18-OCT 2023 : LAB 44% / CON 28% / LDM 9% / REF 7%

[pjw1961]

I forgot to post about the local by-elections yesterday and to be honest they were a bit dull - the only interesting one being the Lib Dem gain of what on paper looked a safe Tory seat on Hertfordshire CC, about which steve has already posted.

Shevii correctly noted the Lib Dem holds in St Albans and North Norfolk and the Tory hold in Bromley, but for completeness there was one other - a Labour hold in Denbighshire UA (Rhyl South West).

[Deleted]

Dec 8, 2023 16:55:55 GMT mercian said:

Dec 8, 2023 16:12:02 GMT Mark said:

I suspect that Alan McGee would have set up a record label even if the Enterprise Allowance hadn't existed.

...

Had you played such releases tolo a tory minister at te time as an example of what the Enterprise Allowance was funding, they would have been horrified!

I do find it amusing that people live in a fantasy world of their imaginings. I suppose it's to do with being left wing - idealists rather than pragmatists.

Patronising git.

[James E]

There's a comparison to be made between polls at the start of the year and where we are now.

YouGov's first 6 polls of 2023 in Jan to early Feb averaged:
Lab 47%
Con 25%
LD 9%
Ref 6.5%
Grn 6.5%

And their most recent 6 in Nov-early Dec average:

Lab 45% (-2)
Con 23% (-2)
LD 10% (+1)
Ref 8.5% (+2)
Grn 7.5% (+1)

It's a similar story with Opinium, with Lab 44 Con 28 turning into Lab 42, Con 26. 

[alec]

barbara - "I read Conservative Home regularly and it appears that Trevor is posting there under the disguised name of Trevor Warne."

You're a little out of date.

It's been renamed 'Conservative Therapy'.

[hireton]

@domg

"he would say that at least in part because it's in his ideological interest to try to reduce enthusiasm for Labour with the aim of them being less likely both to form a UK government and to take seats from the SNP in Scotland. Continued tory govt in England is in the best interest of those enthusiastic for Scottish independence. The rest of us don't matter. "

A few points:

1. oldnat didn't say there was no difference between Tories and Labour as @rafwan suggested. He said there wasn't a gulf between the right wing of Labour and the left wing of the Tories. Historically that has been true and is still true especially with Starmer's rightwards shift (and in Scotland Labour co-operates quite happily with Tories in local government).

2. Support for the SNP and independence grew before 2010. SNP formed a government in Scotland in 2007. In the 2010 UK General Election, Scotland swung to Labour, England swung to the Tories and Scotland got yet another UK Tory government it didn't vote for. After that it seems that vote splitting between the Scottish and UK General Elections diminished and Labour's alliance with the Tories in 2014 sealed its fate in elections to date.

3. Support for independence seems to be becoming more untied from support for the SNP even beyond the Scottish Green Party. The support for independence by age group underlines this point:

Labour (and its Scottish branch) will need to bear that in mind but thankfully its British nationalism seems to be enveloping it in a fog of complacency.

4. If England doesn't want Tory governments, it shouldn't vote for them. The views and opinions of individuals and voters outwith England are largely irrelevant which is why Scotland gets UK Tory Governments it doesn't vote for.

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

“A surge in support for Reform UK is set to cost the Tories up to 35 seats at the next election and hand Labour a majority, analysis for The Telegraph reveals.

Reform, the Right-wing party led by Richard Tice, has seen its share of the vote more than double, according to recent polls, and it is poised to inflict mortal damage on Rishi Sunak.

…

Reform is polling at around 10 per cent nationally, compared with a typical score of five per cent a year ago, and far above the two per cent secured by the Brexit Party in 2019.

….

During a focus group held by pollsters More in Common last month in Walsall, in the West Midlands, voters praised Mr Farage for “speaking sense” and “saying what we all think” on immigration.

More in Common analysis based on voting intentions shows that the Conservatives are on course to secure 35 fewer seats than if Reform did not exist. If it did not exist, the Tories would win 265 constituencies across England and Wales, almost certainly depriving Labour of a majority and creating a hung parliament.

But the picture changes drastically if Reform wins nine per cent of the vote, as projected by More in Common’s most recent polling. Then the Conservatives would be reduced to 230 seats, with Sir Keir securing a comfortable lead.

Luke Tryl, director of More in Common, said Red Wall voters who delivered Boris Johnson’s landslide made up most of Reform’s new support.

He said their reasons for switching included a perception that the Tories had “broken promises” on immigration and that the UK was a “light touch”.

“There’s a feeling that the Conservative Party have talked a good game but haven’t done anything about it, and that frustration is what you’re now seeing driving some Tory 2019 voters into the arms of Reform,” he said.

….


Pollsters said that if Mr Farage were to campaign for Reform then “all bets are off” and the party could replicate the 14 per cent vote share achieved by the UK Independence Party (Ukip) in 2015.

More in Common’s analysis shows that, were that to happen, the Conservatives would be reduced to just 200 seats, with Labour winning a huge majority.”

[mercian]

Dec 8, 2023 17:04:42 GMT @fecklessmiser said:

Dec 8, 2023 16:55:55 GMT mercian said:

I do find it amusing that people live in a fantasy world of their imaginings. I suppose it's to do with being left wing - idealists rather than pragmatists.

Patronising git.

Just trying to fit in.

[pjw1961]

Dec 8, 2023 20:27:44 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

“A surge in support for Reform UK is set to cost the Tories up to 35 seats at the next election and hand Labour a majority, analysis for The Telegraph reveals.

Reform, the Right-wing party led by Richard Tice, has seen its share of the vote more than double, according to recent polls, and it is poised to inflict mortal damage on Rishi Sunak.

…

Reform is polling at around 10 per cent nationally, compared with a typical score of five per cent a year ago, and far above the two per cent secured by the Brexit Party in 2019.

….

During a focus group held by pollsters More in Common last month in Walsall, in the West Midlands, voters praised Mr Farage for “speaking sense” and “saying what we all think” on immigration.

More in Common analysis based on voting intentions shows that the Conservatives are on course to secure 35 fewer seats than if Reform did not exist. If it did not exist, the Tories would win 265 constituencies across England and Wales, almost certainly depriving Labour of a majority and creating a hung parliament.

But the picture changes drastically if Reform wins nine per cent of the vote, as projected by More in Common’s most recent polling. Then the Conservatives would be reduced to 230 seats, with Sir Keir securing a comfortable lead.

Luke Tryl, director of More in Common, said Red Wall voters who delivered Boris Johnson’s landslide made up most of Reform’s new support.

He said their reasons for switching included a perception that the Tories had “broken promises” on immigration and that the UK was a “light touch”.

“There’s a feeling that the Conservative Party have talked a good game but haven’t done anything about it, and that frustration is what you’re now seeing driving some Tory 2019 voters into the arms of Reform,” he said.

….


Pollsters said that if Mr Farage were to campaign for Reform then “all bets are off” and the party could replicate the 14 per cent vote share achieved by the UK Independence Party (Ukip) in 2015.

More in Common’s analysis shows that, were that to happen, the Conservatives would be reduced to just 200 seats, with Labour winning a huge majority.”

Two thoughts on that. (a) It makes the assumption that if people didn't vote for RefUK they would be Conservative voters. Other polling (quoted on here recently) suggests that is not automatically true. Many would not vote at all, and some would cast a protest vote for other parties. 

(b) the 265/230/200 Conservative seats in various scenarios are all more generous that most current predictions, even those which allow for a degree of swing back before an election. I wonder what More in Common are basing it on. 

[James E]

There's an interesting contrast between c-a-r-f-r-e-w 's Telegraph/MoreinCommon article claiming that the Tories would far much better if Reform UK did not exist and oldnat 's YouGov polling (14:33 today, p207) which found that "Most planning to vote for Reform UK wouldn’t switch to Conservatives even if their first choice party doesn’t stand in their constituency".

There is no denying that ReformUK's support is almost entirely derived from Con or BXP voters in 2019, but the idea that they might all revert to the Tories looks to me like wishful thinking.

yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/47759-conservatives-unlikely-to-win-over-reform-uk-supporters-at-next-election

YouGov find that if there is no RUK candidate, 31% of current Reform UK voters would switch to the Conservatives with 3% going to Labour.  With Reform averaging 8.5% in the polls, this could be worth a 2.4 point boost to the Tories. With 1 point being worth 5-7 seats, this would save them around 15 seats. 

[oldnat]

Dec 8, 2023 15:27:30 GMT Rafwan said:

oldnat

“Partisan portrayal of a gulf between political parties, comparable to the River Styx, may suit tribalists - but is nonsense.”

Don’t really understand why you would say this, ON. You see no difference between parties? They are all basically the same? You think it is OK for Anna Soubry to choose a party solely on the grounds of which will get her elected? Do you admire the ambition of David Cameron to be prime minister because he thought “he would be rather good at it”? There is certainly a gulf between this and what I think. But I see no Styx and, despite my avatar, I am no tribalist.

The only purpose of a political party to is to put a brake on the corrupting influence the rich and powerful. To counter this, the rich and powerful have their own party. Called the Conservatives. Currently, this is outstandingly obvious.

Extreme tribalists have a tendency to totally misrepresent the opinions of those outwith their tribe - which is what you have done.

I made no suggestion that there is "no difference between parties" - simply that on any political axis. there is a continuum of opinion which transcends party affiliation.

Why would I "admire" any politician who claws their way up the greasy pole to leadership, then imposes their own individual views on the organisation?

Your last paragraph is, I'm afraid historically inaccurate, geographically parochial, and logically incoherent. That is a, not uncommon, feature of tribalists.

[oldnat]

Dec 8, 2023 16:16:04 GMT domjg said:

Dec 8, 2023 15:27:30 GMT Rafwan said:

oldnat

he would say that at least in part because it's in his ideological interest to try to reduce enthusiasm for Labour with the aim of them being less likely both to form a UK government and to take seats from the SNP in Scotland. Continued tory govt in England is in the best interest of those enthusiastic for Scottish independence. The rest of us don't matter. 

Another problem with tribalists is that they project their own attitudes onto others. This seems to be especially true of those who make assumptions based on their own ignorance, and their inability to register what those outwith their own tribe have actually said.

I am unsure whether to be flattered that you consider that floating voters in Much-Binding-In-The-Marsh will prefer to vote ECon, rather than ELab, because of my comments on an abstruse political site, or insulted that you imagine that I consider myself to have such influence. If anything, my view - that a Starmer Labour government would be very similar to Cameron's Tory one - reinforces Starmer's strategy to persuade former Tory voters to vote Labour.

There were some in the indy movement who hoped that a long period of Conservative government in Westminster would boost indy VI. It hasn't happened. Opinion remains 50/50 on that issue.

In your political environment, it may not be unusual to see everything in binary terms - your tribe against the other tribe - but that is a very parochial perspective.

Since England seems likely to elect Labour at the next GE to rule over the UK, I prefer to have a less corrupt, less racist administration than the current one at Westminster. That administration having a massive majority, delivered by the silly FPTP system, and able to do whatever it's PM likes, is the sort of elective dictatorship that I fundamentally distrust - regardless of the party.

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Dec 8, 2023 21:10:19 GMT pjw1961 said:

Dec 8, 2023 20:27:44 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

“A surge in support for Reform UK is set to cost the Tories up to 35 seats at the next election and hand Labour a majority, analysis for The Telegraph reveals.

Reform, the Right-wing party led by Richard Tice, has seen its share of the vote more than double, according to recent polls, and it is poised to inflict mortal damage on Rishi Sunak.

…

Reform is polling at around 10 per cent nationally, compared with a typical score of five per cent a year ago, and far above the two per cent secured by the Brexit Party in 2019.

….

During a focus group held by pollsters More in Common last month in Walsall, in the West Midlands, voters praised Mr Farage for “speaking sense” and “saying what we all think” on immigration.

More in Common analysis based on voting intentions shows that the Conservatives are on course to secure 35 fewer seats than if Reform did not exist. If it did not exist, the Tories would win 265 constituencies across England and Wales, almost certainly depriving Labour of a majority and creating a hung parliament.

But the picture changes drastically if Reform wins nine per cent of the vote, as projected by More in Common’s most recent polling. Then the Conservatives would be reduced to 230 seats, with Sir Keir securing a comfortable lead.

Luke Tryl, director of More in Common, said Red Wall voters who delivered Boris Johnson’s landslide made up most of Reform’s new support.

He said their reasons for switching included a perception that the Tories had “broken promises” on immigration and that the UK was a “light touch”.

“There’s a feeling that the Conservative Party have talked a good game but haven’t done anything about it, and that frustration is what you’re now seeing driving some Tory 2019 voters into the arms of Reform,” he said.

….


Pollsters said that if Mr Farage were to campaign for Reform then “all bets are off” and the party could replicate the 14 per cent vote share achieved by the UK Independence Party (Ukip) in 2015.

More in Common’s analysis shows that, were that to happen, the Conservatives would be reduced to just 200 seats, with Labour winning a huge majority.”

Two thoughts on that. (a) It makes the assumption that if people didn't vote for RefUK they would be Conservative voters. Other polling (quoted on here recently) suggests that is not automatically true. Many would not vote at all, and some would cast a protest vote for other parties. 

(b) the 265/230/200 Conservative seats in various scenarios are all more generous that most current predictions, even those which allow for a degree of swing back before an election. I wonder what More in Common are basing it on. 

yeah I was wondering about it all. Couldn’t find any more info. or tables etc. tho’

[domjg]

Dec 8, 2023 21:46:53 GMT oldnat said:

Dec 8, 2023 16:16:04 GMT domjg said:

he would say that at least in part because it's in his ideological interest to try to reduce enthusiasm for Labour with the aim of them being less likely both to form a UK government and to take seats from the SNP in Scotland. Continued tory govt in England is in the best interest of those enthusiastic for Scottish independence. The rest of us don't matter. 

Another problem with tribalists is that they project their own attitudes onto others. This seems to be especially true of those who make assumptions based on their own ignorance, and their inability to register what those outwith their own tribe have actually said.

I am unsure whether to be flattered that you consider that floating voters in Much-Binding-In-The-Marsh will prefer to vote ECon, rather than ELab, because of my comments on an abstruse political site, or insulted that you imagine that I consider myself to have such influence. If anything, my view - that a Starmer Labour government would be very similar to Cameron's Tory one - reinforces Starmer's strategy to persuade former Tory voters to vote Labour.

There were some in the indy movement who hoped that a long period of Conservative government in Westminster would boost indy VI. It hasn't happened. Opinion remains 50/50 on that issue.

In your political environment, it may not be unusual to see everything in binary terms - your tribe against the other tribe - but that is a very parochial perspective.

Since England seems likely to elect Labour at the next GE to rule over the UK, I prefer to have a less corrupt, less racist administration than the current one at Westminster. That administration having a massive majority, delivered by the silly FPTP system, and able to do whatever it's PM likes, is the sort of elective dictatorship that I fundamentally distrust - regardless of the party.

Well that's the odd thing. Obviously your comments and those of other SNPers here will have zero effect on especially Scottish voting intention so one wonders what the point is of propagating the stock SNP 'Labour same as tories' line on here over and over. Carry on for sure, but just find it odd is all. Not many votes to be won for the SNP on here I'd have thought. 

Not really sure what I'm supposed to be in ignorance of except in failing to recognise that Scotland is the centre of the universe and none of us should ever be ignorant of anything that happens in that teeny nation of 5 million.

Also, if I read the word 'outwith' once more, I think I might scream. 

[steve]

hireton

"4. If England doesn't want Tory governments, it shouldn't vote for them. The views and opinions of individuals and voters outwith England are largely irrelevant which is why Scotland gets UK Tory Governments it doesn't vote for."

You do appreciate that the majority of English voters who don't vote Tory don't get what they voted for either.

[mercian]

Dec 8, 2023 21:10:19 GMT pjw1961 said:

Dec 8, 2023 20:27:44 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

Two thoughts on that. (a) It makes the assumption that if people didn't vote for RefUK they would be Conservative voters. Other polling (quoted on here recently) suggests that is not automatically true. Many would not vote at all, and some would cast a protest vote for other parties. 

I read a book a few years ago about UKIP. It was around the time when the media stereotype of their voters was of blazer-clad golf club bores. It said that in fact a good number were ex-Labour voters - socially conservative working class people. This was borne out by my own time in UKIP. Though we didn't discuss past allegiances most of the members of my branch were certainly working class.  Assuming that the majority of Reform voters are ex-UKIP I agree that most of them would be unlikely to vote Conservative unless there were special circumstances such as 'Get Brexit Done' in 2019. 

I suspect that Starmer might be trying to woo these voters with his stance of making Brexit work, but he'll have to work hard because by definition these are not tribal voters. They'll have to be convinced by some concrete policies.   

EDIT: I see that James E has made a similar point but backing it up with actual figures.

[mercian]

Dec 8, 2023 22:52:59 GMT domjg said:

Dec 8, 2023 21:46:53 GMT oldnat said:

 Carry on for sure, but just find it odd is all. Not many votes to be won for the SNP on here I'd have thought. 

...

Also, if I read the word 'outwith' once more, I think I might scream. 

I didn't realise the purpose of this site was to win votes for anyone.  However I wholeheartedly endorse the second bit I quoted. 

[Deleted]

Astonishing self-indulgent, navel-gazing discussion on Newsnight just now between two CON commentators, (one of them Tim Montgomerie, who does occasionally, at least, sound realistic about CON's situation, didn't catch the other guy's name) and a New Statesman contributor offering an alternative view.

Regarding the Rwanda Bill vote next week, there was some agreement that another CON leadership election is a distinct policy in the aftermath. Yes, folks, it is not inconceivable that there will be a *fourth* CON PM in this parliament, all but one of which will have had zero mandate from the electorate. I know it happened with Callaghan and Brown, but still, four?

That this ongoing Tory psychodrama seems likely to continue pompously to play out into 2024 I find quite remarkable. Talk about fiddling while Rome burns. If current polling is to be believed, the electorate probably decided many months ago that these incompetent chancers were toast, and can't wait to deliver the coup de grâce. Yet all they can do is squabble over the minutiae of a divisive, probably unworkable policy like two bald men arguing over a comb.

This might play well with the diehard 25% who will vote Tory until their dying breath, but the rest of the electorate is likely, if they listen at all, to become increasingly disenchanted, disengaged and probably angry with a party that seems utterly detached from the issues that matter to them, such as the cost of living crisis, getting a GP appointment or NHS operation, crumbling schools and rivers and beaches full of sh*t. 

[steve]

In you couldn't make it up news.
The GOP in New York are on the cusp of selecting their candidate for the special election to replace disgraced liar George Santos.

Remember this is a highly marginal seats regularly swapping between Democrat and Republican.

So obviously don't want an extreme candidate.

The leading GOP candidate is Philip Grillo
Grillo is a convicted January 6th rioter who was filmed breaking into the capital building.

youtu.be/FS92LF8Lmts?si=51NRH7ddAlXMKJYl

[Deleted]

Dec 8, 2023 21:46:53 GMT oldnat said:

Dec 8, 2023 16:16:04 GMT domjg said:

he would say that at least in part because it's in his ideological interest to try to reduce enthusiasm for Labour with the aim of them being less likely both to form a UK government and to take seats from the SNP in Scotland. Continued tory govt in England is in the best interest of those enthusiastic for Scottish independence. The rest of us don't matter. 

I am unsure whether to be flattered that you consider that floating voters in Much-Binding-In-The-Marsh will prefer to vote ECon, rather than ELab, because of my comments on an abstruse political site, or insulted that you imagine that I consider myself to have such influence. If anything, my view - that a Starmer Labour government would be very similar to Cameron's Tory one - reinforces Starmer's strategy to persuade former Tory voters to vote Labour.

Blimey, there's a reference from the ages! Good old Ken Horne and 'Stinker' Murdoch.

I still chuckle at the thought of the famously bald Horne recalling a stroll through a Paris park wearing a wig, and referencing the famous song "The Man who Broke the Bank at Monte Carlo", saying "As I walked along the Bois de Boulogne with my independent hair". Very droll.

[kay9]

domjg

“ Also, if I read the word 'outwith' once more, I think I might scream.” ¿Why?

When I heard words of the hymn (away back in the 50s):

There is a green hill far, far away
Without a city wall

i wondered if there IS such a hill WITH a ‘city wall’.

Now I think that if the writer had used ‘outwith’, then the meaning would have been perfectly clear.

[neilj]

Rwanda Bill only has a “50 per cent at best” of working
The Governmenthas gone down the rabbit hole on this
£290m of tax payers money down the drain and more to follow

[steve]

Trying to put myself into the mind of a Tory supporter.

Why would I support moving around 300 asylum seekers from then UK to the " safe" country of Rwanda at a cost of £300 million and then pay for their upkeep in Rwanda for the following five years at a cost of umpteen more millions?

And how precisely would such a deal deter anyone from getting on a small boat and travelling across the channel.

Better to hope for bad weather at peak times of the year , like this year, which limits the crossing.

Or and I know this is a wild idea , why not provide safe methods of transport, process asylum applications promptly and allow asylum seekers to legally work while you do so.

[pjw1961]

Dec 8, 2023 23:16:35 GMT mercian said:

Dec 8, 2023 21:10:19 GMT pjw1961 said:

Two thoughts on that. (a) It makes the assumption that if people didn't vote for RefUK they would be Conservative voters. Other polling (quoted on here recently) suggests that is not automatically true. Many would not vote at all, and some would cast a protest vote for other parties. 

I read a book a few years ago about UKIP. It was around the time when the media stereotype of their voters was of blazer-clad golf club bores. It said that in fact a good number were ex-Labour voters - socially conservative working class people. This was borne out by my own time in UKIP. Though we didn't discuss past allegiances most of the members of my branch were certainly working class.  Assuming that the majority of Reform voters are ex-UKIP I agree that most of them would be unlikely to vote Conservative unless there were special circumstances such as 'Get Brexit Done' in 2019. 

I suspect that Starmer might be trying to woo these voters with his stance of making Brexit work, but he'll have to work hard because by definition these are not tribal voters. They'll have to be convinced by some concrete policies.   

EDIT: I see that James E has made a similar point but backing it up with actual figures.

Farage always made that point and that many UKIP voters were quite left-wing in their economics and certainly not neo-liberal Thatcherites, albeit also right-wing in their social conservatism. That's another reason why the Brexit coalition was always going to fall apart at some point. I think Boris Johnson had some grasp of that point - hence 'levelling up', but a lot of the Conservative Brexiters are extreme neo-liberals, whose dream is 'Singapore on Thames', the removal of all checks on the marketisation of everything and the abolition of workers rights (see Liz Truss). That is irreconcilable with the (completely misguided) belief of working class Brexit voters that leaving the EU would lead to the return of good quality, high paid jobs for workers. 

[hireton]

Dec 8, 2023 23:14:25 GMT steve said:

hireton

"4. If England doesn't want Tory governments, it shouldn't vote for them. The views and opinions of individuals and voters outwith England are largely irrelevant which is why Scotland gets UK Tory Governments it doesn't vote for."

You do appreciate that the majority of English voters who don't vote Tory don't get what they voted for either.

Yet England keeps voting Tories into Government in the UK when Scotland and Wales don't.

[steve]

hireton
First past the post.

The last and Only time the Tories won a majority of the votes in England since 1945 was around seventy years ago.

I think I'm right in saying that at the same time the Scottish Tories " in their iteration as" the unionist party" also came close to a majority of votes they certainly won the majority of seats.

You might say this was a long time ago but it's the only time your assertion about England voters was true so it's entirely consistent.

[crossbat11]

Dec 9, 2023 8:19:10 GMT pjw1961 said:

Dec 8, 2023 23:16:35 GMT mercian said:

I read a book a few years ago about UKIP. It was around the time when the media stereotype of their voters was of blazer-clad golf club bores. It said that in fact a good number were ex-Labour voters - socially conservative working class people. This was borne out by my own time in UKIP. Though we didn't discuss past allegiances most of the members of my branch were certainly working class.  Assuming that the majority of Reform voters are ex-UKIP I agree that most of them would be unlikely to vote Conservative unless there were special circumstances such as 'Get Brexit Done' in 2019. 

I suspect that Starmer might be trying to woo these voters with his stance of making Brexit work, but he'll have to work hard because by definition these are not tribal voters. They'll have to be convinced by some concrete policies.   

EDIT: I see that James E has made a similar point but backing it up with actual figures.

Farage always made that point and that many UKIP voters were quite left-wing in their economics and certainly not neo-liberal Thatcherites, albeit also right-wing in their social conservatism. That's another reason why the Brexit coalition was always going to fall apart at some point. I think Boris Johnson had some grasp of that point - hence 'levelling up', but a lot of the Conservative Brexiters are extreme neo-liberals, whose dream is 'Singapore on Thames', the removal of all checks on the marketisation of everything and the abolition of workers rights (see Liz Truss). That is irreconcilable with the (completely misguided) belief of working class Brexit voters that leaving the EU would lead to the return of good quality, high paid jobs for workers. 

I agree with much of what both you and mercian are saying here about the demographic and political composition of a large part of UKIP"s electoral support although, in relation to your point about Liz Truss's economic views, it's worth remembering that she was a Remainer during the EU Referendum campaign!

Is this another example of a politician abandoning previously held views and positions to advance a political career or is it a genuine conversion to right wing ideology? Britannia Unchained suggested the latter but I'm not at all sure that politicians like Truss, and there are many others in the current Tory party (Braverman, Sunak, Jenrick, Gove, Cleverly etc) aren't merely seeing which way the wind is blowing in Tory politics and just tacking and titling their sails that way to advance their political prospects.

Emptiness inside where political conviction should reside, in other words. Politics as performance art.

[steve]

crossbat11
Well it's a long time since Liz Truss was a lib dem, here's a nice video of her conversion to bat shit insane.

youtu.be/rX5En0JpIFk?si=zKTNEciVohUVBVe0

[steve]

_

[Rafwan]

oldnat

“… on any political axis, there is a continuum of opinion which transcends party affiliation.“

This is a fair assumption, given that most human characteristics follow such a continuum (I.e. a normal distribution). But politics, surely, is about power and wealth. And against just about any criterion, the distribution of these is NOT a continuum but is grotesquely malformed. A small number of individuals possess the far greater share of these and do so to the extent that there is a huge gulf between this small minority and the rest. This matter must surely be of prime consideration to any political party. This seems inescapable to me.

[pjw1961]

Dec 9, 2023 9:10:05 GMT crossbat11 said:

Dec 9, 2023 8:19:10 GMT pjw1961 said:

Farage always made that point and that many UKIP voters were quite left-wing in their economics and certainly not neo-liberal Thatcherites, albeit also right-wing in their social conservatism. That's another reason why the Brexit coalition was always going to fall apart at some point. I think Boris Johnson had some grasp of that point - hence 'levelling up', but a lot of the Conservative Brexiters are extreme neo-liberals, whose dream is 'Singapore on Thames', the removal of all checks on the marketisation of everything and the abolition of workers rights (see Liz Truss). That is irreconcilable with the (completely misguided) belief of working class Brexit voters that leaving the EU would lead to the return of good quality, high paid jobs for workers. 

I agree with much of what both you and mercian are saying here about the demographic and political composition of a large part of UKIP"s electoral support although, in relation to your point about Liz Truss's economic views, it's worth remembering that she was a Remainer during the EU Referendum campaign!

Is this another example of a politician abandoning previously held views and positions to advance a political career or is it a genuine conversion to right wing ideology? Britannia Unchained suggested the latter but I'm not at all sure that politicians like Truss, and there are many others in the current Tory party (Braverman, Sunak, Jenrick, Gove, Cleverly etc) aren't merely seeing which way the wind is blowing in Tory politics and just tacking and titling their sails that way to advance their political prospects.

Emptiness inside where political conviction should reside, in other words. Politics as performance art.

Truss, as you note, was one of the authors of Britannia Unchained and I have no doubt she is a true believer in unchecked markets, minimal state and low taxes.The reason she was a remainer in 2016 was surely related to her career. Remember that most people expected Remain to win and Cameron would have carried on as PM. She is clearly hugely ambitious (way beyond her limited talents) and she would have wanted to curry favour with the party leadership and stay in the cabinet. 

With regard to the right of the Conservative Party, while the various factions overlap there is a clear difference between an economic and social libertarian like Truss (she has self-described as a libertarian) and an authoritarian nationalist like Braverman. They are, of course, equally repulsive but I suspect the latter has more popular appeal.