Mayoral and General Elections 2017

[andrewbowden]

Wragg was a teacher wasn't he? Ok, teacher's are a little sheltered but I thought that was One of his advantages over Lisa Smart

I know several teachers and I won't hear a word said against the profession.  Good teachers are hardworking, extremely dedicated people.  Plus they put up with all those children!

However, by his own CV, William Wragg's teaching experience appears to be limited.
http://cv.democracyclub.org.uk/show_cv/4197

He did a two year programme to train to be a teacher.  You start as an unqualified teacher, and end as a qualified one with your PGCE.  http://graduates.teachfirst.org.uk/leadership-development-programme/training

And as soon as he (presumably) finished the programme, he quit to become a caseworker in Westminster.  And that was it.

[Duke Fame]

I can't offer evidence.  Just perceived wisdom.  And I would presume there's some truth in perceived wisdom because the Tories keep banging on about not taking anything for granted.

Perhaps it's not wanting to sound arrogant.  1992 and Neil Kinnock prematurely celebrating and all that,

Now, that was funny

I can't help but think there's a link with the career politician.  The politician who has no real world experience.  Has never done anything except politics.  They've helped out with some MP's case word.  They've been a councillor.  They've done a degree with Politics in the title.  They all have one thing in common: next to no experience outside of politics. 

Just like, funnily enough, the person who was MP for Marple from 2015 to 2017, and who is standing again now.

Wragg was a teacher wasn't he? Ok, teacher's are a little sheltered but I thought that was One of his advantages over Lisa Smart

Back in the 1990s Channel 4 dramatised a book called 'A Very British Coup' that was published in 1982.  I never read the book, but the TV series was excellent.  But it's dated dreadfully.  In it, a former miner/Trade Union official who lived in a Sheffield council house, became Prime Minster.

 

Can you image that happening today?  I certainly can't.

[Dave]

That all makes good sense to me too, Melancholy.  The only thing I would add is that I have a feeling the results will be patchy, and there will be a few surprises in some constituencies, perhaps caused by the Brexit factor. So here in Hazel Grove, if the 48% of Remainers (many of whom in the past would have voted Tory or Labour) turn out in force for the LibDem, there may just be an upset. But don't bank on it.......

[Melancholyflower]

How about 2001, whose 59% turnout was, I believe, the lowest in any UK general election ever! And it is generally thought that this was because everyone knew the Labour government, elected four years previously with a famous landslide, would be re-elected - and it was.

The turnout two years ago was 66%. I bet it will be lower than that this time.

I can't be completely convinced about 2001 as there are no hard stats to back it up. Interestingly the BBC did poll people who didn't vote (though the number polled is not clear so hard to judge).  77% said there was no point in voting because it would not change a thing, while 65% said they did not trust politicians. Just over half said it was obvious that Labour would win anyway.  So the highest figure 77% signified the shift in the perceived value of one's vote - which would tally with the decline in polarisation between the parties.

Compare this with 1987 (identical scenario, 4 years after a landslide victory), where the turnout actually increased from 1983 - in my view because polarisation still meant a more identifiable choice. There's a slight chance we may be surprised this year given the more radical Labour manifesto.

That said I feel there is absolutely no chance that Labour will get in. 1) They are finished in Scotland 2) They are losing ground in Wales too 3) They have no appeal whatsoever in the South East - and no amount of gains in poorer areas will make up that overall shortfall.

UKIP appear to be finished as a political party. Exit from the EU has been achieved which was their overriding aim, and the Tories have benefitted from EU exit in the long run. Not putting up candidates is a sure fire way of decreasing their share of the vote. Always a chance they'd increase their MP share though - the vagaries of the electoral system.

[andrewbowden]

Some people have voted Ukip as a protest vote as well.  Makes it difficult to really work out where their votes will go if - as everyone assumes - they are now pretty much dead

[Dave]

I think that's right. UKIP got 12% of the national vote in the last general election (coincidentally they also got 12% in Hazel Grove). UKIP are not even standing here, of course, so those who voted for them last time will either vote for another party or stay at home and watch the telly.

The other day I wrote

Wragg will be hard to beat, especially as there is no UKIP candidate, so many of the 5,000 UKIP voters in 2015 will probably vote for him.

Thinking about it again, I wonder whether it will be that simple.  I suspect there were some former diehard Labour voters who were happy to switch to UKIP in 2015, but would stop short of ever voting Tory. And as Labour also supports Brexit, I wonder whether some will simply return to Labour.

One thing's certain, they won't vote LibDem.  So here in Hazel Grove, Willie Wragg will benefit whether they vote Tory or Labour. 

[simonesaffron]

The critical factor is probably not the identification of the the difference between Labour & Tory. It is where are the dissatisfied ex- Labour voters, who in 2015 voted UKIP, going to go?

This is where the election will be decided.

In football parlance, it is a bit of a six pointer or even a nine pointer. 3 points for not voting UKIP, 3 points for deserting Labour  AND 3  points for voting Tory.   

[Dave]

I still don't see the logic. I'd be interested in objective evidence that shows people stayed away from previous elections because they thought it was a foregone conclusion.

How about 2001, whose 59% turnout was, I believe, the lowest in any UK general election ever! And it is generally thought that this was because everyone knew the Labour government, elected four years previously with a famous landslide, would be re-elected - and it was.

The turnout two years ago was 66%. I bet it will be lower than that this time.

[andrewbowden]

I still don't see the logic. I'd be interested in objective evidence that shows people stayed away from previous elections because they thought it was a foregone conclusion.

I can't offer evidence.  Just perceived wisdom.  And I would presume there's some truth in perceived wisdom because the Tories keep banging on about not taking anything for granted.

Perhaps it's not wanting to sound arrogant.  1992 and Neil Kinnock prematurely celebrating and all that,

What cannot be argued is the general trend in decreasing turnouts. You touched upon some of the likely causes earlier, Dave.
For me, the steady decline in "tribal" politics correlates with the lack of diversity between the two main parties since 1997. People are fed up with the lack of choice, and under first past the post no other party was ever going to get a look-in. Tie this in to the almost presidential attitude of Blair and his influence on Cameron (arguably Blair II), and you get far more style over substance.

I can't help but think there's a link with the career politician.  The politician who has no real world experience.  Has never done anything except politics.  They've helped out with some MP's case word.  They've been a councillor.  They've done a degree with Politics in the title.  They all have one thing in common: next to no experience outside of politics. 

Just like, funnily enough, the person who was MP for Marple from 2015 to 2017, and who is standing again now.

Back in the 1990s Channel 4 dramatised a book called 'A Very British Coup' that was published in 1982.  I never read the book, but the TV series was excellent.  But it's dated dreadfully.  In it, a former miner/Trade Union official who lived in a Sheffield council house, became Prime Minster. 

Can you image that happening today?  I certainly can't.

[Melancholyflower]

I still don't see the logic. I'd be interested in objective evidence that shows people stayed away from previous elections because they thought it was a foregone conclusion.

What cannot be argued is the general trend in decreasing turnouts. You touched upon some of the likely causes earlier, Dave.
For me, the steady decline in "tribal" politics correlates with the lack of diversity between the two main parties since 1997. People are fed up with the lack of choice, and under first past the post no other party was ever going to get a look-in. Tie this in to the almost presidential attitude of Blair and his influence on Cameron (arguably Blair II), and you get far more style over substance.

As Corbyn has a markedly different and more left-reaching manifesto than Miliband did, it will be interesting to see how this changes things. 

[Dave]

I'm old enough to remember the February 1974 general election, which was called by prime minister Heath after months of strikes and other industrial disputes. It was billed as the 'who governs Britain' election (i.e. is it the government or the trade unions?).  The Tories were expected to win, although I'm not sure a landslide was expected.

In the event, Labour won (narrowly), and then called another general election later that year at which they won a bigger majority.

Right now, I think the Tories are right to fear that some of their supporters will stay at home on 8 June because they believe the election is a foregone conclusion.  And there's also a lot of people who are just fed up with elections, referendums etc. Remember Brenda from Bristol:

[Melancholyflower]

The issue with supposed landslides is that if they seem destined to happen, people stay at home rather than vote.  This is one reason why May occasionally mutters "not taking anything for granted".  She doesn't want people to stay at home.  But when the polls give you runaway leads, that's a tough message.

It's also why, if you oppose the Tories, getting out and voting is essential.

Seems like an oxymoron to me.  Do you think people would give up voting for the cause they believe in if they see the party they don't want to govern with a big lead in the polls (which are hardly infallible themselves)?

How many "supposed landslides" have been predicted before the actual vote was taken? How was voting behaviour measured in these supposed landslides?

[andrewbowden]

What if you quite like the Tories and oppose the politics of the lazy?

Then you're a bit stuck in this constituency.

[Duke Fame]

The issue with supposed landslides is that if they seem destined to happen, people stay at home rather than vote.  This is one reason why May occasionally mutters "not taking anything for granted".  She doesn't want people to stay at home.  But when the polls give you runaway leads, that's a tough message.

It's also why, if you oppose the Tories, getting out and voting is essential.

What if you quite like the Tories and oppose the politics of the lazy?

[Dave]

Indeed it is. But I think Wragg will be hard to beat, especially as there is no UKIP candidate, so many of the 5,000 UKIP voters in 2015 will probably vote for him.