and not what we think or deep study. Part of it is as simple of who are the people that make us shout at the TV when they pop up on the news. I don't think that's a bad thing and is more a feature than a bug of democracy.

There are some people who do think deeply about policy and study the research and all the policy papers to form a conclusion. But I think it's a fairly eccentric small group of people who probbly can't be trusted in a way because they probably know/care about their area almost too much.

[mongers]

A somewhat elitist view there?

I don't think so. If anything I'd say anti-elitist. I find the elitist view is the "I make informed views based on the issues and deep study of policy, the great unwashed masses, on the other hand, are bamboozled by lies or propaganda".

My view is that everyone - including me and you - have our politics formed by things like instinct, attitudes, aesthetics, what we feel and not what we think or deep study. Part of it is as simple of who are the people that make us shout at the TV when they pop up on the news. I don't think that's a bad thing and is more a feature than a bug of democracy.

There are some people who do think deeply about policy and study the research and all the policy papers to form a conclusion. But I think it's a fairly eccentric small group of people who probbly can't be trusted in a way because they probably know/care about their area almost too much.

Fair enough, but can you be that sure that your view on our/people's views has also been thoroughly thought through*? 



* unintended alliteration, that may also be the first time I've ever typed those words together?

[Sheilbh]

No it's very much a gut instinct

[Sheilbh]

I strongly suspect (/hope) a lot of the non-tory vote that in the locals went Green or Lib Dem in a national would go Labour.
Shielbh says there's a lot of tactical voting going on, but I'm not so certain. There just isn't the sheer quantity of information about this in local elections as there is in nationals- I kind of voted tactically for Labour but that was because nutters were making a push in my ward. Otherwise I'd have gone Green. Turns out from the results there was zero concern.

Bracknell is the outstanding example but also seeing the Tories do badly in Hertfordshire and Hartlepool, lose Windsor and Maidenhead as well as working class Kent areas like Dover and Medway - I think there is a lot of anti-Tory voting going on, which includes tactical voting.

From the results I've seen I think it's probably about as worrying a set of results as the Tories could get. I think politics is always about choices. From an electoral perspective they can't fight all seats at full pace, they have to choose where their priorities are and that's going to be tough; similarly from a governing perspective which bits of their coalition they decide to prioritise. As this set of results, so far, look to me like straddling isn't working and they're set to be squeezed from both sides - exactly like the Liberals in Australia which we know has been a big focus of Labour and Tory strategists.

When you've dozens of elections with a few hundred voters then its harder to inform about everything and given the lower stakes and better odds of small parties winning people feel a lot braver about voting with their heart.
In a national election I think people will get the point that they have a choice between two parties, which in most places will see more labour support- contrast to 2019 where the "which is least shit..." balance fell the other way.

Yeah I think Greens and Lib Dems always do better in local elections. I don't think the Lib Dems are going to replicate a 20% vote at the next general election, but I think they might repeat today's performance in certain areas.

Edit: And some magnificent Lib Demmery of always making everything local

"I'm so proud," says Ed Davey, "that when Lionel Ritchie and Katy Perry play in the coronation concert tomorrow, they'll be doing so in a ward that's controlled by three Liberal Democrat councillors."

[Sheilbh]

Tories now on course to lose over 1,000 seats. In their expectations management they were saying anything under 1,000 losses would be a "good result".

Labour is now the largest party in local government for the first time since 2002.

As I say - this map (still being updated) would worry me if I were CCHQ:
https://sotn.newstatesman.com/2023/05/britain-elects-results

Lots of red in the North and West Midlands - as well as a fair amount in the Thames Estuary and other interesting spots in the south (Plymouth, Dover). But also lots of yellow and green in the South-West, Home Counties and East Anglia.

[Josquius]

Lots of commentary talking about how this indicates a labour minority government next election.
Which. Yeah. Can't see it happening. As said people vote different in locals.

Though I can't help but be tempted to think this would be the best possible outcome on the remote chance it does happen. Voting reform pushed through as the lesser parties price.

[Sheilbh]

Incidentally on the point around Charles' outreach to minority faiths, I mentioned the particular sensitivity around the Chief Rabbi's obligations - and saw that he wrote a long Tweet (? ) about this yesterday. I find it quite touching, given our history, that on the eve of the coronation a Rabbi is observing the shabbat in the same palace as the king and as his guest (assuming coronations continue to be a Saturday thing, which is probably - it might even become a new tradition):

Chief Rabbi Sir Ephraim Mirvis
@chiefrabbi
How times have changed...

On 3 September 1189, Richard I was crowned King in Westminster Abbey. Jews were barred from attending, but in a spirit of heartfelt goodwill, some Jewish leaders arrived bearing gifts for the new king. They were informed that Jews were not welcome, whereupon Richard's courtiers stripped and flogged them, and then flung them out of court.

A rumour spread that the King had given an order for all Jews to be attacked.  While some Jews escaped, arsonists set fire to many Jewish homes, some Jews were forcibly converted, while others were given sanctuary in the Tower of London. Some thirty innocent Jews were senselessly murdered on the day of the Coronation, including Rabbi Jacob of Orléans, the most senior Rabbi in England at that time.

These tragic events stand in sharp contrast to our experience as Jews in 21st Century Britain.

His Majesty King Charles III has made it clear that he wants representatives of the Jewish community and other minority faith communities to be present for the coronation service. In addition, he has established an unprecedented opportunity, following the service itself, for faith leaders to be incorporated into the formal proceedings. I will be privileged, together with four other senior faith leaders, to greet the King with words of tribute and blessing. At every stage, the Palace has been sensitive to the requirements of halacha (Jewish Law) when considering how best to include us. With this in mind, in accordance with the laws of Shabbat, I will not be using a microphone.

This is in addition to The King and Queen's gracious invitation to host Valerie and me at St James' Palace over Shabbat, when we will cherish the extraordinary opportunity to light Shabbat candles, make kiddush, eat our specially catered Shabbat meals, sing zemirot and chant Havdalah within regal surroundings.

We are blessed to have a Monarch who holds a deep, personal conviction that there is great strength in the diversity of our country and who cherishes his warm relationship with British Jews.
In the Book of Ecclesiastes, we are taught that: 'there is a time to weep and a time to laugh; a time to cry and a time to dance with joy'. Nearly a thousand years ago, the Coronation of a Monarch was a time to weep for the Jewish community, but today, thank God, it is a time for great celebration. As we enter this Carolean era, may our country be blessed to know many more moments of such celebration, and may God save the King!

[Sheilbh]

Lots of commentary talking about how this indicates a labour minority government next election.
Which. Yeah. Can't see it happening. As said people vote different in locals.

Though I can't help but be tempted to think this would be the best possible outcome on the remote chance it does happen. Voting reform pushed through as the lesser parties price.

I thought about this from a Labour perspective - and I think they would do a coalition with the Lib Dems.

Given how traumatic 2010-15 was for the Lib Dems I'm not so sure if they'd be willing to go back into a coalition. Maybe if they had a firm commitment on voting reform (with no referendum) they might be willing to, but Starmer's now come out strongly in favour of FPTP.

Also I feel like the Lib Dems might get in trouble again if they're in coalition - they're winning in high income, high graduate areas who may not like parts of Labour's agenda (nationalising energy, Starmer now talking a lot about building houses etc). It feels like stuff that would go down badly in, say, Windsor and Maidenhead or Surrey.

It's the curse of the third party in our system.