UK election 2024

[ProfessorDavey]

That's not surprising to me. If you are a politician of any substance, you are probably looking to be part of the UK government, or at least the UK parliament, the exceptions being those who advocate independence for their region, but independence parties are single issue parties and they have their own problems.

Not really sure that is true - and let's not forget that the process of devolution isn't just about the parliament/assemblies in Scotland, Wales and NI, but also about the devolved mayoral roles in various places. Let's not forget that the electorate for the London mayoral election is roughly the size of the electorates for Scotland, Wales and NI combined ... and the mayor has a personal mandate - indeed by far the largest person vote of any politician in the UK.

So I am certainly not convinced that politicians see being a back bench MP, or even a junior minister (which would require your party being in power in Westminster) as being preferable/more important as being FM in Scotland, or indeed London mayor or Manchester Metro mayor. Certainly not much evidence of Andy Burnham (for example) looking for a route back into Westminster, even through he would likely end up in a senior ministerial post - he seems to prefer making a difference to Manchester.

[jeremyp]

Agreed, it's more the question of the performance of other parties in comparison to the Tories that in terms of govt for the 14 wasted years in the article.

I agree. I think there is no doubt that a Labour party with anything like the quality of the past in it would not have lost the 2017 election (actually it wouldn't have happened because the opinion polls would have been unfavourable to the Tories) and it probably would not have lost an election in 2019 or 2020.

The 2015 election might have gone differently too.

[ProfessorDavey]

I agree. I think there is no doubt that a Labour party with anything like the quality of the past in it would not have lost the 2017 election (actually it wouldn't have happened because the opinion polls would have been unfavourable to the Tories) and it probably would not have lost an election in 2019 or 2020.

The 2015 election might have gone differently too.

I think a lot of this is about who is selected as a leader in opposition (and in recent years in government) - and all parties (but most notably Labour and the Tories who are the only ones with a chance to form a government) have been terrible at this. Routinely picking a leader who the narrow demographic of members and activists like for idealogical reasons, rather than someone who is likely to resonate with the wider electorate (which is necessary to win an election) and is respected by the people who actually work with them, MPs (which speaks to their basic competence).

I know they pay their membership fees, but realistically party members are absolutely the worst people to decide on a leader who is competent (that needs the people who actual know and work with them to determine) or likely to attract a wider electoral support.

[jeremyp]

Not really sure that is true - and let's not forget that the process of devolution isn't just about the parliament/assemblies in Scotland, Wales and NI, but also about the devolved mayoral roles in various places. Let's not forget that the electorate for the London mayoral election is roughly the size of the electorates for Scotland, Wales and NI combined ... and the mayor has a personal mandate - indeed by far the largest person vote of any politician in the UK.

So I am certainly not convinced that politicians see being a back bench MP, or even a junior minister (which would require your party being in power in Westminster) as being preferable/more important as being FM in Scotland, or indeed London mayor or Manchester Metro mayor. Certainly not much evidence of Andy Burnham (for example) looking for a route back into Westminster, even through he would likely end up in a senior ministerial post - he seems to prefer making a difference to Manchester.

You are not comparing like with like. If you are a prospective national party candidate for election would you rather be a back bench MP in Westminster with a chance of joining the UK government or would you rather be a Welsh assembly member, or a Scottish MSP with a chance of joining the devolved government? I suggest the former is the case.

I don't remember the metropolitan mayors in England being part of the discussion, so I don't know why you think they are relevant.

[Nearly Sane]

'Muslim millionaire gives major donation to Reform UK'  - hmmm

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd11xxn833yo


ETA - I think they obviously need the money, and it's good news on thar. Ir's a good piece of propaganda to say they aren't racist. Just wondering how it will play to the racists that are in the party.

[jeremyp]

I think a lot of this is about who is selected as a leader in opposition (and in recent years in government) - and all parties (but most notably Labour and the Tories who are the only ones with a chance to form a government) have been terrible at this. Routinely picking a leader who the narrow demographic of members and activists like for idealogical reasons, rather than someone who is likely to resonate with the wider electorate (which is necessary to win an election) and is respected by the people who actually work with them, MPs (which speaks to their basic competence).

I know they pay their membership fees, but realistically party members are absolutely the worst people to decide on a leader who is competent (that needs the people who actual know and work with them to determine) or likely to attract a wider electoral support.

I agree with all of this but I would add that many of the best people in the party would have been associated with the previous leadership and hence their failure and so are not really available to be selected as the new leader or are handicapped by their association. I think we saw this in 2010 when the wrong Miliband brother was selected and I think we saw that in 2015 when anybody associated with Ed Miliband was hamstrung by his failure.

[ProfessorDavey]

You are not comparing like with like. If you are a prospective national party candidate for election would you rather be a back bench MP in Westminster with a chance of joining the UK government or would you rather be a Welsh assembly member, or a Scottish MSP with a chance of joining the devolved government? I suggest the former is the case.

But this isn't a small fish/small pond vs small fish/big pond argument - it is big fish/small pond vs small fish/big pond. The point being that there are people who feel they can get to the top in the smaller field in a devolved assembly, who simply wouldn't have any chance in a Westminster context. And for those people the devolved assemblies are more attractive.

I don't remember the metropolitan mayors in England being part of the discussion, so I don't know why you think they are relevant.

But they should be - devolution isn't just about the non-English nations. It isn't now and it never was - devolution to London via the mayor and GLA came hot on the heals of the parliament/assemblies in NI/Scotland/Wales.

Devolution is about devolving power from the UK national government to legislative bodies more locally throughout the UK. In some cases the geography of that devolution aligns with one of the constituent nations of the UK (Scotland/Wales/NI) in other cases it involved regional devolution in England (London/Manchester/West Midlands etc) - both are part of the same overall devolved approach.

[ProfessorDavey]

I agree with all of this but I would add that many of the best people in the party would have been associated with the previous leadership and hence their failure and so are not really available to be selected as the new leader or are handicapped by their association. I think we saw this in 2010 when the wrong Miliband brother was selected and I think we saw that in 2015 when anybody associated with Ed Miliband was hamstrung by his failure.

Possibly true but you then get into the 'clean slate' vs 'no experience' argument - so someone who is completely untainted by being a minister in the dying days of a failing government may be criticised for not having any actual government experience if they become leader of the opposition. But of course when parties are out of power for an awfully long time you end up burning through all the ex-ministers as potential leaders and often end up with a leader who wins power back having never been a minister themselves.

So from 1979 Labour burned through ex ministers Foot and Smith (Kinnock was never a minister) before ending up with a winner, Blair who had no ministerial experience.
Likewise the Tories - Hague and Howard - both former ministers (IDS was never a minister) before ending up with a winner, Cameron who had no ministerial experience.

Looks like we will have a similar situation now - Miliband was a minister, Corbyn never was and Starmer also has no ministerial experience.

Just a little note on Corbyn - by 2015 he'd been an MP since 1983 (so through periods where Labour was in opposition, then in power, then in opposition) - in all that time no-one thought he had the abilities to be offered any ministerial or shadow ministerial position (even the most junior) - nor even chair of a select committee. Speaks volumes about how his colleagues saw his competence!

[Nearly Sane]

'Tory campaign official looked into over alleged election bet' and not just any official, the director of campaigning, and his wife is a candidate.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c722014r42xo

[Nearly Sane]

Mystic Camilla from 31 May

[jeremyp]

But this isn't a small fish/small pond vs small fish/big pond argument - it is big fish/small pond vs small fish/big pond. The point being that there are people who feel they can get to the top in the smaller field in a devolved assembly, who simply wouldn't have any chance in a Westminster context.

That is absolutely making my point for me. Thank you.

[jeremyp]

'Tory campaign official looked into over alleged election bet' and not just any official, the director of campaigning, and his wife is a candidate.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c722014r42xo

I'm sorry but I'm losing track of all this. Is this the original person? Or another new one?

[Nearly Sane]

I'm sorry but I'm losing track of all this. Is this the original person? Or another new one?

It's another one. Craig Williams, candidate for Montgomeryshire was the first. Then there was the policeman who was part of Sunak's security, now the director of campaigning Tony Lee, and also his wife, Laura Saunders, candidate for Bristol North West.

Needs a spreadsheet.

[SteveH]

"Vote for me, or another grouse gets it!"

[Nearly Sane]

It's another one. Craig Williams, candidate for Montgomeryshire was the first. Then there was the policeman who was part of Sunak's security, now the director of campaigning Tony Lee, and also his wife, Laura Saunders, candidate for Bristol North West.

Needs a spreadsheet.

  Sinak's 'incredible anger' not extending to suspending candidates while the investigations are carried out does seem more about trying to manage the publicity rather than doing anything. Williams has admitted placing the bet.

[ProfessorDavey]

  Sinak's 'incredible anger' not extending to suspending candidates while the investigations are carried out does seem more about trying to manage the publicity rather than doing anything. Williams has admitted placing the bet.

Yes hollow words indeed when not backed up by action.

That said - there is a problematic issue at this stage in the campaign with 'suspending candidates', as you cannot actually do it. Ballot papers have been printed and cannot be changed at this stage so a  'suspended candidate' will be on the ballot paper regardless of any suspension and will be on the ballot paper under the name of the party in question. And postal votes have gone out and plenty will already have been posted back.

[Nearly Sane]

Yes hollow words indeed when not backed up by action.

That said - there is a problematic issue at this stage in the campaign with 'suspending candidates', as you cannot actually do it. Ballot papers have been printed and cannot be changed at this stage so a  'suspended candidate' will be on the ballot paper regardless of any suspension and will be on the ballot paper under the name of the party in question. And postal votes have gone out and plenty will already have been posted back.

  As was covered in the Labour case yesterday. They can be suspended from the party.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0vvjzw5ejno


And that was something that seems much more questionable in terms of whether the candidate should have been suspended than in the Tory two.

[ProfessorDavey]

  As was covered in the Labour case yesterday. They can be suspended from the party.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0vvjzw5ejno


And that was something that seems much more questionable in terms of whether the candidate should have been suspended than in the Tory two.

I know - but what does it actually mean in practice - really nothing more than the party saying 'don't vote for this chap'. He's still on the ballot paper and his votes will still be counted and if he gets the most votes he will be elected as an MP.

Suspension prior to nominations closing really means something - the party puts in place a new candidate or runs without a candidate. Once the point has been reached where a 'suspended candidate' will still be on the ballot paper that is a very different thing.

[Nearly Sane]

I know - but what does it actually mean in practice - really nothing more than the party saying 'don't vote for this chap'. He's still on the ballot paper and his votes will still be counted and if he gets the most votes he will be elected as an MP.

Suspension prior to nominations closing really means something - the party puts in place a new candidate or runs without a candidate. Once the point has been reached where a 'suspended candidate' will still be on the ballot paper that is a very different thing.

It means that the party is effectively saying this is not a representative. It will have AB effect on votes, and in this case shows Sunak's cowardice. That said, it was easier for Labour to suspend its candidate as they had no chance.

[ProfessorDavey]

It means that the party is effectively saying this is not a representative. It will have AB effect on votes, and in this case shows Sunak's cowardice. That said, it was easier for Labour to suspend its candidate as they had no chance.

Agree it is easier to suspend when you wouldn't win anyhow.

It will have an effect on votes, but that is massively different to effectively suspending and removing a candidate at an earlier stage when they end up not on the ballot paper.

Remember that many people don't fixate on politics, and vote on the basis of the party. There will be many people go into the ballot box see the Tory (or Labour) logo and place an X, blissfully unaware that the candidate had been 'suspended', indeed in many cases they probably might not have even clocked the name of the candidate in the first place - their intention being to vote Tory or Labour, not for John Jones (The Labour and Cooperative party candidate).

[Nearly Sane]

Agree it is easier to suspend when you wouldn't win anyhow.

It will have an effect on votes, but that is massively different to effectively suspending and removing a candidate at an earlier stage when they end up not on the ballot paper.

Remember that many people don't fixate on politics, and vote on the basis of the party. There will be many people go into the ballot box see the Tory (or Labour) logo and place an X, blissfully unaware that the candidate had been 'suspended', indeed in many cases they probably might not have even clocked the name of the candidate in the first place - their intention being to vote Tory or Labour, not for John Jones (The Labour and Cooperative party candidate).

Agree.

Though suspension of candidates in a general election, after their names are on the ballot papers, also has a much wider impact than the constituency. Sunak doesn't want the headline of 2 candidates suspended due to possible corruption.

[Nearly Sane]

Interesting summary of last night's programme. I agree with Starmer that Corbyn would have been a better PM than Johnson but I don't think that's a bar that is anything more than a limbo record.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn00dlzexevo

[Nearly Sane]

Chris Mason on the betting scandal


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c066lmkr33po

[Nearly Sane]

'SNP investigated over 'misuse' of election mail stamps' - as election scandals go this is second class


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cg334q4z0npo

[Nearly Sane]

Obviously no point in donating to the Tory Party, they don't represent the best bet, unlike the date of the election.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c800k0p175ro