Two great broad-brush facts that call for an explanation

[Qetesuesi]

(1) The Tory party has never won a stable Commons majority since the end of the Cold War.

(2) Every Tory PM who arose since 1973 has had their career destroyed on account of the EU.

I don't know if these two might even be related in some way, but I'd like to see what forumites make of them and what might be behind them.

As to the first point, I do seriously wonder if the great geopolitical shift of 1989/90 truly marked a change in the way the Tories were seen vis-a-vis other parties especially Labour, such that they were suddenly and permanently deprived of a significant voting cause.  As a sidenote, just a few weeks ago I was thinking that this long-term jinx might be about to be broken at last - but nope, thought too soon, the post-CW curse rumbles on.

As to the second, is it because they have always been more nationalistic than Labour, and hence something like the increasingly political EU was always bound to cause them major problems?

Over to you guys....

[Qetesuesi]

6 minutes ago, hotairmail said:

The large Scottish representation has grown steadily out of reach for all main Parties due to extreme nationalism making it extremely difficult for either the Tories or Labour to form a majority on their own. This is in fact more worrying for Labour. 

The concentrated nature of nationalism means their representation in Parliament is too big in a first past the post system, particularly compared to the Liberals and UKIP say, who have far bigger numbers of votes.

My solution to tackle this is to say that in devolved areas of the UK, they submit MP's to Parliament based on proportional representation.

All this applies only since 2015.  And your solution sound sensible.  But I'm asking about the long-term trend, particularly as it has affected the Tory party and its PMs (and possibly leaders who didn't become PM).

[Qetesuesi]

1 minute ago, hotairmail said:

I think it has been a growing problem. First the Tories were effectively kicked out of Scotland (anti Thatch), then a large number of Labour MP's were lost in the 2010 election giving the government to the LibCon coalition.

Just to get the chronology clear:  in 1987 the Tories were left with just 10 Scottish seats (fewer than today's 13, and cf. Labour's 50), but in the UK they had a majority of 101.  In 1992 they recovered a notch to 11 in Scotland, but had only a vulnerable UK majority which got whittled down to nothing by 1997.

It's clear something deeply significant happened between 1987 and 1992, and I can think of nothing more significant than the end of the Cold War and all that that entailed and implied.

[Qetesuesi]

2 minutes ago, hotairmail said:

Your question is a little bit flawed. We've basically had two long governments - Tory then the 'Nu'Labour that both appealed and then became more and more corrupt and stale as they held onto power for too long.

So maybe we need to wait a few more decades before we can clearly say there's a pattern emerging? lol

In seven years we've had three elections where Labour lost each time and yet not once did the Tories actually secure a proper majority (and the one they did get was a surprise to virtually everyone including Cameron and his inner circle).

[Qetesuesi]

Just now, hotairmail said:

Those last three elections are affected by my observation re Scotland earlier.

Doesn't seem to apply to 2010 (SNP won just 6 seats).  Possibly you could say that at that time it was the Lib Dems who were the third party winning over 50 seats and thus making it hard for any one party to get an overall majority - yet Labour won three comfortable/massive majorities prior to this even though the LDs were scoring similar numbers of seats.

You seem to be saying that there are several separate reasons for the 30-year trend which just happen to have operated in succession so as to keep the Tories from any real ability to govern on their own.  Well, maybe.

So let's leave that issue for others to pick up later today, and turn to the second one.  Why has the EU sunk every Tory PM since 1974?

[Sledgehead]

2 hours ago, Qetesuesi said:

Why has the EU sunk every Tory PM since 1974?

Because the party (like Labour) was established long before the eu existed.

Parties are nothing but sets of beliefs - like religions. Historically, social mobility was rather poor. Add to that a paucity of news dissemination and media probing , and what you are left with is a public that was happy (for lack of reason to do otherwise) to vote based on broad (mis?)understandings of what parties stood for - the set of party beliefs.

Then the eu question arises. But that question is not part of the lexicon of party beliefs. So ministers don't know whether they should or should not be pro or anti eu.

It's a bit like gay ministers in the church. Sure, gays have always existed, but nobody ever expected them to want to preach and be openly gay. Step forward the first openly gay minister and the church gets split down the middle.

And that split extends to the congregation. And in politics that split, eu-wise, extends to the electorate.

If anyone really gave a toss about climate change, the same thing would happen.

Essentially the main parties have outlived their usefulness.

[Qetesuesi]

3 minutes ago, Sledgehead said:

Because the party (like Labour) was established long before the eu existed.

So why hasn't it happened to any Labour PMs since 1974?  Or for that matter to PMs from any European countries' parties that pre-date the EU itself?  (Bar the Brussels coups in Greece and Italy I suppose.)

[Sledgehead]

1 hour ago, Qetesuesi said:

So why hasn't it happened to any Labour PMs since 1974?  Or for that matter to PMs from any European countries' parties that pre-date the EU itself?  (Bar the Brussels coups in Greece and Italy I suppose.)

cos, being so hopeless, they generally had other distractions (economy, war, economy ...)

[Dorkins]

17 hours ago, Qetesuesi said:

Why has the EU sunk every Tory PM since 1974?

Because the Tories are the English nationalist party, they just don't want to admit it to themselves. Their English nationalist beliefs are in conflict with membership of larger unions (i.e. the EU, maybe the UK too). This internal ideological conflict is bad for party discipline and will keep bringing down Tory leaders until it is resolved. Probably the healthiest resolution would be for the party to split into an explicitly English/English & Welsh Conservative party (would attract much of the Brexiteer/UKIP-sympathetic wing) and a Unionist party (pro-UK, pro-EU, would incorporate the Scottish Conservatives). Unfortunately FPTP voting discourages such splits.

[Qetesuesi]

6 hours ago, Dorkins said:

Because the Tories are the English nationalist party, they just don't want to admit it to themselves. Their English nationalist beliefs are in conflict with membership of larger unions (i.e. the EU, maybe the UK too). This internal ideological conflict is bad for party discipline and will keep bringing down Tory leaders until it is resolved. Probably the healthiest resolution would be for the party to split into an explicitly English/English & Welsh Conservative party (would attract much of the Brexiteer/UKIP-sympathetic wing) and a Unionist party (pro-UK, pro-EU, would incorporate the Scottish Conservatives). Unfortunately FPTP voting discourages such splits.

In which case the obvious question becomes:  what was Heath thinking?  Was he completely ignorant of any of this?

[Sledgehead]

9 hours ago, Dorkins said:

Because the Tories are the English nationalist party, they just don't want to admit it to themselves. Their English nationalist beliefs are in conflict with membership of larger unions (i.e. the EU, maybe the UK too). This internal ideological conflict is bad for party discipline ...

Let's suppose this to be true: the tories are nationalists who hate europe.

Why would they then have an internal split? They'd all want out, n'est-ce pas?