How Sustainable Is A 'ConDUP' Alliance?

As talks between the Tories and the DUP continue, journalists have made efforts to highlight the DUP's hard-right social conservatism and support from paramilitary organisations.

The narrative, engulfing a Conservative Party in disarray (hence unable to muster a strong enough counter), is that by cosying up to the DUP they are in effect aligning themselves with, even endorsing, the party's more extreme positions.

But, then again, ministers have made a point of suggesting the Conservatives "have a lot in common with our friends in the DUP" on sofa interviews this weekend, seemingly tone-deaf to the fact the only DUP positions being communicated to the British public are anti-gay rights, anti-abortion, and climate change denial.

Also read: Never Mind Kingmakers - The DUP Will Be Queenslayers For Theresa May

While an alliance does not necessarily equate to an out-and-out ideological alignment, it is inconceivable that any arrangement will be forged without the DUP extracting some capital from the Tories; the DUP are known as "tough negotiators".

Moreover; the Conservatives are desperate. As the Liberal Democrats are no longer a viable option (for either party, and for obvious reasons), the DUP is the only voting bloc Theresa May can conceivably court to get her legislative programme off the ground.

Let's assume, then, they do work out a deal, and the Tories are able to move forward in government. The question still remains over how reliable the DUP will be in terms of day-to-day politics; with conflicting positions on universal benefits, maintaining the pensions triple lock, and others.

To make things more complicated, as the New Statesman's Stephen Bush points out, the Fixed Term Parliaments Act gives the DUP more leverage over the Tories than first thought because a government no longer falls if it loses a budget or Queen's speech vote, only confidence votes, meaning the DUP can extract concessions over the course of the parliament in exchange for its support on a host of minor legislative issues.

My assessment, of course, does not take into account the added complexity of domestic Northern Irish politics, the new clutch of Scottish Tory MPs with loyalties to Ruth Davidson, nor does it take into account the implications for the Good Friday Agreement.

Any arrangement the two parties reach cannot possibly be sustainable in the long-term. Either we will have a lame duck government for the next five years, or the Conservatives will become frustrated enough to agree to calling an early election. My guess would be after the Brexit negotiations.

Never Mind Kingmakers - The DUP Will Be Queenslayers For Theresa May

GUEST POST | By Fin Milligan

As I write this, #DUPcoalition is currently trending on Twitter. Earlier today, the Democratic Unionist Party’s own website crashed, after the public frantically googled just who, and what, the DUP was, and why Northern Ireland suddenly seemed to hold all the cards with regards to Theresa May forming a government. 

It’s fair to say the snap general election didn’t quite go the way the Conservative Party was hoping. I could write paragraphs about everything that went wrong, but I won’t, because that’s already been done to death over the last 24 hours.

The Tories were expecting to crush any last semblance of the mainstream left, and return a 100-plus seat 'supermajority', storming key Labour heartlands in the process. But instead, May’s gamble horribly backfired. The Tories lost their majority, with Corbyn’s Labour defying all expectations to steal a clutch of Tory seats (with the shock of the night belonging to Canterbury, held by the Conservatives for 99 years).

As many have pointed out, while Theresa May won the numbers (while still not making up enough to form a majority) she lost the night, with Corbyn losing the numbers, but winning.

Falling short of an overall majority, May has now turned to the right-wing DUP in Northern Ireland to help prop up her government. This, in my opinion, has sealed her fate quicker than if she had tried to form a minority government, and the very party she’s relying on may end up being the poison that kills her leadership, and serves as the final nail for her credibility within the Conservative party. 

Let’s start with the obvious. The DUP run on an unashamedly anti-LGBTQ+, anti-abortion platform; their stance similar to that of the American Republican party.

And I would have loved to have seen David Cameron’s face when he heard the news Theresa May was looking to them to prop up her government. For all of Cameron’s faults, his one real achievement was to modernise the Conservative Party (or rather, the Conservative and Unionist Party as May emphasised in her speech outside Downing Street), and pull them somewhat to the left socially. It was, after all, under Cameron’s premiership that same-sex marriage was passed (although not without discontent from members of his own party).

Don’t get me wrong - I’m not arguing that homophobia has been eradicated under the Conservatives, or indeed that women have now got it A-OK, and everything is fine, and equal. But in mainstream British politics, a woman having an abortion, or a gay person getting married, isn’t something we’re about to turn the clock back on.

This is in stark contrast with the DUP, which is openly homophobic. For example, besides a well-documented objection to same-sex marriage, in 2013 DUP Assembly Member Tom Buchanan told children at a school that homosexuality is "an abomination". For a woman who once said the Conservatives should move away from being the "nasty party" she has sure as hell picked a rather interesting set of "friends" to make a deal with.

I wonder how any of the 45 new LGBTQ+ MPs elected to parliament feel about the DUP playing kingmaker? Plus, I’d wager there’s more than a few centrist Conservative MPs who are uncomfortable at the prospect of joining forces with this lot, including a new batch of Scottish MPs under the leadership of Ruth Davidson.

There’s also the rather delicious irony of spending your entire campaign labelling Jeremy Corbyn a terrorist sympathiser, only then to rely on a party endorsed by active paramilitaries in Northern Ireland. The hysteria from the Tories on who Corbyn may or may not have met with 30 years ago also seems hilariously hypocritical, particularly as DUP leader Arlene Forster met the UDA boss Jackie McDonald 48 hours after a loyalist murder in Belfast.

Finally, to Brexit; what this snap election was meant to be all about, and yet was curiously absent for most of the campaign.

It's said that part of the deal the Tories brokered with the DUP is that they would concede on a hard Brexit. This raises all manner of problems in itself, particularly when May has been constantly playing up the the hard-right of her party who are eager for a "no deal" with the EU if they aren't given whatever they want. This puts May at odds with her "strong and stable" mantra - something I feel we will never hear the Tories utter again - and which won't play well with the faction of her party she's been courting.

This ignores the fact we still aren’t any clearer as to what Mrs May’s Brexit will look like for the UK, never mind the deeply complex issue of the Irish border.

I don’t, and will never claim to be, anything close to an expert regarding Northern Irish politics; but there are a whole range of domestic issues in Northern Ireland that May hasn’t considered, making her alliance with the DUP even more misguided.

The idea of a Conservative-DUP coalition may rightfully seem like a frightening and disturbing prospect (interesting they’ve been careful to describe this as a "confidence and supply" arrangement), but falls before the first hurdle.

There are too many obstacles - even without involving the DUP - for Theresa May to govern effectively and command the respect of her party, let alone touching on their climate change denial and creationism.

If I was a betting man (and I’m not) I’d be eyeing the odds of another general election in the autumn. But right now, Theresa May is a wounded prime minister - self-inflicted - with her reputation shredded. Making friends with the DUP might have just eliminated what was left of her.

#GE2017 Analysis: Are We In For A Youth Turnout Shock?

According to received wisdom the majority of young people in Britain are apathetic.

Based on historic trends, it's difficult to argue against the idea that youth apathy will strike again this Thursday, but in a tumultuous political climate in which received wisdom is being consistently undermined, even this taken-for-granted assumption may be turned on its head.

    

Youth Engagement Has Been In Steady Decline Since 1992 

The downward trend in young people turning out to vote over the previous six general elections is stark.

Data via BBC News.

      

   

But The EU Referendum Has Re-engaged The British Public

Evidence suggests the EU referendum had a hand in raising levels of engagement in the country, with overall turnout rising to 72%, the highest since 1997.

This effect was particularly strong with young voters, with turnout among 18-24 year-olds rising once again to levels not seen since 1992.

Data via Opinium.

 

We Saw A Similar Effect In Scotland After The Indy Ref

Scotland experienced a similar re-engagement in 2014, with an unusually high turnout of 85%.

Turnout dropped in the next two election years, but remained relatively high compared to previous elections to suggest the referendum had a semi-lasting impact on political engagement, although it is now starting to taper off.

Data via BBC News.

     

The Polls Are Wildly Different - Because Pollsters Can't Agree On How Many Young Voters Will Show Up

Pollsters have estimated party support in different ways, with the main discrepancy appearing to lie in how they weigh likely turnout among younger voters.

These modelling differences generate outcomes ranging from a record-breaking Tory landslide to a hung parliament.

Generally speaking, polls predicting a low youth turnout tend to show larger Conservative leads, while polls predicting relatively higher youth turnout shrinks the gap considerably.

Data via listed polling companies.

   

    

... But This Election Campaign Has Excited Young People

This campaign is remarkable not only for the Corbyn surge - something which hasn't been fully explained - but for data showing increased excitement among young people.

Pollsters normally ask people they survey how certain they are to vote (from 1 - 10) in order to measure likely turnout and accurately weigh their raw data samples.

The number of young voters voters answering "10 - absolutely certain to vote" has dramatically risen over the course of the campaign.

Data via listed polling companies. Survation phone age brackets measured 18-34 for April 2017. Survation online age brackets measured 18-34 for April 2017 and June 2017. YouGov age brackets measured 18-24 and 25-49.

 
 

... And This Is Reflected In 2017's Last-Minute Voter Registration Surge

Compared with 2015, an unusually high number of voters registered to vote in the final 21 days before the registration deadline - broadly reflecting the numbers from 2016.

Data via Gov.uk

The number of applications from young people - both as a proportion of all applications and in absolute numbers - was unusually high.

Data via Gov.uk

  

   

What Does All Of This Mean?

Quite possibly, absolutely nothing. Firstly, all of this evidence is circumstantial. Secondly, since polls largely only measure vote share across the country - and not levels of support in individual seats - even a 50:50 split between Labour and the Conservatives could lead to dramatically different seat tallies depending on where the votes fall across the country.

While pollsters have reached a consensus on both the Corbyn surge and increased engagement among under 40s, they have been unable to pin down to what extent this will make a difference.

But based on all the data I would commit to predicting young voters will turn out in 2017 at a significantly higher level than in 2015, broadly reflecting turnout across the age brackets recorded after the EU referendum.

***

Update 25/06/17 - 'The first election since 1992 in which a majority of young people have come out to vote'

Speaking on BBC Radio Five Live in the early hours of Friday morning, Professor Jon Tonge, an academic with Liverpool University, told listeners: "The early data suggests this is the first election since 1992 in which a majority of young people, by which I mean 18-24 year-olds, have come out to vote."

"Data suggests this is the first election since 1992 that the majority of young people (18-24's) have voted" - Prof Jon Tonge#bbcelection pic.twitter.com/uKpFM64WYj

— BBC Radio 5 live (@bbc5live) June 9, 2017

Post-election demographic analysis from pollster Ipsos Mori proves this claim holds true, with 64% of 18-24 year-olds and 64% of 25-34 year-olds having taken part.

Writing on the impact of the shift in demographics, Thiemo Fetzer, assistant professor in economics at the University of Warwick, said: "The results suggest that the major reshuffles in turnout were predominantly due to the (soon to be) grey voters not turning up to vote in 2017 relative to younger voters.

"The Labour party was the big winner, catching almost as significant share of the increase among young voters."

Representatives from both Ipsos Mori and YouGov were approached to comment on the significance of the turnout among young people, and whether this can be sustained in the future, but neither were able to respond to my requests at the time of writing.

#GE2017 Meme Storm: The Best 2017 Election Memes in One Place

Below is a collection of the hottest meme pages and #content to emerge from this unexpected general election - with only seven days to go. 

This list will be updated regularly as we edge towards June 8.

Enjoy!

Licentious Liberal Democrat Memes

"A page of juicy and spicy centrist memes with more likes than MPs." 

      

      

   

Snap Election Memes with a Nihilist Theme

"Democracy is a hollow lie. Like this page for the chance to win my vote on June 8th."

     

   

   

Jeremy Corbyn Photoshopped into Appropriate Situations

"Corbz memes for the good of the world. I will be taking requests up until the General Election on June 8th. Where will Corbz be next? You decide." 

   

    

Strong and Stable Memes for Sharply Spoken Teens

"Welcome to strong and stable memes for sharply spoken teens. We're the home of the strongest, stablest memes for this UK election cycle." 

   

      

     

Depressed Vegetarians for Corbyn

"This is a pro-Corbyn page for memes, news, awareness, and support for those who need it." 

     

 

June 8 Shitposting Social Club

"Like the sound of original June 8 election memes fresh out of the furnace of socialistic fury? Then hit that mf like button."  

     

General Election Peep Show Memes

"People like Coldplay and voted for the Nazis. You can't trust people." 

Is ‘Brand May’ a Show of Confidence, or CCHQ’s Insurance Policy?

In light of Theresa May’s historically high approval ratings, the Tory push for power has taken the form of a conventional US presidential campaign putting the prime minister front-and-centre.

It is so central to the campaign, that where you would normally expect to find ‘Conservative’ or ‘Conservative Party’ on official party branding, you will find instead ‘Theresa May’s Team’ - with party identity relatively obscured.

In the lead up to the local elections, CCHQ bought wraparound adverts with a host of local newspapers to promote not the Conservative Party, but Theresa May, a feature also found on leaflets, and in candidates’ messaging. The Conservative battle bus too is emblazoned with 'Theresa May for Britain'.

The thinking behind this is clear. Not only is Theresa May more popular than her party, but at the start of the campaign she boasted historically high approval ratings - higher than Thatcher or Blair at their peaks - with Jeremy Corbyn languishing far behind.

There are many theories behind her record-breaking popularity, from being a “basic prime minister for basic times” to having the luxury of being directly contrasted with her opponent - somebody widely regarded as being not up to the job.

This tactic isn't in itself unusual, with her predecessor running a similar campaign centred on 'competence over chaos under Ed Miliband'. Yet ‘Brand Dave’ did not replace the Tory identity; the two complemented each other to good effect. But this idea - in its current manifestation - is being pushed to the point of absurdity.

For instance, Theresa May is name-checked 16 times in the conservative party manifesto. By contrast, David Cameron was mentioned six times in 2015, and three times in 2010. In 1997, the Labour manifesto mentioned Tony Blair by name once.

Beyond serving as a handy electoral device, exploiting the unforeseen popularity of ‘Brand May’, perhaps this positioning allows the party to shield ‘Brand Tory’ from May’s most devastating flaws, should they manifest in the coming years.

Her indecisiveness, cautiousness, hypercentralised management style, and an over-reliance on a closely-knit team of special advisers (who carry torrid reputations) are examples of traits not adequately scrutinised; given most of the printing press are considered ‘on side’, and the opposition leader is seen as relatively hapless in the eyes of the public.

***

‘Theresa Maybe’, the Economist’s leader column on ‘Britain’s indecisive premiere’, was a frank assessment of the prime minister’s record six months after she took office, noting “it is hard to name a single signature policy, and easy to cite U-turns.”

This damning list, yet growing, includes backing down from a promise to put workers on company boards, reversing plans to compel firms to list foreign employees, scrapping Budget proposals to raise National Insurance, and changing her widely-berated ‘Dementia Tax’.

Moreover, the entire social care saga has exposed Theresa May’s greatest weaknesses in the unforgiving spotlight of a general election campaign; which leads CCHQ’s almost absurdist decision to make her the sole face of the next five years seem something of a masterstroke.

Moving forwards, the manner in which her flaws have been exposed with such ease may affect the outcome of the Brexit negotiations.

As the FT’s Janan Ganesh has noted: “If Mrs May did not know that old people feel attached to their asset base, she was derelict. If she did and (admirably) resolved to face them down, then her resolve does not amount to much. Colleagues who defended her proposal in public, lobby interests who fought it and any EU negotiators tuning in from the continent will infer the same lesson: this prime minister is strong and stable, until you test her.”

With Britain facing its greatest juncture in modern history the risk of wrecking our future prospects in trade, diplomacy, and prosperity, has never been greater. And, courtesy of leaks, we know preliminary discussions between Theresa May and her European counterparts have been disastrous.

By associating the next government with 'Brand May’, almost exclusively, CCHQ has given the party the breathing space it needs should May’s tenure end in catastrophe, with the foundations set for a clean rebuilding process - but not before first throwing the prime minister under the bus.

What Happened in Richmond Park Anyway?

The Richmond Park by-election campaign was, by any conventional standards, a mess, yet in the current political climate this couldn't be any more appropriate. 

Zac Goldsmith, who ran a torrid campaign only a few months ago to become the Conservative Mayor of London, resigned his seat in protest at the government's decision to expand London Heathrow, This decision was based on a promise he'd made before 2010; to leave the Conservative Party and stand against them as an independent.

He immediately set out to frame the campaign as a "referendum on Heathrow" which, at first, made perfect sense. But the local Conservative branch, in an extraordinary step, then decided to back Goldsmith, which left CCHQ in limbo - in the end choosing to step aside so as to prevent splitting the "conservative" vote.

After the Liberal Democrats picked their candidate, the Green Party decided to step aside too, so as to avoid splitting the anti-Goldsmith vote. Labour's NEC, despite reservations from senior figures, decided to field a candidate, while UKIP was the third major party to back off, throwing its weight behind Goldsmith.

Not everything, however, was as simple as it looked...

The Green Party, in a pragmatic move, decided to back the Lib Dem candidate Sarah Olney in a "progressive alliance".

But Zac Goldsmith, who has previously gotten along well with Green co-leader Caroline Lucas, allegedly suggested she was backing him, while distancing himself from UKIP - who had mostly definitely endorsed his candidacy.

The local Greens said they were "deeply disappointed" in Goldsmith for making the suggestion on one of his leaflets, and a spokesperson was forced to refute any allusion to Green support for Goldsmith on the Green Party website.

Reports then emerged that the local Greens were also disappointed in Caroline Lucas for backing the "regressive" Lib Dems, with prominent local members writing a letter to the Guardian to express as much, and some figures even urging Green voters to back the Labour candidate instead.

As for Goldsmith, who was being backed by the local Conservatives, and prominent pro-Heathrow expansion Tory MPs such as Jacob Rees-Mogg, towards the end of the campaign wouldn't even rule out re-joining the Conservative Party in the near future.

***

Zac Goldsmith's attempt to frame the by-election as a "referendum on Heathrow" fell apart shortly after it became clear each of his rivals shared his view, and the government, officially backing Heathrow expansion, would decline to field a candidate. 

Tim Farron, who called this the contest "the most important by-election in living memory," when I spoke with him this weekend instead tried to frame it as a(nother) referendum on Brexit - holding several events over the last few weeks including an overwhelmingly pro-EU Brexit Q&A on the final Saturday of campaigning.

The reason for this was obvious: 77% of Zac Goldsmith's constituents voted to remain while Goldsmith, who they have returned twice, has been long-known as a proud Eurosceptic.

***

At the time of writing the winner hadn't been declared - but, for the purposes of this post, it doesn't matter.

This by-election has been messy, disjointed, and it has made a mockery of our electoral system, with three of the five major parties (as I see them), including the party of government, backing away from the fight. 

The cost of running the contest has been touted as lying somewhere between £240,000 and £250,000, depending on which source you've consulted - a big price, in my view, for what was ultimately a pointless distraction - and one that may end up costing Goldsmith his seat.

Why It Matters That Theresa May Is Unelected

What happens when an unknown quantity is thrust into the highest seat of power in the state without so much as a sofa interview?

Ahead of this year's Conservative party conference a large portion of the press and broadcast media dedicated hours dissecting Theresa May - the politician - as well as Theresa May - the woman.

If you're feeling as if journalists this week are being especially superficial then you wouldn't be alone. Many appeared more keen to scrutinise the May family scones recipe than trouble themselves with less important matters such as the deeply troubling shift in the government's immigration rhetoric, or the militarisation of our prison system.

But this especially intense obsession with the superficial, which all of us share at least a little, is grounded in the fact that we know absolutely nothing about our prime minister.

***

The general consensus is that Theresa May used her conference speech to grab the 'centre ground' or even, to an extent, the centre-left of politics. 

Curious, then, that she managed to do this while drawing praise from the French far-right nationalist presidential candidate Marine Le Pen.

Exactement 👏

Theresa May : « Si vous estimez être un citoyen du monde, vous êtes citoyen de nulle part » https://t.co/3bRd4bvBBx

— MLP Présidente 2017ن (@ElyseeMarine) October 5, 2016

In my view, her speech was packed with rhetoric borrowed from the left and the right, lined with a few jokes, and hashed together in order to allow everybody to see into it anything they wanted to.

When a politician makes this sort of speech, packed with rhetoric but lacking any actual policy, it is usually deconstructed and rebuffed by lunchtime. But because we have no point of reference from which to judge her words, it forces us to take them at face value.

She has no record as prime minister. She has no manifesto. She has promised nothing, neither to her party, nor the country. Even her record as Home Secretary is foggy, with many citing the fact she had not been removed from the post as being her greatest achievement - begging the question as to what her other achievements, if any, may have been.

***

You can argue endlessly about whether or not our democracy is fit for purpose. But the process of an election, no matter how flawed, at the very least accomplishes several things.

First, within the context of our pseudo-presidential electoral system, any potential prime minister is measured up. We learn intimate details about them, their family, their home(s), their character, even their love life. And, although of less concern to the press, we learn about their management style and political philosophy - not overnight - but often over the course of several years (as leader of the opposition).

Second, the entire prospective government - party leaders as well as their frontbench teams - are forced to make promises and set targets against which they can be judged when they win power. 

Third, any policy proposed faces meticulous vetting by the media and the public. Generally, a good policy is received well, while a bad policy is thrown out. A good example of this is David Cameron's bizarre 'paid volunteering' scheme cooked up during the 2015 election campaign.

Finally, it forces political parties to shape their policy around what they believe the public wants, and not around whichever untested ideology they hold.

Theresa May's government - which we now know to be completely different from the government elected to power in 2015 in terms of personnel, policy, and philosophy - has not been subject to any of the above. This should worry us.

Keep Calm and Carry On?

In the lasts few days our nation has been gripped by an unquenchable madness. Nobody knows what is happening. Pandora's Box has been opened and its contents are being traded away in a fire sale. How has it come to this?

The British public have voted to leave the European Union. This decision, which has already had a disastrous effect on the economy, was made by an older, wealthier generation of voters who haven't got very long left to live, in direct contradiction with the will of their relatively penniless children and grandchildren, who will have to live with these consequences the longest.

The Prime Minister has resigned, while both the Home Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer were not seen for 72 hours after the result was declared. George Osborne finally reared his head on Monday morning to make a reassuring statement before the markets opened, only for the markets to subsequently crash as investors panicked even further.

The pound has fallen to its lowest value against the dollar in 35 years. Approximately $2.08 trillion was wiped from the global markets in one day. Credit agency Moody's downgraded the UK's outlook from "stable" to "negative" while S&P said the UK would likely lose its AAA rating. So far on Monday, at the time of writing, the FTSE 100 has fallen by 2% and FTSE 250 has fallen by 4.5%.

David Cameron, who stepped down after leading a campaign he had hoped to narrowly win, will most likely be replaced with Boris Johnson, the former Mayor of London and the Prime Minister's old Etonian schoolmate, who led an opposition campaign he had hoped to narrowly lose, and who is subsequently trying to run the country from his newspaper column.

Boris Johnson, who won his campaign and signalled Britain's intent to leave the European Union, is having second thoughts over triggering Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, presuming he becomes the next Prime Minister, while those who comprise the EU establishment want us to get out as soon as possible. Number 10 has announced the unit to lead Brexit issues will be led by Oliver Letwin, whose 'Controversies' section is as long as the 'Political Career' section of his Wikipedia page.

On what comes next, those leading the campaign have no Brexit plan, as they were never in a position to fulfil any pledges they made. The ruling Conservative party has no Brexit plan, as they were expecting those in Number 10 to have drafted any contingency. And Number 10 has no Brexit plan, as David Cameron was not expecting to lose what ultimately proved to be his last political gamble after he had won all of his previous ones.

"It sounds like I’m making that up" - @FaisalIslam was told the Leave campaign did not have a post #Brexit plan https://t.co/yAT1IOaG5v

— Sky News (@SkyNews) June 27, 2016

In the first meeting of his cabinet since the result was declared, the Pm told his colleagues "this government will not accept intolerance" in light of a sharp rise in the number of xenophobic and racially-motivated hate crimes across the country.

Meanwhile, a coup has been triggered within the Labour party. Its leader Jeremy Corbyn, who does not hold the confidence of his MPs, may yet retain the confidence of the party membership. While the shadow Foreign Secretary Hilary Ben was sacked over the phone for expressing his lack of confidence in the leader and triggering said coup in the early hours of Sunday morning, the deputy party leader Tom Watson, it emerged, was on a bender in Glastonbury; a detail we have only gleaned from his latest Snapchat story. Corbyn allies accused would-be plotters of planning this ongoing coup on a "Snapchat group".

The new shadow defence secretary Clive Lewis was also at Glastonbury when he was appointed to his new role, and may be late for his first Defence Questions in parliament due to the traffic. His predecessor Maria Eagle resigned in a wave of mass resignations from the shadow cabinet, a walkout which yet continues, not to mention the dozens of MPs and party figures who are resigning from non-cabinet and relatively junior positions. The list of 37 resignations as of 2:00pm BST includes 18 shadow cabinet members, ten shadow ministers, and nine private parliamentary secretaries.

Jeremy Corbyn has refused to step down, and may yet be entitled to continue until a leadership challenge is triggered. But because the party rarely topples its own leaders in such a regicidal fashion, the exact rules as to whether Corbyn may have to regain 35 nominations to appear on the ballot paper are unclear, and may have to be determined by the National Executive Committee, of which Corbyn has a slight majority. There are also rumours that the majority of the PLP will follow a 'Libya model' of sorts and form a second shadow cabinet within the party led by an unofficial leader. One may feel this all needs to be sorted out before Prime Minister's Questions, which will take place on Wednesday morning.

Meanwhile our actual head of state, a woman 25 years past the retirement age, is constitutionally bound to keep shtum in times of political division by merit of a constitution we have yet to write down. She is taking a trip to Northern Ireland on Monday - a nation which may leave the UK along with Scotland in order to continue EU membership, which itself may not be possible.

Given this is only day four of Brexit Britain, what else could possibly go wrong?

***

In other news: International tensions have cooled as it has emerged Israel and Turkey struck a deal to end the six-year rift over the Gaza flotilla killings, while Iraq has taken back control of Fallujah from Islamic State in a massive blow to the terrorist group's ambitions.

Where Have all the Tory Voters Gone?

While pundits last week were busy waiting for a Labour disaster that never came, they missed something that seemed to me quite clear - a moderate collapse in Conservative support.

This is how England's major parties did last week.

LABOUR    | 1326 councillors (-18) | 75 councils (n/c) | 31% PNS  

TORIES      | 842 councillors (-48)  | 38 councils (-1)   | 30% PNS

LIB DEMS | 328 councillors (+45) | 4 councils (+1)     | 15% PNS

UKIP          | 58 councillors (+28)   | 0 councils (n/c)    | 12% PNS

What was billed as a disastrous night for Labour turned out to be a fairly average night for everyone. All parties could claim victories in particular arenas, but would have to contend with losses in others. When it comes to vote share, however, the Conservatives may have some cause for concern. 

The BBC's in-house VR guru Jeremy Vine projected that a general election would yield a hung parliament based on these results. Journalists spent the next few days asking Labour MPs whether this was the sort of performance that would inspire confidence in winning a general election. The answer is certainly not. 

This is how the vote share has changed since the general election.

LABOUR    | 30% in May 2015 | 30% in September 2015 | 31% PNS in May 2016

TORIES     | 37% in May 2015 | 42% in September 2015 | 30% PNS in May 2016

Had these journalists bothered asking Conservative MPs the same question, the Tories would have been forced to concede they are in a much weaker position today than they were only last year, losing almost a fifth (18.9%) of their support. It's even worse when you consider their relative popularity as recently as September. 

So where has this support gone?

Labour's share has remained more or less exactly the same over the course of the last year. It's clear that party hasn't done enough to attract disaffected Conservative supporters, but if you take a look at how the share has changed for other two major parties, the picture becomes a little clearer. 

LIB DEMS | 8% in May 2015    | 7% in September 2015    | 15% PNS in May 2016

UKIP          | 13% in May 2015  | 13% in September 2015  | 12% PNS in May 2016

It seems that while UKIP, as with Labour, has also stagnated, the Lib Dems have more than doubled their vote share in a matter of months, seemingly soaking up the Tory disaffection. This is, of course, notwithstanding the wonderfully nuanced exchanges in support between these four major parties, and the others.

Some areas, especially the South West, are home to fierce Lib Dem/Tory battlegrounds. Could it be that a swathe of last year's Conservative voters have, with hindsight, begun to miss the stability of the coalition over what appears to be the volatility of a one-party government?

The Lib Dems had a good night last week, which makes for a refreshing change. They've had a long year in the wilderness. Perhaps it's time we took them a little more seriously going forwards.

You can see the full local election results on BBC News. The Britain Elects ward-by-ward results can be found here.