On the Johnson Farage Dilemma

[danieldwilliam]

These remarks were thought about before Farage decided that discretion was the better part of valour. I’m mainly posting them up here because they are too long for a Facebook comment typed on a touchscreen on a smartphone and because Patrick Hadfield asked me to expand on a shorter comment I’d made.

At the time of thinking (mid to late last night) there were suggestions that both Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson would stand in the Newark by-election. My initial thoughts were that this would be a hilarious contest to watch from another country and that I couldn’t decide which would put the wind up the Cameron government more, Nigel Farage MP, or Boris Johnson MP redux.

Then I got to thinking that a bit of crude game theory suggested that whilst both men were in the state of  probably-going-to-stand neither man would. It’s a sort of version of the Prisoners’ Dilemma This unpacks thus…

Both Johnson and Farage would like very much to be MP’s . Both gain considerable advantage from the threat they pose as potential MP’s. Johnson because he is seen as a likely and strong challenger to Cameron as Tory leader and Farage, well for much the same reason but in a more roundabout way. However, neither needs to be an MP *now* in order to translate that advantage into a stronger position and / or the ultimate achievement of their goals later. The advantage they have *now* is that they are perceived as being likely to win later. There will be another chance, a better chance, later.

Clearly losing a by-election in a secure centre-right seat would significantly damage the perception that they are likely to win later. Perhaps to the point where it destroys both their current threat and the chance of them securing their ultimate ambition. Johnson would have to return to the mayoral challenge of stealing Ken Livingston’s policies and Farage would return to being the sort of person I avoid in the pub whilst muttering the words Dunning-Kruger to myself.

The pay-off to winning Newark now is not much greater than the pay for winning another seat later. The cost of losing Newark now is considerable, perhaps making it impossible to win another seat later. Newark is a tricky seat for both men *if* the other one is standing.

The thing most likely to prevent each man winning the Newark by-election is if the other man is standing against him – and thus splitting the “honest, plain speaking, hail fellow well met, man-of-the-people iconoclast” vote. So, whilst Johnson might stand if Farage wasn’t and Farage might stand if Johnson wasn’t the threat that losing poses to both men’s ambition is such that neither can risk standing against the other. Absent some coordinating cartel or signalling mechanism and a way of rewarding the other chap for doing the decent thing, a protracted will they won’t they dance is likely to end up with both men giving Newark the swerve and continuing to keep their powder dry and their fleet in being.

I’m not sure how the very quick Farage stand down affects Johnson’s decision to run or not.  Problematically for him, he’s on record as saying he wouldn’t cut short his term as Mayor of London to seek re-election and the Conservative candidate in Newark has been selected for some time. I expect he’ll also keep his powder dry and his promises kept.

Comments

[danieldwilliam.livejournal.com]

Yeah – they need to get somewhere above 15% nationally, probably closer to 18%, to stand a good chance of picking up seats. They might be able to generate some local concentration and pick up some seats on a lower national vote share but so far there vote seems fairly evenly spread around the country.

I think one of the things they will be looking for on 22nd May is whether they are getting a geographic concentration and whether this is translating into local council seats – which are correlated with winning Westminster seats later.