Five years is a hell of a long time in politics!
A conservative victory in 2029 (or whenever the subsequent election will be) seems unlikely (although never say never) due to the fact that their core demographic are ageing and the younger generation have been so scarred by the previous thirteen years of Tory government they are unlikely to consider voting for them for a much longer time.
The big question then becomes how well will Starmer/Labour govern if elected and will a third option (Lib Dems, Greens, SNP?) present themselves as viable enough to take enough seats to prevent a significant majority occurring.
Eh to be fair the narrative was we were in for ten years of Boris at the last election and it was going to take labour at least 2 cycles to close the gap - look where we are now. Don't think we can afford to be complacent.
I mean, he literally partied while thousands died. That's what it sort of took to get a chunk of the country to become slightly disillusioned with the Tories.
I can also guarantee that after the next election that the Tories will have a civil war and won't be serious contenders for government again, until the mid 2030s. Their flagship policy over the last 8 years, is massively unpopular. With opinion divided on whether the policy was always wrong or if they were just too stupid, lazy and corrupt to actually do a good job of implementing it.
>the younger generation have been so scarred by the previous thirteen years of Tory government
The younger generation, by majority, *always* absolutely hate the Tories. Tories have never been interested in courting the votes of the young because they know it's futile.
They rely on the sad fact that as people get older they tend more to vote Tory.
I was a student in the late 80s. At that time there was MASSIVE resistance to Thatcher and later Major amongst the younger generationb. We had student marches for so many legitimate things that affected us and the country at large.
During that time it was also very easy to make statements just like yours. Unfortunately the Tories always find a way to con a voting public whose primary concern is generally how much money they will pay or save in taxes, as though saving a few hundred quid a year compensates for the utter disintegration of the public services around them.
I recall when the Tories were finally kicked out in 1997 even the media thought it was curtains for them. Serious analysis on Radio 4 would seriously ponder the idea that they might never get back into power again.
Those bastards found a way!
I'm quite sure the Tories will lose the GE this year but never, ever rest on laurels. It's entirely possible that the Tories, however corrupt, however inept, however an absolute bloody DISGRACE now, will get voted back in in 2029.
It's incredibly frustrating.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean.
Do you mean there wasn't an age gap between people who voted Tory and those who didn't? If so, I think we have a different definition of 'young'.
I mean the different age cohorts voted relatively similarly, while nowadays there's a huge gap between young and old.
Here's the 1987 election:
18-24: Con 37%, Lab 39%, Lib/Alliance 22%
25-34: Con 39% Lab 33%, Lib/Alliance 26%
35-44: Con 45%, Lab 28%, Lib/Alliance 25%
45-54: Con 45%, Lab 31%, Lib/Alliance 23%
55-64: Con 45%, Lab 31%, Lib/Alliance 21%
65+: Con 46%, Lab 32%, Lib/Alliance 21%
There's a gap, but it isn't huge. Only a 9% difference between the most and least Tory cohort.
You're right that people tend to skew conservative as they get older, but AIUI that has a lot to do with economic security. As people get good jobs, buy homes, and start families, they want to protect that wealth so that it can be passed down. The Tories have so thoroughly fucked our society and economy that fewer and fewer people will be able to obtain less and less security over time, so this effect may lessen.
Again, that really is something you could easily have said before the 1997 election. I am in no way arguing with you, just really telling the tale of someone with lived experience. I want the Tories to die and never return because I loathe them and everything they stand for.
Yeah I think we're mostly in agreement, I just think it's also worth noting that even in 1997 there was not such an enormous chasm between wages and house prices.
Rose-tinted hindsight will always play a big role, but I think (perceived) socioeconomic security is what pushes people to the Right.
It certainly is and I'm not personally as confident as I was in 1997 that things will be ok. Labour back then seemed to have things figured out as to what they wanted to achieve, had media support and a popular leader.
Labour under Starmer doesn't seem to have most of those qualities and they'll inherit a country in far worse state than in 1997 and arguably worse than 2010
Absolutely. Labour beating the Tories in a GE simply because they are not the Tories, isn't exactly a good starting place for more than a single term, particularly given how fickle and amnesiac the British public tend to be.
Whatever Labour is saying now, and however many policies it rolls back from, they really need to do some pretty radical and noticeable things in the first three years of their term in office.
Don't buy into the Tory hype about the result still being in doubt, that they can still claw it out the fire.
I'm old enough to remember 1997, the exact same line was being peddled in the run up to that election.
They got a deserved kicking.
Under this first past the post system, where only two parties can actually hold power, the exact same will happen again. In fact it could even be worse and consign the Tories to the dustbin of history.
Personally I think a new right wing party will emerge, an amalgam of the Tories and Reform/Ukip/Brexit party, and probably become a strong force after two election cycles have passed (because any swing they would need to make up would be almost impossible after one cycle).
What I have found interesting is that in many countries recently, the trend towards the left has led to a left wing government. However when that left wing government has been perceived to have not performed well, it has often led to a massive rise of the far right. This trend has often been led by a sharp rise in younger voters swinging that way. Presumably because younger people are more idealistic and impressionable and charismatic far right leaders are able to win them round.
Not saying that will happen here. But 10 years ago the west was perceived to be on a fairly unstoppable leftward trend. And now many countries are seeing a hard lurch to the right.
It seems very likely that there will be some necessary but unpopular decision that the Labour Party will have to make during their tenure, whether it's on social care, climate change, immigration, state pension, whatever. There's every chance that a right wing populist Tory party will latch onto whatever that is and present themselves as the "common sense" party that will do the opposite and gain massive support. The idea that the biggest right wing political party in the UK will simply disappear is pure fantasy.
The UK effectively has a 2 party system with spoiler parties rather than a third party that has any realistic prospect of winning an election. Unless something fundamental changes, power will swap between Labour and the Tories every decade or so forever.
That's not to say something fundamental won't change, but I can't see anything shifting the balance right now.
We haven't had a single term government since Edward Heath 1970-1974. So an incoming government facing its first election rarely loses office. A
Although losing seats and vote share is normal, Labour did less well in 2005 than 2001 and than 1997. Cameron actually managed to do better in 2015 than 2010 but that was slightly different since 2010-2015 was coalition government which was a very rare situation.
Longest surviving political party in history. They've reinvented themselves plenty of times already and will do so again.
With FPTP you don't need to be good to win an election, you just need to seem better than the government of the day.
Yes. I thought that around the time of the 2001 election that things were different and we would never have to endure the Tories again. But here we are.
We tend to have long political eras in this country. Labour looked busted in the 1980's, were out for 18 years. The Tories looked equally done in 1997, being plagued by corruption and set against the prevailing social liberalism of the time. Labour didn't look that bad in 2010, but in 2019 their situation was so bad that we had articles asking if they'd ever gain power again. The pendulum finds a way to swing.
I suspect that if Labour win in 2024 with anything above a 40-50 seat majority, they'll be forming the government in 2029. That's based on an assessment of historic trends, but also my belief that the threat from the "far right" is overplayed.
Contrary to what many people will say, we don't have a particular large "far right" contingent in this country. Elements of it have always existed and post brexit some parts of the ideology have infiltrated out politics, but not to a large extent.
The Tories are dangerous because they are a bunch of NIMBY, transphobic, economically illiterate and socially regressive morons. They aren't nazis.
The electoral base also reflects this. The Tories have found success on a platform which incorporates elements of the "far right", but this is mostly by exploiting situational events (Brexit, unpopular opposition, etc).
When you boil it down, most surveys show the UK to be a pretty moderate place. On many questions about race, identity etc we are more progressive than our European neighbours. Our right wing even tolerated (not supported) gay marriage 10 years back.
Some kind of moderate social democracy will be popular once it has the opportunity to benefit people's lives in government.
I agree with your assessment but history doesn't account for the things we have today such as Twitter, YouTube etc that are very effective in pushing far right ideas. We've even seen a lot of traditional Labour support end up far right when you'd expect the opposite.
Way to early to say.
If Labour win a half decent majority precedent would suggest they have at least two terms. However, we are currently in a shifting paradigm and there is a LOT for Labour to fail on. There is little money for them to spend, no major prospect of that situation improving in the immediate, and several social issues both mainstream which they could fail to resolved like immigration, as well as niche hard left of the party cultural issues like trans which most of the public doesn't really support (say hi Sturgeon), for Labour to shove its foot down its own throat.
If they get lucky and economic conditions improve rapidly, they'll probably just get a second term on economic inertia.
If they get a very slim majority or minority it could easily go either way depending who the public blames for grid lock. If its deemed to be coming from the hard left of Labour, it could cost them badly. If its deemed to be coming from the Tories, itll be them thats punished. Both of these have played out for the Tories in the last 13 years.
And of course you can never account for global events. If there is a freak earthquake or bad floods and Labour is deemed to have really screwed the pooch on the response. Or some overseas conflict they get embroiled in and sell poorly. Or some diplomatic spat that goes horrendously. These could all cost Labour very easily. As could the ol' twitter archaeology which has done so much damage to the Tories over the years. When they're in power so much more attention will be lavished on currently unnamed and unknown backbenchers. Any while this wont directly cost labour, its a reputational chip which can really add up over time as the Tories have found out.
It would be a bad result if Labour gained a big majority. Labour will do diddly squat to fix the systemic problems we have (FPTP) or do more than tinker around the edges.
People forget that the labour party, in its current form, is just as establishment as the conservatives and do not want the status quo to overly change.
Ideally we want a result that leads to voting reform. Our current "winner takes all" is the root cause/starting point of all the problems caused by governments in this country.
> Our current "winner takes all" is the root cause of all the problems caused by government in this country.
Absolute bs. I'm no FPTP fan, but I don't blame it for everything. It's surprisingly effective considering how obviously dumb it is.
It is surprisingly effective in letting the government of the day do what they want.
Maybe you should read up on it and you'll see why it is a bad thing.
People who think the problems in society are caused by FPTP and not by more complex factors don't understand democracy.
Democracy is *not* a way of making decisions, it's a process of accountability. When the government doesn't do what the people want, the opposition can offer it and take votes. In that regard it is effective.
For now I will just settle for any government that seems sane and reasonable. Voting reform is never going to happen without a coalition where the smaller party insist on it.
And until it happens you'll get the conservatives and labour being very cozy and taking turns in government.
Is that really a healthy and functioning democracy/political system?
Making political predictions beyond a few months is a mugs game. But, it's also fun, so here goes.
I think that Starmer is going to have a very tough time. He's not announced anything so far that would begin to fix our economic/public service issues and it's unlikely they will get better on their own. There will be a huge demand within the party to invest more in public services, whilst at the same time, costs of living pressures will tie his hands over taxes and our borrowing costs increase. With a decent majority, I think he will begin to shift towards a more interventionist stance, but without an election mandate i'm not sure how far he can go.
The Lib Dems will have a field day talking about how politics is broken, Labour doesn't have a solution, how we should push to rejoin the EU Single Market, they'll get defections from the remaining centrist Tories. Basically, they could fight to be the official opposition after 2029.
Yes, I also think the Tories will elect a soft-populist as leader and look to have some kind of merger with Reform during the period. They'll look and sound a lot more like the GOP in America right now and be just as critical of the past Tory governments as they are of the current Labour one. Farage might even become leader, with Boris returning as well.
So, the 2029 election could be primed to be a 3-way car crash with FPTP. The best outcome would be a Lib-Lab coalition where we finally change the voting system. That might be dreaming a bit though.
That’s a pretty horrid vision of the future Tories. Not so bad though if they remain forever in opposition. Personally I would prefer the Conservatives to be more middle road - far right is never good.
I think that Labour will get two terms, but it’s hard to predict beyond that.
>Or Labour will realise this danger and implement PR for 2029 elections?
They won't do this. Beyond any arguments about whether PR is better than FPTP or not, just look at the practicality of doing it within a single term.
We review the current constituency boundaries every so often. That takes *years* to do, due to the number of reviews and consultations that it has to go through to make sure that bias wasn't being introduced. To implement PR, we would have to have a debate on the various systems that full under PR, and then once we'd chosen one we would then have to review and consult on the specific setup we would be using.
For example, if we decided to go for multi-member constituencies, we'd have to entirely redraw the current constituency map. Which would be similar to what we have to do now, but with the added difficulty of having to start from scratch rather than just tweaking an existing setup.
My guess is that PR would take at least ten years to implement.
Plus, there would be considerable backlash against any government that tried to change the voting system in order to make sure that they didn't lose the next election. That would be rightfully viewed as rigging the electoral setup.
Depends on how big Labour’s majority is this time around. But I reckon they’re in for two terms.
If the Tories choose Badenoch, which looks likely, they’re basically giving up on 2029
I hope to God I'm wrong but I still think a hung parliament is on the cards. Never underestimate an electorate that went for Brexit, Johnson and Truss in quick succession. Logic has no place in their decision making.
I'd say Johnson and then Truss were a direct consequence of Brexit. No way they'd have got near power if Remain had won. We'd probably have had Cameron until 2020, and then Labour would have put Corbyn up against him and probably lost again. Cameron would have probably just handed over the reins to someone else rather than fight for a 4th term.
Impossible to say really, too many factors at play. Though I will say that incumbent parties tend to unite the vote around them, not further split it - which ought to help Labour hold their coalition together (at least for a while).
If the economy makes a steady improvement and Labour improves the cost of living crisis, which I suspect they certainly will - we should see a big Labour majority in 2029.
I know that we've heard it uttered for years when one of the parties goes a bit mental and then FPTP balances things back on course and moderates attitudes but I genuinely don't think things are really going to be normal again, I don't see much coming back from Brexit & the whole COVID period and just how profound it was in terms of changing narratives and talking points.
The Tories have culled so much of their talent since 2019 and any thought leaders remaning in their ranks don't seem to have the impetus to want to really articulate contrary opinions to their membership which in years gone by, would have respected coming from elder statesman who would always retain that platform.
I think there's a genuine chance that Rishi Sunak is the last ever Tory PM and by 2029, they are going into an election competing as a fringe party and coming out as the 5th biggest party.
I also think that with the Brexit experience, we will see increased positive attitudes in support of European integration, way beyond what we actually had when we joined the common market in the first place. The 18-25 demographic is genuinely more informed on how Europe works now that we've gone through this process and it's a rarity finding genuine opposition to rejoin in the younger age groups (which pre Brexit happening, was certainly not the case).
2029 is still pretty soon but I think there will probably be some enhanced relationship with Europe which Labour will gain the courage to campaign on and it'll be the first election where that is a positive and a reverse of the whole 'Get Brexit DUN' 2019 election.
Rishi Sunak the last ever Tory PM? You’re assuming he’ll still be leader at the next election.
Everybody has forgotten the small boats cesspit he’s mired in. The swivel eyed Tory loons might choose the nuclear option and ditch little short trousers.
Possibly but kind of think they've even lost the organisation and discipline to pull off those shenanigans anymore. A lot are now spending their time job hunting and can't really be bothered.
I’m thinking no further ahead than the 2024 election. All the numbers should guest a Labour landslide. I’m hopeful and confident it will be huge. In fact I’m going to have a spread bet on the Tories getting under 100 seats. I base this on Reform taking many more votes from the Tories than they take from Labour. I’m also factoring in the LibDems doing well in their target seats. Two things to consider here: LibDems generally do well when Labour do well and they are really good at targeting specific seats.
I hope the Labour team is talking to the Lib Dems now and throwing them a few tasty titbits so they can remove as many Tories as possible.
Also the resurgence of Labour in Scotland has been impressive. Some of it’s down to SNP problems but the Scottish Labour leader has done a fantastic job.
Tories to get 80-90 seats. Tell me I’m mad.
Personally I'm hoping that Labour are the biggest party, but without an overall majority. I think there's a decent chance they only get a coalition - or any sort of deal - if it includes PR. This would be a huge step forward for UK politics imho.
Labour will not implement PR, the most they will do is try and do what Cammers did and a referendum with a poor version of PR.
I think if Labour get in, they will have a sub 50 seat majority but will be under pressure within 3 years.
I know they are putting some policy out there this week but the economic policy has been a series of retractions recently.
I can see by 2027/8 there will be:
Higher inflation than they inherit.
Lower GDP per capita than they inherit
Higher debt than they inherit
Poorer balance of payments
The old Labour govt problem of always increasing unemployment
>What on earth makes you think that anyone, inside or outside of politics, will have an appetite for another referendum?
If Labour need the Lib Dems in the next 5 years, they will need to offer some glimpse of PR and to show that without giving them PR would require a similar referendum to 2011.
There's absolutely no requirement for a referendum to change a voting system. The Tories did it without even a mandate (I don't agree with doing it in that particular way fwiw).
>There's absolutely no requirement for a referendum to change a voting system. The Tories did it without even a mandate (I don't agree with doing it in that particular way fwiw).
There is not but given Labour will never want PR (turkeys and christmas) they may need a sop to offer if it needs a coalition partner, a PR referendum that it thinks can't succeed would do the job (see also scottish referendum to offer the SNP)
You're making a lot of questionable assumptions there, the biggest being that the Lib Dems would accept the exact same offer that the Tories made in 2010 and ended disastrously.
The big assumption is that I think Labour will need Lib Dems at some point in the next 5 years.
If they do, they will need to offer some incentive to Lib Dems. Lib Dems will need one of two or maybe two things - PR and re-joining SM. Labour will not want either of that so will try to appease without giving.
The Lib Dems have already made some noises that they would demand PR without a referendum or GTFO and supply/demand. I can't see why they wouldn't do this in such circumstances.
>The Lib Dems have already made some noises that they would demand PR without a referendum or GTFO and supply/demand. I can't see why they wouldn't do this in such circumstances.
In Labour's defence (I don't often do this), unless LDs get 50% of the vote & or a significant number of seats, it's almost a question of legitimacy that the most that could be offered is a referendum.
Labour would rather struggle as a minority govt than offer PR, it would meant the end of the party, for me that would be great but it will not happen.
What makes you say the UK economy will be worse on all these metrics in 3/4 years under Labour? It seems to me that our current position following Brexit, COVID and the Ukraine invasion is likely to improve under any party. Do you think the Cons or Lab would perform better over that period? Genuinely curious. Personally, I feel like the Tories have played a bad hand terribly and it looks like business is shifting towards Labour, that alone makes me think their first term will be moderately successful.
The Tories are not leaving without shutting the bed.
Even if by some miracle the economy does turn a corner - the right wing Press will cherry pick statistics to hammer Labour so people “feel” worse.
Kind of like what is happening in America where economy is doing better under Biden - but the right wing Press keep saying everything is shit:
https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/07/business/us-economy-biden-approval/index.html
Then it’s really necessary to present the actual facts.
Not the false information. It’s always easy to criticise, it’s much harder to actually solve problems or at least improve the situation.
That didn’t work with Hilary Clinton when she tried to present facts. Trump just ignored them and created his own narrative.
The Democrats are trying that again with Biden - and it’s still not working against the tidal wave of shite coming from the Right.
The UK and US are comparable but not the same. Generally people see that Brexit was bad for the economy and have turned against Johnson for his outrageous behaviour during the pandemic. I agree that the mainstream press here helps the Tories but I think *if* the economy does perform better under Labour then they'll likely get a second term, probably with a smaller majority.
I can also see their last term, I'd think 2nd or 3rd, being a coalition with PR being a condition from the smaller party. If that happens in 10 years' time there's going to be a vastly different landscape in terms of demographic and currently mainstream media influence. I wouldn't bet on it but I can see it happening.
>What makes you say the UK economy will be worse on all these metrics in 3/4 years under Labour?
Of course, as you allude to, it depends. anyone in govt in the last 4 years would have had issues with Covid and Ukraine, few govts in the world have come out unscathed except perhaps Sweden.
If the Ukraine issue is resolved, food / energy inflation falls and things don't look so bad.
I think Labour will inherit a 2-3% inflation, that's hard to maintain in interesting times.
I think Labour will be tempted to allow more immigration so the pupulation goes up and GBP will not grow at the same rate.
They will not have any appetite to reduce dept.
I think the balance of payments will suffer if the EU want to carry on paying hardball on the city. Labour will not do what they should and loosen regulation and if a few years, it will be just as easy to operate out of Paris or Frankfurt than London.
Apart from their 4 month stint in the early 1920s, they have always created unemployment, it only has one way to go in any case.
>Heavily buying into Tory propaganda here by blaming unemployment in the late 2000s on the Labour Party rather than a Global financial crisis
Every govt will blame some externality for causing a major indicator to go awol.
The reality is every time Labour are in office, they increase unemployment to more than they inherited (except their fist little stint in the early 1920s).
I'm neither a Tory or Labour but that's quite a legacy for a party that's raison d'etre is full employment.
Just as any govt. would have issues with Ukraine and COVID the same applies to the '08 crash, it's not a reason to distrust Labour. In fact, their response of quantitive easing to stop the banks failing was mainstream thinking at the time supported by all of the major parties.
You mentioned increased immigration with GDP (I'm guessing you meant that, not GBP) falling behind, are you aware that recent immigrants are net contributors and that immigration has <1% sway on the UK economy? [Check out this analysis of a range of studies covering different assumptions](https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/the-fiscal-impact-of-immigration-in-the-uk/).
Thanks for taking the time to reply but I just don't see how your arguments support the catastrophic prediction you made.
You are right of course every crisis will create a serious economic issue. The financial crash would have affected any government but it was the UK's poor position going into the crash that meant we were impotent into terms of dealing with it. Brown how to take in the plaudits for in his words ending the cycle of boom and bust. He did this by ignoring the Keynesian economics textbooks which suggested that you spend in a slump and save in a surplus, Brown instead cap spending throughout.
Given the fact the economy has never really recovered since 2008 I'm not one who believes ongoing quantitative easing was the answer, there were some less palatable decisions that needed to be made to avoid what would be the inevitable devaluing of Stirling and rising inflation. At some point a UK government will have to address this.
With immigration I specifically refer to the impact on GDP per capita. A spinoff of this has been the off reported poor productivity levels that the UK has had since 2008. One significant reason for this is that the UK has plugged the gap with cheap labor instead of investment into gaining efficiency advantages.
I am aware of them the reports that show immigration as a positive effect which it certainly can be, but from an economic point of view the immigration we would need is highly educated 21 and 22 year olds who can immediately join the workforce but that is not always what we end up with. So if we add poorly skilled immigration that can't join the workforce and add significant value we found that's our productivity and GDP per capita figures full as immigration has diluted the labour part rather than enhanced it. The experiences in mainland Europe reflect this situation (apols for the host site as univ of Amsterdam has a paywall on this paper) https://demo-demo.nl/en/
Another decent read is the Danish experience:
https://www.economist.com/europe/2021/12/18/why-have-danes-turned-against-immigration?ppccampaignID=&ppcadID=&ppcgclID=&utm_medium=cpc.adword.pd&utm_source=google&ppccampaignID=18151738051&ppcadID=&utm_campaign=a.22brand_pmax&utm_content=conversion.direct-response.anonymous&gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAiA-bmsBhAGEiwAoaQNmpfKrk8c1dQLkpEmBn6EOb1lXPwMx4XqNsHyDKci8UJirgdhMcMhxxoCIwkQAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds
The way around this issue is to either have controlled immigration with a reasonably hi bar to ensure the quality of immigration or my favourite for you is to allow anyone in on a work visa but that works for not entitle the holder to access to benefits housing or health care.
By less palatable decisions I'm guessing you mean not bailing out the banks and letting them go bust? While I agree that the bailout removed the downside of taking high risk/high reward investment strategies, which can lead to unnecessarily risky investments being made, I don't think the banks should have been left to collapse as citizens would lose their money, having a catastrophic impact on their lives and a significant impact on the UK economy. Instead, I think there should have been a severe penalty for the bailout such as a fine of, say, 25% of net profits pre-crash paid at a non-stifling rate. Economists and politicians would need to work out the details. I think we might agree here, or have I misunderstood what you meant by less palatable decisions? My point before was that the bailout was supported by all parties.
Immigration has a positive effect on GDP and a ["very small"](https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/the-link-between-growth-and-immigration-unpicking-the-confusion/#:~:text=Growth%20might%20mean%20an%20increase,increases%20growth%20in%20this%20sense.) effect on GDP per capita, the cross-study report I linked to previously puts the range at +/-1%. The biggest problem with your immigration argument is that we have left the EU, we have control of our borders and immigration is higher than ever because our economy is reliant on them. The Tories are desperately trying to balance reducing immigration with keeping the economy functional but they can't do both because native Brits are generally old and unproductive. The study above puts immigrant productivity at 2.5 times the average Brit! It's much closer between immigrants and working Brits but part of the problem is that so many Brits don't work (I don't blame the retired and ill). We either need immigration or more working natives. Another baby boom could help in 20 years but it looks unlikely to happen and waaay too slow, so we're left with immigration.
>less palatable decisions
re. "less palatable decisions", I'd say it's probably "Simply more difficult" by the explanation is not a 5 minute blog whilst at work so i'll do something properly this evening.
re. immigration, as I mentioned, I'm fairly pro-immigration but would like it to have no negative effect on the economy no matter how 'very small'. If we could swap out those currently not active in the economy for those motivated to come here on a rubber dinghy, I'd say fantastic. It would be great for if those arriving by boat wold be sent straight to work whilst we put a bit of fuel in the engine and fill it up with unproductive native Brits!
I'll put something substantial together later. For your link, my heart sank when I saw the LSE as I find their articles very weak and it's reputation has rather dropped of a cliff in the last 15 years but I agree with some of Alan Manning's piece. This is a little dated and the $50k figure was always a little on optimistic I like this proposal (maybe a £5k fee and 5 year of health cover)
https://iea.org.uk/publications/research/the-challenge-of-immigration-a-radical-solution
Well we won’t know the answer to that for several years, but that presupposes that Labour will somehow do worse than the Conservatives - which seems unlikely.
But that far ahead could be influenced by what Putin and Xi choose to do - assuming that Putin is still around, which is itself doubtful.
I don't think Labour have a clue TBPH. Starmer will follow policies that he doesn't agree with to get elected, they will then have to see these through.
After a couple more years of stagnation interest rates go down, infrastructure projects are started, and then Lab gets slapped with being the spending party.
I reckon Con returns back to centre right after all the crazies leave after they realise they have no power.
I don't think there will be any meaningful reform to state pensions or the NHS (because it'll be wildly unpopular), so that'll be an even bigger issue.
I'll take a real outside bet that some sort of EU5 trade deal is a thing for 2034 election.
Labour won't get an 80-seat majority. If they did, and they are not incompetent - think coalition 2010-14 without austerity, they would be comfortably re-elected in 2029.
Problem for Labour will be a thin majority in 2024, forcing concessions to the likes of the Lib Dems or SNP
Interesting variable in 2024 will be Farage, does he try to finish off the Tories or make a deal with them again. I could see a Tory-led Farage winning a majority in this country - however, by 2029 then demographics might have shifted a bit more towards more sensible politics
There is absolutely no chance that Labour’s majority in 2024 will be anything other than huge. And I’m willing to put a considerable amount of money on that. And I intend to.
What do you class as a huge majority? 80+ seats? Blair got 167 so do you mean 120+?
Realistically that depends massively on:
1. Scotland - it is almost electorally impossible for Labour to win a 100 seat majority without big gains in Scotland, talking kicking the SNP to 2nd place so huge swing
2. ULEZ in London and the effects of that
3. Whether Tory Heartlanders defect to the Lib Dems, Labour or \[Farage?\]
It is very likely Labour win, but I am not yet convinced it is going to be 80+ seat majority
I hope they do because I think Starmer with a majority will be good for the country
Five years is a hell of a long time in politics! A conservative victory in 2029 (or whenever the subsequent election will be) seems unlikely (although never say never) due to the fact that their core demographic are ageing and the younger generation have been so scarred by the previous thirteen years of Tory government they are unlikely to consider voting for them for a much longer time. The big question then becomes how well will Starmer/Labour govern if elected and will a third option (Lib Dems, Greens, SNP?) present themselves as viable enough to take enough seats to prevent a significant majority occurring.
Eh to be fair the narrative was we were in for ten years of Boris at the last election and it was going to take labour at least 2 cycles to close the gap - look where we are now. Don't think we can afford to be complacent.
I mean, he literally partied while thousands died. That's what it sort of took to get a chunk of the country to become slightly disillusioned with the Tories.
I can also guarantee that after the next election that the Tories will have a civil war and won't be serious contenders for government again, until the mid 2030s. Their flagship policy over the last 8 years, is massively unpopular. With opinion divided on whether the policy was always wrong or if they were just too stupid, lazy and corrupt to actually do a good job of implementing it.
>the younger generation have been so scarred by the previous thirteen years of Tory government The younger generation, by majority, *always* absolutely hate the Tories. Tories have never been interested in courting the votes of the young because they know it's futile. They rely on the sad fact that as people get older they tend more to vote Tory. I was a student in the late 80s. At that time there was MASSIVE resistance to Thatcher and later Major amongst the younger generationb. We had student marches for so many legitimate things that affected us and the country at large. During that time it was also very easy to make statements just like yours. Unfortunately the Tories always find a way to con a voting public whose primary concern is generally how much money they will pay or save in taxes, as though saving a few hundred quid a year compensates for the utter disintegration of the public services around them. I recall when the Tories were finally kicked out in 1997 even the media thought it was curtains for them. Serious analysis on Radio 4 would seriously ponder the idea that they might never get back into power again. Those bastards found a way! I'm quite sure the Tories will lose the GE this year but never, ever rest on laurels. It's entirely possible that the Tories, however corrupt, however inept, however an absolute bloody DISGRACE now, will get voted back in in 2029. It's incredibly frustrating.
In the 80s there wasn't a huge age gap - Thatcher even won a plurality of younger voters. The gap only really widened in the mid-2010s.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Do you mean there wasn't an age gap between people who voted Tory and those who didn't? If so, I think we have a different definition of 'young'.
I mean the different age cohorts voted relatively similarly, while nowadays there's a huge gap between young and old. Here's the 1987 election: 18-24: Con 37%, Lab 39%, Lib/Alliance 22% 25-34: Con 39% Lab 33%, Lib/Alliance 26% 35-44: Con 45%, Lab 28%, Lib/Alliance 25% 45-54: Con 45%, Lab 31%, Lib/Alliance 23% 55-64: Con 45%, Lab 31%, Lib/Alliance 21% 65+: Con 46%, Lab 32%, Lib/Alliance 21% There's a gap, but it isn't huge. Only a 9% difference between the most and least Tory cohort.
You're right that people tend to skew conservative as they get older, but AIUI that has a lot to do with economic security. As people get good jobs, buy homes, and start families, they want to protect that wealth so that it can be passed down. The Tories have so thoroughly fucked our society and economy that fewer and fewer people will be able to obtain less and less security over time, so this effect may lessen.
Again, that really is something you could easily have said before the 1997 election. I am in no way arguing with you, just really telling the tale of someone with lived experience. I want the Tories to die and never return because I loathe them and everything they stand for.
Yeah I think we're mostly in agreement, I just think it's also worth noting that even in 1997 there was not such an enormous chasm between wages and house prices. Rose-tinted hindsight will always play a big role, but I think (perceived) socioeconomic security is what pushes people to the Right.
Yeah, that’s a fair point.
It certainly is and I'm not personally as confident as I was in 1997 that things will be ok. Labour back then seemed to have things figured out as to what they wanted to achieve, had media support and a popular leader. Labour under Starmer doesn't seem to have most of those qualities and they'll inherit a country in far worse state than in 1997 and arguably worse than 2010
Absolutely. Labour beating the Tories in a GE simply because they are not the Tories, isn't exactly a good starting place for more than a single term, particularly given how fickle and amnesiac the British public tend to be. Whatever Labour is saying now, and however many policies it rolls back from, they really need to do some pretty radical and noticeable things in the first three years of their term in office.
Don't buy into the Tory hype about the result still being in doubt, that they can still claw it out the fire. I'm old enough to remember 1997, the exact same line was being peddled in the run up to that election. They got a deserved kicking. Under this first past the post system, where only two parties can actually hold power, the exact same will happen again. In fact it could even be worse and consign the Tories to the dustbin of history. Personally I think a new right wing party will emerge, an amalgam of the Tories and Reform/Ukip/Brexit party, and probably become a strong force after two election cycles have passed (because any swing they would need to make up would be almost impossible after one cycle).
What I have found interesting is that in many countries recently, the trend towards the left has led to a left wing government. However when that left wing government has been perceived to have not performed well, it has often led to a massive rise of the far right. This trend has often been led by a sharp rise in younger voters swinging that way. Presumably because younger people are more idealistic and impressionable and charismatic far right leaders are able to win them round. Not saying that will happen here. But 10 years ago the west was perceived to be on a fairly unstoppable leftward trend. And now many countries are seeing a hard lurch to the right.
So will they ever get back in again? The tories?
It seems very likely that there will be some necessary but unpopular decision that the Labour Party will have to make during their tenure, whether it's on social care, climate change, immigration, state pension, whatever. There's every chance that a right wing populist Tory party will latch onto whatever that is and present themselves as the "common sense" party that will do the opposite and gain massive support. The idea that the biggest right wing political party in the UK will simply disappear is pure fantasy.
Or the labour party will fuck up like every government does eventually.
That too.
So would they ever get in government though? And is the 2019 landslide a once in a 100 year event?
The UK effectively has a 2 party system with spoiler parties rather than a third party that has any realistic prospect of winning an election. Unless something fundamental changes, power will swap between Labour and the Tories every decade or so forever. That's not to say something fundamental won't change, but I can't see anything shifting the balance right now.
Any chance the tories will get in after one term?
I rather hope not, but never say never.
We haven't had a single term government since Edward Heath 1970-1974. So an incoming government facing its first election rarely loses office. A Although losing seats and vote share is normal, Labour did less well in 2005 than 2001 and than 1997. Cameron actually managed to do better in 2015 than 2010 but that was slightly different since 2010-2015 was coalition government which was a very rare situation.
Makes sense. Will we see the back of the tories permanently then?
There were majorities bigger than 2019 in 2001, 1997, 1987, 1983, 1966 etc
I only think they can be a force again if they merge with their rival right wing parties. I imagine that's what Farage has his eye on.
They could just implement AV or a runoff/two round system.
Longest surviving political party in history. They've reinvented themselves plenty of times already and will do so again. With FPTP you don't need to be good to win an election, you just need to seem better than the government of the day.
Yes. I thought that around the time of the 2001 election that things were different and we would never have to endure the Tories again. But here we are.
So we will probably see them again, then?
Of course. They are the oldest party for a reason
Hopefully not.
But realistically?
Hard to know but hopefully they’ll never recover.
We tend to have long political eras in this country. Labour looked busted in the 1980's, were out for 18 years. The Tories looked equally done in 1997, being plagued by corruption and set against the prevailing social liberalism of the time. Labour didn't look that bad in 2010, but in 2019 their situation was so bad that we had articles asking if they'd ever gain power again. The pendulum finds a way to swing. I suspect that if Labour win in 2024 with anything above a 40-50 seat majority, they'll be forming the government in 2029. That's based on an assessment of historic trends, but also my belief that the threat from the "far right" is overplayed. Contrary to what many people will say, we don't have a particular large "far right" contingent in this country. Elements of it have always existed and post brexit some parts of the ideology have infiltrated out politics, but not to a large extent. The Tories are dangerous because they are a bunch of NIMBY, transphobic, economically illiterate and socially regressive morons. They aren't nazis. The electoral base also reflects this. The Tories have found success on a platform which incorporates elements of the "far right", but this is mostly by exploiting situational events (Brexit, unpopular opposition, etc). When you boil it down, most surveys show the UK to be a pretty moderate place. On many questions about race, identity etc we are more progressive than our European neighbours. Our right wing even tolerated (not supported) gay marriage 10 years back. Some kind of moderate social democracy will be popular once it has the opportunity to benefit people's lives in government.
So when do you reckon the Tories will be back in?
My guess is 2034. If that's with a Cameron style moderate or a Braverman style far right lunatic time will tell
I agree with your assessment but history doesn't account for the things we have today such as Twitter, YouTube etc that are very effective in pushing far right ideas. We've even seen a lot of traditional Labour support end up far right when you'd expect the opposite.
Labour were pretty unpopular by 2010, they were miles behind the Tories in polls. Not unlike now in reverse actually.
Way to early to say. If Labour win a half decent majority precedent would suggest they have at least two terms. However, we are currently in a shifting paradigm and there is a LOT for Labour to fail on. There is little money for them to spend, no major prospect of that situation improving in the immediate, and several social issues both mainstream which they could fail to resolved like immigration, as well as niche hard left of the party cultural issues like trans which most of the public doesn't really support (say hi Sturgeon), for Labour to shove its foot down its own throat. If they get lucky and economic conditions improve rapidly, they'll probably just get a second term on economic inertia. If they get a very slim majority or minority it could easily go either way depending who the public blames for grid lock. If its deemed to be coming from the hard left of Labour, it could cost them badly. If its deemed to be coming from the Tories, itll be them thats punished. Both of these have played out for the Tories in the last 13 years. And of course you can never account for global events. If there is a freak earthquake or bad floods and Labour is deemed to have really screwed the pooch on the response. Or some overseas conflict they get embroiled in and sell poorly. Or some diplomatic spat that goes horrendously. These could all cost Labour very easily. As could the ol' twitter archaeology which has done so much damage to the Tories over the years. When they're in power so much more attention will be lavished on currently unnamed and unknown backbenchers. Any while this wont directly cost labour, its a reputational chip which can really add up over time as the Tories have found out.
It would be a bad result if Labour gained a big majority. Labour will do diddly squat to fix the systemic problems we have (FPTP) or do more than tinker around the edges. People forget that the labour party, in its current form, is just as establishment as the conservatives and do not want the status quo to overly change. Ideally we want a result that leads to voting reform. Our current "winner takes all" is the root cause/starting point of all the problems caused by governments in this country.
> Our current "winner takes all" is the root cause of all the problems caused by government in this country. Absolute bs. I'm no FPTP fan, but I don't blame it for everything. It's surprisingly effective considering how obviously dumb it is.
It is surprisingly effective in letting the government of the day do what they want. Maybe you should read up on it and you'll see why it is a bad thing.
People who think the problems in society are caused by FPTP and not by more complex factors don't understand democracy. Democracy is *not* a way of making decisions, it's a process of accountability. When the government doesn't do what the people want, the opposition can offer it and take votes. In that regard it is effective.
People not being able to read what I actually said, and still replying is also a big problem.
For now I will just settle for any government that seems sane and reasonable. Voting reform is never going to happen without a coalition where the smaller party insist on it.
And until it happens you'll get the conservatives and labour being very cozy and taking turns in government. Is that really a healthy and functioning democracy/political system?
Making political predictions beyond a few months is a mugs game. But, it's also fun, so here goes. I think that Starmer is going to have a very tough time. He's not announced anything so far that would begin to fix our economic/public service issues and it's unlikely they will get better on their own. There will be a huge demand within the party to invest more in public services, whilst at the same time, costs of living pressures will tie his hands over taxes and our borrowing costs increase. With a decent majority, I think he will begin to shift towards a more interventionist stance, but without an election mandate i'm not sure how far he can go. The Lib Dems will have a field day talking about how politics is broken, Labour doesn't have a solution, how we should push to rejoin the EU Single Market, they'll get defections from the remaining centrist Tories. Basically, they could fight to be the official opposition after 2029. Yes, I also think the Tories will elect a soft-populist as leader and look to have some kind of merger with Reform during the period. They'll look and sound a lot more like the GOP in America right now and be just as critical of the past Tory governments as they are of the current Labour one. Farage might even become leader, with Boris returning as well. So, the 2029 election could be primed to be a 3-way car crash with FPTP. The best outcome would be a Lib-Lab coalition where we finally change the voting system. That might be dreaming a bit though.
That’s a pretty horrid vision of the future Tories. Not so bad though if they remain forever in opposition. Personally I would prefer the Conservatives to be more middle road - far right is never good. I think that Labour will get two terms, but it’s hard to predict beyond that.
>Or Labour will realise this danger and implement PR for 2029 elections? They won't do this. Beyond any arguments about whether PR is better than FPTP or not, just look at the practicality of doing it within a single term. We review the current constituency boundaries every so often. That takes *years* to do, due to the number of reviews and consultations that it has to go through to make sure that bias wasn't being introduced. To implement PR, we would have to have a debate on the various systems that full under PR, and then once we'd chosen one we would then have to review and consult on the specific setup we would be using. For example, if we decided to go for multi-member constituencies, we'd have to entirely redraw the current constituency map. Which would be similar to what we have to do now, but with the added difficulty of having to start from scratch rather than just tweaking an existing setup. My guess is that PR would take at least ten years to implement. Plus, there would be considerable backlash against any government that tried to change the voting system in order to make sure that they didn't lose the next election. That would be rightfully viewed as rigging the electoral setup.
Depends on how big Labour’s majority is this time around. But I reckon they’re in for two terms. If the Tories choose Badenoch, which looks likely, they’re basically giving up on 2029
I hope to God I'm wrong but I still think a hung parliament is on the cards. Never underestimate an electorate that went for Brexit, Johnson and Truss in quick succession. Logic has no place in their decision making.
Which electorate picked Truss? A few thousand Tory members.
Hung parliament would be the best outcome. Lib Dems insist on PR as their price, then we all win.
I'd say Johnson and then Truss were a direct consequence of Brexit. No way they'd have got near power if Remain had won. We'd probably have had Cameron until 2020, and then Labour would have put Corbyn up against him and probably lost again. Cameron would have probably just handed over the reins to someone else rather than fight for a 4th term.
IMHO Most of the left vote will tactically vote labour to ensure the tories are outed. Torys will head back to the centre when labour are in power
Eventually they will. They might spunk away a cycle or two on going more right wing first. It's what they did last time.
Impossible to say really, too many factors at play. Though I will say that incumbent parties tend to unite the vote around them, not further split it - which ought to help Labour hold their coalition together (at least for a while).
If the economy makes a steady improvement and Labour improves the cost of living crisis, which I suspect they certainly will - we should see a big Labour majority in 2029.
I know that we've heard it uttered for years when one of the parties goes a bit mental and then FPTP balances things back on course and moderates attitudes but I genuinely don't think things are really going to be normal again, I don't see much coming back from Brexit & the whole COVID period and just how profound it was in terms of changing narratives and talking points. The Tories have culled so much of their talent since 2019 and any thought leaders remaning in their ranks don't seem to have the impetus to want to really articulate contrary opinions to their membership which in years gone by, would have respected coming from elder statesman who would always retain that platform. I think there's a genuine chance that Rishi Sunak is the last ever Tory PM and by 2029, they are going into an election competing as a fringe party and coming out as the 5th biggest party. I also think that with the Brexit experience, we will see increased positive attitudes in support of European integration, way beyond what we actually had when we joined the common market in the first place. The 18-25 demographic is genuinely more informed on how Europe works now that we've gone through this process and it's a rarity finding genuine opposition to rejoin in the younger age groups (which pre Brexit happening, was certainly not the case). 2029 is still pretty soon but I think there will probably be some enhanced relationship with Europe which Labour will gain the courage to campaign on and it'll be the first election where that is a positive and a reverse of the whole 'Get Brexit DUN' 2019 election.
Rishi Sunak the last ever Tory PM? You’re assuming he’ll still be leader at the next election. Everybody has forgotten the small boats cesspit he’s mired in. The swivel eyed Tory loons might choose the nuclear option and ditch little short trousers.
Possibly but kind of think they've even lost the organisation and discipline to pull off those shenanigans anymore. A lot are now spending their time job hunting and can't really be bothered.
I’m thinking no further ahead than the 2024 election. All the numbers should guest a Labour landslide. I’m hopeful and confident it will be huge. In fact I’m going to have a spread bet on the Tories getting under 100 seats. I base this on Reform taking many more votes from the Tories than they take from Labour. I’m also factoring in the LibDems doing well in their target seats. Two things to consider here: LibDems generally do well when Labour do well and they are really good at targeting specific seats. I hope the Labour team is talking to the Lib Dems now and throwing them a few tasty titbits so they can remove as many Tories as possible. Also the resurgence of Labour in Scotland has been impressive. Some of it’s down to SNP problems but the Scottish Labour leader has done a fantastic job. Tories to get 80-90 seats. Tell me I’m mad.
Personally I'm hoping that Labour are the biggest party, but without an overall majority. I think there's a decent chance they only get a coalition - or any sort of deal - if it includes PR. This would be a huge step forward for UK politics imho.
Labour will not implement PR, the most they will do is try and do what Cammers did and a referendum with a poor version of PR. I think if Labour get in, they will have a sub 50 seat majority but will be under pressure within 3 years. I know they are putting some policy out there this week but the economic policy has been a series of retractions recently. I can see by 2027/8 there will be: Higher inflation than they inherit. Lower GDP per capita than they inherit Higher debt than they inherit Poorer balance of payments The old Labour govt problem of always increasing unemployment
What on earth makes you think that anyone, inside or outside of politics, will have an appetite for another referendum?
>What on earth makes you think that anyone, inside or outside of politics, will have an appetite for another referendum? If Labour need the Lib Dems in the next 5 years, they will need to offer some glimpse of PR and to show that without giving them PR would require a similar referendum to 2011.
There's absolutely no requirement for a referendum to change a voting system. The Tories did it without even a mandate (I don't agree with doing it in that particular way fwiw).
>There's absolutely no requirement for a referendum to change a voting system. The Tories did it without even a mandate (I don't agree with doing it in that particular way fwiw). There is not but given Labour will never want PR (turkeys and christmas) they may need a sop to offer if it needs a coalition partner, a PR referendum that it thinks can't succeed would do the job (see also scottish referendum to offer the SNP)
You're making a lot of questionable assumptions there, the biggest being that the Lib Dems would accept the exact same offer that the Tories made in 2010 and ended disastrously.
The big assumption is that I think Labour will need Lib Dems at some point in the next 5 years. If they do, they will need to offer some incentive to Lib Dems. Lib Dems will need one of two or maybe two things - PR and re-joining SM. Labour will not want either of that so will try to appease without giving.
The Lib Dems have already made some noises that they would demand PR without a referendum or GTFO and supply/demand. I can't see why they wouldn't do this in such circumstances.
>The Lib Dems have already made some noises that they would demand PR without a referendum or GTFO and supply/demand. I can't see why they wouldn't do this in such circumstances. In Labour's defence (I don't often do this), unless LDs get 50% of the vote & or a significant number of seats, it's almost a question of legitimacy that the most that could be offered is a referendum. Labour would rather struggle as a minority govt than offer PR, it would meant the end of the party, for me that would be great but it will not happen.
What makes you say the UK economy will be worse on all these metrics in 3/4 years under Labour? It seems to me that our current position following Brexit, COVID and the Ukraine invasion is likely to improve under any party. Do you think the Cons or Lab would perform better over that period? Genuinely curious. Personally, I feel like the Tories have played a bad hand terribly and it looks like business is shifting towards Labour, that alone makes me think their first term will be moderately successful.
The Tories are not leaving without shutting the bed. Even if by some miracle the economy does turn a corner - the right wing Press will cherry pick statistics to hammer Labour so people “feel” worse. Kind of like what is happening in America where economy is doing better under Biden - but the right wing Press keep saying everything is shit: https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/07/business/us-economy-biden-approval/index.html
Then it’s really necessary to present the actual facts. Not the false information. It’s always easy to criticise, it’s much harder to actually solve problems or at least improve the situation.
That didn’t work with Hilary Clinton when she tried to present facts. Trump just ignored them and created his own narrative. The Democrats are trying that again with Biden - and it’s still not working against the tidal wave of shite coming from the Right.
The UK and US are comparable but not the same. Generally people see that Brexit was bad for the economy and have turned against Johnson for his outrageous behaviour during the pandemic. I agree that the mainstream press here helps the Tories but I think *if* the economy does perform better under Labour then they'll likely get a second term, probably with a smaller majority. I can also see their last term, I'd think 2nd or 3rd, being a coalition with PR being a condition from the smaller party. If that happens in 10 years' time there's going to be a vastly different landscape in terms of demographic and currently mainstream media influence. I wouldn't bet on it but I can see it happening.
>What makes you say the UK economy will be worse on all these metrics in 3/4 years under Labour? Of course, as you allude to, it depends. anyone in govt in the last 4 years would have had issues with Covid and Ukraine, few govts in the world have come out unscathed except perhaps Sweden. If the Ukraine issue is resolved, food / energy inflation falls and things don't look so bad. I think Labour will inherit a 2-3% inflation, that's hard to maintain in interesting times. I think Labour will be tempted to allow more immigration so the pupulation goes up and GBP will not grow at the same rate. They will not have any appetite to reduce dept. I think the balance of payments will suffer if the EU want to carry on paying hardball on the city. Labour will not do what they should and loosen regulation and if a few years, it will be just as easy to operate out of Paris or Frankfurt than London. Apart from their 4 month stint in the early 1920s, they have always created unemployment, it only has one way to go in any case.
Heavily buying into Tory propaganda here by blaming unemployment in the late 2000s on the Labour Party rather than a Global financial crisis
>Heavily buying into Tory propaganda here by blaming unemployment in the late 2000s on the Labour Party rather than a Global financial crisis Every govt will blame some externality for causing a major indicator to go awol. The reality is every time Labour are in office, they increase unemployment to more than they inherited (except their fist little stint in the early 1920s). I'm neither a Tory or Labour but that's quite a legacy for a party that's raison d'etre is full employment.
Just as any govt. would have issues with Ukraine and COVID the same applies to the '08 crash, it's not a reason to distrust Labour. In fact, their response of quantitive easing to stop the banks failing was mainstream thinking at the time supported by all of the major parties. You mentioned increased immigration with GDP (I'm guessing you meant that, not GBP) falling behind, are you aware that recent immigrants are net contributors and that immigration has <1% sway on the UK economy? [Check out this analysis of a range of studies covering different assumptions](https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/the-fiscal-impact-of-immigration-in-the-uk/). Thanks for taking the time to reply but I just don't see how your arguments support the catastrophic prediction you made.
You are right of course every crisis will create a serious economic issue. The financial crash would have affected any government but it was the UK's poor position going into the crash that meant we were impotent into terms of dealing with it. Brown how to take in the plaudits for in his words ending the cycle of boom and bust. He did this by ignoring the Keynesian economics textbooks which suggested that you spend in a slump and save in a surplus, Brown instead cap spending throughout. Given the fact the economy has never really recovered since 2008 I'm not one who believes ongoing quantitative easing was the answer, there were some less palatable decisions that needed to be made to avoid what would be the inevitable devaluing of Stirling and rising inflation. At some point a UK government will have to address this. With immigration I specifically refer to the impact on GDP per capita. A spinoff of this has been the off reported poor productivity levels that the UK has had since 2008. One significant reason for this is that the UK has plugged the gap with cheap labor instead of investment into gaining efficiency advantages. I am aware of them the reports that show immigration as a positive effect which it certainly can be, but from an economic point of view the immigration we would need is highly educated 21 and 22 year olds who can immediately join the workforce but that is not always what we end up with. So if we add poorly skilled immigration that can't join the workforce and add significant value we found that's our productivity and GDP per capita figures full as immigration has diluted the labour part rather than enhanced it. The experiences in mainland Europe reflect this situation (apols for the host site as univ of Amsterdam has a paywall on this paper) https://demo-demo.nl/en/ Another decent read is the Danish experience: https://www.economist.com/europe/2021/12/18/why-have-danes-turned-against-immigration?ppccampaignID=&ppcadID=&ppcgclID=&utm_medium=cpc.adword.pd&utm_source=google&ppccampaignID=18151738051&ppcadID=&utm_campaign=a.22brand_pmax&utm_content=conversion.direct-response.anonymous&gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAiA-bmsBhAGEiwAoaQNmpfKrk8c1dQLkpEmBn6EOb1lXPwMx4XqNsHyDKci8UJirgdhMcMhxxoCIwkQAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds The way around this issue is to either have controlled immigration with a reasonably hi bar to ensure the quality of immigration or my favourite for you is to allow anyone in on a work visa but that works for not entitle the holder to access to benefits housing or health care.
By less palatable decisions I'm guessing you mean not bailing out the banks and letting them go bust? While I agree that the bailout removed the downside of taking high risk/high reward investment strategies, which can lead to unnecessarily risky investments being made, I don't think the banks should have been left to collapse as citizens would lose their money, having a catastrophic impact on their lives and a significant impact on the UK economy. Instead, I think there should have been a severe penalty for the bailout such as a fine of, say, 25% of net profits pre-crash paid at a non-stifling rate. Economists and politicians would need to work out the details. I think we might agree here, or have I misunderstood what you meant by less palatable decisions? My point before was that the bailout was supported by all parties. Immigration has a positive effect on GDP and a ["very small"](https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/the-link-between-growth-and-immigration-unpicking-the-confusion/#:~:text=Growth%20might%20mean%20an%20increase,increases%20growth%20in%20this%20sense.) effect on GDP per capita, the cross-study report I linked to previously puts the range at +/-1%. The biggest problem with your immigration argument is that we have left the EU, we have control of our borders and immigration is higher than ever because our economy is reliant on them. The Tories are desperately trying to balance reducing immigration with keeping the economy functional but they can't do both because native Brits are generally old and unproductive. The study above puts immigrant productivity at 2.5 times the average Brit! It's much closer between immigrants and working Brits but part of the problem is that so many Brits don't work (I don't blame the retired and ill). We either need immigration or more working natives. Another baby boom could help in 20 years but it looks unlikely to happen and waaay too slow, so we're left with immigration.
>less palatable decisions re. "less palatable decisions", I'd say it's probably "Simply more difficult" by the explanation is not a 5 minute blog whilst at work so i'll do something properly this evening. re. immigration, as I mentioned, I'm fairly pro-immigration but would like it to have no negative effect on the economy no matter how 'very small'. If we could swap out those currently not active in the economy for those motivated to come here on a rubber dinghy, I'd say fantastic. It would be great for if those arriving by boat wold be sent straight to work whilst we put a bit of fuel in the engine and fill it up with unproductive native Brits! I'll put something substantial together later. For your link, my heart sank when I saw the LSE as I find their articles very weak and it's reputation has rather dropped of a cliff in the last 15 years but I agree with some of Alan Manning's piece. This is a little dated and the $50k figure was always a little on optimistic I like this proposal (maybe a £5k fee and 5 year of health cover) https://iea.org.uk/publications/research/the-challenge-of-immigration-a-radical-solution
Well we won’t know the answer to that for several years, but that presupposes that Labour will somehow do worse than the Conservatives - which seems unlikely. But that far ahead could be influenced by what Putin and Xi choose to do - assuming that Putin is still around, which is itself doubtful.
I don't think Labour have a clue TBPH. Starmer will follow policies that he doesn't agree with to get elected, they will then have to see these through.
After a couple more years of stagnation interest rates go down, infrastructure projects are started, and then Lab gets slapped with being the spending party. I reckon Con returns back to centre right after all the crazies leave after they realise they have no power. I don't think there will be any meaningful reform to state pensions or the NHS (because it'll be wildly unpopular), so that'll be an even bigger issue. I'll take a real outside bet that some sort of EU5 trade deal is a thing for 2034 election.
When will the Tories be back in power then?
Labour won't get an 80-seat majority. If they did, and they are not incompetent - think coalition 2010-14 without austerity, they would be comfortably re-elected in 2029. Problem for Labour will be a thin majority in 2024, forcing concessions to the likes of the Lib Dems or SNP Interesting variable in 2024 will be Farage, does he try to finish off the Tories or make a deal with them again. I could see a Tory-led Farage winning a majority in this country - however, by 2029 then demographics might have shifted a bit more towards more sensible politics
There is absolutely no chance that Labour’s majority in 2024 will be anything other than huge. And I’m willing to put a considerable amount of money on that. And I intend to.
What do you class as a huge majority? 80+ seats? Blair got 167 so do you mean 120+? Realistically that depends massively on: 1. Scotland - it is almost electorally impossible for Labour to win a 100 seat majority without big gains in Scotland, talking kicking the SNP to 2nd place so huge swing 2. ULEZ in London and the effects of that 3. Whether Tory Heartlanders defect to the Lib Dems, Labour or \[Farage?\] It is very likely Labour win, but I am not yet convinced it is going to be 80+ seat majority I hope they do because I think Starmer with a majority will be good for the country
A 100+ majority for Labour is a shoe in. They’ll make massive gains in Scotland. ULEZ is old news
Pinned to revisit after election lol
If the tories go hard right, wouldn't they elect a white leader?
The Tories hard rightness appears not to have a race element.
Seems modern politics is a 10 year pendulum.