Fanstastic Column. The "everyone assumes the polls will tighten" and "it's just a poll" arguments don't bear out with bi-election results. In-fact, if the modelling from electoral calculus is right, it is underselling labour. My gut feel is a Lab Majority of about 150 but from quite a low turn out.
The Conservatives have proven to be pretty flexible when it comes to conserving constitutional structures that get in their way. Remember the threats to abolish the Lords over the last couple of years?
I’d be very careful of the whole ‘can x ever win again’ debate. I remember the slew of articles in the 80’s about how it was time for permanent realignment because Labour could never win again. That’s in the same way I’m sceptical about Curtice saying Labour is starting from such a low base because of the red wall - I don’t see how that matters AT ALL. If Labour get the swing all those places just come back. If tactical voting works again the Tories could easily face disaster but that wouldn’t end then.
It’s time to consider PR and grown up politics where a majority rules and if you get 25% of the vote you get 25% of the MPs.
The trouble is that the only people who can get rid of FPTP are the MPs sitting in parliament at the relevant moment. And to expect them to do so would be almost literally asking turkeys to vote for Xmas.
In the handful models I ran, I put the Lib-Dems on 9% and 12% and allowed a little tactical voting from Labour, but the LibDems were still in the low dozens of seats.
That could change if the Tories face an organised challenge on their Right (say, the return of Farage to lead Reform UK) and more substantial Lab → Lib tactical voting. It's a very unlikely scenario though... and they'd have to beat the SNP too.
I think it's far more likely the SNP end up as the opposition than the Lib Dems. Even at their peak in 05, the Lib Dems were only in the low 60s of seats with 22 % vote share, and it's difficult to see them get that high this time.
I can't say I agree with that. The US is stuck with the two-party system because of the contingent election rules in the Twelfth Amendment, though. A multi-party system would mean that Congress chooses the President, which I don't think would be acceptable.
But make the Presidential election a popular single transferrable vote and a multi-party system would work just fine. France manages OK (more or less!)
Great analysis except for one minor point. Reform UK is NOT "far-right". It is in fact quite centrist in many respects. That the current Tory party is in almost no respects conservative does not mean that opposition to the right of them must automatically be "far-right",
As a long-time PR advocate, it has long been a bugbear of mine that most other PR advocates for the past decade have essentially been centre-left people whose advocacy for PR is nothing more than "we need it so the Labour Party can win again", who will presumably drop their campaign as soon as Labour actually does win and gets into a position where it can actually do something about electoral reform.
So thank you for pointing out that FPTP is a bad thing, even when it benefits the Labour Party. Democracy is crucial to good governance, and FPTP ain't very democratic.
I think there are some who would go that way but most of the Labour supporting PR advocates I know are firmly of the view that the party should back electoral reform, regardless of the size of their majority. Certainly that's my view, as a PR supporting leftie. Admittedly this is partly for selfish reasons (I feel emotionally scarred by the last 13 years of Tory misrule) but also because the current system doesn't feel very democratic. I disagree with their policies but UKIP should've won seats back in 2015. The Greens are similarly woefully under-represented for their vote share. And the dominance of the SNP under FPTP means the constitutional question becomes the be all and end all of Scottish politics in Westminster.
My hope had been that Labour winning a slim majority or a hung parliament with the Lib Dems holding the balance of power might encourage the PLP to take a more enlightened approach to PR but that seems less and less likely with the current polling.
I hope readers appreciate how far left the Conservative Party has gone over the past 2-3 decades. It has no "right wing". Following defeat the logical thing for most of its senior people to do would be to apply for membership of the Labour, LibDem or eb=ven the Green Party, with whom they share so much.
There is not really any "right wing" worth speaking of in such terms in the UK. I appreciate the left call anyone who does not agree with them names they think will offend the public but really, where are these "right wingers". The Reform Party which was referred to is a spread between soft left and free market, smaller state but that hardly qualifies as "right wing".
The autrhor is correct, however, that the alternative to the current political class might well be unsavoury. If that is what happens, blame the current voting system for denying the renewal and replacement we are all used to in economic markets and the political class for becoming arrogant, incompetent, authoritarian and out of touch all since 1990.
How is it that those on the left of politics have managed to make the term "Populist" into a derogatory term? IMO populist means popular with the people, or does the left not want to hear what people want but only to allow the people what they feel is acceptable?
Could a massive Labour majority lead to a splintering of Labour where, say 90 of the left wing of the party join Corbyn, elected as an independent, and form the Official opposition to Starmer’s PLP on the left?
Leaving the new Conservative leader with one question a week on PMQs, and occasional representation on QT.
Great piece. With a Tory parliamentary party of under 100 who are licking their wounds, how likely do you think it is to see the Tories try and fill their own vacuum by swinging to the right? A Corbyn-style jolt to the extreme.
Looking at the NS polling, much of the culture warrior right look set to be wiped out which could perhaps keep the party sane.
However, if they do go down this path, the only real leadership options for the right of the party (who will keep their seat) seem to be Badenoch or Braverman.
The candidate from the 'left' of the party really is not obvious from those forecasted to keep their seat in a worst case scenario situation.
I think it's more likely than not that the Tories will turn to the Right in opposition, though you're right that the choice of leader will depend a lot on who keeps their seat.
In reply to ‘Epping Blogger’, I cannot, of course, fully discuss such a large and complex subject as brexit, but I can offer some thoughts.
EB and I clearly represent very different positions on this matter. He/ She considers that brexit has not progressed far enough, whereas I think it has progressed far too far.
This disparity of views was inevitable, given the wide range of possible brexits - which are usually distinguished as ‘soft’ or ‘hard’. We evaluate brexit in different ways because the judgement is inherently subjective, reflecting our original viewpoint.
In a very similar manner, EB considers the current tory party ‘left wing’, but I think of it as clearly ‘right wing’, because, again, we start from different political positions.
With regard to brexiteers dominating the current tory party, I am thinking of the entire party; individual party members, MPs, donors / backers and supporters in the news media.
I regularly read up on the biography of any MP in the news. It is striking how many tory MPs are convinced supporters of brexit, especially those entering the House in 2015, 2017 and 2019 - I presume this reflects the preferences of local party members.
Those tory MPs who supported Remain have either revised their views and continued (Truss is an obvious example) or have left politics. Indeed, it is only a limited exaggeration to suggest that the Parliamentary party was purged of anybody seen as an outspoken opponent of brexit, eg Rory Stewart or Dominic Grieve.
This is why I suggest that the party is dominated by brexiteers and why it will have serious problems ‘re-inventing’ itself in the future. There may well be a variety of views on some topics, but there aren’t enough high profile MPs to challenge the party stance on brexit.
This rigid adherence to one specific policy has occurred alongside a trend away from brexit within the electorate. There was a very clear correlation between voter age and voting preference in the 2016 referendum, so a demographic based shift away from brexit and toward the EU was to be expected. In the last year or so, this has been amplified by a limited number of voters changing their original view, away from brexit.
In my opinion, this represents a serious threat to the future of the tory party. By becoming the party of brexit, they have chosen to fully associate themselves with a policy that is becoming ever more unpopular.
The Labour Party was able to extricate itself from corbynism because it retained a diversity of views, leading to a new leadership and revised policies. I don’t see the tory party having this option - any new leadership will be seen as supportive of brexit, unless they U-turn dramatically, which would be fully exploited by their opponents and is likely to lead to catastrophic disagreements within the rank and file party members / supporters.
If you have persevered to my conclusion - thank you
A compelling argument, based on some compelling facts. My local Tory candidate lost the last GE because the Ukip candidate took a good proportion of his votes and the incumbent Labour candidate's majority was reduced but not expunged. But that one was all about Brexit, so it is probably discountable as a meaningful signal. But you called them 'The Tories'. They are, the Conservative Party and the clue is in the word 'Conservative'. I predict these things correctly; the last few GEs, Trump, Brexit etc., and I am on public record for doing so. The pollsters forget what you use to vote. You vote with your internal organs, not your head. Conservative at heart. I was able to predict an 80 seat majority for the Tories because people were twisted up with frustration about being denied Brexit. It was palpable and I am surprised that the experts did not get it. So what happens next? Factor in your excellent point about crap Labour candidates, but I mean, how much worse can they get? Factor in that the Tories are an absolute shower but also factor in that Labour cannot even decide what a woman is. Talk about weather vanes and signposts. It's like we are back to 1939 when all the signposts were removed to confuse the enemy. Back to my point; the 'average' Tory voter is a conservative. Put a gun to their head and they will go back to what they know. Finally there is the impact of what you have written. You are even scaring me. When putsch comes to shove your blue collar Tory bloke and his Mrs will vote Tory, like they always have done, and it is more likely if people tell 'em that Labour is going to get in with an unassailable majority.
You opened by saying that political parties are not natural forces. I agree, but people coalesce on an ad hoc basis when they consider their interests are at risk. Since there is no natural alternative to the status quo I think you will find we are heading for a hung Parliament. That is my prediction and I am sticking to it.
The brexiteers in the tory party have eliminated virtually all pro-EU members and the party has, therefore, become far less diverse.
Given that they suffer a major defeat in the next election, as seems highly likely, I cannot see how they can re-invent themselves. The tories are now, irretrievably, by their own actions, the party of brexit.
The electorate, however, will continue to move toward a pro-EU stance, as the built-in demographic shift continues and some brexit voters change their minds.
There is nowhere for a future tory party to go other than a metamorphosis into a relatively small English Nationalist Party, dependent on PR for its MPs.
If the Brexiteers were dominant in the Tory Party how could one explain the failure to deliver a full Brexit after all these years. It was in June 2016 we decided to leave. It was years later the half hearted separateion took place but we are still aligned to their regulations, they still dictate policy in Northern Ireland and we still allow their fishermen to steal our fish.
Doesn't look like the policy of a Brexit dominated Tory Party. It looks to me like a policy designed to allow rapid and simple Rejoining in all but name by a future administartion.
I am fairly well read in current affairs, across the spectrum, from Guido to Guardian. I can't tell you one single thing that labour stands for other than 'tax the rich' and I can't pick out a single policy - I think Sir Kneel may have said they'd reverse anti-strike laws, but I'm not sure. At some point they will need to shit or get off the pot and actually stand for something. I think a lot of females - biological females - will be quiet tory voters. It all depends if the tories get ruthless in their final 18 months run in.
Feb 2, 2023·edited Feb 2, 2023Liked by Arieh Kovler
I'd describe myself as fairly gender critical and I despair of Labour's poor position on the issue of balancing rights between women and trans women. But The Tories are not a female friendly party and frankly their anti-trans stuff just seems like insubstantial culture war posturing. No amount of signs stuck on single occupancy unisex loos by Kemi Badenoch outweigh the woeful rape and domestic violence conviction rates, the defunding of SureStart centres or the insane costs of childcare that keeps women out of the labour market and contributes to the gender pay gap. If the Tories want to attract young(ish) female voters they need to actually walk the walk and introduce policies that help women.
You're missing the Lib Dems. If the opposition is splintered, essentially the Tories can go one of two ways - hard right culture war, or towards moderation. I think your post implicitly assumes the latter, leaving space for reform - but if they tack right, it could be the LDs filling the one nation space.
In the long term, maybe, but unless something drastic happens, the LibDems aren't going to come away with enough seats in the next election to be ahead of the SNP, let alone the Tories. That's a weak base on which to build an alternative One Nation party in the national consciousness.
Fanstastic Column. The "everyone assumes the polls will tighten" and "it's just a poll" arguments don't bear out with bi-election results. In-fact, if the modelling from electoral calculus is right, it is underselling labour. My gut feel is a Lab Majority of about 150 but from quite a low turn out.
I wonder how many people will demand changing FPTP if Labour won such a huge majority. It could virtually guarantee the Tories never win again...?
This is an amazing article and should be widely read.
The Conservatives have proven to be pretty flexible when it comes to conserving constitutional structures that get in their way. Remember the threats to abolish the Lords over the last couple of years?
But do you not think all the players in the current FPTP debate would immediately swap places with this result??
I’d be very careful of the whole ‘can x ever win again’ debate. I remember the slew of articles in the 80’s about how it was time for permanent realignment because Labour could never win again. That’s in the same way I’m sceptical about Curtice saying Labour is starting from such a low base because of the red wall - I don’t see how that matters AT ALL. If Labour get the swing all those places just come back. If tactical voting works again the Tories could easily face disaster but that wouldn’t end then.
It’s time to consider PR and grown up politics where a majority rules and if you get 25% of the vote you get 25% of the MPs.
The trouble is that the only people who can get rid of FPTP are the MPs sitting in parliament at the relevant moment. And to expect them to do so would be almost literally asking turkeys to vote for Xmas.
Where are the Lib-Dems in this scenario? How many seats would they have? Is there a scenario in which they become the main opposition?
In the handful models I ran, I put the Lib-Dems on 9% and 12% and allowed a little tactical voting from Labour, but the LibDems were still in the low dozens of seats.
That could change if the Tories face an organised challenge on their Right (say, the return of Farage to lead Reform UK) and more substantial Lab → Lib tactical voting. It's a very unlikely scenario though... and they'd have to beat the SNP too.
I think it's far more likely the SNP end up as the opposition than the Lib Dems. Even at their peak in 05, the Lib Dems were only in the low 60s of seats with 22 % vote share, and it's difficult to see them get that high this time.
Your column is the best argument for the US retaining the 2 party system as flawed as it is.
I can't say I agree with that. The US is stuck with the two-party system because of the contingent election rules in the Twelfth Amendment, though. A multi-party system would mean that Congress chooses the President, which I don't think would be acceptable.
But make the Presidential election a popular single transferrable vote and a multi-party system would work just fine. France manages OK (more or less!)
Great analysis except for one minor point. Reform UK is NOT "far-right". It is in fact quite centrist in many respects. That the current Tory party is in almost no respects conservative does not mean that opposition to the right of them must automatically be "far-right",
As a long-time PR advocate, it has long been a bugbear of mine that most other PR advocates for the past decade have essentially been centre-left people whose advocacy for PR is nothing more than "we need it so the Labour Party can win again", who will presumably drop their campaign as soon as Labour actually does win and gets into a position where it can actually do something about electoral reform.
So thank you for pointing out that FPTP is a bad thing, even when it benefits the Labour Party. Democracy is crucial to good governance, and FPTP ain't very democratic.
I think there are some who would go that way but most of the Labour supporting PR advocates I know are firmly of the view that the party should back electoral reform, regardless of the size of their majority. Certainly that's my view, as a PR supporting leftie. Admittedly this is partly for selfish reasons (I feel emotionally scarred by the last 13 years of Tory misrule) but also because the current system doesn't feel very democratic. I disagree with their policies but UKIP should've won seats back in 2015. The Greens are similarly woefully under-represented for their vote share. And the dominance of the SNP under FPTP means the constitutional question becomes the be all and end all of Scottish politics in Westminster.
My hope had been that Labour winning a slim majority or a hung parliament with the Lib Dems holding the balance of power might encourage the PLP to take a more enlightened approach to PR but that seems less and less likely with the current polling.
I hope readers appreciate how far left the Conservative Party has gone over the past 2-3 decades. It has no "right wing". Following defeat the logical thing for most of its senior people to do would be to apply for membership of the Labour, LibDem or eb=ven the Green Party, with whom they share so much.
There is not really any "right wing" worth speaking of in such terms in the UK. I appreciate the left call anyone who does not agree with them names they think will offend the public but really, where are these "right wingers". The Reform Party which was referred to is a spread between soft left and free market, smaller state but that hardly qualifies as "right wing".
The autrhor is correct, however, that the alternative to the current political class might well be unsavoury. If that is what happens, blame the current voting system for denying the renewal and replacement we are all used to in economic markets and the political class for becoming arrogant, incompetent, authoritarian and out of touch all since 1990.
How is it that those on the left of politics have managed to make the term "Populist" into a derogatory term? IMO populist means popular with the people, or does the left not want to hear what people want but only to allow the people what they feel is acceptable?
Could a massive Labour majority lead to a splintering of Labour where, say 90 of the left wing of the party join Corbyn, elected as an independent, and form the Official opposition to Starmer’s PLP on the left?
Leaving the new Conservative leader with one question a week on PMQs, and occasional representation on QT.
Great piece. With a Tory parliamentary party of under 100 who are licking their wounds, how likely do you think it is to see the Tories try and fill their own vacuum by swinging to the right? A Corbyn-style jolt to the extreme.
Looking at the NS polling, much of the culture warrior right look set to be wiped out which could perhaps keep the party sane.
However, if they do go down this path, the only real leadership options for the right of the party (who will keep their seat) seem to be Badenoch or Braverman.
The candidate from the 'left' of the party really is not obvious from those forecasted to keep their seat in a worst case scenario situation.
I think it's more likely than not that the Tories will turn to the Right in opposition, though you're right that the choice of leader will depend a lot on who keeps their seat.
In reply to ‘Epping Blogger’, I cannot, of course, fully discuss such a large and complex subject as brexit, but I can offer some thoughts.
EB and I clearly represent very different positions on this matter. He/ She considers that brexit has not progressed far enough, whereas I think it has progressed far too far.
This disparity of views was inevitable, given the wide range of possible brexits - which are usually distinguished as ‘soft’ or ‘hard’. We evaluate brexit in different ways because the judgement is inherently subjective, reflecting our original viewpoint.
In a very similar manner, EB considers the current tory party ‘left wing’, but I think of it as clearly ‘right wing’, because, again, we start from different political positions.
With regard to brexiteers dominating the current tory party, I am thinking of the entire party; individual party members, MPs, donors / backers and supporters in the news media.
I regularly read up on the biography of any MP in the news. It is striking how many tory MPs are convinced supporters of brexit, especially those entering the House in 2015, 2017 and 2019 - I presume this reflects the preferences of local party members.
Those tory MPs who supported Remain have either revised their views and continued (Truss is an obvious example) or have left politics. Indeed, it is only a limited exaggeration to suggest that the Parliamentary party was purged of anybody seen as an outspoken opponent of brexit, eg Rory Stewart or Dominic Grieve.
This is why I suggest that the party is dominated by brexiteers and why it will have serious problems ‘re-inventing’ itself in the future. There may well be a variety of views on some topics, but there aren’t enough high profile MPs to challenge the party stance on brexit.
This rigid adherence to one specific policy has occurred alongside a trend away from brexit within the electorate. There was a very clear correlation between voter age and voting preference in the 2016 referendum, so a demographic based shift away from brexit and toward the EU was to be expected. In the last year or so, this has been amplified by a limited number of voters changing their original view, away from brexit.
In my opinion, this represents a serious threat to the future of the tory party. By becoming the party of brexit, they have chosen to fully associate themselves with a policy that is becoming ever more unpopular.
The Labour Party was able to extricate itself from corbynism because it retained a diversity of views, leading to a new leadership and revised policies. I don’t see the tory party having this option - any new leadership will be seen as supportive of brexit, unless they U-turn dramatically, which would be fully exploited by their opponents and is likely to lead to catastrophic disagreements within the rank and file party members / supporters.
If you have persevered to my conclusion - thank you
A compelling argument, based on some compelling facts. My local Tory candidate lost the last GE because the Ukip candidate took a good proportion of his votes and the incumbent Labour candidate's majority was reduced but not expunged. But that one was all about Brexit, so it is probably discountable as a meaningful signal. But you called them 'The Tories'. They are, the Conservative Party and the clue is in the word 'Conservative'. I predict these things correctly; the last few GEs, Trump, Brexit etc., and I am on public record for doing so. The pollsters forget what you use to vote. You vote with your internal organs, not your head. Conservative at heart. I was able to predict an 80 seat majority for the Tories because people were twisted up with frustration about being denied Brexit. It was palpable and I am surprised that the experts did not get it. So what happens next? Factor in your excellent point about crap Labour candidates, but I mean, how much worse can they get? Factor in that the Tories are an absolute shower but also factor in that Labour cannot even decide what a woman is. Talk about weather vanes and signposts. It's like we are back to 1939 when all the signposts were removed to confuse the enemy. Back to my point; the 'average' Tory voter is a conservative. Put a gun to their head and they will go back to what they know. Finally there is the impact of what you have written. You are even scaring me. When putsch comes to shove your blue collar Tory bloke and his Mrs will vote Tory, like they always have done, and it is more likely if people tell 'em that Labour is going to get in with an unassailable majority.
You opened by saying that political parties are not natural forces. I agree, but people coalesce on an ad hoc basis when they consider their interests are at risk. Since there is no natural alternative to the status quo I think you will find we are heading for a hung Parliament. That is my prediction and I am sticking to it.
The brexiteers in the tory party have eliminated virtually all pro-EU members and the party has, therefore, become far less diverse.
Given that they suffer a major defeat in the next election, as seems highly likely, I cannot see how they can re-invent themselves. The tories are now, irretrievably, by their own actions, the party of brexit.
The electorate, however, will continue to move toward a pro-EU stance, as the built-in demographic shift continues and some brexit voters change their minds.
There is nowhere for a future tory party to go other than a metamorphosis into a relatively small English Nationalist Party, dependent on PR for its MPs.
If the Brexiteers were dominant in the Tory Party how could one explain the failure to deliver a full Brexit after all these years. It was in June 2016 we decided to leave. It was years later the half hearted separateion took place but we are still aligned to their regulations, they still dictate policy in Northern Ireland and we still allow their fishermen to steal our fish.
Doesn't look like the policy of a Brexit dominated Tory Party. It looks to me like a policy designed to allow rapid and simple Rejoining in all but name by a future administartion.
Stop worrying about the far right and stop pretending that the Westminster system isn't itself, collapsing.
I am fairly well read in current affairs, across the spectrum, from Guido to Guardian. I can't tell you one single thing that labour stands for other than 'tax the rich' and I can't pick out a single policy - I think Sir Kneel may have said they'd reverse anti-strike laws, but I'm not sure. At some point they will need to shit or get off the pot and actually stand for something. I think a lot of females - biological females - will be quiet tory voters. It all depends if the tories get ruthless in their final 18 months run in.
I'd describe myself as fairly gender critical and I despair of Labour's poor position on the issue of balancing rights between women and trans women. But The Tories are not a female friendly party and frankly their anti-trans stuff just seems like insubstantial culture war posturing. No amount of signs stuck on single occupancy unisex loos by Kemi Badenoch outweigh the woeful rape and domestic violence conviction rates, the defunding of SureStart centres or the insane costs of childcare that keeps women out of the labour market and contributes to the gender pay gap. If the Tories want to attract young(ish) female voters they need to actually walk the walk and introduce policies that help women.
You're missing the Lib Dems. If the opposition is splintered, essentially the Tories can go one of two ways - hard right culture war, or towards moderation. I think your post implicitly assumes the latter, leaving space for reform - but if they tack right, it could be the LDs filling the one nation space.
In the long term, maybe, but unless something drastic happens, the LibDems aren't going to come away with enough seats in the next election to be ahead of the SNP, let alone the Tories. That's a weak base on which to build an alternative One Nation party in the national consciousness.