DEM not gonna CON dis NATION: Rolling UK politics in the short-lived Cleggeron era

at a certain concentration the alcohol poisons the yeast

Would never happen under current economic system. Which amounts to something like "will never happen".

Thought this stuff through while watching Quadrophenia one time - that cheery, maybe imaginary 60s landscape where it didn't matter if you got fired from your job because you could walk into the firm next door and get a new one, that's a fantasy land only inhabited for real by senior executives, high-ups in banking, MPs, those kind of bastards.

walked across the road from dunnes to tescos once tbf

that's not actually true, if u got fired from senior mgmt at a merchant bank it'd be pretty difficult to get an equiv position elsewhere

not saying, just saying

Sorry, forgot that "being paid off a small fortune for being fucking incompetent, patted on the head and sent on your way to fuck up something in the public/voluntary sector" wasn't the same as being "fired"

it's a hard knock life

Actual full employment would never happen for the reason NV mentions upthread - full employment -> rising wage costs -> businesses make less money -> people get laid off.

That's what's called a threat. Didn't happen with the minimum wage, did it?

It's not a thread because the Tories or the Orange Tory Wednesdays will never come out and say "we are against full employment". It's more of a fact of Capitalist economics and one that they have to keep quiet on otherwise what price their "get these TV-watching chancers off the dole" rhetoric?

"not a threat" rather

hard to say. lot of sub-minimum wage labour out there.

xpost

It's more of a fact of Capitalist economics and one that they have to keep quiet on otherwise what price their "get these TV-watching chancers off the dole" rhetoric?

Of course, they don't give a fuck about people being out of work, they give a fuck at having to pay for them

Spiralling of peasant wages in 14th century England after a third of the population died of plague is instructive here. After a few years of the cheeky bastards wandering the country in search of better paying employment the government had to step in and ban people from leaving their home area.

My guess is that given the choice again the Lib Dems would not go into this coalition. The problem isn't so much not thinking it through, as some implications taking time to emerge into general consciousness.

I'm amazed at the amount of think-pieces in the political press that discuss the next election as though a similar hung parliament is highly probable (in some cases almost as though it's inevitable). They're all talking about how the Lib Dems position themselves, will they stay with the Tories or could they go with Labour next time etc. In fact hung parliaments are unusual and with the Lib Dems leftish supporters deserting in droves a hung parliament is even less likely than normal. How the Lib Dems position themselves is likely to be pretty irrelevant.

Two scenarios seem likely to me:

- The government is perceived as having done well and is at least mildly popular. The likeliest outcome - a Tory overall majority, probably clear from the polls in advance. The Conservative's need to be nice to the Lib Dems will evaporate and the Tory right will re-emerge. People who are left-leaning but previously voted Lib Dem will hold them responsible. Right leaning Lib Dems are likely to drift to a renascent Tory party. Result - Lib Dems a tiny rump and its leadership shorn of influence. Back to the wilderness.

- the government is unpopular and both parties blamed. Likely outcome - a Labour overall majority. The electorate will be hostile to a Lib Dem party seen as sustaining an unpopular government. The Labour will want nothing to do with them. Only convinced right-wingers are likely to stay behind the coalition, and they will tend to be Tories. Result - Lib Dems a tiny rump etc etc.

Faced with this logic I expect Clegg and some other senior Lib Dems to join the Conservative party in return for promises of safe seats at the next election. I can't see how else they will sustain political careers.

I'm not saying other outcomes are not possible - I don't have a crystal ball. But these seem the likliest outcomes to me, and either way the prognosis for the Lib Dems is pretty disastrous.

Faced with this logic I expect Clegg and some other senior Lib Dems to join the Conservative party in return for promises of safe seats at the next election. I can't see how else they will sustain political careers.

same way members of the liberal democrats have sustained their careers forever. they've always been a joke/tiny rump with zero influence (via fptp). fail to see why a zinging at the next election (which i agree is inevitable via significant loss of voters not just fptp) would change that.

Having had a taste of being in government some of the senior Party figures mightn't fancy another 90-odd years in the wilderness.

If I were a LibDem MP with minimal connection or empathy with the government, I'd spend the next four years ensuring I was doing as much for my constituency as visibly as possible. Difficult to do that with no money, admittedly.

4 years is probably enough time to hand-write an "I'm sorry" card to every constituent.

i don't know that the outcome of the next election will necessarily be as strong a swing to either side as frankiemachine claims is likely tbh

No, old habits die hard too. For all the Lib Dems lose their anti-Tory votes they might well solidify some of their anti-Labour votes in other constituencies.

Why vote LibDem when you could vote Tory though?

"Tories Can't Win Here" seats?

assuming no transfer from labour to con, lds would have to lose ~20 mps to conservative or pretty much the lot to labour to break the hung p.

the former's more likely, but i don't think it's all that likely

the seats with significant anti-labour votes are not "tories can't win here" seats though xxp

We're talking about the next election though? That's also assuming no transfer from Con to Lab at the next election, which seems unlikely. (xpost)

sure, i'm just saying that you'd have to have a pretty coherent swing away from LD to _one_ of the other parties for an LD collapse to be the thing that breaks the hung p

(unless LDs drop to like 10% and 20 MPs)

is it wishful thinking to see this coalition representing one of the biggest electoral opportunities for labour in several generations?

i.e. FINALLY hive off the stubborn left-wing LD vote?

xxp, point being, inevitable LD losses will not alone the thing that breaks the hung p (unless they are truly catastrophic), which seems to be what frankiem is saying. there needs to be a swing between the other two, which is not inevitable (but obv. possible in 4 years).

it's better than nothing, but the left-wing LD vote is not big enough for labour to beat ~310 conservative MPs.

Dunno how it's a bigger opportunity than 1997 or even 2001 Tracer. The "stubborn left-wing LD vote" isn't a particularly big deal compared to the aspirational/Southern/Middle England vote that's gone (back) to the Tories.

I don't think you necessarily need a swing one way or the other, just a dimunition in the Lib Dem vote. Since the general election the Lib Dem support has been bleeding away while both Labour and the Tories have increased. This means they would win fewer seats, and the fewer seats they have the smaller the 'window' is in which a hung parliament could occur. (xp - this has kind of been covered now)

(unless LDs drop to like 10% and 20 MPs)

I think if they dropped to 10% they'd have less than ten MPs.

sure, it's difficult, to do three way swing calcs in five years time, but i think as few as 20 MPs is outside what is possible. point is it would have to be a implausibly colossal diminution to be relevant on its own.

barring events

The latest average of opinion polls gives Con 40, Lab 37, Lib Dems 14.
Feeding those figures into one of those predictors gives Con 305, Lab 302, LD 17.

The latest individual opinion poll I can find gives Con 40, Lab 39, LD 12.
That translates into Con 298, Lab 316, LD 11.

xpost

Ipsos/Mori poll out today is 37/37/15, which on uniform swing would make Con 277, Lab 319, Lib dem 28

Something like that, technically a hung parliament, but a Labour minority administration, seems relatively likely, although as pointed out above, unusual.

My reasoning is that we've had two whopping great periods of government, both of which were only ended by recessions.

BUT if the Tories couldn't win outright even with the biggest recession in 60 years, an unpopular pm etc etc, they're going to have to be pretty amazing to win people over, and yet if the blame for that recession and the deficit that resulted from it hangs round Labour's neck, it's hard to see them making great progress.

A lot depends on the economy, obv, though.

Con 305, Lab 302, LD 17

^^ so hung parliament again then

both of which were only ended by recessions

On the contrary, Tory support inexplicably held up very well through two massive recessions.

Hung Parliament but with other minority parties becoming increasingly important? Could be chaotic.

Reputation shredded by 90s recession and its aftermath, though > 97 landslide.

^^ so hung parliament again then

It can still happen, obviously, but the lower the Lib Dem vote gets, the closer they need Labour and Tories to be (in terms of seats won) for them to have any chance of holding the balance of power. And holding the balance of power with 20-odd seats will net them much less influence* than they would have with 60-odd seats. And if they descend much lower then a deal with various nationalists would probably look more appealing.

*not that they seem to have any fucking influence whatsoever at the moment

Yeah there were a lot of people in the country who were basically Tories but not Tory enough to stick with them after losing a big chunk of the value of their house. (xpost)

Same goes this time round as well, Labour presided over the last crash and they might not be forgiven for it as quickly as people are assuming, Gordon Brown or no Gordon Brown. It all depends how bad the Tories are obviously.

Reputation shredded by 90s recession and its aftermath, though > 97 landslide

The housing crash started in 1989 and the economy started going backwards in 1990. Unemployment had leapt massively by the time of the 1992 election and there was no one they could blame but themselves. It didn't stop Major winning. The recession didn't carry on that much longer after that - a year tops. I think it was more a case of incompetence (over the currency) shredding their reputation and then years of a weak and divided government.

It can still happen, obviously, but the lower the Lib Dem vote gets, the closer they need Labour and Tories to be (in terms of seats won) for them to have any chance of holding the balance of power.

yeah, i get the basic maths, i just don't think the demographics/seats are there for the lib dems to go much below 20 seats. what happens to the lib dem vote is very much second to what happens to the con and labour votes in figuring out what happens next.

fwiw, those seat predictor uniform swing calculations become pretty much worthless once the LDs get down to nationalist party levels. uniform swing trivially fails as a calculation in a fptp system when a parties vote is small.

xpost

At which point it is worth thinking about the breakdown of the 5m lost labour votes since 1997, which are (from memory) something like

>Tory 1m
>Lib dem 1.8m
>Did not vote 3.2m

The core vote is a swing vote.