The Brexit Thread (topical thread)

[Aractus]

Not a problem resurrecting threads. This thread has been going on for a while now but I think everyone is still in shock at the result of the general election. I know I am.

Too many SNP?

In all seriousness, I'm not in shock and it happened like I was suggesting (big Conservative majority):

Anyway, there's going to be a Tory majority after December 12. This is the election May wanted to have in 2017. ...

Parts of the UK media are still peddling the lie that this is an unpredictable election, what is clear is that Johnson will have a very clear mandate for his manifesto. The only thing that remains unknown is whether the Tories get a majority, or a bigger majority.

I was expecting that outcome since mid November, but I kept most of what I was saying confined to reporting from UK political analysts rather than my own reading. I was actually expecting the Tories to loose up to half their seats in Scotland (despite what John Curtice was saying). But the problem with predicting Scotland is a lot rested on Lib Dem and how much they'd split the pro-unionist vote (Labour essential ran on a platform of ambivalence to the Union which I think hurt them in Scotland). If you look at the actual vote share, SNP are way over-represented, that's in large part due to FPTP (somewhat ironically the Conservatives are against a preferential system like we have, even though FPTP benefits Labour way more than it does them).

The UK GE outcome is due to two seismic events in my opinion. The first is that Johnson was able to build political capital around securing a new Bexit deal, one that actually looked like Brexit and not half-Remain. Had he not successfully re-negotiated a deal with EU the election outcome would have been different. The problem with May's deals is that they didn't allow the UK to come out of the EU customs union, even though Leave voters were promised (indeed warned) time and time again by David Cameron and others that it would mean leaving the customs union/single market and free movement. This was a problem because it wasn't clear how May's Brexit would leave the UK better off (or that is to say what advantages it offered).


When it comes to "free movement" I must say I find the UK about 50 years in the past. What you call "free movement" we called the White Australia policy. I have to agree with the Eurosceptics and Brexiteers that immigration should be non-discriminatory.

Anyway Johnson's deal, and the GE manifesto, is popular. He's able to talk about the advantages without having to say "one day in the distant future once the Irish backstop is resolved ..." Everything was the reverse of 2017 - in 2017 there was an unpopular leader, with an unpopular manifesto, and an unpopular Brexit plan. Johnson was a lot more popular/likeable to the electorate compared to May, he had a popular manifesto even if most of it besides "get Brexit done" was quite boring and status quo, and he had a realistic and optimistic Brexit plan that resonated. The situation was so completely different to 2017 that Labour needed to adapt to the changing circumstances to have any chance (and yes that's in the ALP review like I keep saying all they had to do was read that document and not make the same mistakes as the ALP here in Australia!!)

The second seismic event is the Labour Party's substantive political change. You could say as a result of a collapse of the moderates and a takeover by the hard-left socialists who want a return to 1970's policies:



We can see that the primary reason that Labour voters abandoned Labour was because of the party's leadership, not "to get Brexit done" (although that may have been an important secondary reason and for that matter a poll like that should have allowed multiple choice). As for the people changing their vote over Brexit, 1/3rds of that 19% voted or supported Remain not Leave in 2016:



Labour are still in denial, or the Corbynites/hard left are anyway. They continue to believe their manifesto was popular - when the data says otherwise. They are judging their manifesto in isolation, not against the competing Tory manifesto. They're often judging individual policies instead of the manifesto as a whole. They deny any part of the manifesto was unpopular, even though specific policies like free nationalised broadband were shown to be deeply unpopular, especially in Labour's working-class heartlands.

I should also briefly mention Lib Dem. I had thought (wrongly as it turns out) that a weak Lib Dem would mean a stronger Labour Party. They were every bit as weak as I thought they would be. I've already explained before why I think this is, I suspect that Jo Swinson was treating the party too much as a Scottish party, but she definitely should not have accepted defectors from Labour and Tory into the parliamentary party. In my opinion that was her gravest mistake - and look how it worked out, not one of them kept their seats. If you're a minor party and you have no aspirations of every being a major party, sure let in defectors/Independents into your parliamentary party. But if you have a substantial voter base - how are they going to react to you inviting in political enemies who have either resigned or been kicked out of their parties?