2015 UK General Election campaign & aftermath discussion thread.

I think Jim Murphy and Ed Miliband have done a good enough job of that on their own.

Sorry, it wouldn't be Nicola and Ed in coalition, lazily using leaders as shorthand for parties there. Not sure who'd be the SNP leader at WM post-election, I've got a hunch it's *not* going to be Alex Salmond.

But there's a tension there in the eyes of the voters. Are they a social democratic party serving the people of Scotland (and if you believe Sturgeon, benefiting all of Britain) or are they a party whose fundamental goal is to secure Scottish independence regardless of what policies they follow after that point? I suspect that if it came down to social democracy vs embracing neoliberalism to preserve the revenues of an independent Scotland they would go for the latter every single time.

The LibDems are facing oblivion because they put off addressing their own internal tensions (economic liberalism vs socially-democratic social liberalism) until the last possible moment. A similar thing is affecting Labour in a slower way. I can see the same thing happening here.

This is a wider issue post-Blair of parties pretending to be all things to all people (and potentially ending up being nothing to anyone).

is it a case of selective memory or has this whole campaign been quite significantly more weird, stupid, and venal than even the usual low standards? it does make it hard to engage with it by any means other than posting exasperated .jpgs. but it's at least good to have the fact that the tories don't really believe in representative democracy out in the open now.

Again, may be selective memory but it seems to have had much less focus on policy than in any other election i can recall. Labour pulling out potentially huge messages on housing nine days before the election, Cameron's extra billions for the NHS, etc seem fairly ad hoc and of secondary importance. The only core messages are negative - that Labour presents a risk of "chaos" and that the Conservative cuts have been unfairly applied.

Are they a social democratic party serving the people of Scotland (and if you believe Sturgeon, benefiting all of Britain) or are they a party whose fundamental goal is to secure Scottish independence regardless of what policies they follow after that point?

At the moment, they're the former, and I don't see that they would shift policy if they were in power in an independent Scotland.

Well, quite: They would have to disband if they either gained independence, or found that it could never happen.

Why would they have to disband?

I don't see that they would shift policy if they were in power in an independent Scotland

This is the bit I have difficulty believing, especially if they were to get into economic trouble. Not that my opinion matters, particularly, I am just cynical about these things.

If they genuinely are the former, the coalition-building shouldn't be as difficult as it's being made out to be, but they have their own share of the vote to preserve in two weeks' time.

my not quite in the thick of it take is that post-salmond they've shifted away from the somewhat wishy washy populism that characterised still being a single-issue party to a significant extent towards something more firmly grounded in the left of centre, but yeah of course that's not immutable

has this whole campaign been quite significantly more weird, stupid, and venal than even the usual low standards?

If it wins the Tories the election then Lynton Crosby will chalk it up as a job well done. I almost at a loss to adequately explain quite how stupid, unprincipled, short-sighted, dangerous (to the future of the Union) etcetcetc this anti-SNP hysteria is.

Also for 30-something years the Right has assumed it had essentially won the battle of ideas, now it's becoming apparent that isn't the case, they are fighting tooth and nail to hang on.

Miliband is way to the right of where I would like him to be on both welfare and immigration (and is depressingly probably positioned to the right of what he actually believes), but I don't believe he's a neoliberal either.

The stupidity and tossed off popularism of the campaign also reflects the weakness of pretty much everyone that isn't the SNP.

Also the UKIP factor, which is diminishing now that the main parties have lurched in their direction.

The trouble for UKIP, and for the rest of us come polling day, is that vast numbers of the racists, fruitcakes et al are returning to their true home, the Conservative Party. Predictable though.

ICM has UKIP at their strongest since December but i think people are largely guessing at the moment. I'm not sure Cameron has made much of an effort to really win them back in the last few weeks.

Other than pretending to support West Ham.

:)

Also for 30-something years the Right has assumed it had essentially won the battle of ideas, now it's becoming apparent that isn't the case, they are fighting tooth and nail to hang on.

― Matt DC, Tuesday, 28 April 2015 12:48 (31 minutes ago)

this isn't remotely true, the coalition parties and ukip combined have 57% in the latest icm poll

I'm not claiming the Right (by which I mean generally the neoliberal Right) has lost the battle either, but it's no longer a foregone conclusion that they've won. 57% is down quite a lot on, say, 2005, when three parties commanding c. 90% of the vote were all pledging minimal interference in the market.

Since then, Labour has moved slightly to the left in some areas and lurched considerably to the right in others. Obviously the pre-crisis Labour vote wasn't a monolith and much of it was way to the left of Blair and Brown, but the wider fragmentation that is now taking place is a symptom of the breakdown of that consensus. Even some (possibly quite a lot) of the UKIP vote is mopping up unarticulated dissatisfaction with globalisation (and articulated rage against the mass migration that goes with it).

Post-Iraq, loads of Labour left voters didn't bother to turn up to vote in either local or general elections. The lower the turnout, the more likely neo-liberal bollocks is to fill the vacuum.

57% is down quite a lot on, say, 2005, when three parties commanding c. 90% of the vote were all pledging minimal interference in the market.

― Matt DC, Tuesday, 28 April 2015 14:24 (30 minutes ago)

this as you partly acknowledge relies entirely on conceit that the labour party has constituitively altered itself from a third way party, which it never was, to a social democratic partly, which in sum of its parliamentary cohort it still isn't

the last five years of notional 'austerity' have provided a perfect advert for social democracy and yet parties advertising such programmes have less than 40% support

that some of the of anxiety of the ukip vote might be protectionist rather than xenophobic is of no matter when the party they are voting for is clearly neoliberal in character (else you are verging into a normative false consciousness argument that they ought to be voting for a protectionist social democratic party)

Some of the policies that Miliband has been advocating (specifically rent controls and freezing energy prices) are considerably more interventionist than anything Blair would have countenanced, but it's too early to judge whether these are populist vote-winners or totemic policies that might offer some clue about how he would choose to govern. But it's policies like this that are fuelling the Tory press's visceral horror of him, they might not be fighting a standard-issue Blairite in the same way.

I don't really believe that Miliband or the PLP are particularly left-wing or social democratic, especially given the cowardly and/or morally repugnant stance the party is taking on austerity. This doesn't invalidate my point that a lot of the hysteria is motivated by a fear of left-wing ideas re-emerging into the political mainstream, and they are going hell for leather to stamp that out, possibly counterproductively.

Social democratic parties still comprise less than 40% of the vote, but that's still up on a decade ago, especially given how difficult it is to prise voters away from long-held allegiances and anyone-but-the-Tories voting patterns.

They are of course panicking about press regulation as well.

Social democratic parties still comprise less than 40% of the vote, but that's still up on a decade ago, especially given how difficult it is to prise voters away from long-held allegiances and anyone-but-the-Tories voting patterns.

― Matt DC, Tuesday, 28 April 2015 15:41

so after five years of people purportedly killing themselves due to arbitrary benefit sanctions, not much less than 60% of the population favour the neoliberal consensus, in what is risibly termed 'the battle of ideas' that has the look of victory about it

a lot of the hysteria is motivated by a fear of left-wing ideas re-emerging into the political mainstream

the hysteria is because the conservative party has irrationally prolonged a political system that structurally favours the ~40% or so who will vote for apparently or actually social democratic parties

the likely electorate if not the population

so after five years of people purportedly killing themselves due to arbitrary benefit sanctions, not much less than 60% of the population favour the neoliberal consensus

A lot of the Labour vote will be kidding themselves that their vote is the only way to end austerity, or voting Labour because that's what they've always done. That doesn't equate to favouring the neoliberal consensus although in practice it means pretty much the same thing.

the hysteria is because the conservative party has irrationally prolonged a political system that structurally favours the ~40% or so who will vote for apparently or actually social democratic parties

Yeah that too, but it's a combination of both. Whether these parties wield their influence through structural issues with the voting system or through wider share of the vote makes little difference if you are Murdoch or Dacre, what matters is that they are not allowed to do so in the first place. Clegg's feeble bleating about the "centre ground" is a similar attempt to police the boundaries of acceptable political thought.

the conservative party is imperilled by its residual burkean stolidity and by its boorish expression of will-to-power that prioritizes its private interest over that of the centre right and economic liberalism as such

they labour under the delusion that a thatcher-like king in the mountain ought to return and win majorities under the current electoral system, they neglect the structural deficit they have under fptp (their votes count less than labour) and the general fragmentation to sectional interest minor parties that renders the majority dream unfeasible

the myth here is that a properly reactionary, unitary anti-eu conservative party is possible, even when most of the city abhors the notion, or that a faragite conservative party wouldn't in turn alienate the one nation lot to the liberal democrats and leave them no more, perhaps even less electable as a majority

if the current weak, inertial leadership made concessions to reality, they might choose between electoral reform which could further the long-run likelihood of concilliatory conservative-led coalitions, or further the cause of either national federalism or scottish independence which might entrench the majoritaran dream at the cost of the imperial one

The neoliberal consensus has largely failed to convince the electorate that it offers any opportunity for substantial national growth or personal advancement. The 40%+ still planning to vote for the coalition seems to be much more motivated by risk avoidance / hard 'realism' than any major commitment to making the market more free. To the extent that there is a battle of ideas, it's much easier to suggest that neoliberalism has lost than to point to anyone actually winning. That's a large part of the reason the Conservative campaign has been so lacklustre. There is no overt ideological argument being made, nothing to campaign on - just safe managerialism. They have trashed parts of the economy reliant on immigration for political capital, for example, but not to the extent that the right of the party would want. They're as far removed from the bulk of the grassroots as Labour is.

The neoliberal consensus has largely failed to convince the electorate that it offers any opportunity for substantial national growth or personal advancement.

― Petite Lamela (ShariVari), Tuesday, 28 April 2015 17:06 (5 minutes ago)

this could have been cribbed from a demos paper for all that it understands about how the world works, neoliberalism has always been an ideology whose tenets and even whose name are largely unknown to the people who prolong it electorally

'just safe managerialism' is exactly why the upper middle and middle classes with property and finance exposure are happy, for most of the rest it operates as a series of normative biases recharacterizing social security as charity, particularizing economic blocs into interest groups and so forth, it's exactly not an appeal that needs 'overt ideological argument' to convince

so it's wishful to write 'it's much easier to suggest that neoliberalism has lost than to point to anyone actually winning' when its exponents are winning the plebiscite if not the election, just because few of those electors are very enthusastic about it

save for perhaps in central europe, a surrendered lack of enthusiasm is the natural disposition of neoliberalism, it's almost an inversion of schmitt's 'political romanticism'

From a market perspective, yes. Politically Neoliberal parties outside of Asia have typically at least attempted to engage the electorate in the idea that there is a benefit to them in deregulation, privatisation, etc.

then what exactly is selling off state housing at huge discounts to tenants, should thatcher's sell off have been conceived as an appeal to deregulation, privatisation as 'idea' to a whole coterie of litle exurban francis fukuyamas

surely it would be better to describe it as clientelism, differing from cameron's version only in that its appeal to personal venality was given a bit more of an aspirational filigree

the sort of policy that its clients could benefit from, while at the same time finding the lack of value received for public assets to be contrary to their native ideology of fiscal conservatism

The fact that a leader of the Labour Party now believes he can make it to Number 10 while promising increased regulation of the housing, energy and financial markets suggests that he believes in a growing voter bloc who no longer feel that neoliberalism is working for them (on top of the people who never believed it was in the first place - even if they wouldn't express it in those terms). The flipside of this is that there is also a very large group who believe the myth of "there's no money left" that has provided the political justification for austerity, not to mention the even larger group who would freak out at the merest sniff of the drop in house prices that would result from any serious attempt to reform the market. And there are enough voters who will believe all of these contradictory things at once.

"Neoliberalism has lost" is possibly too simplistic, but neoliberalism does need a big enough pool of people who feel like they are winning (or are at least comfortable enough to be risk averse) and that pool is shrinking. That said it's still easily big enough to feel the hit to the wallet that would result from even the most modest attempt to reform markets, and the subsequent backlash would likely be enough to justify the next wave of neoliberalism. I very much doubt that Labour are brave enough to risk any contraction in the property market, for instance.

See also the polls showing a majority of people who believe that reduction in inequality is a good thing, while also opposing the sort of measures that might bring it about.

The fact that a leader of the Labour Party now believes he can make it to Number 10 while promising increased regulation of the housing, energy and financial markets suggests that he believes in a growing voter bloc who no longer feel that neoliberalism is working for them (on top of the people who never believed it was in the first place - even if they wouldn't express it in those terms).

― Matt DC, Tuesday, 28 April 2015 18:17

the only reason he could conceivably become prime minister is exactly because of the electoral system being skewed, to some extent in favour of labour (something like a 1.4 vs 1.3 multiplier between proportion of votes and proportion of seats in 2010) and vastly in favour of the snp.....projected by tns now to get all but two seats in scotland with only 54% of the popular vote

so a very strong affirmation of the leftwards turn of the snp, with rather minor increase in support for labour and greens (considered together) in england relative to 2010

Xps, that aspirational element is crucial though. The genius of Thatcher / Reagan was their ability to convince a huge swathe of the electorate that by freeing the market they would create an environment in which people could thrive if they tried hard enough. Far more people bought into that idea than materially benefited from it so I'm not sure I'd class it as pure clientelism. Take that aspirational core away and you're left with a platform of "we won't make things any worse for you".

Neoliberalism has clearly won where it counts, give or take some tinkering around the edges Labour is going to be a neoliberal party for the foreseeable future, but in terms of providing a convincing platform to build an economy on, it's tough to see it having any inherent appeal to anyone who doesn't simply benefit from the stability it provides. It isn't delivering housing, it isn't delivering marked economic growth outside of London, it isn't delivering job security, etc.

"Neoliberalism has lost" is possibly too simplistic, but neoliberalism does need a big enough pool of people who feel like they are winning (or are at least comfortable enough to be risk averse) and that pool is shrinking.

― Matt DC, Tuesday, 28 April 2015 18:17 (13 minutes ago)

there has been no wage growth for years and yet 57% of people intend to vote for the coalition or ukip, 'the neoliberalism of losers' to adapt the old bebel quote to your terms

The genius of Thatcher / Reagan was their ability to convince a huge swathe of the electorate that by freeing the market they would create an environment in which people could thrive if they tried hard enough. Far more people bought into that idea than materially benefited from it so I'm not sure I'd class it as pure clientelism.

― Petite Lamela (ShariVari), Tuesday, 28 April 2015 18:36 (1 minute ago)

the unsuccessful clients of clientelism do not become ideologues after the fact

Or, indeed, "The ragged trousered philanthropists" xpost

Lots of good posts in here this afternoon.

Quentin Letts in the Mail writes about the interview and Labour's party election broadcast.

"Gloop alert, Britain. Just when the election was in danger of getting serious with talk of the economy and immigration, Ed Miliband went on an amazing telly offensive last night - amazingly saccharine and yankeedoodle, that is.
"It was so sugary, I felt a little diabetic high coming on."

Michael Deacon's sketch in the Telegraph imagines how some of the conversation might have gone...

Brand: "Forsooth, corluvaduck! Who crosseth o'er the threshold of me 'umble abode? Why! 'Tis Ed Miliband, aspirant perpetuator of patriarchal corporate hegemony! Ed Miliband! Bread Killer Banned, Spread Filly Gland, Red Willy Hand, Dead Silly Brand!"
Miliband: "Now, look. Let me be clear about this, Russell, because I want to be clear about it. Hello, I'm pleased to meet you."

Andrew Smith in the Independent reckons Mr Miliband handled the heat in Brand's kitchen:
"It all went so well that Brand might even be persuaded to vote."

Owen Jones writing in the Guardian believes
Mr Miliband should be praised for having an interview with someone who has resonated with a lot of young disaffected people.

Votes for the silliest review of this? How about we imagine how the conversation went instead of reporting the conversation that is manifestly audible.

Michael Deacon's take on Brand is terrible, but his Miliband is otm tbh.

miliband but it could be blair or cameron or practically any "front bench" politician of the past 15-20 years

lol "let me be clear about this" really is some kind of talk unique to a brit politician, just like an empty prelude.

see also "we've been very clear about this" as meaningful-sounding void and "look" as generic punctuation used to suggest a point or question that won't be addressed is about to be addressed

at least "i'm glad you asked me about that" sounds amusingly sleazy

Unsurprisingly, that MiliBrand interview really isn't worth a front page.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDZm9_uKtyo

Q: Within this paradigm there is no choice. That is why people like Nigel Farage when he turns up with a pint on his head.

Miliband says he won’t be putting a pint on his head.

lol "let me be clear about this" really is some kind of talk unique to a brit politician, just like an empty prelude.

― bureau belfast model (LocalGarda), Wednesday, April 29, 2015 8:42 AM (32 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

it is literally the thing impersonators of obama say the most to let people know they're doing an impersonation of obama

Then one day someone got the message, “Excellent. All good.” But when they went to respond they realised they’d failed to insert the original attachment.

I laughed. I read the article. And then, god help me, I read the comments. People who think Miliband is a Marxist and the BBC was "relentlessly" pro-Labour.

I know, I know, it's the Spectator.

5 years of this. And then...

...then...

Unless there's another economic disaster in the next five years, I can't foresee any situation in which they don't get back in in 5yrs time, especially if Scotland continues down this path, the LibDems remain toxic and the Tories get free reign to redraw constituency boundaries, all of which seem extremely likely right now.

discrediting of the Major government in the run up to 1997 was barely about the economic record/situation and all about a sustained portrayal of the Gov as corrupt, complacent etc. one of the key factors that allowed this strategy to work was the relative ungovernability of backbenchers in a government with a tiny majority.

all those conditions are in place given a Labour leader sufficiently Mandelsonian/morally vacant

Yeah but the right wing press wouldn't have thrown all that shit at them in the first place if they hadn't been furious at them for Black Wednesday and the collapse in value of their houses.

fair enough. plenty of scope over the next 5 years for economic mismanagement tho.

(NB I'm only speculating, god knows there's nothing to look forward to in a nu-Blairite victory in 2020)

Anthony King believes that the Tories lost two seats in 1997 due to perceived corruption and that everything else was set in stone after Black Wednesday.

PA reporting this:

#Breaking Shadow business secretary Chuka Umunna has withdrawn from the Labour party leadership contest
https://twitter.com/pressassoc/status/599146131294027776

Thing is, if every thingwas wine and roses as far as te economy was concerned, there could well be a swell of people saying "Yes, but where is my reward?" because the Tories will be very keen to keep the proceeds to those they perceive to have the right to it.

Your reward is waiting around the bend, you non-aspirational loser.

more on Chuka Umunna

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32748106

But he said in a statement that he was not comfortable with the level of pressure that came with being a leadership candidate.

what a choke

As far as I can see, Chuka Umunna is the only one to have had a job outside politics, and that was at a law firm so doesn't count.

the other lol exception is Hunt.

now there are rumours it's because he's putting himself forward as london mayor.

Either that or he's decided 2020 is beyond Labour and he'd rather follow the next loser than be the next loser. At 36, he can afford to wait.

Other rumours are that he's quit ahead of a Sunday newspaper exposé

this map shows the constituencies (in pink) where the number of people registered to vote who didn't was larger than the wining party.

http://www.redpepper.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/didnotvote-800x480.jpg

look at all the red that's left

i guess Labour was too left wing for all those constituencies

How many seats would that give DNV?

i'm not sure it says but here's the article.

http://www.redpepper.org.uk/after-the-election-picking-up-the-pieces/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/margaret-thatcher/10007828/David-Cameron-gives-backing-to-15million-Thatcher-museum.html

As fundraising got seriously under way, the project, first revealed by The Sunday Telegraph last week, also received support from leading conservative figures from overseas - including John Howard, the former Australian prime minister, Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House of Representatives in the US, Fred Ryan, President Reagan’s chief of staff and Karl Rove, who performed the same role for President George W Bush.

Mr Rove said: “Baroness Thatcher championed freedom around the world and was a strong friend of America in the dangerous days of the Cold War. The Margaret Thatcher Centre will be a timeless tribute to her fighting spirit, unwavering courage, and principled conservative leadership.”

"In or close to Westminster" I did wonder.

https://41.media.tumblr.com/4fb072672657a43264388a9b7c536451/tumblr_noeppdORHf1sy67obo1_540.jpg

the Thatcher museum thing is just grisly

has there been some development wrt it or are tons of people linking a story from April 2013 without checking the date

oh yes, I'm probs a victim of that now I think of it - saw someone post a story about Cameron green-lighting £15m for the museum on FB.

Fucking Osborne. Again. Pointless legislation designed purely to fuck over Labour leadership election, but which will poison the debate for years. He is such a prize cunt it's deeply frustrating even to have to look at this face.

Oh wait, this is the wrong thread. What's our rolling pol thread now?

Now would be a pretty good time to start one.

Psychoactive Substances: Rolling UK Politics in The Neo-Con Era