General Election 2015 - what really happened?

It is now just over three months since the General Election result and the political landscape has been transformed.  From a position of a virtual dead heat the Conservatives are now the dominant force in British politics with no serious opposition, the Labour Party are disintegrating, the LibDems have been reduced to a pile of rubble, no-one quite knows where UKIP are, and Scotland is virtually a one party state.  

In these last few months I have had time to read a lot, think about what has happened and look at the stats.  Not least, I have had a look at some of the things the British Election Study has identified about the motivations of the electorate.  Before the myths and legends of election 2015 take root I wanted to jot down a few things I believe to be true in understanding the drivers for the electorate at this election and where I think our politics are at.

A crucial thing to understand about General Election 2015 is that the Conservative Party did not see a significant increase in their support and there was not a return to 2 party politics.  Nor was there a significant reduction in Labour support from 2010 over the country as a whole.

The key dynamics were in fact the disintegration of LibDem support, the SNP landslide in Scotland and a large anti politics UKIP vote, although to negligible electoral effect. The Greens also had a larger vote than in previous elections, although less than they might have hoped.

 Source: Electoralcalculus

The Labour result was in fact a disaster saved only by defecting Liberal Democrats. This was made worse by the realisation that they were the opposition to not altogether popular government after five years of austerity in a financial crisis struck world.

One of the main features of election 2015 was the SNP tidal wave in Scotland where they won nearly all the seats and 50% of the vote.  The 2010 Labour voters who went over to the SNP were the most concerned by cuts in public spending, the least convinced about the need for deficit reduction, and felt that if we did have to address public spending it needed to be by tax rises and not cuts.

For left of centre inclined voters, the most effective thing to do in terms of electoral positioning was to be apparently centrist, anti-austerity, and economically competent.  This worked well for the SNP.  For Labour on the other hand, having a position which seemed to be austerity-lite did not work.  They probably needed to appear anti-austerity while economically competent to be more successful. 

In Scotland, Labour particularly lost out on not seeming anti austerity enough and the nationalist / anti politics sentiment grew.  

A paradox in Scotland that sealed the SNP rout of unionist parties was that a segment of Independence Referendum No voters voted SNP to take their popular vote to an unprecedented 50%.  This crucial group were partly looking for an anti-austerity proposal and were particularly beguiled by the prospect of a Labour minority administration given what they perceived as back-bone by the SNP. A smaller group were disappointed as they perceived there were not enough new powers for Scotland on offer when in fact significant powers had been brought forward and precisely according to the timetable promised.

In the election campaign there were a mass of contradictory claims, seemingly badly costed, confusing and complex.  Therefore, it was impossible to discern what the best deal was.  When the voting public is hit by conflicting claims of an unclear message they fall back on other simpler things to make up their minds. This means their view on the party leaders.  This was crucial.

The view of party leaders in comparison with Ed Miliband helped David Cameron.  It was also another factor which helped the SNP. 

What the LibDems were offering or what they were even for had become unclear and people had stopped listening to their leader some time before election.

The Greens fell back from a promising pre-election position because of this compounded by credibility of economic competence which unravelled somewhat for them during the campaign.

The Conservatives stuck very narrowly to a mantra of having a long term economic plan.  Economic competence, at least in contrast to Labour and their leader being relatively well thought of, again in comparison with Labour helped the Conservatives maintain and very slightly increase their 2010 support.  While this was not that impressive given 2010 was a disappointing result for the Conservatives as they failed to gain a majority after 13 years of Labour and an economic crisis, it was impressive given the rise of UKIP collecting anti politics support to their right.

The Conservatives were able to tactically cannibalise LibDem seats and squeeze enough LibDem voters and UKIP voters in key seats to win a majority under our First past the Post system.

The British Election Study found limited evidence of a fear of a Labour-SNP coalition driving votes to them.  However, both the Conservatives – who operated some very sophisticated voter modelling – and the LibDems found movement at the end of the campaign in LibDem seats to the Conservatives on this very fear tipping key seats into the Conservative column and ensuring the LibDem meltdown.

Interestingly, the Conservatives had some success moving UKIP supporters their way in key seats.  This did not happen in the north where UKIP were Labour facing.  However, this meant that while UKIP did well they only won one seat even though nearly 4 million voted for them.

So in short, an election where Labour lost on perception of economic competence and their leader but also for positioning themselves as austerity lite.  An election where the Conservatives won no ringing endorsement but won a majority under our system by a narrow message of competence or at least having a plan and a very effective tactical squeeze of LibDems and UKIPers in key seats.

But overall an election where the key dynamics were actually the destruction of the LibDems and the irresistible rise of the SNP.

I leave you with a question.  Is there a parallel between Scottish Nationalists and the Irish Nationalists of 1874 who came from nowhere to get 60 seats and it never went back?

That was quite a speech Dave

Well that was quite a speech Mr Cameron.  I guess it will take a few days for me to fully absorb what I think it all means for the future but some things strike me straight away.

On Twitter I asked whether it was Cameron's '95 Theses on the Reformation of Europe' (with thanks to Archbishop Cramner) or was it purely about Tory electoral prospects?  I think the truth is it is rather more about Tory electoral prospects and outflanking the UKIP.

Interestingly, Lord Ashcroft - the Tory benefactor, pollster and strategist - points out that when they talk about Europe they lose.  Well, we'll see, but I do think their position will unravel somewhat and its still all about the economy stupid!

I think the Conservative's position will unravel because we have no idea exactly what powers Cameron would like to repatriate or the consequences.  There is in some quarters a view that Europe takes over and tells us what to do but only 6.8% of UK primary legislation and 14.1% of secondary legislation has anything to do with implementing EU obligations  - and these are not EU diktats but policy that is agreed to, approved of and signed off by UK officials.

The fact is Euro-scepticism plays to an idea of Europe that "we are with Europe but not of it" to quote Churchill.

One of the really interesting things today was that if you substituted the word Scotland for the words 'Britain' or 'United Kingdom' it could have been Alex Salmond talking.  In fact the Scottish nationalist community has been quite taken with the irony of the whole thing and what Cameron is saying about the pros and cons of holding an EU referendum!  But this should not surprise us because both the Conservatives and SNP are nationalists.

The other question I posed on Twitter was 'what effect will this have on the Scottish independence referendum?'   

That remains to be seen but while there are some huge ironies in hearing David Cameron sound like Alex Salmond, I don't think it changes the fundamentals of the debate very much.  In fact, I believe this makes the case for Scottish independence still weaker.

In 2012 there was much debate about whether an independent Scotland could remain automatically within the EU.  While the process and basis for a separate Scotland becoming a member state are unclear there is little doubt we would take our place.  However, the possibility that you could have an independent Scotland within the EU and England & Wales outside the EU is not a good proposition.  Where would this leave the currency? This would not be a good place for Scotland's main market and trading partner to be, and what of the Schengen agreement on borders?

The fact is that to be a viable proposition Scotland needs to be part of the EU.  While I am a strong supporter of the EU, the rest of the UK does not need the EU as much as an independent Scotland would.  And, as I said, the prospect of our main market being on the different side of the EU's borders is something of a nightmare scenario - and it wouldn't do much for the 'social union' either.

I have argued before that our interests are best served by British unity, collective interests abroad like the EU and decentralisation at home.

The commentator David Torrance said something this morning I thought may yet prove to be quite significant.  He said, "PM's position vis-vis EU is basically devo-max for the UK.  And if that doesn't work , then he wants independence."  Yes, David Cameron is arguing for a looser connection with Europe but to remain inside none the less.  In this I sense the possibility of a changing view in England to the British constitution.  The parallels between the EU debate and the constitutional argument will not be lost on everyone.  The awareness of English nationalism, the value of regional autonomy and how these things can exist within something bigger is growing.  The fact that the Scots seem to be largely opposed to independence but want strong devolution within the UK is also becoming increasingly clear.  All these things add up to the possibility that maybe, just maybe, something that was unthinkable a few years ago could soon be thinkable. That is that people in England may come to accept a federal solution for the UK is a good thing.

This is important because today another poll put support for independence below 30% and the numbers supporting increased devolution much higher.

If independence is voted down in 2014 we can get on and take the devolution settlement further.  We can start to work towards making devolution part of a wider decentralised settlement in the UK.  How this develops is the more important question - not independence!

Meanwhile the European question remains and I fear David Cameron has opened a Pandora's Box.  I'm not at all sure where we are headed but I'm not sure he knows either!  My best guess is we won't hold this referendum for I don't believe the Tories will win the next election.  But, If we do hold a referendum I think we'll vote to stay in - by the skin of our teeth.  I can only hope that the re-engineering of Europe, because that will happen in the next few years whatever course we take, is one that benefits us all.