At the very end of Theresa May’s premiership, a certain sobriety started to finally creep into Westminster punditry. Some started to reflect a little on past assumptions made about what the EU would and would not do at long last. Some even went as far as googling what the Irish backstop might be. With the arrival of Boris Johnson into Number 10, all of that has gone out the window and the amount of bollocks being spewed is even greater than what was witnessed at the height of May’s popularity, pre-2017 general election.
Here are the main things I keep reading that are wrong:
- A proper Lib Dem electoral revival is bad for Labour, good for the Tories
This is lazy thinking at its very worst. It’s seeing voters as two semi-equal pools, one marked “Right” the other marked “Left”, and thinking that the Lib Dems coming back into play will just suck up water from the Left pool, leaving the Right one all to Johnson. This is so psephologically soft-headed, I can’t believe that this seems to be the basis of the electoral strategy being adopted by both major parties. In truth, while it is possible that Lib Dem-Labour could votes fall in a manner that directly helps the Tories, this is unlikely. If the Conservatives run a general election campaign before Brexit happens on a no deal platform, that will put a lot of Tory-Lib marginals into play for the Lib Dems. And I’m talking, at least a 100 seats, if the Lib Dems current polling situation doesn’t collapse (and if it does, this whole discussion about a Lib Dem revival is moot anyhow). Think about how many people who have voted Tory in these seats will gift the Lib Dems a vote as a one-off to avoid no deal. Polling suggests a lot of them. The Lib Dems have the structure in these seats to compete, which isn’t being considered enough by pundits.
Again, very bad psephology at play here in this assumption. For a start, it didn’t work in 2017, so why should it work now? Many Tories will jump in here with “May was crap; we’ve got Johnson this time”. Except, Theresa May was actually much better situated to appeal to these voters than Johnson. The daughter of a vicar who went to a grammar school (as opposed to a man born in America who went to Eton), she also ran on a socially conservative, fiscally left-wing for the Tories platform. A lot of people in these seats who voted Tory last time when it was May will not even consider voting for Johnson. It’s a much easier thing for Labour to run against and they will do so effectively in these seats. Which means that almost no constituencies are realistically available here, except by luck in a handful of places.
While we’re here, can I take a moment to trash the “Johnson reaches voters other Tories can’t” myth? Forget about the fact that he’s become a no deal Brexiteer since leaving the London mayor’s office – even back in 2008 and 2012, this was a massive exaggeration. Look, I have something unpleasant to confess: I voted for Johnson in both 2008 and 2012. Not as a first preference, but given my first preference in each case had a 0% chance of winning and I was well aware of that, I effectively voted for Boris Johnson. Why? Not because I thought Johnson was some brilliant liberal who was going to change London in all sorts of ways for the better, but because it was either him or a Hitler-obsessed, Castro brothers apologist, Venezuelan regime supporting prick. It was a least bad option sort of a deal. I’m certain a lot of Londoners made the same negative choice for Johnson.
And to those who jump in here with “Aha! Got you! The next general election will be a choice between Johnson and another awful communist prick!”, my riposte is: no, it won’t be. We’re in four party politics terrain now, and there really are more choices available. Jo Swinson could be prime minister. If you are derisively laughing now, recall that her party is in second place in a lot of polls, just behind the Tories. Even if she managed to get the party 100 seats, the party couldn’t be ignored and there would probably be a quick re-alignment in parliament, particularly as it would be clear at that the stage that the only alternative was a no deal Brexit.
3. But Boris Johnson isn’t going to run on a no deal platform. He’s going to run instead on a “Tell Brussels where to stick it” one
If Johnson does this, he will lose the election, almost guaranteed (I say almost, partly because we live in mad times, partly because the unforced errors of other parties might still be enough to see Johnson back to Number 10). Running on this platform will weaken the Lib Dems messaging in Tory-Lib marginals and help the Conservatives keep a few more of these seats than if they ran on a clear no deal ticket. Yet this puts Farage and the Brexit Party back into contention in a major way. Farage can say Johnson is breaking promises and dicking around, which will work since that is precisely what Johnson will be be doing. Yes, of course this can be negated by the Tories coming to some arrangement with Farage, who might be stupid enough to fall for it. Given past behaviour, this is unlikely.
In conclusion: Boris Johnson can win a general election. Of course, he can – almost anything is possible in this current age of British politics. It’s just not nearly as likely as most of Westminster is telling you.
Will be interested to know nick
The liberals are directly responsible for this brexit bollocks by keeping a slash and burn tory party in power 2010 to 2015
Hence 2016
Now if a labour party were to win a minority victory guaranteeing end to austerity with Keynesian economics where money flows into public services and infrastructure like they are to do
Would the liberals still go with a reactionary right wing coco the clown Thatcher worship
Like you did the liberals have never been progressives they always tack to the right
The comment ref the Lib Dem’s are responsible for Brexit shows the kind of thick people that are allowed an opinion and vote. That is why the country is where it is . Thank god the Lib Dem’s May save us from this madness.
Who was in government einstein
2010 to 2015
Austerity caused brexit
Tory liberal government
Sorry to intrude on your grief
St Jezza did far more to cause Brexit than the coalition, A schop.
The last time the Tories were kicked out it was through both Labour and Lib Dems doing well. I fear in Johnson’s “Dunkirk 2.0” election campaign, Corbyn’s ideological nationalisation agenda is a gift for him and he certainly believes he can replicate the Mayor of London feat by scooping up a majority by portraying it as a binary choice.
Nick: that is quite some confession! – The second time was surely quite unnecessary. I thought my admission that I once watched an episode of ‘Have I Got News For You’ in which Ian Hislop pandered to Johnson’s voluminous ego was bad enough.
I do not really see a difference between an election on the basis of ‘no deal’ and one of ‘tell Brussels where to stick it’ – Are they not the same? – And isn’t Johnson likely to conflate both anyway?
I do think Johnson is gearing up for an election before October 31. Could he recall parliament to call an election? – What is there to prevent him? He will be hoping for a bounce in the polls, superior manipulation of social media and the Corbyn factor to secure a majority.
You are right to point out the misconceptions. Johnson will not win against Lib Dem facing seats and will lose MPs in that direction. He has to win against Labour, but I do not see those Northern Brexity seats going his way so easily, but the way Labour is currently, it could happen.. The Conservatives will also lose most if not all of their 13 MPs in Scotland.
Nick –
Boris Johnson is being painted in some quarters as leading some sort of rogue government. When this is revealed as demonstrable twaddle – and that the government is no more or less ‘right wing’ than say John Major’s administration – he will get a boost. Particularly as the old Conservative standby – Vote Liberal Democrat, Get Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour party (not to mention the SNP) – will be deployed ruthlessly by Conservative campaigners like Dominic Cummings. A crystal ball isn’t required to work that out: just read the book.
So then just how many people in fairly middle class Lib-Dem facing Conservative seats like, say, Cheltenham, are going to risk swingeing taxes on their incomes, inheritance, property or back gardens just for the sake of a commitment to an abstract ideal like “Europe”?
In the event of an Election before Brexit is settled, I wonder how Johnson and co will handle Tory MP’s / candidates who won’t support that ‘Brexit’ manifesto? Will he go as far as a ‘coupon election’ offering endorsement to whichever candidate supported that programme – perhaps promising a ‘normal’ election then within a year say? There would be a lot of pressure on Tory associations to have a ‘coupon’ candidate!
A different situation after that date because the deed will be done and game over for Remainers, I really don’t see otherwise. Any party who doesn’t have a version.2 manifesto ready for the post-Brexit is leaving themselves short on credibility and time to conjure that up. However much post-Brexit is a crystal-ball gazing exercise, Johnson & co will have enough optimistic paragraphs to stuff between two covers and call it a plan! The future favours people with a plan!
Only a withdrawal agreement is on the table at the moment, far more substantive will be a post Brexit agreement. There can be no ‘deed done’ or ‘game over’. Brexit is set to drag on for years, whatever happens in the next few months.
There is much bemusement across the Channel at hyping up of ‘no deal’, since such a move would put the UK in an exceptionally weak negotiating position for almost everything that would require agreements
For the sake of the economy alone, remain parties would inevitably look to participate in the Single Market and Customs Union, but of course there are wider geo-political reasons too.
It doesn’t require a “Coupon” to endorse an ‘official’ party candidate any more. Only an ‘official’ candidate can use their party’s name and logo on the ballot paper now.
I think the issue is, what is to be done in constituencies where the official Conservative party candidate is a die-hard Remainer, such as Nick Boles or Philip Hammond? Will the Brexit Party stand, and will Boris Johnson endorse, candidates in only those constituencies, and not stand against sitting Conservative candidates who are trusted to support leaving the EU?
The ‘coupon’ would be Boris Johnson’s endorsement, which could be given either to official Conservative Party candidates, or to Brexit Party candidates in constituencies where the official candidate would not support the Conservative Party manifesto.
The 1918 ‘coupon election’ is the precedent (look it up), but not a perfect one, as the coupons were not issued by the at-the-time leader of the Liberals against his own candidates. A party leader effectively sabotaging some of their own candidates would be, I think, unprecedented, and could be interpreted as campaigning against the party’s official candidate, if the Conservative party has such a rule.
Also there’s the question of what to do about pro-Leave Labour MPs — do they get coupons, or does the Brexit party stand against them? Would somethign that would undoubtedly be interpreted as an expression of support from the Tory PM actually hurt them?
These are all reasons why I think that Johnson wants to call an election after leaving the EU, not before. And as I understand it, it is not not possible, chronologically, for an election to be forced by anyone else before the 31st of October: the motion of no confidence would have to have been laid before the summer recess in order for all the stages (two weeks after a successful no confidence motion without a new government being formed, etc) to be gone through before the deadline.
Therefore the only way for there to be an election before we leave the EU is if Boris calls for one and achieves a two-thirds majority. I can’t see that happening. As I say: my prediction is an election in the spring, after the initial effects of leaving without a deal have shaken out and things are back to stable.
A Conservative candidate standing on a platform contrary to the party’s manifesto could have the ‘official’ party name and logo withheld by the Conservative party’s national agent (or whichever official is nominated to deal with these things). Whether Conservative Headquarters could or would impose its own official candidate on a recalcitrant constituency association or, less likely in my view, back, say, a Brexit party candidate, is a matter of conjecture. The potential mess points to a post-Brexit election rather than a pre-Brexit one. But at this stage, who knows?
A Conservative candidate standing on a platform contrary to the party’s manifesto could have the ‘official’ party name and logo withheld by the Conservative party’s national agent (or whichever official is nominated to deal with these things).
That’d be a very very dangerous precedent to set. What if the national party in 2017 had started saying it would withold the logo from any candidate who wouldn’t sign up to the Dementia Tax? Giving a letter of endorsement (a coupon) to some candidates, but not others, to certify they are sound on a particular policy, and then leaving it up to the electorate to make up their mind, is one thing (and would be divisive and controversial enough); but the leader’s office centrally doing something which amounts to a pre-emptive withdrawal of the whip is a whole other level. Imagine what Momentum would do with that power!
I agree: I think the plan is to avoid an election pre-leaving. I think the election is currently scheduled for the spring; but as always, dear boy, events.
I’m not saying that the national party withholding the official party designation would be a good thing, but if a candidate was known to be set on a course seriously, majorly detrimental to the party’s agreed policy, then it would be the logical thing to do – just as a candidate who has had the whip withdrawn cannot stand as an ‘official’ party candidate now. I’ve no doubt Momentum has some inventive ideas of its own to keep Labour MPs “in line”.
if a candidate was known to be set on a course seriously, majorly detrimental to the party’s agreed policy, then it would be the logical thing to do
Much virtue in an if? Much hidden behind it, in this case. The question is who makes the determination that ‘a candidate [is] set on a course seriously, majorly detrimental to the party’s agreed policy’. For the leader’s office to start declaring unilaterally which candidates are set on such a course and which aren’t, and enforcing it by such drastic means as withholding use of the party name and logo without a means of appeal… it would be a courageous move. Even previously loyal candidates could well rebel at such an assumption of authority. After all, one cannot assume that the leadership will always be on one’s own side, and powers grabbed by a friendly leadership to use against common enemies could end up, when the leadership changes, being used to persecute you.
And — after all — isn’t the Conservative Party supposed to be against central control? If the local associations are happy with their MP, or at least not so unhappy as to vote that they have no confience in them, I doubt they would take kindly to being overruled from afar.
After all the central office already has massive, albeit indirect, power through managing the approved-candidate list. Grabbing more may be logical but it would not be at all tactful.
I fear we do not live in “tactful” times!