« On cutting house prices | Main | Why conservatives should be Corbynistas »

October 20, 2017

Comments

Blissex

«But grudges fade whilst interests do not. Corbyn’s huge appeal to the young declasse "middle-class" elements is founded on these interests. That gives Labour a class base that centrism will lack.»

Very much agreed and also, as our blogger noted, a geographic base that is needed in FPTP.

The main and overlapping divides in english politics are between renters and landowners, and between servants/workers and masters/rentiers, and the Labour and Conservative parties cover them already.
The "Radicals UK" may want to be the party of the mandelsonian “aspirational voters who shop at John Lewis and Waitrose”, but they are not many, and while they are usually both landowners and workers at the same time, straddling the Labour/Conservative divide, they either vote Conservative when they feel more landowners than workers, or viceversa.

So overall I think I agree with our blogger. But I think that he might have mentioned two additional points:


* Sometimes new parties do reach tipping points, like the SNP in Scotland, which is in part a bit like "Radicals UK".
* "Radicals UK" seems an obvious punt to replicate the success of Macron's new party in France, of not that of the SNP in Scotland.

But his arguments I think stand because english politics and voting system are very different from those of Scotland and France.

Daniel

The Labour party was once a new party. It used to get the blame for splitting the anti-tory vote.

efcdons

Radical Suk. The URL tells the truth.

Yusuf Olow

Blissex labours under the misconception that the SNP is a new party.

The SNP is not a new party. It was founded in 1934 (following the merger of two other parties) and it was not until the 1970s it made an electoral mark. However it was wiped out in 1979 and continued its decline in the 1980s. The SNP's fortunes only changed in the mid 2000s.

If anything, the SNP illustrates Chris's point that it takes decades to build up a party brand(and there will be plenty of bumps along the way.)

Lindsay Berge

If 42% of women voters are correctly recorded in exit polls as voting from Trump, it is hard to see how women can be regarded as an sort of coherent political grouping. It puzzles me how anyone could have voted for Trump but I am astonished that so many women could bring themselves to do so.
This presupposes women in Britain are similar to women in the USA but my working assumption is that people are pretty similar everywhere.

Blissex

«The SNP is not a new party. It was founded in 1934»

It is a technicality, for all practical purposes it is a new party that took over the shell of a previous party (which until 1974 did not have members in parliament or council members according to Wikipedia).

As to technicalities, the SNP of old was the adversary of the Unionist party, and the latter "absorbed" the Conservatives sometimes in the 60s IIRC, so in theory the Conservative and Unionist party today is the same party today as the one founded in 1912 too :-).

Yusuf Olow

Pointing out that a party founded in 1934 is not a new party is a 'technicality?'. I dont think arguments that require ignoring the dictionary are wise.

Practical purposes? Practical in that ignoring the party's actual age is required to include them in your argument.

Nobody traces a party's founding to the date it got members elected (and 40 odd years is hardly young anyway)In any case you are wrong about when the SNP had elected representatives. The first SNP MP elected to Westminster was in 1945 (Robert MacIntyre in Motherwell in a by-election) and Winnie Ewing was elected in 1967 in Hamilton- also in a byelection. The SNP has had continued representation at Westminster since 1967. Until the 1970s the party lacked the cash to contest every seat and every election.

As to your reference to 'the SNP of old'-so not a new party then- this is just bizarre. You now seem to be defining the SNP's age based on who their adversary is.

Yes the SNP has changed a lot in its 83 year history-which makes them no different to any other longstanding political party


Oakchair

The problem with these centrist is that they’ve given up they ability to think to appear ‘fair and balanced’.

The comments to this entry are closed.

blogs I like

Why S&M?

Blog powered by Typepad