The UK is leaving the EU. That is in no doubt after this election result. Even Former Deputy Prime Minister Michael Heseltine, one of the strongest advocates for remain, has said his side of the argument has lost. After, managing to win an 80 seat majority, Boris Johnson will be able to pass the necessary legislation to leave the EU, with the Salisbury Convention meaning the Lords shouldn’t block his proposals. This election was a surprising one - personally, I was proved wrong yet again. While I though the Tories would win a 20 to 30 seat majority, the idea of them winning the largest government majority since 2001 and the largest Conservative majority since 1987 seemed unrealistic.
But that is what happened. Labour heartlands like Bolsover, Blyth Valley, Don Valley, Leigh…need I go on, all fell to the government. Seats Jeremy Corbyn had managed to prise off Theresa May in 2017 like Lincoln, Kensington and High Peak all fell away. Even Tony Blair’s old seat of Sedgefield turned blue. In Scotland they were reduced to their 2015 result, holding only Edinburgh South while their six extra seats in 2017 disappeared. Labour were unable to win marginal Tory seats from 2017, making only one gain in Putney throughout the entire country. It was a bloodbath. An absolute shocker which could have been even worse. Even MPs who were successfully returned like Ed Miliband and Ian Lavery had reduced majorities. Meanwhile, the Conservatives triumphed, gaining more than 50 seats to win a fourth (and perhaps fifth) term in government. Analysis over the election (the campaign, leaders, results and voting behaviour) will take time - I desperately await Philip Cowley’s election tome next year. But I thought there would be nothing to lose from making some initial reflections over Thursday’s events. The 2019 election was historic, whoever won. Regarding Brexit, the winning party would be shaping the UK’s future for decades, centuries even, making changes that cannot be easily reversed after five years in government. Brexit was a defining issue in the election, featuring across all the debates and discussion, mainly because of the paralysis Parliament found itself in. Despite passing Johnson’s deal on its second reading, MPs were unable to agree a timetable for scrutinising the bill. Going to the country became the only option. This immediately helped the Conservatives. In 2017, it was far easier for Labour and the opposition parties to frame the debate and election campaign around other domestic issues. Article 50 had only just been triggered, the key votes on Brexit legislation were far in the distance and negotiations hadn’t even begun. Indeed, Parliament voted overwhelmingly to trigger Article 50 unamended; there was no paralysis whatsoever. Clearly, this was different two and a half years on. I have long railed against the Conservative’s message of ‘Get Brexit Done.’ It is a sound bite more misleading than any from the Blair years, because it is so profoundly untrue. Their deal, which will now be passed by the end of January, will not get Brexit done. While we lose all our supranational representation, the UK enters the transition period for negotiations on trade and a multitude of other issues that have not yet received media attention. An extension to the transition period, which may prove necessary, must be requested by July 1st. That is not far away at all. Brexit will remain in the news next year and for years afterwards. Yet this slogan was highly effective at representing the fatigue of Brexit voters. It didn’t go the same way as Theresa May’s ‘Strong and Stable’ mantra. People felt, compared to a second referendum under any other party, even entering the transition period would be a way of moving forward. It was interesting throughout the campaign how the government were painting Brexit as a menace, a swamp that needs to be crossed. Given they are the government of Brexit, one would have thought they would have presented Brexit more optimistically if they so believe it is the right direction for the country. The message worked well. Northern seats that had voted leave and previously for Labour were clearly convinced. I will be interested to see polling on whether the personal popularity of Boris Johnson shaped any of the results, as his personal ratings fell from -5% in early November to -14% by the middle of December. The Conservatives only received 200,000 more votes than Theresa May. I am yet to see convincing arguments that it was Boris Johnson himself that caused such a significant victory. His economic policies that pledged greater spending - though in reality this was simply reversing austerity since 2010 - may have won over voters, along with tactical unity from the Brexit Party. Broadly, the class and partisan dealignment we are witnessing across the democratic world mean there were less tribal attachment to Labour, with the working class feeling less guilty about voting Tory. The Conservatives have been in office for a decade. Public debt is over £2 trillion. The last three years have been dominated by Brexit chaos. Labour have lost the last three elections. They have now lost their fourth, their worst defeat since 1935. Jeremy Corbyn has personally lost his second election. There is no way he can stay on as a leader. His leadership must be front and centre in explaining the crushing defeat Labour faced. According to Opinium polling taken after the election, the main reason people didn’t vote Labour was the leadership (43%). Time and time again I read tweets from Labour figures who state Corbyn featured on the doorstep negatively far more than Brexit. Corbynites will argue Corbyn led Labour into the 2017 election. Yes, they lost that election too. Corbyn performed better than expected because in 2017 he was not seen as a realistic candidate for Prime Minister. Theresa May was so far ahead in the polls that any chance of Corbyn entering Downing Street was purely delusional. Voters felt able to cast a ballot for Labour not wishing for Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister but aiming to deny Theresa May a large majority and perhaps support their competent local MP. The opposite was the case in this election. At points, it seemed Labour had a realistic chance of winning. Their poll ratings increased and it didn’t seem impossible that Labour could head a minority government. Therefore Corbyn had to be viewed as a potential Prime Minister, which the one-to-one debates with Boris Johnson presenting this narrative. Corbynites who argue Jeremy Corbyn wasn’t the problem are factually incorrect. Corbyn has led the Labour Party to two defeats. Whether due to his previous associations with terrorist organisations, perceived lack of patriotism, little strength or desire for the role, the public didn’t want Mr Corbyn as Prime Minister. Voting for Labour was therefore impossible. Corbynites have mainly blamed Brexit for their party’s failure, saying it dominated discussion and the easy solution the Tories presented galvanised voters. They aren’t wholly incorrect. 17% of those who didn’t vote Labour said it was because of Brexit. Coming out in favour of a second referendum certainly wouldn’t have helped them in those northern leave areas. But would respecting the Brexit referendum without a second vote lost Labour seats in their urban areas of support? The Brexit policy of 2019 was clearly inconsistent from their 2017 policy which didn’t mention a second referendum and pledged to deliver Brexit. Again, the voter fatigue regarding Brexit, an issue that isn’t disappearing, meant that the simplistic offer from Johnson was more appealing and thus delivered votes. Over the weekend, I’ve thought about whether another Labour leader from the Corbynite wing of the party, who wasn’t Jeremy Corbyn, could have delivered a different result. I imagine Labour may have performed slightly better but still not emerged victorious. The whole Corbynite economic policy focused on mass public spending clearly affected support with 12% not voting Labour because of it. I feel they had far too many promises, especially ones focusing on the wrong priorities like abolishing tuition fees and maintaining the triple lock on pensions. Labour had too many promises that didn’t add up, not least the spending commitments to WASPI women which weren’t in the original manifesto. Making spending promises doesn’t spell electoral defeat (though there is of course a debate over whether it makes public services more effective) as the Conservatives have demonstrated, but too much free promises paid for by other people reduced the party’s credibility. Where do I begin with the Liberal Democrats? It seems like a century ago when they were riding high in the polls, coming second in the European elections and gaining councillors left, right and centre. A general election campaign was always going to squeeze their vote. Clearly their policy for revoking Article 50 caused much anger, even among Remain voters. To deviate from their long held view of a second referendum probably turned away a great number of voters and further increased the Brexit fatigue people felt. It’s amazing to think Jo Swinson was going into the campaign standing as a candidate for Prime Minister, which clearly seemed arrogant and incoherent given the shape of Parliament. Other Lib Dem policies which may have been perfectly credible and sensible failed to break through. It was a damning performance which will take them a long time to recover from. The state of the union, meanwhile, remains perilous. If there is one -ist I fall into, it is unionist. I am a proud and unapologetic unionist who - for economic, social, historical, cultural, political and International reasons - believes the UK should stay together. After Thursday’s vote, that looks more uncertain. The SNP successfully increased their seat total from 35 to 48, retaking a number of seats lost in the 2017 election. Nicola Sturgeon will, as ever, use that as a mandate for a second independence referendum, despite the last independence referendum being once in a generation. I have just spent five days in Edinburgh and believe Scotland is an amazing country. However, in Edinburgh and beyond, it faces many problems. The SNP should use their devolved powers - of which there are many - to govern Scotland effectively rather than continually pushing for an independence referendum. As Andrew Neil demonstrated, their domestic record over the last decade is damning. I was most happy with the results in Northern Ireland. The SDLP (the Northern Irish wing of the Labour Party) gained Belfast South from the DUP, breaking the hegemony of the DUP and Sinn Fein in Northern Irish politics. I was also pleased to see the Alliance gain Sylvia Hermon’s old seat of North Down, as they go beyond sectarian politics based on unionism and nationalism, which Northern Ireland desperately needs. Nigel Dodds, the leader of the DUP at Westminster, deservedly lost his Belfast North seat for his social conservatism and refusal to accept Theresa May’s Withdrawal Agreement which had landed us with a worse deal. The results from Northern Ireland don’t make me fear a united Ireland. It is instead the government’s Brexit policy, creating a border in the Irish Sea, which helps to legitimise the case for a united Ireland. With that policy, I don’t know how the Conservatives can call themselves a unionist party. All the parties have things to learn following this election. For the Conservatives, it is a moment of triumph. They have gone from their worst result in history in the European elections to an assurance they will govern for the next five, if not ten, years. Humility however, is required, not least because the task of governing is a tricky one. Their majority is large enough to pass any legislation but could easily disappear at a future election - just ask Gordon Brown who inherited a 70 seat majority from Tony Blair. The Tories are wholly in charge of Brexit now - with that majority, there is nobody else left to blame if our departure goes appallingly. The mandate has been given and they must deliver. As the New Statesman’s Stephen Bush argued, the one advantage facing Labour is they have plenty of time to think. Consideration of a new leader is not enough. Labour must have a long term post-mortem and answer a number of questions. Who are they for? Who do they represent? Are they a party of big cities and social liberals or small towns and social conservatives? Can they be a party of both? How can they celebrate patriotism and internationalism? How do they survive in an age of declining unionisation, fewer attachments to class and a gig economy? A party of the left is necessary. But I would question whether Labour deserves to be that party of the left. Despite existing for over 100 years, it has no divine right to continue. The failure to deal convincingly with anti-Semitism has proven that. This election has demonstrated the success of tactical voting among centre right parties. By standing down in Tory held seats, the Brexit Party ensured the government were able to return with a clear majority and that a hung Parliament was not on the table. Despite costing the government a few seats in the north, allowing Labour to scrape through the middle, it demonstrated the success of centre right voting coalitions. This pattern is represented across Europe. The same success could not be said for the centre left, with the ‘Unite to Remain’ pact among the Lib Dems, Greens and Plaid Cymru having no impact on the final result. It is going to be utterly fascinating to follow the next five years of British politics, especially as we leave the European Union and hopefully tackle some important domestic questions, not least social care. The future of the union and our major political parties is at stake as politics continues to transform and evolve. This is no bad thing. If the voters want new political parties, they should be created and attempt to win people over. However, there are millions of people for whom politics is no game. Whoever the government is has a profound impact on whether they receive their benefits, the quality of their schools and hospitals, planning regulation, whether they can pay their rent and the multitude of areas where the state involves itself. I would like to believe this government has the priorities of the most vulnerable at the heart of its five year agenda. Sadly, I remain unconvinced this is the case.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Author:Noah enjoys writing a blog and drinking tea Archives
September 2022
Categories
All
|