The Conservatives are still doing what I want

[andrewducker]

So, Johnson is gone. Or "gone". But almost certainly really, actually gone. And so the hopefuls are queuing up to replace him. Eleven of them, last time I checked. With the plan being to winnow it down to the final 2 before those go off to the party membership for the final vote.

The problem for the Conservative Party is that only 200,000 people are members. And those members are mostly at the extreme end, because they're the only ones that hung about and paid their dues. They're largely over 65, male, and white. They care about Brexit. They want lower taxes. They're angry about all of this "Woke nonsense" that's apparently rife across the country.

Which is a problem for the party. Because that means that that's what the leadership contenders are currently fighting to be the most extreme over is not what more general voters really care about. Keir Starmer had a rare turn of phrase when he referred to this as an arms race of fantasy economics.

And at the same time they're briefing against each other with dirty dossiers of terrible things they've all done.

So we're likely to end up with a leader who is far enough out to the fringes that they push away the average voter, fails to invest in the country when it desperately needs it, and has had a bunch of unpleasant bits of their past paraded through the press. Oh, and is about to start a trade war with Europe, against the wishes of most people living in Northern Ireland.

I could be wrong here, but this doesn't seem like a likely method for producing an election-winner.

Comments

[mtbc]

I find it striking that the Conservatives seem to be outdoing even themselves in causing aversion in me.

[andrewducker]

That's the problem with only the extreme members having stayed. It's now a competition of who can be the most awful in order to get support from them.

[doug]

Counterpoint: the winner of this process gets 2.5 years and a thumping majority to embed their agenda in actual legislation. That's a lot of damage in what promise to be some terrible times before there's a GE.

And there would be plenty of time for structural shenanigans like the currently-shelved boundary review that would have reduced the Commons from 650 to 600, and because of how the votes are distributed, would have given a big relative boost to the Conservatives. And onerous qualifications/certification requirements for voting that strongly favour the Conservatives. And of course any protest against all this that causes serious disruption is likely to become illegal.

And/or they could end up straight up postponing or shelving the election. If they can pass primary legislation, our system gives them extraordinary power, and many of the constraints on it are mere convention that can be discarded.

I worry we're in a bad place.

[andrewducker]

Well, yes, we're only halfway through their term. But there's nothing to be done about that, so I'm delighted that they're going to spend the time pissing off the electorate.

Lots of people were glad to see Johnson go. I've said repeatedly that I didn't think any replacement would be better.

[redbird]

Having lived through the 2016 United States election, it's pretty clear that there are a lot of (mostly conservative) voters who will shrug off things that I would have expected to tank a candidacy.

[reverancepavane]

I was really happy with the Teal Movement in Australia. Quite respectable conservative professional women who were so sick and tired of the obvious and blatant corruption and environmental policies of the governing conservative party (The Liberals) that they put up candidates in all the safe Liberal seats (where people would rather tear their own throats out than vote for the small-l liberal Greens or Labor). Despite extremely personal attacks from members of the Liberal party they managed to displace a number of prominent Liberals (including the Treasurer of the previous government).

The Liberals were more scared of them than their normal political opponents because they were a real threat to their power base. A lot of Australian election politics is focused on an extremely small number of swing electorates. Whilst I like our political voting system (single transferable vote), which means no votes are wasted, as opposed to the UK's first past the post, I am envious of New Zealand's Mixed Member Proportional system. Admittedly they got that in when their governing conservatives, The Nationals, were so thoroughly discredited.

[redbird]

US politics tends to involve either those swing seats, or senate seats, which are elected statewide and thus less prone to gerrymandering. In all of these, much of the practical work is convincing your supporters/allies to get out and vote, or, sometimes, discouraging people you think will vote against you.

That's not as true in this sort of leadership contest, or in most* US primaries (preliminary elections), where the more moderate voters are less likely to be eligible and to bother voting.

* "Most" because a few states have open or "jungle" primaries, which really are preliminary elections--rather than voters selecting a candidate for each party, everyone can vote in the primary, and the top two compete against each other for the seat. This leads to things like the write-up, years ago, on an election site, saying that the upcoming primary was to decide "which of two women Democrats would be the next senator from California." I think the Republicans had a candidate in there, just in case one of the Democratic hopefuls died or was hit by a huge scandal at the last minute.

Economics and ERGonomics

[hairyears]

It's very telling that all the leadership candidates must undergo examination by the ERG, to establish their loyalty to the holy principles of Brexit Purity.

The tail does indeed wag the dog: and the extremists, by filtering the candidates, are turbocharging the exclusion of moderates; and thereby making it certain that the next Conservative Party leader will be detested by the electorate.

[dewline]

Seeing as the IDU-affiliated political parties of each of our respective countries seems ready to game their local election systems to ensure their own victories over the will of their countries' respective peoples...I'm not sure they feel inclined to care about producing party leaders who can actually win elections anymore. In the UK, the US, or Canada.

Australia and Aotearoa/NZ...may be on the verge of being written off by the IDU as easily "sacrificed" to hostile neighbours, hence the recent sanity-positive national election results in those nations.

[calimac]

This will only work against the Conservatives if enough voters haven't already decided the alternatives are worse. We have a problem like that in the US.

[andrewducker]

Labour currently 11% ahead.

[calimac]

Means exactly zero at this point. Seen some of the polls a couple years ahead of past Tory massive victories?

[andrewducker]

It means that people haven't already decided that Labour aren't at all viable.

(Although Labour have plenty of time to make themselves non-viable, of course.)

[calimac]

The content of your second sentence is not the only reason the fact in your first sentence means exactly zero at this point.

[andrewducker]

You said:
"This will only work against the Conservatives if enough voters haven't already decided the alternatives are worse."

That's present tense. And they haven't already decided that. As the evidence shows.

If your argument is that "voters might, in the future, decide that the alternatives are worse" then that's an argument you're at liberty to put forth. But it's not what you said, and it's not what I engaged with.

[calimac]

It's present tense as of the time I'm speaking of, which as the opening "will" suggests is the time of the next election, which is the only time at which the voters' opinion of the parties matters.

If you thought I meant that opinions at this point are going to be any indication of the subsequ4ent vote, I shudder at how naive you must think I am. A mid-term move of public opinion towards the opposition, followed by a return by election time towards the government, is so regular a phenomenon that the mid-term shift shouldn't fool anybody.

[calimac]

Since the winnowing from 11 to 2 will be done by the MPs, who are not as extreme as the party members, what's the impetus driving candidates towards extremism in this stage of the process?

I suppose it's the desire to be the more appealing to the party members of the two finalists who the members vote upon. What a system.

[andrewducker]

Whether there is a majority of Conservative MPs for common sense, or if the ERG will have their way will be very interesting to see over the next couple of weeks!

(But I agree that that's a good question)

[danieldwilliam]

The further right wing of the Tory party has enough votes to get 1 candidate in to the last round. They probably have enough votes to exclude 1 or 2 candidates that they dislike whilst still getting their chosen person to the final when there are 8 or 9 candidates starting out.

So the ERG & friends can winnow the field in a way that puts their favourite candidate in front of a membership that is more aligned with them than Tory MP'S or voters in general. They can probably manipulate the field to give their other favoured candidates a good start.

[mellowtigger]

"Fantasy economics" is a good turn of phrase. I've mentioned them a few times over the years, but I still enjoy reading Real-World Economics Review (whose url bears the mark of its early name as Post-Autistic Economics Review).

[mountainkiss]

I wonder if you may be overweighting the benefits of a left-wing election victory in 2024 and underweighting the costs of the harm that can be done before then by a new Conservative leader from the party's right wing.

[andrewducker]

Oh, it's all a shitshow. And it's not my *ideal* by any means. I'd like a snap election right now, please.
But I don't see any of the Conservative options as being positive, and the thought that they might win the next election is horrifying.

[andrewducker]

Also - if there were *any* candidates from the liberal wing of the party, or indeed if there still was a liberal wing of the party, then I'd be delighted by that. I'd take a David Cameron right now. Or a John Major. But those kinds of candidates don't seem to be an option.

(Not that I get any say in it)

[bens_dad]

I have just realized that the last three male Tory prime-ministers have all been from the left of the party:
Major*, Cameron and Boris). Maybe Heath too; IIRC he was to the left of Enoch Powell, but that was before my time.

Though how Major and Blair were leading their parties and not each others might be worth investigating.

[andrewducker]

Blair and Major were both centrists, for sure. Blair did do a lot of good things, safety-net and society-wise. How much of that was him, and how much was the party around him is hard to know!

Johnson, I think, is attached to whichever wing gets him the most power. As this meant largely him being surrounded by the ERG I find it hard to label him as left.

[bens_dad]

Johnson, I think, is attached to whichever wing gets him the most power. As this meant largely him being surrounded by the ERG I find it hard to label him as left.

I call him left (for a tory) because he is not allergic to tax and spend.

[cmcmck]

Did you notice that that twit Chishti, the Gillingham & Rainham MP (and our former MP) stood? Already gone, thankfully- the mind boggles at having that one in charge!