Whither the Tories?

[Nearly Sane]

We're now in the post election world, and what happens to the Tories is a new chapter. While parties need to be broad churches, I'm struggling to see a party led by Braverman, nevermind Farage, will contain Ben Houchen


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cw4y7ewedg1o


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cw4y7ewedg1o

[SteveH]

I couldn't give a gnat's gnadger what happens to them.

[jeremyp]

I couldn't give a gnat's gnadger what happens to them.

Well you should. They are still the official opposition and should be the ones holding the government to account. Not only that, it is likely at some point in the future that they will be forming a government.

[Nearly Sane]

Well you should. They are still the official opposition and should be the ones holding the government to account. Not only that, it is likely at some point in the future that they will be forming a government.

I worry that if they indulge in a long stramash, that the main opposition voice will be Reform.

[jeremyp]

I worry that if they indulge in a long stramash, that the main opposition voice will be Reform.

It shouldn't be. The Lib Dems have many more seats and I expect the Greens to be fairly vociferous. However, Reform UK Party ltd seems to have the ear of the media.

[Nearly Sane]

It shouldn't be. The Lib Dems have many more seats and I expect the Greens to be fairly vociferous. However, Reform UK Party ltd seems to have the ear of the media.

My guess is that the Lib Dems won't be in direct opposition to many of the policies. So won't be seen as the opposition even with the seats. The Greens may be vociferous in some areas but I think will.struggle to be heard. I think that Reform will make the story easy and that's always a better sell to the media.

[ProfessorDavey]

I worry that if they indulge in a long stramash, that the main opposition voice will be Reform.

I don't think so for various reasons, not least because of the points that JP made - that if the tories become an incoherent inward looking rabble for a while the spotlight will inevitable fall on the party with 72 seats, the LibDems, rather than a party will 5 seats who will fight for the oxygen of publicity with other parties of similar size (SNP, Greens, Plaid, DUP).

But there are other reasons why Reform may actually find it harder to get coverage now than before the election, specifically.

1. Their whole mantra has been that they are the anti-establishment outsiders - 'vote for us because we aren't the b*****ds in Westminster' doesn't work so well when you are now part of the establishment and in Westminster.

2. The rules on broadcasting impartiality for parliamentary parties are stronger than for 'outsiders' - so while for years Farage was guaranteed a 'talking head' spot in Question Time and countless other media outlets, I think that will be much more restricted now. And his ability to be heard in Parliament will also be restricted by the parliamentary rules.

3. If the tories end up with a tumultuous leadership race I think Farage and Reform's attention (and comments) will turn towards that race rather than on opposing the government. Why - well because who ends up as tory leader impacts Farage and Reform's prospects far more - including the possibility of merger.

4. Farage will (as he always does) get bored - give it a few months and no doubt we will find that he needs to spend more time in Washington (for reasons) rather than Clacton or Westminster. His attention will inevitably turn to the US election rather than opposing Starmer's government.

5. Reform/Brexit/UKIP - all the vehicles for Farage have a tendency to fall apart when required to conform to the rules of elected office - see their squabbling in the EU parliament, inability to cement and retain councils etc. So expect Farage, Anderson and Tice to have a falling out pretty soon - likely over Farage's absenteeing and Anderson (at least) considering that Reform need to focus on being a parliamentary party.

6. The weird power of Westminster to turn rebels into conformists - I've seen this several times with a few MPs I've known - railing against the system, but as soon as in Westminster loving nothing better than to extoll the virtues of the 'traditions'.

[Nearly Sane]

I don't think so for various reasons, not least because of the points that JP made - that if the tories become an incoherent inward looking rabble for a while the spotlight will inevitable fall on the party with 72 seats, the LibDems, rather than a party will 5 seats who will fight for the oxygen of publicity with other parties of similar size (SNP, Greens, Plaid, DUP).

But there are other reasons why Reform may actually find it harder to get coverage now than before the election, specifically.

1. Their whole mantra has been that they are the anti-establishment outsiders - 'vote for us because we aren't the b*****ds in Westminster' doesn't work so well when you are now part of the establishment and in Westminster.

2. The rules on broadcasting impartiality for parliamentary parties are stronger than for 'outsiders' - so while for years Farage was guaranteed a 'talking head' spot in Question Time and countless other media outlets, I think that will be much more restricted now. And his ability to be heard in Parliament will also be restricted by the parliamentary rules.

3. If the tories end up with a tumultuous leadership race I think Farage and Reform's attention (and comments) will turn towards that race rather than on opposing the government. Why - well because who ends up as tory leader impacts Farage and Reform's prospects far more - including the possibility of merger.

4. Farage will (as he always does) get bored - give it a few months and no doubt we will find that he needs to spend more time in Washington (for reasons) rather than Clacton or Westminster. His attention will inevitably turn to the US election rather than opposing Starmer's government.

5. Reform/Brexit/UKIP - all the vehicles for Farage have a tendency to fall apart when required to conform to the rules of elected office - see their squabbling in the EU parliament, inability to cement and retain councils etc. So expect Farage, Anderson and Tice to have a falling out pretty soon - likely over Farage's absenteeing and Anderson (at least) considering that Reform need to focus on being a parliamentary party.

6. The weird power of Westminster to turn rebels into conformists - I've seen this several times with a few MPs I've known - railing against the system, but as soon as in Westminster loving nothing better than to extoll the virtues of the 'traditions'.

While it's good to get your valuable view, when  Labour was indulging in its bout of vicious introspection, despite there being a substantial presence of SNP members, and the various other parties, the opposition voice was quietened, and in many cases the loudest voices were from within  the Tory Party.

Reform don't need to work like a unified party to get heard, and the media love an inchoate howl.

[Aruntraveller]

Reform don't need to work like a unified party to get heard, and the media love an inchoate howl.

I'd agree. Thinking that the normal rules will work for Farage is naive.

Whatever else I think of him his ability to manipulate the media and some of the public is quite remarkable.

We underestimate him at our peril.

[Nearly Sane]

I'd agree. Thinking that the normal rules will work for Farage is naive.

Whatever else I think of him his ability to manipulate the media and some of the public is quite remarkable.

We underestimate him at our peril.

The new cads on the block also have Anderson who as a mini me Farage has also proved remarkable in attracting publicity and it not mattering if it's good or bad.

[ProfessorDavey]

... despite there being a substantial presence of SNP members ...

But the SNP can never act as a de facto opposition in Westminster because they (by design) only represent Scotland, one part of the UK. So the comparison with the current position of the LibDems is spurious as there is LibDem parliamentary representation across the country, including England, Scotland and Wales.

[ProfessorDavey]

Reform don't need to work like a unified party to get heard, and the media love an inchoate howl.

My expectation is that once parliamentary politics returns after the summer, Farage's comments will focus on the tory leadership campaign and the US presidential election. Why ... because those are the things he cares about because, let's face it, he only cares about himself and his ego. And in his mid his next step will either be a take-over of the tories or landing some role in a Trump administration.

[Nearly Sane]

But the SNP can never act as a de facto opposition in Westminster because they (by design) only represent Scotland, one part of the UK. So the comparison with the current position of the LibDems is spurious as there is LibDem parliamentary representation across the country, including England, Scotland and Wales.

And as already covered in the reply to jeremyp, the Lib Dems are not going to be significantly in opposition to much of Labour policy. After all, you've just been singing the praises of how well they work together.

[Nearly Sane]

My expectation is that once parliamentary politics returns after the summer, Farage's comments will focus on the tory leadership campaign and the US presidential election. Why ... because those are the things he cares about because, let's face it, he only cares about himself and his ego. And in his mid his next step will either be a take-over of the tories or landing some role in a Trump administration.

Quite possibly, and should that take over of the Tories happen, then Reform are the main voice of the opposition  as I am worried about.

Just because he's an lazy egotist doesn't make him any less dangerous, see Johnson.

[ProfessorDavey]

And as already covered in the reply to jeremyp, the Lib Dems are not going to be significantly in opposition to much of Labour policy.

There is more than one approach to opposition - you can simply 'knee jerk' - if they say one thing then we will say the opposite. But that, I think, increasingly antagonises people who rail at the yah boo politics of Westminster. The other approach is potentially more constructive and possible likely to garner more support. This approach is effectively we will support where we think that is the right thing to so, we will challenge you to go further and faster where we think you are being too cautious, we will actively oppose where we genuinely disagree. I think that will be the approach of the LibDems and the 'we will challenge you to go further and faster' may be the clearest message.

After all, you've just been singing the praises of how well they work together.

I was talking about the political expediency of a general election campaign, where it was in both Labour and the LibDem's interests not to go head to head against each other (thereby letting the tories through the middle) but to target different seats. The shared goal being to get as many seats as possible and in both cases that largely involved kicking out tories to replace them rather than kicking out a LibDem to be replaced by Labour or vice versa.

But that was an exceptionally successful tactic for the general election - that's done now - Labour have their 412 seats, the LibDems have their 72 - job done. How that plays out in Westminster going forward is an entirely different matter and if I were Ed and Daisy I think they will be wanting to ensure that if the tories go all introspective for a while that they are seen as the real (as opposed to the official) opposition and also to do that in a different way to the ya boo politics of the past.

[Nearly Sane]

There is more than one approach to opposition - you can simply 'knee jerk' - if they say one thing then we will say the opposite. But that, I think, increasingly antagonises people who rail at the yah boo politics of Westminster. The other approach is potentially more constructive and possible likely to garner more support. This approach is effectively we will support where we think that is the right thing to so, we will challenge you to go further and faster where we think you are being too cautious, we will actively oppose where we genuinely disagree. I think that will be the approach of the LibDems and the 'we will challenge you to go further and faster' may be the clearest message.
I was talking about the political expediency of a general election campaign, where it was in both Labour and the LibDem's interests not to go head to head against each other (thereby letting the tories through the middle) but to target different seats. The shared goal being to get as many seats as possible and in both cases that largely involved kicking out tories to replace them rather than kicking out a LibDem to be replaced by Labour or vice versa.

But that was an exceptionally successful tactic for the general election - that's done now - Labour have their 412 seats, the LibDems have their 72 - job done. How that plays out in Westminster going forward is an entirely different matter and if I were Ed and Daisy I think they will be wanting to ensure that if the tories go all introspective for a while that they are seen as the real (as opposed to the official) opposition and also to do that in a different way to the ya boo politics of the past.

Which won't be interesting news, and hence what will be heard is the empty vessels.

[ProfessorDavey]

Which won't be interesting news, and hence what will be heard is the empty vessels.

Err - when was the last time that the LibDems had sufficient seats to set themselves up as the 'real' opposition as a third party in terms of seats where the official opposition had gone awol.

Hmm - not 2019, nor 2017 - definitely not 2015. Could have been in 2010 had they not become part of the government. Not 2005, as the tories were an effective opposition. So arguably 2001.

So that's 23 years ago - so, yes it will be interesting news, and I suspect will be heard. The 'LibDems are back' is a powerful narrative.

[ProfessorDavey]

Quite possibly, and should that take over of the Tories happen, then Reform are the main voice of the opposition  as I am worried about.

Just because he's an lazy egotist doesn't make him any less dangerous, see Johnson.

Firstly I think it is unlikely that Farage would end up taking over the tories, much as he'd love to.

But if he did, the tories would split - the one nation tories would simply not be able to remain in the party. And any party led by Farage will have a low ceiling - i.e. the maximum vote share possible as although there are a solid block (say 15%-20%) who might love him there are far too many people who loath him for him to get remotely close to winning an election as a party leader (even if that party is the tories). A Farage led tory party simply wouldn't get sufficient support to win a general election - just as a Corbyn led Labour party was never going to win a general election, although I think his ceiling was rather higher than Farage's.

[Nearly Sane]

Latest Tory leadership odds 33/1 bar these

[Nearly Sane]

Well here's where Jacob Rees Mogg is going


https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/article/2024/jul/10/more-fawlty-towers-than-downton-abbey-jacob-rees-moggs-bid-to-become-a-reality-tv-star

[Nearly Sane]

Six months of this, as has been mooted, might be fun


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cg3eqy1r5q0o

[Nearly Sane]

"Another Conservative said: “The answer is we need to find a way to appeal to voters we lost to all parties. I don’t know how you do that on policy, but Keir Starmer showed you can do it by looking competent and serious. But I don’t know if any of the candidates we have at the moment can do that.”"

Ooft! The article covers that there are those who think they got a 'David Cameron' if they take a longer time. This seems to me to bit post hoc, ergo propter hoc. Labour lost in 2010 in part because it was 'time', and partly the global financial crisis. That allowed Cameron to being the serious and competent guy.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cv2g6md2lxvo

[Nearly Sane]

New leader by November 2nd.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c6p24l5254xo

[Aruntraveller]

I knew something had been bothering me about the title of this thread. It's misspelled.

Wither the Tories. 

[ProfessorDavey]

https://x.com/TomHCalver/status/1815318877963747391?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1815318877963747391%7Ctwgr%5Edd624ab201eac02c36279efa7bb7efac213e06cc%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww1.politicalbetting.com%2Findex.php%2Farchives%2F2024%2F07%2F23%2Fwhy-things-can-get-worse-for-the-tories%2F

Projection of the ratio of voters lost becasue they've died vs gained because they've attained voting age by the next election. Horrific for the tories. And this assumes voting age to be 18 rather than 16 as seems likely for the next general election.