General British politics discussion thread

political analyst

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122041224#Comment_122041224

What if that new leader loses his or her seat in the general election?

Most of the damage to the party's standing was done before Sunak became PM. So why would grass-roots Tories blame him?

Given that a Labour victory would prove that the British public are not interested in taking Britain out of the European Convention on Human rights, why would the Tories who are on the hard-right of the party persist with that idea? Can those Tories not take a hint?

VinLieger

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122042501#Comment_122042501

Grassroots Tories will blame him for the simple fact that he's brown, he was unopposed when truss stepped down but if there had been any other white candidate he likely wouldn't have won the leadership

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122042501#Comment_122042501

Horsham for example has been held by the Tories since 1841. Other safe seats are much older.

Here with 3 to 5 seaters the public can usually vote for a running mate from the larger parties if they don't like a candidate that's been parachuted in.

PommieBast

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122040908#Comment_122040908

Don't mix up Conservative voters and Conservative members. The latter are the ones throwing the toys out of the pram.

Leroy42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122042501#Comment_122042501

Not sure we can say most of the damage was done. No doubt when Sunak took over the Tories were in a bad place, but the thinking at the time was that support for Labour was soft, certainly no large support for Starmer, and that a decent and focused leader would at the the very least close the gap.

Sunak has done the opposite. He is an incredibly weak leader. Hardly surprising given he accepted the chancellor job with no control. But I doubt many could have forseen just how terrible he was going to be.

Bouncing around from one ill thought out policy to the next. Being so poor at any contact with people. Having such poor political judgement and complete lack of control over not only his party but even his cabinet.

He has been a disaster for the Tories and whatever small chance they had to minimise the damage in an upcoming election was lost when he was made leader.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122042501#Comment_122042501

If new leader loses their seat.

If the leader loses their seat, then they also lose the leadership.

(In theory, if the party really wanted to keep the leader in office, they could persuade some Tory backbencher in one of their remaining safe seats to retire, and then the leader could run in the resultant bye-election. But, realistically, I don't see that happening in this scenario.)

But, of course, if someone who aspires to be leader after the election loses his seat, he won't be a candidate in the post-election leadership contest anyway. So the risk of losing your seat is not a reason for not seeking the leadership. Plus, you might hope, if you are the actual party leader and Prime Minister at the time of the election, that might make it slightly less likely that you would lose your seat.

Would hard-right Tories take a hint when the Tory party is thrashed in the election?

Let me introduce you to the Inca child sacrifice culture.

You've probably read about mummified children being found in tombs in the high Andes. Archaeological examination of the mummies and the tombs leaves little doubt that they have been ritually sacrificed. And it also strongly suggests that they are children from a high-status background — well-nourished, richly apparelled, no evidence of having been affected by hardship or physical labour. The rich apparel could be something given to them for the sacrifice, but the good physical condition tells us about their lives before they were sacrficed.

What's going on here?

The deal here seems to have been that the Inca rulers held themselves out as gods or demigods. Nobles and local rulers were expected to owe absolute fealty, and absolute obedience, to the Inca emperor as a god. Otherwise, in such a large empire, they might get notions of breaking away, setting themselves up as kings, etc.

How do you prove your unconditional allegiance to the god-emperor? By accepting the unparalleled honour of having one of your children sacrificed to him, is the answer. Particularly when a province has recently been added to the empire, the existing community leaders and dominant figures in that province are invited to buy into the new reality by accepting this signal honour. Once a local bigwig has done this, he is absolutely committed to the emperor and the imperial system; he cannot for an instant entertain the idea that the emperor is not a demigod, because if the emperor is not a demigod then he has given his own child over to a horrible death for no good reason. That is unthinkable. So you never think it, not even for an instant. Your unquestioning loyalty is forever assured.

OK, this is less dramatic. But when you have inflicted Brexit on your country, and electoral ruin on your party, in the pursuit of absolutely batshït insane ideas you can either face up to the reality that you have done all this for utterly bogus reasons, or you can cling to the belief that your reasons are completely valid; it is others who are in error. ("Others" here includes the voters.) And clinging to the latter belief is much more psychologically comforting, because it means you are not responsible for this catastrophe; others are.

We already know that Brexit has produced dismal results. We already know that the Tory's hard right positions and policies are deeply unpopular with voters. We're not going to know any more after the elections. The knowledge that, in the coming election, the party is going to to be dismembered with blunk hacksaws and boiled down for glue is already baked in to Tory attitudes. Anybody minded to reconsider their right-wingery has already reconsidered it in light of these realities. Anybody who hasn't done that is not going to do it after the election either.

Of course, there may be some in the party who do question the tilt towards the loony right. But those who did so in recent years have been ruthlessly purged, and anyone doing so right now would, at the very least, be accused of disloyalty and of putting self before party at this crucial time. If nothing else, they'd be positioning themselves to be blamed for the electoral defeat, because they would be showing the party to be splintered and quarrelsome.

So those people will be keeping their powder dry right now. They won't be leading the doubling-down on lunacy; they'll just be keeping fairly quiet. After the election, those of them who have retained their seats will emerge as the more centrist, or at least less extreme, wing of the much-reduced Tory party. They'll be the ones who are saying, as you suggest, that the party needs to listen to the voters and reorient itself a bit closer to the political centre.

They'll be opposed by the True Beleivers of the hard right who cannot comtemplate this for the reason already outlined (or, again, those of them who have retained their seats).

These two factions will slog it out for control of the party. And the first slog will be the leadership election.

In the short term, the outcome of this struggle is hard to predict, since much depends on who loses their seats and who retains them. With the UK's quaintly crapulous electoral system, voters aren't allowed to choose between sanity and lunacy in their favoured party; they vote for the party and the party decides whether they get a sane candidate or a lunatic one. So it crucially matters which faction has managed to get nominations in which seats. This is hard to judge because, as noted, if there are any centrists in the party they are flying below the radar. It may well be that the right-wing of the party will still dominate even after the electoral ruin they have caused.

But in the end all parties want power, and they tend to find a way to it. As the Brexit referendum era recedes further and further into the past — it's already 8 years ago, which in political terms is a generation — there'll be a smaller and smaller group of MPs who are psychogically constrained by the positions adopted then. If you weren't yourself a prominent cheerleader for Brexit, it does become psychologically easier to suggest that maybe Brexit wasn't such a crash-hot idea after all; you haven't sacrificed your child on the altar of Brexit. And the reward for moving towards the centre will be an improved prospect of getting into power, which is a powerful reward to offer any politician.

Capt'n Midnight

‘Destroy to Rebuild’. from an article about TUV vs DUP

Knowing that they can only hope to win a handful of seats (at the very
best) in the coming General Election, Reform are contesting every seat
in order to maximise their own vote, but much more importantly to
maximise Conservatives losses. They calculate that a Tory debacle would
result in the election of a new more right-wing Tory leader with whom
they could join forces in a sort of reverse take-over of the
Conservative party to be rebuilt in a Faragist image. They believe that
the bigger the Tory defeat, the more they can move that party to the
right and that when, eventually, power returns to Tory hands their ideas
will be in control.

Or they could only stand against like Tories who weren't on the right wing to shift the balance.

On the other hand the MP's in safest seats should be OK, but who gets to decide who gets which seat ? How much influence will the PM / party leader have and who will that be come election time ? Would the PM be able strong enough to suspend dissenters like Boris did ?

For anyone playing the long game they know the Conservatives won't win the next election but with fewer MPs it might be an opportune time to reshape the party to their liking in preparation for future elections.

breezy1985

Shifting further to the right would be perfect. Five more years of Labour rule.

I think it will happen too. The Tories will have to go through the five stages of grief before they turn to another "David Cameron" and it will take more than one bad election to get there.

Brussels Sprout

Re: leader's losing their seats in elections. It's not uncommon, especially among smaller parties in Ireland (eg Michael McDowell (2007), John Gormley (2011)). Two that stick out in my mind though:

• Jo Swinson losing her seat at the 2019 election when she was Lib Dems leader. Party rules dictated that she could not continue as leader even if she wanted to.
• John Howard lost his seat when he was both leader of the Liberal party and PM of Australia at the 2007 general election. He retired from politics after that but regardless the party would have needed a new leader anyway to represent them in parliament.

Strazdas

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122045528#Comment_122045528

It will be fascinating too to see how the right wing press handle the obliteration of their beloved Conservative Party at the election.

serfboard

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122045784#Comment_122045784

They’ll handle it by not taking about the Tories at all but by relentlessly bashing the Labour Party every single day.

Capt'n Midnight

Mark Menzies has quit the Tory party. But there won't be a by-election as he will stay an MP until he stands down at the next election. Hard to keep track of all the scandals.

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122047000#Comment_122047000

Surely he cannot escape scrutiny for the outrageous behaviour reported on him by the media. Reported stories included party funds misappropriated , and that he demanded money (£5,000) in the middle of night from an elderly person.

Surely the HoC will deal with him, or the police.

PommieBast

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122045658#Comment_122045658

Douglas-Home became leader and PM while he was still in the Lords but by then the convention was for them to be in the Commons. Dunno whether party rules have codified the latter.

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122047220#Comment_122047220

The Profuma affair brought down MacMillan but not a GE.

The 13th Earl of Home was elected leader and PM while he was in the Lords. Resigned his place in the Lords and stood in a very safe seat as Sir Alec Douglas Home. He won the seat and was PM until the Tories were turfed out by Harold Wilson and the Labour party.

They really knew how to pick them then. The duration of a PM was not measured in terms of a lettuce.

PommieBast

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122047707#Comment_122047707

Think he was actually the 14th.. 😁

But back on track, does a Conservative leader/PM actually need to be in the Commons?

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122047917#Comment_122047917

As a matter of practical political reality, yes, and this has been so for a long time. That's why Home had to disclaim his peerage and engineer a bye-election to the Commons so that he could get a seat.

Other relevant data point: When Neville Chamberlain resigned as PM in 1940, the Tory politician who had most support in the parliamentary party was Lord Halifax, who of course was in the Lords. Churchill, by contrast, was distrusted by many in the party. But Halifax himself felt that the government could not be led from the House of Lords, and in those days there was no mechanism for disclaiming a peerage, so he declined to seek the leadership. As a result Chamberlain advised the King to send for Churchill.

Last person to lead the party from the House of Lords was Lord Salisbury, from 1885 to 1902. He was also Prime Minster for part of that period.

And the party constitution now reflects this political reality; the party leader must be "drawn from those elected to the House of Commons". Which means that, to be a candidate for the leadership, you have to already be an MP; you couldn't be elected from outside the Commons, and then find a seat in the Commons, like Home did.

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122047917#Comment_122047917

You are right. I always thought he was 13th.

dublin49

Sunak playing his only card today and if he gets the Rwanda deal going could be a game changer for him,imagine uncomfortable viewing for Labour this morning as Sunak blaming them for the problem. Sunak is a competent operator and in my opinion giving an impressive performance this morning.

Timberrrrrrrr

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122048672#Comment_122048672

"uncomfortable viewing for Labour this morning as Sunak blaming them for the problem"

Sunak/Tories have been blaming Labour for ages, they always blame "Labour peers" in the HoL yet never mention that many Tory Lords also vote against their Rwanda deal.

"giving an impressive performance this morning"

Again, not really he's just repeating the same thing he's said for months, he's already admitting that his promise of flights to Rwanda this spring won't happen and it will be the same come July, no flights will leave to Rwanda (will the Tories still be in power?) And they be promising flights before Christmas.

ancapailldorcha

Nobody cares about Rwanda. It's something culture war hacks have been pushing and nothing more. Sunak thinks it matters because he surrounds himself with talentless, compliant entities who enjoy the performative cruelty. That's all it is.

breezy1985

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122049153#Comment_122049153

There isn't even an outcry from right wing voters about the delays. It's so far down the list of things people have to worry about.

Fresh train strikes announced to take place in May for instance.

dublin49

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122049153#Comment_122049153

I disagree,immigration was a major factor in the Brexit vote and it hasnt diminished as an important issue for UK voters,if Sunak can get flights in the air Labour will be have to engage on the issue,their current stance of "tackling the Backlog and boat traffickers is limp in the extreme and they will need to come up with a counter strategy or they will be hammered as not having a workable policy on the issue.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122049754#Comment_122049754

So, you think Sunak is a "competent operator" while immigration is at the highest level in history? Curious reasoning, I have to say.

Getting the flights to Rwanda running, if he even does it, changes nothing. The backlog is well over 100,000:

On 31 December 2022, there were around 132,000 asylum applications awaiting an initial decision in the UK, comprising around 161,000 people.

https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/the-uks-asylum-backlog/#:~:text=stood%20at%20166%2C085.-,On%2031%20December%202022%2C%20there%20were%20around%20132%2C000%20asylum%20applications,recent%20years%20(Figure%201).

That was over a year ago. It's not diminished.

Frankly, I couldn't care less what the UK's racist demographic think. Immigration was a minority issue in the Brexit referendum and leaving predictably caused a surge in net immigration. Rwanda is nothing more than an exercise in performative cruelty and racism for the Daily Mail types. It's only for a maximum of a few hundred people.

Can you name a single Sunak achievement? Just one as he's a "competent operator".

PommieBast

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122048106#Comment_122048106

In all irony was it Douglas-Home who actually put in place the current system?

PommieBast

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122049754#Comment_122049754

Most of the people for whom this is a push-button issue will already be a lost cause as far as Labour are concerned. Yes they'll have to say something but it makes sense not to spend that much time and effort on it.

dublin49

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122049839#Comment_122049839

good point but the Tories have decided this is the battleground,its almost certainly too little too late for them but its the one where Labour are probably most vunerable given their current policy is so limp,in another world the Tories would be blaming Labour for stalling Brexit if it wasnt such a disaster.Labour's modes operandi currently of not engaging meaningfully on any issue will be severely tested if Sunak is seen to make headway.

Tom Mann Centuria

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122049839#Comment_122049839

I dunno, I think they're still pretty interested in winning them over.

breezy1985

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122049972#Comment_122049972

Cross border policing unit sounds like a much better idea than the Tory "shout and blame" policy in regards to France.

It's good that Labour are calling out the bullsht of conservatives being the party strong on immigration. All them Tory donor "champions of industry" are the biggest benefactors of cheap immigrant labour so the Tories will never stop it.

It's nonsense just like the fantasy that only the Tories can be trusted on the economy.

PommieBast

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122049924#Comment_122049924

I agree with the bit about them not having much else to shout about. Six months is too short to pivot onto anything new.

As for Labour I don't sense much enthusiasm for them per-se. Had considered tactically voting but Kier Starmer coming out against rejoining the CU is one compromise too far.