« Mechanisms, not numbers | Main | The right's mega-rich problem »

October 31, 2019

Comments

Blissex

usual point: many voters dont vote against a government party that "delivered" (big property price/rent increases) and it takes many years for that to be forgotten. Maybe it is about "trust" or maybe it is a more transactional approach.

Blissex

In the previous comment I meant to write "and it takes many year for failing to be forgotten". For example in 2010 many voters went for the CleggDems because they would not vote for New Labour for having crashed property prices/rents, but also remembered the 1990s crash by the Conservatives. Once the Conservatives had proven that they could push up property prices/rents, they got a clean majority in 2015 (but reduced wrt to decades past as the percentage of southern property owners has been falling).

Is this about "trust" and "regaining trust" or simply rewarding "delivering redistribution" or punishing when it does not happen?

RES

It's fairly clear that many voters disappointed by the main parties will reach for another - anything really be it the LDs or UKIP. About of third of 2010 LD voters switched to UKIP in 2015 which is likely indication they weren't voting on policy in 2010. The mistake is to think the LDs (or any other party) aren't still prone to the same political vices of breaking promises, compromising their vision, backstabbing, dirty dealing, etc. They're all features of politics and our political system. Parties regaining trust is therefore potentially more about voters losing trust in everyone else.

retlav46

It seems all your evidence for the LibDems to be a con party is that they (or, to be precise, half of their MPs - see https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19646731) voted for the fee increase in 2010. Presumably they diverged from their electoral promises also in other matters during the Coalition government. But what does that prove? Isn't it normal that, when in a coalition, you have to give way in some matters in order to get what you want in others? (whether the LibDem played their hands well with the Tories is another story - the probably didn't). I suspect we could find examples of reneged promises by Tories and Labour even after they were in government by themselves. Would that make them even more of a con party?

derrida derider

Bizarre. Look, most voters vote LibDem, or Tory, or Labor DESPITE their distrust of politicians, not because of it. The idea that a broken promise about uni fees almost a full decade ago outweighs current policy stance on today's issues is absurd - otherwise why are people voting for the party that brought us the Iraq war, or for that matter the Zinoviev letter?

The fact is this election is all about Brexit, and Remainers (and I'm one) are at best a small majority and more likely a large minority. Crucially, they're a divided one between Labor and LibDem.

In a first past the post voting system being a third national party is death in a single issue election; after all that's why the LibDems tried and failed to get a more rational system. THAT, not there being any more fraudulent than their opponents, is why they're not doing well.

The comments to this entry are closed.

blogs I like

Why S&M?

Blog powered by Typepad