Some thoughts on the election disaster

Although the polls had been predicting it for weeks, the election result has come as a terrible shock and disappointment.  I am appalled at the prospect of losing my European citizenship, my right to live and work anywhere in the EU, and the prospect of another 4½ years of homeless rough sleepers, food banks, growing NHS waiting lists, failure to tackle the climate emergency - all presided over by a dishonest charlatan and his fan club of right wing populist ideologues, Britain’s answer to Donald Trump.  I feel ashamed of my fellow countrymen and women who voted for this.

How has this come about?  And who is to blame? 

There is some debate about whether Brexit was the sole or main cause of Labour’s defeat  - or whether its allegedly far left policies, or its non-charismatic Leader or its terrible election campaign were the real cause.  Here is a list of some of the factors that led to the disaster – not necessarily in priority order.

1.    David Cameron.  Although he was a capable Prime Minister and not himself a Europhobe or right wing populist, he placed his personal ambition before any political principles he may have had.  In order to win and retain the Conservative Party leadership, he pandered to his right wing, withdrawing the Party from the European People’s Party and allying it to the extreme Right. He made the fatal misjudgement that he could promise a referendum and see off the Europhobes in UKIP and within his own party. He thus facilitated Brexit – which will always be his legacy.

2.    The media.  It is fashionable to sneer at politicians who blame the media for their misfortunes, but in this case I do believe the media (in which I include printed press, broadcasters, and the entertainment industry) really have created a public opinion which believes that “Europe” is an enemy – an enemy that imposes bureaucratic regulations, floods us with undesirable immigrants, steals our fish and overcharges us for the privilege.  Most of the printed press is owned and controlled by foreign or non-resident companies or tax exiles who have anti-European and/or pro-American agendas.  For over 30 years they have served up a diet of untrue or tendentious anti-EU stories.  The drip drip of this propaganda must have created a climate of opinion that sees malevolence in every EU action. (I particularly remember, in the aftermath of the BSE crisis in the late 1990s, arguing with some people who blamed the EU for the ban on exporting British beef, whereas in fact it was the European Commission which prosecuted the French government and forced them to lift the ban once the veterinary evidence showed that British beef was safe to eat).

The broadcasters, whatever their pretensions to impartiality, tend to follow the agendas of the printed press and give prominence to the same stories and feature the same journalists.

And scarcely a day passes without the television companies showing jingoistic war films, British or American – Zulu, Battle of Britain, Dam Busters, Lawrence of Arabia, Bridge too far, Colditz, Bridge on the River Kwai, Great Escape, etc etc etc endlessly night after night.

Little wonder that so many British people, especially the least informed and educated, buy into the myth that Britain is a very special country, proudly independent, punching above its weight, capable of standing alone against the whole world.

3.     Demonising the Labour leader.  They did it to Michael Foot. They did it to Neil Kinnock. And they did it to Ed Miliband.  They didn’t succeed with Tony Blair (whom they didn’t see as a threat) and they only half succeeded with Gordon Brown.  But Jeremy Corbyn was especially vulnerable because of his support for noble but unpopular causes:  a united Ireland, free Palestine, nuclear disarmament, a secular republic.  It was easy for unscrupulous opponents to misrepresent these as “supporting terrorism”, unpatriotic, and not respecting the Queen.  But the most deadly slander was the charge of anti-semitism, which was deliberately conflated with anti-zionism (opposition to the exclusively Jewish state illegally occupying the whole of historic Palestine).  Although Corbyn had campaigned against racism throughout his political life, this gross smear was also exploited by his internal opponents in the PLP, who had tried to overturn the democratic vote of ordinary Party members.  As a result the hostile media were able to persuade many voters, who actually supported his policies, that he was not fit to be Prime Minister.  Having said this, it must be admitted that Jeremy Corbyn, although a decent and sincere man, is not a telegenic, charismatic personality, and his performances in Parliament and on television have sometimes been inept.

4. The election campaign.  Labour’s election strategy was terrible. It was a mistake to agree to the election in first place, but it was forced on Jeremy Corbyn by the failure of the LibDems and the Conservative and other rebels to support his claim to lead a temporary government in order to hold a second referendum on Brexit.  The effect was that the LibDems preferred Johnson and a hard Brexit to Jeremy Corbyn and the possibility of cancelling Brexit.

Having agreed to the election, Corbyn tried but failed to win the argument over Brexit.  His policy of renegotiating the deal and putting it to a fresh referendum, while remaining a neutral arbiter so that he could implement the result of the referendum, was perfectly reasonable, but it was open to misrepresentation, and the media were able to portray it as undemocratic and indecisive.  Indeed, much of the hostility to Corbyn was due to his position on Brexit.  Remainers suspected he was a closet Leaver; Leavers suspected he was a closet Remainer (or at least had obstructed Brexit); and his neutrality was viewed as indecisive or evasive rather than statesmanlike.

 The manifesto itself was also a problem. In 2017 Labour’s programme of rejecting austerity, rescuing the NHS, renationalising basic utilities and massive investment in infrastructure (to be financed by borrowing) was distinctive and relatively popular.  However in 2019 the Conservatives were offering the same programme (minus the nationalisation).  Ironically, it could be said that Labour had won that argument, but it meant that in order to outflank the Conservatives Labour made promises that were barely credible.  Free broadband.  Free prescriptions.  Free buses for under 25s.  Fully compensating the Waspi women.  All to be paid for by soaking the rich.  What made it worse was that some of these policies appeared to be an afterthought added in after the main manifesto and were not part of the initial costings.  It was not believable and appeared to be dishonest.

Moreover, some of Labour’s most effective and articulate spokespersons (Starmer, Thornberry) were sidelined and replaced by less convincing shadow ministers.  At the same time Labour’s campaign was accompanied by a hostile running commentary from disappointed former Labour ministers and grandees. 

What now?

So what do we do now?  I think Jeremy Corbyn is right to stand down.  By the time of the next general election he will be aged 74, and in any case it would be difficult for him to assert any authority following this election defeat.  But he is right to remain in office and not leave the Party leaderless while it regroups and elects its next Leader.

There will be those who say that, following this election defeat, Labour must abandon the policies agreed by Conference and reflected in the manifesto; instead, it must revert to the “centrist” policies of the Blair/Brown years which kept Labour in government for 13 years.  This would be to draw the wrong conclusions from our election defeat.  As I have argued above, apart from one or two cranky initiatives such as free broadband, Labour’s policies were quite popular – and not particularly left wing by European standards.

Moreover, the “Blairite” approach embodies an essentially cynical view of the purpose of a political party: to win power for its own sake and at any cost.  The punters don’t like our policies?  OK, we’ll get some policies that they do like.

An alternative approach, and one that attracted most Labour members into the Party, is to establish certain basic principles, loosely defined as “socialist”, and to develop policies that will give effect to those principles.  If the punters don’t like the policies, we need to redouble our efforts to convince them.

©  2019  Robin Paice