UK Parties and Beyond

{height=70%}

• We could use insights from the spatial theory of voting to make a prediction

• Boris is at \[ x=7, y=5 \] (this is what Boris will do if elected)

• Nana is at \[ x=2, y=4 \] (these are the policies she wants implemented)

• If she votes for him and he's elected, she loses \[ |(7-2)+(5-4)|=6 \]

• Nana loses \[ |(7-2)+(5-4)|=6 \] with Boris

• Nana loses \[ |(1-2)+(-2-4)|=7 \] With Keir

• Well, what would happen instead of Nana thinking that Culture & Economy are equally important, she starts to think that Culture is twice as important?

• Nana loses \[ |.33\times (7-2)+.66\times(5-4)|=2.31 \] with Boris

• Nana loses \[ |.33\times (1-2)+.66\times (-2-4)|=4.29 \] With Keir

• So simply by talking about something (or proposing new policies etc.) parties hope to change the way we think about politics

Which party can better manage the economy?

Which party can better manage immigration?

So, the Tories are losing their advantage on both issues

• Heresthetics

• 'force [the opponent] to put himself in an undesirable position for winning some future election' (Riker, 1986: 8).'

  • Think Rwanda, EU, Industrial actions
  • Splitting your opponents is crucial

• “We have won more elections than any party in Britain because we are the most united and the most determined party. Over the same period Labour has been the most divided. That is why they have lost, and lost, and lost, and lost again.”

• Where partied and voters live

• Voters may be thinking spatially

• But parties know that

• So it's a bit of a cat and mouse game

• And party politics is a bit of a science, and a bit of an Art