The
web based comment blog “Unherd” hosts interesting contributions from
politically minded commentators. The one
below is interesting.
It
is a recent contribution from Peter Kellner.
Peter Kellner is the Blairite Director of YouGov, the internet based
opinion pollsters. His opinion on the
interpretation of statistics is well worth considering. So when Peter Kellner says:- “I wouldn’t bet
a great deal against changes that could be immense, and which not everyone will
like”, we should take notice. Also, as he
is an enemy of English Nationalism and he is fearful of the consequences – so that
should be encouraging too!
Here
is Peter Kellner’s article:-
HOW BRITISH POLITICS IS FAILING
Something
odd, and possibly dangerous, is eating away at the fabric of British politics.
Brexit, of course, has much to do with it, but the consequences could be with
us long after the current crisis is resolved, one way or another.
Signs
of the malaise can be clearly seen in an exclusive survey for UnHerd
conducted by Deltapoll.
It shows a remarkable lack of faith in both main party leaders, not just by
voters generally but by high proportions of their own voters. Loyalties are
being tested as never before.
In
the past, one party leader has occasionally had a shaky reputation among their
own supporters on one or two characteristics. In the early 1980s, many Labour
voters thought Michael Foot was weak; towards the end of her premiership,
many Tories considered Margaret Thatcher out of touch. But I have never seen so
many supporters of both parties simultaneously hold such low opinions of their
own leaders across the board.
The
responses of all voters shows that both leaders have strongly negative ratings
on all counts. That is unusual enough. But when we look at the figures, showing
how Conservative voters view Theresa May, and the figures, showing how Labour
voters view Jeremy Corbyn, the scale of the drama becomes clear. The positive
scores for May range from 57% of Conservative supporters who say she is strong,
down to 40% who back her on Brexit. Her average score among Tory voters is 45%.
Labour voters give Corbyn positive scores ranging from 64 to 38%; his average
is 50%. Among all voters, the averages are, of course, even worse: May 26%,
Corbyn 28%.
To
put these figures in context, a successful leader would expect average scores
of around 80% among their party’s own voters and 40% among the general public.
For both leaders to fall so far short of these figures should set off alarm
bells in both parties.
Here,
though, is the paradox. Precisely because both leaders have terrible ratings,
the scale of the problem is less obvious than it would be if only one was doing
badly. In that case (as when Foot led Labour and towards the end of Thatcher’s
premiership), their party would have support well below 30% in the polls and
facing a landslide defeat. Instead, nothing much seems to have changed since
the 2017 election. An average of recent polls shows the two parties still close
together, and with almost as many supporters as 18 months ago. The high
commands in both parties, though plainly struggling over Brexit, see no wider
reason to panic.
In
truth, they should be terrified. For the poll shows that the disenchantment
with the main parties and their leaders has spread throughout Britain. Within
Westminster, it is rare to find any backbench Labour or Conservative MP who,
giving their candid views in private, will say their leader is any good or that
their party is in anything other than deep trouble. But some hope this despair
is a feature of the Westminster bubble, and that real voters away from London
have not changed their views of politicians and parties that much.
In
fact, it is increasingly hard to avoid the conclusion that millions of voters
Left and Right are losing faith in the people who either govern us today or
aspire to do so in the future.
Which
brings us to the possible long-term consequences of current public attitudes.
In any country with a different electoral system, the chances are that support
for both Labour and the Conservatives would have crashed by now. Across Europe,
countries with more proportional voting systems have seen the traditional big
parties slump in recent years – even with leaders less widely derided than
Britain’s.
Here,
first-past-the-post creates a huge barrier to entry. Elsewhere, small parties
ranging from the Greens to the far right have obtained a foothold in their
parliaments with as little as 5% support, and then managed to increase their
credibility. Here, they can’t. In 1983, the Liberal/SDP Alliance won 26% and only 23
seats; in 2015 Ukip’s 14% gave them just a single seat.
The
party that might have benefited from the Tory and Labour travails is the
Liberal Democrats. But they paid a heavy price for their role in the 2010-15
coalition government. While their support has picked up a little in recent
months, they are still scarred by decisions they took almost a decade
ago.
It
is, of course, possible that when the Brexit drama has played out, normal
service will resume. Perhaps May and Corbyn will both be replaced by leaders
who have greater personal appeal to the electorate.
I
am not so sure. My reason is that May and Corbyn’s truly awful ratings do not
flow solely from their personal attributes. Both lead deeply divided parties,
and these divisions are unlikely to disappear anytime soon. The faultlines will
remain: inward-looking nationalism versus outward-looking enterprise with the
Tories; ambitious socialism versus progressive capitalism with Labour. A leader
that combined the strategic ability of Napoleon with the genius of Einstein and
the moral courage of Mandela would still struggle to win public approval if
they could not reunite their parties. The Deltapoll figures providence symptoms
of a deeper crisis.
In
short, both main parties are more fragile and less stable than for many
decades. First-past-the-post could save both Labour and the Conservatives from
the consequences of their current divisions. But it is no longer ridiculous to
image a different future. Once the adhesive glue of our electoral system starts
to crack, things can change with bewildering speed. A century ago, amid the
stresses of post-First-World-War Britain and the divisions within the Liberal
Party, realignment happened quickly. Labour climbed from fourth place in 1918
to government in 1924.
Will
Brexit end up having the same glue-cracking effect? And if it does, will the
beneficiaries be existing herbivores such as the Liberal Democrats and the
Greens; or some new centre party created by disenchanted Labour and Tory
moderates; or carnivores on the outer fringes of Right and Left? Is the
century-long dominance of Britain’s Parliament by competing forces on the
centre Right and centre Left about to end?
Ask
me again in 10 years’ time and I shall tell you. Meanwhile I wouldn’t bet a
great deal against changes that could be immense, and which not everyone will
like.
Here
is the link to the original article>>>https://unherd.com/2019/01/how-british-politics-is-failing/
"...moral courage of Mandela..." has Kellner been smoking something or is he just another NPD sufferer? Mandela was a terrorist and controlled by shall we say, alien forces. See e.g.
ReplyDeletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Elders_(organization)
which was initiated by Richard Branson.
And here is Mandela with his puppet masters clinching his communist fist and singing about killing Whites:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcOXqFQw2hc
But changing from first-past-the-post was rejected in this the second UK referendum wasn't it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vote_referendum
Noting the low turnout and the subsequent train of events in UK politics, it was casting pearls before swine.
Nevertheless maybe this IS one Referendum that should be held again until the "correct" answer is given! Except in this case it seems more justifiable than the demand for one on Brexit, not least because smaller parties are penalized in favour of a [Hegelian Dialectic] two party system:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law
Voter disengagement and distrust is entirely a normal and reasonable response to being persistently lied to by politicians of all shades over matters of the profoundest importance for many years. The fact that the internet has made it easier to uncover their lies is merely a contributory but not causative factor.
Hello! I've been reading your web site for a while now
ReplyDeleteand finally got the courage to go ahead and give you a shout out from Atascocita Texas!
Just wanted to tell you keep up the excellent job!