Conservative parties dominating Anglo-Saxon countries

[Axulus]

Conservative parties are currently the dominant party in power in all Anglo-Saxon countries:

United States: Republicans have a majority in the house and senate - picked up large gains in 2014 election.
Canada: Conservative Party holds the majority of seats in House of Commons and Senate, Conservative party leader Stephen Harper is Prime Minister
New Zealand National Party: Holds 60 out of 121 seats in Parliament, is the leading party in the minority governing right of center coalition and holds Prime Minister Seat
Australia: Center-Right Liberal Party of Australia is in power in a ruling coalition with the right-wing Liberal National Party of Queensland.
Ireland: Fine Gael - right-wing party dominates Parliament in governing coalition with Labor Party.
UK: Tories appear to be dominant in current election, may have a slim outright majority.

What does everyone think is responsible for this trend?

 

[bilby]

Conservative parties are currently the dominant party in power in all Anglo-Saxon countries:

United States: Republicans have a majority in the house and senate - picked up large gains in 2014 election.
Canada: Conservative Party holds the majority of seats in House of Commons and Senate, Conservative party leader Stephen Harper is Prime Minister
New Zealand National Party: Holds 60 out of 121 seats in Parliament, is the leading party in the minority governing right of center coalition and holds Prime Minister Seat
Australia: Center-Right Liberal Party of Australia is in power in a ruling coalition with the right-wing Liberal National Party of Queensland.
Ireland: Fine Gael - right-wing party dominants Parliament in governing coalition with Labor Party.
UK: Tories appear to be dominant in current election, may have a slim outright majority.

What does everyone think is responsible for this trend?

Fear.


Minor nitpick; the current Australian government is a long-standing coalition between the Liberal Party and the National Party. The Queensland branches of these two parties merged in 2008 to form the LNP, so in Queensland there is only one party where previously there were two. There are still two separate parties in the rest of the country, so the ruling coalition federally is between the Liberals and the Nationals, with some of the federal LNP representatives and senators caucusing with the federal Libs, and others with the federal Nats.

In effect, the LNP federal members have to 'unpick' their state-level merger, and pick which of the two federal coalition party rooms to attend. All three parties are right-wing; the Libs tend to have a more urban base, and the Nats represent the rural parts of Australia.

 

[Axulus]

Fear.

Why is there more to fear now than, say, 5 or 10 years ago?

Minor nitpick; the current Australian government is a long-standing coalition between the Liberal Party and the National Party. The Queensland branches of these two parties merged in 2008 to form the LNP, so in Queensland there is only one party where previously there were two. There are still two separate parties in the rest of the country, so the ruling coalition federally is between the Liberals and the Nationals, with some of the federal LNP representatives and senators caucusing with the federal Libs, and others with the federal Nats.

In effect, the LNP federal members have to 'unpick' their state-level merger, and pick which of the two federal coalition party rooms to attend. All three parties are right-wing; the Libs tend to have a more urban base, and the Nats represent the rural parts of Australia.

Ah, thanks for clearing that up - I was indeed confused about the various mergers that occurred when I was originally looking into it.

 

[bilby]

Why is there more to fear now than, say, 5 or 10 years ago?

Because the economies of most nations crashed in 2008, and people still haven't recovered their confidence.

Interest rates and inflation rates are both at record lows everywhere; even in Australia, where we avoided a recession altogether, growth is sluggish, interest rates are approaching zero, and yet inflation seems hard to come by.

People don't have good, secure, well-paid jobs. Nobody wants to borrow at a personal level, because despite low interest rates, there is a fear that they will be overwhelmed by the debt if they lose their jobs. Similarly businesses are wary of new debt as the global economy does not inspire confidence in the continuing existence of current markets, much less in their growth, or the emergence of new markets and opportunities.

Fear is a self-fulfilling prophesy. The more so because it encourages voters to vote for less change - and therefore for conservative/right wing parties; and those parties tend to enact austerity measures, which make the stagnation of the economy worse rather than better.

This is further exacerbated in the EU, where the partial union has left member states with none of the usual options to relieve their debt burdens.

 

[Canard DuJour]

Why is there more to fear now than, say, 5 or 10 years ago?

Because the economies of most nations crashed in 2008, and people still haven't recovered their confidence.

Interest rates and inflation rates are both at record lows everywhere; even in Australia, where we avoided a recession altogether, growth is sluggish, interest rates are approaching zero, and yet inflation seems hard to come by.

People don't have good, secure, well-paid jobs. Nobody wants to borrow at a personal level, because despite low interest rates, there is a fear that they will be overwhelmed by the debt if they lose their jobs. Similarly businesses are wary of new debt as the global economy does not inspire confidence in the continuing existence of current markets, much less in their growth, or the emergence of new markets and opportunities.

Fear is a self-fulfilling prophesy. The more so because it encourages voters to vote for less change - and therefore for conservative/right wing parties; and those parties tend to enact austerity measures, which make the stagnation of the economy worse rather than better.

This is further exacerbated in the EU, where the partial union has left member states with none of the usual options to relieve their debt burdens.

Indeed and, in such times, the idea that a national economy is just a big household which needs to tighten its belt starts sounding like good ole common sense. Conservatives have learned to use this as an excuse to attack the public sector.

Another trick they've learned is to make a lot of crypto-xenophobic noises in scary times when people naturally start blaming foreigners - while allowing as much immigration as suits the class whose interests they represent. People think Conservatives are the most likely to keep out all the foreigners taking "our" jobs etc. The only thing they'll really keep out is stuff like the EU Working Hours Directive.

But their best trick, IMO, has been the self-perpetuating rightward drift of the centre. Calling a Blair or an Obama "socialist", "Marxist" etc doesn't sound so ridiculous to the average voter who has little interest in or understanding of ideology and policy, and tends to vote for the apparent centre. You end up with two conservative parties trying to appeal to the Daily Mail crowd while the left of centre vote fractures or stays home because there's no one to vote for.

 

[Togo]

Another trick they've learned is to make a lot of crypto-xenophobic noises in scary times when people naturally start blaming foreigners - while allowing as much immigration as suits the class whose interests they represent. People think Conservatives are the most likely to keep out all the foreigners taking "our" jobs etc. The only thing they'll really keep out is stuff like the EU Working Hours Directive.

Certainly in the UK, Conservatives have haemorrhaged support to UKIP, who are much more anti-foreigner.

But their best trick, IMO, has been the self-perpetuating rightward drift of the centre. Calling a Blair or an Obama "socialist", "Marxist" etc doesn't sound so ridiculous to the average voter who has little interest in or understanding of ideology and policy, and tends to vote for the apparent centre.

I can't imagine many people voting against Blair because of socialism. It just isn't the dirty word over here.

You end up with two conservative parties trying to appeal to the Daily Mail crowd while the left of centre vote fractures or stays home because there's no one to vote for.

Hence the collapse of the Liberal Democrats in the UK. Formerly the most centrist party in the UK, they had to lurch to the right to form a coalition government with the Conservatives, and now they've down to roughly 10 seats from 47. People became convinced that they were basically the same as the conservatives, and either voted for the conservatives instead, or went over to the Greens. Meanwhile the Labour party is reeling from a near-total defeat in Scotland to the Scottish Nationalists.

It's looking like the conservatives will be in with a wafer-thin majority, giving them absolute power in all but practice. In practice, they'll probably need some cross party occasional allies, in order to get bills passed. It will be interesting to see who that might be - the obvious choice is the Lib Dems, but will they shy away from further associating with the conservatives when it has cost them so dearly, or will they keep at it to retain some degree of influence and power?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

The United States is an Anglo-Saxon Nation?

 

[Togo]

Update - it looks like the conservatives have a clear and comfortable majority in the UK.

 

[Canard DuJour]

Another trick they've learned is to make a lot of crypto-xenophobic noises in scary times when people naturally start blaming foreigners - while allowing as much immigration as suits the class whose interests they represent. People think Conservatives are the most likely to keep out all the foreigners taking "our" jobs etc. The only thing they'll really keep out is stuff like the EU Working Hours Directive.

Certainly in the UK, Conservatives have haemorrhaged support to UKIP, who are much more anti-foreigner.

Yeah, it was funny to see UKIP stealing their clothes. Or would have been without the lurking spectre of fascism.

But their best trick, IMO, has been the self-perpetuating rightward drift of the centre. Calling a Blair or an Obama "socialist", "Marxist" etc doesn't sound so ridiculous to the average voter who has little interest in or understanding of ideology and policy, and tends to vote for the apparent centre.

I can't imagine many people voting against Blair because of socialism. It just isn't the dirty word over here.

Hmm.. it's a bit more subtle and pervasive than that. The hyperbole establishes (a cautious centrist like) Blair as being of the left in the minds of people who don't know or particularly care about the isms and reflexively vote for the apparent centre. Especially in scary times when they want a fixer, not some ideologue. You then need to be at least as far right as Blair to chase the centre ground.

You end up with two conservative parties trying to appeal to the Daily Mail crowd while the left of centre vote fractures or stays home because there's no one to vote for.

Hence the collapse of the Liberal Democrats in the UK. Formerly the most centrist party in the UK, they had to lurch to the right to form a coalition government with the Conservatives, and now they've down to roughly 10 seats from 47. People became convinced that they were basically the same as the conservatives, and either voted for the conservatives instead, or went over to the Greens. Meanwhile the Labour party is reeling from a near-total defeat in Scotland to the Scottish Nationalists.

It's looking like the conservatives will be in with a wafer-thin majority, giving them absolute power in all but practice. In practice, they'll probably need some cross party occasional allies, in order to get bills passed. It will be interesting to see who that might be - the obvious choice is the Lib Dems, but will they shy away from further associating with the conservatives when it has cost them so dearly, or will they keep at it to retain some degree of influence and power?

Well the Ulster Unionists can always be relied on if they get the seats LOL. Dunno if the Lib Dems can recover from this. Or if they deserve to.

 

[Togo]

Dunno if the Lib Dems can recover from this. Or if they deserve to.

Who else are social liberals going to vote for? Where do you go if you're left wing but not authoritarian? There needs to be something filling that space, or appealing to that segment. If not the Lib Dems, then who?

 

[dismal]

Why is there more to fear now than, say, 5 or 10 years ago?

Because the economies of most nations crashed in 2008, and people still haven't recovered their confidence.

At the time many people took the fear this created and argued the answer was bigger government, more regulation and spendy Keynesianism.

The bitter clingers still do.

 

[Sarpedon]

"Anglo-Saxon Countries?" Who the hell thinks this way still?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Canada isn't a typical case. You see, the Conservative Party was wiped off the face of the Earth in 1993, going from a majority party to having about 5 seats and a lemonade stand in Parliament. The Liberals had control for a long time... too long. And things that happen when a party has power for too long started happening. The people smacked their butts, and now the NDP is the leading liberal party now. Granted the Liberals did balance the budget.

However, the Conservatives have been in power for a while. The issue of being power too long will likewise occur with the Conservative leadership soon.

 

[Togo]

"Anglo-Saxon Countries?" Who the hell thinks this way still?

Conservatives.

 

[Sarpedon]

I'd argue this point further, but I must sharpen my seax and rally to my thane to repel the Viking invaders.

 

[Canard DuJour]

Dunno if the Lib Dems can recover from this. Or if they deserve to.

Who else are social liberals going to vote for? Where do you go if you're left wing but not authoritarian? There needs to be something filling that space, or appealing to that segment. If not the Lib Dems, then who?

'Fraid you do what old Labour types do now : stay home on polling day. Sorry.

 

[Canard DuJour]

Because the economies of most nations crashed in 2008, and people still haven't recovered their confidence.

At the time many people took the fear this created and argued the answer was bigger government, more regulation and spendy Keynesianism.

The bitter clingers still do.

Yeah but you need to sell some counterintuitive ideas and big words with that.

"We're outa money and must tighten our belts and work hard like grandma did" is a much easier sell and kinda reassuring in scary times.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Why is there more to fear now than, say, 5 or 10 years ago?

Tiny screens.

 

[dismal]

At the time many people took the fear this created and argued the answer was bigger government, more regulation and spendy Keynesianism.

The bitter clingers still do.

Yeah but you need to sell some counterintuitive ideas and big words with that.

"We're outa money and must tighten our belts and work hard like grandma did" is a much easier sell and kinda reassuring in scary times.

But in this country anyway, the Democrats gained massively in the immediate aftermath of the financial crisis and pundits made exactly the arguments I described as to why. A new era of big government was upon us.

Then people saw the Democrats govern for a bit and the electorate went all Emily Litella: "never mind".

 

[Sarpedon]

Umm no, as always the low voter turnout in the midterm favored republicans.

And every time republicans like to pretend it portends a rejection of the democrats by voters, and every time they are flabbergasted when they lose two years later.

Low turnout and gerrymandering favor the republicans. In constests where there are high turnouts and no possible gerrymandering, they are at a disadvantage, these days.