in November, many
people were shocked. How could someone who had been free with racist
slurs towards many minority groups, who had arranged for an opponent
to be beaten up, who had been sacked twice for lying and yet had
continued to lie frequently, who had been the worst foreign secretary
in decades, and who had wasted a lot of public money on blunders as
Mayor of London go on to win a General Election? That he became Tory
leader in the previous July could easily be explained, given the
nature of his electorate then, but winning a General Election was
something else.
He had been elected
as leader in part because the party saw him as the only person who
could prevent Nigel Farage taking many votes away from the party.
Essential to Johnson’s strategy to starve Farage of votes was to
follow through on his commitment to leave with No Deal. After brief
talks with the EU in which he tried unsuccessfully to change the
withdrawal agreement, he reported back that the EU were being
obstinate and obstructive, and therefore No Deal was the only way the
UK could fulfill its promise to the people to Leave.
Parliament voted
(narrowly) against leaving with No Deal, and instead instructed
Johnson to seek an extension. He then obtained a six months extension
to Article 50 to allow time for either a referendum or a General
Election. He had, unsurprisingly, chosen a General Election, as his
parliamentary majority (with the help of the DUP) was in danger of
disappearing altogether.
By championing No
Deal in the run up to the election, he managed to drastically reduce
the Brexit party’s support. Those who favoured No Deal soon
realised that it was pointless voting against a leader who was
holding an election explicitly designed to get a mandate for No Deal.
In contrast, the vote among those that were against No Deal was
badly split.
As the election drew
near Labour regained the lead among opposition parties because of its
anti-austerity stance, its strong programme for economic reform and
additional public investment. However the LibDem vote remained strong
partly because many Remainers did not trust Corbyn on the Brexit
issue. The unequivocal commitment by Labour not to try and
renegotiate Brexit and instead support Remain as part of their
manifesto came too late. Many also found it impossible to vote for a
party that had been described as institutionally racist by the EHRC.
Despite hopes based on 2017, the increase in Labour's vote during the
campaign was modest, partly because the broadcast media gave a
generous amount of time to the Liberal Democrats and also followed
attack lines from the right wing media when talking about Labour.
Although the Remain
vote far outnumbered the pro-No Deal vote, the split in the Remain
vote was disastrous in the UK's FPTP electoral system. It led to the
Conservatives beating Labour in nearly all Lab/Con marginals. Cummings did for Johnson what he had done for Vote Leave. In
addition, the fact that Johnson had cut stamp duty and taxes for
higher income earners, together with the slogan ‘vote Swinson get
Corbyn’, limited the number of Tory Remain voters who defected to
the LibDems. Once again the proportion of LibDem seats was far below
their proportion of votes.
Recriminations began
almost immediately. Those who voted LibDem blamed Labour for not
replacing Corbyn as their leader. Labour blamed the LibDems for
splitting the anti-Tory vote. Both were correct. It was Corbyn more
than anyone who was responsible for creating and sustaining the
LibDem surge at the European Elections by refusing to unequivocally
support Remain, even though it would be impossible for Labour to get a soft Brexit through parliament. However those who voted LibDem because only the
LibDems were the true Remain party had succeeded in destroying the
Remain cause, and those who had voted LibDem because Labour was institutionally antisemitic had kept a party in power where almost half its members would not accept a Muslim as the country's Prime Minister.
With his enhanced
majority Johnson took the UK out of the EU without a deal in December
2019. The year that had looked so hopeful for Remain when the UK failed to exit in March ended with the worst form of Brexit possible.
Excellent! Can't wait for the next installment!
ReplyDeleteIf Bojo's smart, he'll do both. Call a general election and promise a second referendum. If the outcome of the referendum is Remain, he can make a u-turn to avoid economic disaster and thereby prolong his career as PM. Likewise if the outcome is Leave with the May-deal. And if it's Leave Without a deal, at least he'll have a strong mandate to push the UK off cliff :-)
ReplyDeleteOr...
ReplyDeleteLabour campaign that Johnson and Farage would privatise the NHS because of their being Trump's poodle.
That would be a good idea: I suspect that if Trump had been US President when the EU referendum was held then Remain would have won.
DeleteOne addendum: Around the date of No Deal or the election (whichever is first), Boris is going to come out and say the Tories are going to spend 350mn/week on the NHS.
ReplyDeleteCummings has already foreshadowed this was the plan and explained why (see end of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDbRxH9Kiy4)
In the summer of 2018 Theresa May announced that spending on the NHS will rise in real terms by about 3.4% in the year 2019-20. It will continue to rise at this rate for a further four years after that, taking us finally to April 2024.
DeleteBy 2023-24 spending will have risen by about £20 billion for the year, which is about £385 million per week---all are 2018 values.
You will notice that is indeed larger than the £350 million per week painted on the side of the Brexit bus. I assume Theresa May did this make the Brexit bus promise come true, although she did not say where the money would be coming from, as I recall.
It's allegedly coming from the contributions we would no longer be making to the EU, but the problem there is that the the £350 million figure does not take account of the various monies that the EU sends to the UK. So I assume the money is largely coming from government borrowing, a fact which will not get much publicity.
She said it was extra money. It wasn't. It doesn't even take the average NHS budget increase, back to average annual levels.
DeleteShe said it would be "partly" paid from the Brexit Dividend and hinted at tax rises for the rest.
"Partly" means nothing. It could mean a fiver?
In any case, the OBR among others, quickly pointed out there wouldn't be any Brexit Dividends, by their calculations.
Congratulations on ruining my ability to sleep soundly for the next few days.... Depressingly plausible.
ReplyDeleteSo the simple answer is for Labour to dump Corbyn and get a leader who is not Martite to half the electorate. However it's an unwillingness for Labour tribalists like you to acknowledge this simple truth which could make your prediction come true.
ReplyDeleteAll too plausible. The Lib Dems and Greens should accept an electoral pact in exchange for electoral reform and a firm commitment to Remain, and so should Labour. I fear neither side will: hidebound Tradition plus wishful thinking bar the way.
ReplyDeleteWorst case scenario or what!
ReplyDeleteIf you're going to make the serious accusation that someone is guilty of "racist slurs", how about backing that up with some actual quotes or references? I wouldn't accuse Simon Wren-Lewis of being a pedophile without providing some EXTREMELY GOOD evidence.
ReplyDeleteTry searching on "watermelon smile".
Deleteand then read the article and realise he was satirising attitudes of Blair and the establishment.
DeleteIs this a prediction or a case of worst case scenario?
ReplyDeleteDear Simon, as a Yank born in England in '52 of American parents, I am also a British citizen and an Anglophile. I despair at the slow-motion train wreck that is Brexit. However, the party system in the UK is a bit confusing. My question to you: since Corbyn is a rather unpalatable leader of Labour, if the party were to replace him, who are the possible candidate(s), and who would be the best (in your opinion)? Thanks.
ReplyDeleteWhat was your position on the preferential voting referendum? That is clearly where the problem lies. FPTP is poison in polarized times.
ReplyDeleteI think you overestimate the Corbyn vote. His unpopularity among the 'swing voters' in swing seats especially in the Midlands / M1 corridor and M25 towns like Watford or Stevenage or beyond like Swindon or Milton Keynes or Corbyn will be critical. He did not appeal to them in 2017 and I see little change since then. These mixed towns have little affinity with his politics especially the commuters, aspirational or lower middle class or older voters who flocked to New Labour in their millions from Wimbledon to Glasgow in 1997 and 2001 or even 2005. Its not a media conspiracy although heaven knows he has more skeletons in his cupboard than most medical schools- its his inability to inspire, to engage, to enlighten , to reach out. He is the wrong leader at the wrong time and unfortunately he has no charisma in this TV debate age. Labour I regret to say have let the country down by sticking with a leader unsuited to become a leader of Britain on the global stage despite the awfulness of our current situation.
ReplyDeleteReplacing Corbyn with a centrist Remainer would alienate the millennials who are groaning under the weight of austerity and Home-Owner-Ism, while failing to win over those swing voters you mention for the simple reason that said swing voters are mostly pro-Brexit.
DeleteIn fact, given that you are citing mostly towns in the London commuter belt, I'd argue that the only thing that would change their allegiance would be a house price crash. The swing voters there were loyal Thatcherites until the house price crash under Major, at which point they switched to New Labour until the 2008 crash, at which point they switched back to the Tories.
Perhaps those that peddle myths about Europe should learn from real experts in their field that had face to face dealings with the EU.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1ysad8qsg0
The other small point is that in a democracy individuals can't be blamed for campaigning on issues like Brexit where the numbers mean they can't effect a real outcome and therefore choose a pragmatic solution rather than the Gung Ho single issue brigade of remainers, that have no other interest than trying to destroy the Leader of the Labour Party.
Try as they may, the truth remains the same, Neo-Liberals of all political colours have been found out and found to be wanting, Neo-Liberal corporate Europe is dead in the water, and just because they use the vile Tories as a cover for their own ambitions doesn't mean there isn't a left wing case for leaving corporate Europe.
The sooner people wake up to that the better.
Ah yes! The EU as capitalist cabal canard! Kindly explain why you come to that conclusion when in reality the EU is the only democratic institution we have that can stand up to the mega multinationals (and does: cf taxation of the GAFAs). Please, some meat on those bones Sir!
DeleteYour mumbling. Brexit is a neoliberal project itself. This post is pure lol.
DeleteFabio: Then please explain to me why the EU tried to enter into SECRET negotiations with the US on a trade deal that clearly wasn't in our, the peoples interest. Then continued with CETA that is almost the same. One good reason for pulling out. Secondly Do you know the implications of the Maastricht and Lisbon treaties that empower the corporate sector providing them with legislation that puts governments at a disadvantage. Unless of course you are pro private sector and anti Public.
DeleteAnonymous : do you know the meaning of Neo-Liberalism I would suggest no, so here is a definition for you that you will understand: https://www.globalpolicy.org/global-taxes/27680.html
There is no Left Wing case for Brexit other than that which lingers in the old Bennite 1980s dogma. The EU improves our standards' of living hence why the vast majority of 500 million European citizens are in it & want to remain in it ( Including Greece) and if terms like Free Trade, Free Movement of Labour & Capital & Services & international co-operation are beyond you so be it.
ReplyDeleteMoreover as so many like Nick Cohen ( Observer) or Martin Wolf (FT) have repeatedly reminded their readers: The EU has more 'more equal socities' than elsewhere on earth. Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Holland, Belguim, Austria, France and Germany rank higher on most decent socio-economic factors. We all know UK problems are a function of a prevalence of Right Wing Conservative Dogma perpetuated by a Right Wing Press & supplicant BBC. Yes you can join Albania or Serbia in your Brexit Island but do not prentend for one minute UK equality one of the highest of the advanced world will dissapear anytime soon.
Do you really believe the propaganda they peddle, please tell me people like you are going to wake up? These articles can be translated by google for you: https://www.zdf.de/doku-wissen/kinderarmut-in-deutschland-126.html
DeleteThe solution of course is simple: Labour, Libdems and other remain parties decide to divide the marginal Tory seats between them according to who has the best chance of winning in each seat, based on polling and demographics. Which of course would mean that Labour doesn't stand in many southern seats, whilst Libdem leaves much of the north to Labour. The seats where it is unclear who has the best chance, can be divided in proportion to national polling, whilst everyone is free to campaign in seats that are safe and in Lab/Libdem marginals.
ReplyDeleteI suspect the biggest obstacle to that would be Labour and Corbyn. Corbyn, who in his heart supports leave, will always prioritise an ok chance at getting a majority for his far left policies ahead of a larger chance of stopping Brexit. And the tribal instincts of many in Labour means that they don't want to give up potential seats to other parties. I also suspect that you think the villains on the remain side are the Libdems, that refuse to just close down in order to let your prefered party win. But why would they? Why should the least credible and most poorly lead remain party get to demand that all others disappear, rather than simply agree to some sensible tactical cooperation to stop Brexit?
Maybe you should use your skills as an economist to create a credible plan for electoral coordination between the remain parties, and show that it is a better Nash-equilibrium than everyone defecting?