What can we do to change the minds of decision makers and people in general to actually do something about preparing for the forthcoming economic/energy crises (the ones after this one!)?
We shall see whether those reading the Last Rites over Braverman’s leadership prospects have jumped the gun. But even if so, and the prospect of seeking an immediate deal with Nigel Farage has receded, the question of what to do about Reform UK remains.
The next election will be make-or-break on this front. Whilst it won only five seats last week (or six, depending on the exact status of its deal with the TUV in Northern Ireland), Reform came second in 98 more. Like UKIP in 2015, when it had come second in 120 seats, it now stands on the cusp of a serious parliamentary breakthrough.
Should that happen, and the next House of Commons sport a structural split on the Right, then our two parties will probably be on the road to some sort of deal or merger. Not immediately – it took ten years in Canada, and that’s after the Tories were pushed into fifth place – but eventually.
Of course, a fortuitous position isn’t destiny. Farage’s parties have historically been much better at winning representation than using it; there is no guarantee that his latest vehicle will be disciplined or strategically savvy enough to fulfil its potential. But nor can the Conservatives afford to sit back and assume it will fail.
What’s needed is a concerted, coherent, and credible pitch to the bulk of Reform’s voters as voters on the issues which matter most to them, be that crime, immigration, or the economy. Rather than trying to take a short cut by stitching together a bargain with the party they voted for this time, the next leader should put in the work to persuade them to pick us next time – whilst not forgetting that we lost far more seats to Labour and the Liberal Democrats and we need to woo those voters too.
Even if this effort is made, and goes well, the next election might offer a final test. For whilst Reform UK really hurt the Tories on Thursday, its current electoral geography is largely Labour-facing; of the 98 seats where it came second, only nine are held by the Conservatives.
If Labour is looking vulnerable at the next election, there could be plenty of short-term electoral logic in attempting a formal or tacit pincer movement, with the Conservatives and Reform UK carving Sir Keir Starmer’s vast defensive front between them.
Such an approach might well pay off, for that election – but at the long-term cost of bedding in that split, and closing the door forever on any hope of the Tory Party navigating the realignment as the hegemonic party of the British Right.
"We fail to mandate economic sanity because our brains are addled by....compassion." (Garrett Hardin)
Mark wrote: ↑08 Jul 2024, 19:54
I disagree that a large number of people tactically voted Labour at the GE - a few will have done that, but not many.
According to Yougov, 29% did:
Sorry, I just don't believe that.
Reducing Labour's total votes by 29% works out as 6,900,000 - nearly identical to the Tory total vote.
I believe there was a significantly bigger positive vote for Labour than for the Tories.
A lot of labour LD and green supporters voted tactically, to get the local Tory MP out. A lot of labour supporters in safer seats probably didn't bother to vote. The Guardian estimates 400,000 voters were turned away for incorrect ID, likely more of these are likely to be left leaning. Also, an unknown number may have not bothered trying to vote or register because they don't have adequate id.
Labour is looking to improve this imbalance, possibly introducing automatic registration, and expanding the range of id accepted
Mark wrote: ↑08 Jul 2024, 19:54
I disagree that a large number of people tactically voted Labour at the GE - a few will have done that, but not many.
According to Yougov, 29% did:
Sorry, I just don't believe that.
That figure is entirely believable and consistent with both the polling and the election result. In seats Labour took from the tories, their vote share went up. In seats the LDs took from the tories, Labour's vote share went down.
Tactical voting is the only explanation for how Labour managed to win the second largest majority in terms of seats on the smallest vote share for any single party government in British history. An awful lot of people voted for whoever they believed to be best placed to unseat or keep out the tories, whether that was Labour, Libdem or somebody else. If you don't believe that then I don't think it is possible to understand this election result and its implications for the future of British politics.
"We fail to mandate economic sanity because our brains are addled by....compassion." (Garrett Hardin)
UndercoverElephant wrote: ↑09 Jul 2024, 08:27
Tactical voting is the only explanation for how Labour managed to win the second largest majority in terms of seats on the smallest vote share for any single party government in British history. An awful lot of people voted for whoever they believed to be best placed to unseat or keep out the tories, whether that was Labour, Libdem or somebody else. If you don't believe that then I don't think it is possible to understand this election result and its implications for the future of British politics.
Of course I believe there was a lot of tactical voting going on for Labour, just not 29%
I also believe that there were plenty of people who voted Green/LD in safe Labour seats who would have voted Labour if there was a danger of the Tories or Reform winning...
It's all 'ifs, buts and maybes' anyway - the result was what it was
The political picture will look very different in another 5 yrs.
Any party that hopes to be taken seriously as a governing force in the 2020s has to accept what is staring it in the face: climate emergency; increased longevity; the technological revolution and its myriad social consequences; the savage inequalities that globalisation has yielded; population mobility on an unprecedented scale; and the greater insecurity of a multipolar world.
All these challenges require an active, strategic state; which is to say that, in 2024, the philosophy of Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman is of limited use.
If the idea of a Conservative Party engaging with such issues sounds remote, that is because it is. I doubt that the forthcoming leadership debate will be as imaginative or audacious as it should and could be. In all probability, it will resemble a shrill Westminster reality show. But if the Tories are to avoid the shrivelled status of a once-proud heritage organisation, they must think entirely afresh. After defeat, the hardest task for any party is also the only one that counts: which is to open its eyes.
"We fail to mandate economic sanity because our brains are addled by....compassion." (Garrett Hardin)
I would agree that the amount of tactical voting has been underestimated, especially by parties like Reform and possibly the LibDems. I, along with quite a few people in West Berkshire, voted Libdem to get the Tories out and Labour in so the actual support for Labour might have been under-represented in the polls. Locally the way to vote for a Labour government safely was to vote LibDem and that must have been true throughout much of the south of England. If the LibDems started to push for rejoining Europe, I would not vote for them again and might even vote for the Tories. This would be more likely if our late Tory MP, Laura Farris, was replaced. She was disliked locally by a large number of people as she was a career politician, voting for the government every time even if it meant voting against the line of the Conservative Environmental Network of which she was a vice chair at one time.
Voting is not simple any more, even if it once was!
I think there was and is space for two right wing parties in the UK particularly if there is a regional split. Conservatives can be moderate right in the South and Reform can take on the 'far-right' (in the eyes of the BBC and Guardian anyway) mantle of the defunct BNP and carry the anti-immigration anti-EU message in the Labour and increasingly Muslim electorates in the Midlands and the North.
These two parties just need a way to get on and apportion their votes especially in the FPTP system.
I fully support Braverman joining the Reform party if it suits her politics.
Tories haemorrhage £1m a month amid open-ended leadership race
Conservative bosses are pushing for a quicker leadership election amid warnings that the party is on course to haemorrhage £1 million a month.
Party executives fear the projected loss is unsustainable and are against plans by some MPs for the contest to drag on until winter.
The timetable for the race to replace Rishi Sunak has still not been decided, despite a five-hour meeting on Thursday between the 1922 Committee of backbenchers and the Conservative party board. A decision is expected to be made by the middle of next week.
Sources said senior CCHQ officials had forecast the party is on course for a loss of £1 million a month.
Insiders said that they were confronted by “difficult decisions” given high staffing costs.
The situation was described as “very serious and pressing” by one Tory source. A second said: “There’ll have to be a lot of cutbacks.”
Another major outgoing for the party is the lease for CCHQ’s main address at Matthew Parker Street as well as a northern office in Leeds, which was opened in 2022 to try to cement the party’s red wall wins.
Income has dried up in the aftermath of the general election loss on July 4.
A CCHQ source said: “The problem is major donors won’t give money until they know who the new leader is.”
"We fail to mandate economic sanity because our brains are addled by....compassion." (Garrett Hardin)
Job losses at the Central office? Perish the thought. Hope they can claim the dole or have their policies made it too hard unless you are an asylum seeker.
Looks like the system will be as usual -- parliamentary party to whittle it down to two (Oct 10th), then let the members decide between them. Final result announced on Nov 2nd.
The four contenders are Jenrick, Tugendhat, Patel and Badenoch. Telegraph article showing current membership views on these four and Braverman: https://archive.is/Y3hyb
Patel has the most first choice preferences, but fewer 2nd, 3rd and 4th. I don't think she can win it either, so the members will be offered 2 from the other three.
"We fail to mandate economic sanity because our brains are addled by....compassion." (Garrett Hardin)
