Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[3141]

They made an impact when they got 13% of the vote in 2015, so the Tories had a tiny majority and we all know what happened next.

Yes, a very small Conservative majority in 2015, but before that they had no majority, which is why they were in coalition with the Lib Dems.

UKIP got nearly 13% of the vote but no seats.

 

[DerekC]

Will you say the same when Rishi Sunak disappears to Silicon Valley after the next election, not that I'm suggesting he'll lose his Richmond seat? Anyway, not saying wrong but indicative of his dismissive attitude to those who'd supported his party and his appointment as their leader, I guess I'd expect no better from an ex-Westminster School boy, they're almost as toxic as Old Etonians imo.

On a pure technicality, I thought Rishi Sunak went to Winchester? Not that it makes much difference!

 

[nw1]

Indeed i suspect he won't be that bothered and will go for broke to centre the party more.

Will people believe the Tories if they try to move towards the centre at this late stage? Given their right-wing stance since 2019 people will see this as completely non-genuine.

Sunak was the person who appointed Anderson and Braverman, as well as Cleverly (who is little better IMO) and of course McVey as the Minister for Anti-Wokery, or something. If he tries to do a "hug a hoodie" now then people will just see him as someone who blows with the wind and stands for nothing in particular at all. And, of course, if they do indeed want to move to the centre-right, they'd drop this whole Rwanda idea completely. No-one who is a little right-of-centre economically, but socially liberal, is going to vote for him now.

On the other hand, I doubt that the hard-right stance typified by, but not restricted to, Anderson and Braverman is particularly popular either.

Basically, they're (hopefully) stuffed either way.

On a pure technicality, I thought Rishi Sunak went to Winchester? Not that it makes much difference!

It was indeed Winchester.

 

[Typhoon]

They made an impact when they got 13% of the vote in 2015, so the Tories had a tiny majority and we all know what happened next.

Is your suggestion that the Conservatives would have got a bigger majority? As it was they had a net gain of 24 seats as well as increasing the number of votes cast for them. Traditionally, sitting Prime Ministers see a reduction in both - the last election where the PM saw an increase in seats was 1983, following the Falklands.

UKIP actually lost one of the seats it held, their vote was spread across the country, taking the role traditionally adopted by the LibDems (the non-Tory/ Labour vote), who imploded following their participation in the Coalition. It wouldn't surprise me at all if Reform performed rather similarly to UKIP in 2015, 13% of the vote and 1 seat. Even the sole victor, Carswell, had his majority squeezed (just over 3,000 when it had previously been over 10,000).

What happened next was that the significant number of 'leavers' on the Conservative back benches 'reminded' Dave that he had put an 'in-out' referendum in the manifesto, which he probably didn't need to do, he felt he had to honour it, Remain put forward a disorganised campaign and were beaten, not helped by a certain Mr Johnson who saw his opportunity for glory, and we know what happened next!

 

[Busaholic]

Is your suggestion that the Conservatives would have got a bigger majority? As it was they had a net gain of 24 seats as well as increasing the number of votes cast for them. Traditionally, sitting Prime Ministers see a reduction in both - the last election where the PM saw an increase in seats was 1983, following the Falklands.

UKIP actually lost one of the seats it held, their vote was spread across the country, taking the role traditionally adopted by the LibDems (the non-Tory/ Labour vote), who imploded following their participation in the Coalition. It wouldn't surprise me at all if Reform performed rather similarly to UKIP in 2015, 13% of the vote and 1 seat. Even the sole victor, Carswell, had his majority squeezed (just over 3,000 when it had previously been over 10,000).

What happened next was that the significant number of 'leavers' on the Conservative back benches 'reminded' Dave that he had put an 'in-out' referendum in the manifesto, which he probably didn't need to do, he felt he had to honour it, Remain put forward a disorganised campaign and were beaten, not helped by a certain Mr Johnson who saw his opportunity for glory, and we know what happened next!

A columnist in yesterday's i newspaper appeared to be suggesting that Farage would be standing in that Clacton seat at the election, unless said GE is held after a Trump-won Presidency, in which case he may well relocate there to be nearer to his soulmate.

 

[SteveP29]

I’m no lover fan of Mrs Thatcher and the damage she did, but I would go as far to suggest that she would have had this Rwanda fiasco sorted if she were still around.

Sunak is about as useful as a chocolate tea pot.

I'm not sure she would be trying to get an unworkable, immoral and probably illegal under international law policy through parliament.
It's trying to do this that's causing most of the problems within n the Tory party at the moment. If Sunak was to move to more moderate Tory policies rather than pandering to the minority out on the far right of the party I think it would commend more popular support.

Perhaps I'm giving her more credit than I should, but I'm pretty certain, as Class 317 says, that she wouldn't have continued pushing to enact a law that was unlawful internationally.
She'd have likely made some huge enemies, but she would have sorted it in a way that didn't pander to raving right wing lunatics who thought no more about immigrants than they did about butterflies in Papua New Guinea.

 

[nw1]

Perhaps I'm giving her more credit than I should, but I'm pretty certain, as Class 317 says, that she wouldn't have continued pushing to enact a law that was unlawful internationally.
She'd have likely made some huge enemies, but she would have sorted it in a way that didn't pander to raving right wing lunatics who thought no more about immigrants than they did about butterflies in Papua New Guinea.

Probably the case.

It beggars belief how unprofessional this government is, and even after the departure of Braverman and Anderson, Sunak seems to be pushing a possibly-unlawful right-wing populist line.

 

[JamesT]

Probably the case.

It beggars belief how unprofessional this government is, and even after the departure of Braverman and Anderson, Sunak seems to be pushing a possibly-unlawful right-wing populist line.

Because they're looking at the polling data which is telling them they're losing votes to Reform by not being right-wing enough by more than they'd gain any votes by heading left.

 

[najaB]

Because they're looking at the polling data which is telling them they're losing votes to Reform by not being right-wing enough by more than they'd gain any votes by heading left.

The sooner they realise that the problem isn't the direction that they're currently heading, but rather the course of the last 13 years the better.

 

[brad465]

Because they're looking at the polling data which is telling them they're losing votes to Reform by not being right-wing enough by more than they'd gain any votes by heading left.

This recent poll suggests the Tories are losing votes all over the place, with Reform, Labour and don't know gaining roughly an equal number from the Tories. What particularly caught my eye is they have also lost over a million 2019 voters to deaths, almost as much as every other option combined:

(Poll chart showing how 2019 voters would vote now in a bar chart with different squares showing the flow of voters)

 

[DerekC]

Probably the case.

It beggars belief how unprofessional this government is, and even after the departure of Braverman and Anderson, Sunak seems to be pushing a possibly-unlawful right-wing populist line.

Because they're looking at the polling data which is telling them they're losing votes to Reform by not being right-wing enough by more than they'd gain any votes by heading left.

Also because they still believe they can put Labour on the wrong side of the "will of the people". The Tory attack dogs in the press are gearing up for the big push, I suspect. The House of Lords will be next in their sights. The people who sabotaged reform of the Lords will have headlines like "Unelected Peers Frustrate the People's Wishes" - or something a bit more punchy. The Lords may refuse to pass the Rwanda bill, which means that Sunak will have to enforce it under the Parliament Act. That means it won't come into effect until the next Parliament is called - i.e. after the General Election. Then the election can be fought on the slogan "Stop the Boats - Get Rwanda Done - Vote Conservative" or something equally fatuous. It is beneath contempt that Tory desperation to keep power can drive policies that are illegal, inhumane in their impact on thousands of people, a waste of public money (because it won't work), are not in the long term interest of the country and give exactly the wrong signals to the whole world.

 

[simonw]

This recent poll suggests the Tories are losing votes all over the place, with Reform, Labour and don't know gaining roughly an equal number from the Tories. What particularly caught my eye is they have also lost over a million 2019 voters to deaths, almost as much as every other option combined:

(Poll chart showing how 2019 voters would vote now in a bar chart with different squares showing the flow of voters)

Can you explain this graph and what it is trying to show. In particular What are the white and grey squares? Where are new voters?

 

[najaB]

Can you explain this graph and what it is trying to show. In particular What are the white and grey squares? Where are new voters?

The chart shows, as per the caption beneath it, "how 2019 voters would vote now in a bar chart with different squares showing the flow of voters".

So there won't be any new voters.

 

[simonw]

The chart shows, as per the caption beneath it, "how 2019 voters would vote now in a bar chart with different squares showing the flow of voters".

So there won't be any new voters.

Well then it misses out a chunk of voters who will impact the result. Still doesn't answer my main question of what do grey and white represent and how does one read the graph.

 

[brad465]

Can you explain this graph and what it is trying to show. In particular What are the white and grey squares? Where are new voters?

The graph shows the size of each party's current voting intention, with each small square per bar representing 100,000 voters, and the colours each party/non-vote. While it's not clear, the white squares look most likely to be new voters (seeing as dead people can't come back to life and vote), grey squares are don't know/won't vote. The bars are what they are saying now, the squares are what they said in 2019.

 

[Typhoon]

Because they're looking at the polling data which is telling them they're losing votes to Reform by not being right-wing enough by more than they'd gain any votes by heading left.

Is it? Or. for some, is it that they would never go near Labour, no matter how 'middle ground' Starmer appears to be, are convinced Brexiteers so won't touch LibDems, and are fed up with incompetence. Plus they are concerned about immigration. They have nowhere else to go. May's government wasn't exactly 'strong and stable' and since then they have gone from bad to worse. They are right of centre and see Tice and Farage as giving the impression of competence. Like all small parties, only the leadership gets air-time so no-one knows what the rest are like. At least some of Reform's polices seem fairly moderate (for instance, Health) but imaginative. It looks like 'put more money into health' (by cutting taxes on staff). Whether that is what would happen is a different matter. (but that is true of any promise by any party, particularly one which can expect, at very best, a junior part in a coalition).

 

[simonw]

The graph shows the size of each party's current voting intention, with each small square per bar representing 100,000 voters, and the colours each party/non-vote. While it's not clear, the white squares look most likely to be new voters (seeing as dead people can't come back to life and vote), grey squares are don't know/won't vote. The bars are what they are saying now, the squares are what they said in 2019.

Thanks, but I'm still struggling with that as I would expect, say, the right orange squares on Labour to be reflected in a similar reduction in the LD vote; and the not voting seems to have collapsed, or maybe it's grown.

 

[najaB]

Well then it misses out a chunk of voters who will impact the result.

Which is true, but you can't show change in voter intention for people who didn't vote in 2019.

 

[Typhoon]

The graph shows the size of each party's current voting intention, with each small square per bar representing 100,000 voters, and the colours each party/non-vote. While it's not clear, the white squares look most likely to be new voters (seeing as dead people can't come back to life and vote), grey squares are don't know/won't vote. The bars are what they are saying now, the squares are what they said in 2019.

That makes sense, except there are fewer new voters than have died - about half the number. That could be the case if many people who have turned 18 are not registered, or the polling organisation have been unable to track them down. The obvious should also be added that - % votes ≠ % seats!

 

[edwin_m]

Because they're looking at the polling data which is telling them they're losing votes to Reform by not being right-wing enough by more than they'd gain any votes by heading left.

There are likely to be far more voters near the center that the Tories might contest with Labour and the LibDems than there are on the right that they might contest with Reform. So in a normal world the Tories would be better staying near the centre to chase that larger group.

They successfully did this in 2020 when Johnson's policies were actually quite centrist, but also many voters saw Labour as extreme and the LibDems as not credible. However, neither of those factors applies any longer, and the behaviour of the post-2019 government plus the wheels coming off Brexit is likely to mean the Tories wouldn't be able to attract many centrist voters even if they went all out to do so before the election. Hence the right-wing group that might vote Reform is probably the only place the Tories can look for extra support.

 

[Gloster]

I note that in the chart above the Conservatives seem to have lost more votes to the Grim Reaper than anyone else. Perhaps this is a grouo they could target: nominate a proxy voter who can cast your vote for you if you are dead by the time the election happens. (I am only half-satirical: the Conservatives are getting so desperate that they have probably considered it and might even try it.)

They have already given the vote to people who have lived abroad for more than the previous limit of fifteen years. No doubt they hope to catch a lot of tax-exiles, elderly retirees and people who haven’t had to live in the mess that the Conservatives have caused.

 

[nw1]

There are likely to be far more voters near the center that the Tories might contest with Labour and the LibDems than there are on the right that they might contest with Reform. So in a normal world the Tories would be better staying near the centre to chase that larger group.

They successfully did this in 2020 when Johnson's policies were actually quite centrist,

Aside from the B-word of course.
But I'd agree that for people that didn't care either way on that matter, Johnson was perhaps not too off-putting. And I never minded him as a London mayor, though admittedly I didn't live in London.

 

[simonw]

Which is true, but you can't show change in voter intention for people who didn't vote in 2019.

Well it now appears the white squares are new voters, so yes they are included.

 

[najaB]

Well it now appears the white squares are new voters, so yes they are included.

I'm not sure that is the case as there are only 12 white squares, but there are something like 5 million people aged 18 to 24. Is voter registration as low as 20% in that age group?

 

[edwin_m]

There's now a better version of that chart, with extra colours and more explanation, at https://twitter.com/Dylan_Difford/status/1748043128693522740/photo/1

 

[najaB]

There's now a better version of that chart, with extra colours and more explanation, at https://twitter.com/Dylan_Difford/status/1748043128693522740/photo/1

Thanks. That makes a lot more sense.

 

[simonw]

There's now a better version of that chart, with extra colours and more explanation, at https://twitter.com/Dylan_Difford/status/1748043128693522740/photo/1

Thanks that's how the data should have been presented.

 

[bwlv9]

There's now a better version of that chart, with extra colours and more explanation, at https://twitter.com/Dylan_Difford/status/1748043128693522740/photo/1

From looking at this; the conservative party may become irrelevant for many, many years to come with many of their traditional vote no longer with us.

 

[The Ham]

There's now a better version of that chart, with extra colours and more explanation, at https://twitter.com/Dylan_Difford/status/1748043128693522740/photo/1

However it still leaves by far the biggest block as the "don't knows", whilst they may well shift to you naturally, it is likely that they are most likely (given the breakdown of where they are going to vote when you look at those who have now made up their mind) to be fairly central in their thinking.

Likewise the biggest group within the shifting their view group from the Tory column is those who are now don't knows.

You have to bear in mind that there's probably a good number of this group who might have been Labour voters but we're put off by the previous leader and aren't they keen on the new one, likewise there could be a fair few who liked Cameron but aren't happy with the direction of travel since (but weren't too put in off by May or Johnson, but have found it harder and harder to vote Tory since then). There could even be a fair few who want to be closer to Europe (which may be they voted to leave, but don't want to be as far away from Europe as appears to be where the Tories want us to be). None of whom would currently opt for the current version of the Tories.

In 2019, for the first time ever, more retired people voted for the winning party than working aged people. As such it's no surprise that 17.6% of Tory supporters who have shifted their support are now daisy supporters (this is 8.6% of all Tory supporters).

 

[E27007]

Looking at the column graph, the Conservaties have lost many of their 2019 votes to the Reform Party, will the Conservaties form a pre-election coalition with the Reform Party?