Politics - the general election result
Well, it’s nearly three weeks since the general election and I suppose it’s time I made some comment on the outcome.
For reasons not yet fully understood, that (in my opinion) cheating, dishonest buffoon Johnson won by a majority of eighty seats. That, amongst other things, means that his pretty hard Brexit deal will go ahead - without a second EU referendum being needed. As indicated in a previous post, that will likely leave the country still badly split over leaving or remaining in the EU. Then again, perhaps the size of the majority will result in the remain side just accepting the decision? That might be the case but with the parties either wanting to remain or have a second vote getting around two million more votes than the parties who just wanted to ‘get it done’, we are left with a minority pushing through a major change against the wishes of a majority who didn’t want to proceed with this under Johnson’s deal. I am not saying a majority voted to remain - that’s unclear due to Labour sitting on the fence - but I am saying that a majority, at least, wanted a second vote on this very vital issue, and that second vote has been denied. I’m not sure that will bring the country back together.
The election also saw the SNP almost sweep the board in Scotland with 45% of the votes and 80% of the seats - but Johnson still continues to insist he will not grant a section 30 order for the Scottish parliament to hold IndyRef2. How come Johnson can go ahead with Brexit on a 43.6% share of the vote, with 56% of UK seats, and claim he has a mandate to take the UK out of the EU while, at the same time, denying that the SNP has a mandate from the Scottish people to hold IndyRef2 after winning 45% of the Scottish vote and 80% of the seats in Scotland, The reason is simple: Johnson and the Tory party do not recognise Scotland as a country in it’s own right but, instead, see it as a region of the UK (or worse, a region of England). If more proof was needed that Scotland needs independence then I’m not sure what that would be. Of course, if Johnson continues to refuse Scotland it’s second independence referendum then this will only result in even more Scots switching to support the SNP. The best thing Johnson could actually do, if he really wants to keep the Union together, would be to grant that permission now as it may well be that while a majority of Scots now want a second referendum the majority for independence might still be lacking - but keep on saying ‘NO’ for a couple of years and that might well change.
But why did Labour do so badly? Lots of reasons, I fear. Johnson has charisma - Corbyn does not (despite Johnson, in my opinion, being a lying, cheating, double-dealing twit, he does have charisma - but keep in mind that Hitler had charisma as well). I am not, here, suggesting that Johnson is anything like as evil as Hitler - just that charisma goes for nothing apart from the ability to win power. I suspect Labour would have done better if the Tory party was still led by Theresa May - who does not have charisma, either. The right wing media also destroyed Corbyn over the past two years with attacks on his previous contacts with terrorists and the so called anti-semitism within the Labour party which he had failed to deal with. Some of the latter might have been true (I don’t know) but a lot of this was anti-Israel, which is not the same thing. Being willing to meet terrorists, and terrorist organisations, in the hope of finding paths to peace, might well have been positive moves - but not for someone seeking the high office of Prime Minister (not yet, anyway).
There was a lot in the Labour manifesto I approved of (and the SNP government in Scotland had already implemented many of those ‘new’ policies) but the whole thing just seemed to be too much pie in the sky that would prove undeliverable. It strikes me that political parties would be better served by promising less but, at the same time, making clear what they’d like to achieve if developing circumstances permitted. That way they’d at least come across as more believable.
I also felt that the Labour party had decided to ignore many of it’s traditional supporters who had voted to leave the EU. The Labour policy seemed to be to negotiate a deal with the EU which maintained access to the Single Market while also remaining in the Customs Union (or having a customs union of some description). Staying in the Single Market (or paying for access to it) meant that the Free Movement Of People would continue - and Labour made clear that that would be the case. I have no problem with having access to the Single Market or the Free Movement Of People - but the latter was one of the main aspects that many traditional Labour voters (rightly or wrongly) were against it - and why they voted to leave the EU (along with other reasons). In saying Free Movement would continue the Labour Party seemed to be ignoring their own supporters. It would not have been so bad had the Labour Party addressed this issue and explained what they were going to do to sort the problems which had angered their supporters to the extent they had - but they didn’t. It’s my view that free movement is a fine idea: It allows EU citizens to live and work or study in any EU country - but it broke down when economically backward countries (ex soviet countries, mainly) were allowed to join before their economies were on a par with the more wealthy EU nations. This resulted in large(ish) numbers flooding into the wealthier countries looking for jobs which would allow them to live and send money back home. Many of those people moved to areas where unemployment was already high and wages were low but jobs were available (often with illegal wages - but still more than they could earn back home) and where rents were low (but often with rogue landlords packing too many people into small rooms). These areas were usually already deprived (lack of schools, hospitals, health centres and well paid jobs, for example) and the influx of extra inhabitants only made the situation worse - and then, of course, we had the right wing media making a meal of this and blaming the immigrants instead of blaming the employers and landlords and the governments (both Tory and Labour) that had failed to deal with those problems and invest in those areas, before the immigrants even started coming. If the Labour Party, while saying that free movement would continue under it’s plans, had also made very clear how it was going to deal with rogue employers and landlords AND invest in those deprived areas, then it might have prevented many of it’s traditional supporters from switching to the Tory Party instead. Fixing those problems would have, of course, also resulted in increased wages - and the cheap labour costs, along with the good profits, wanted by employers, would have been lost. It's ironic that, instead, those cheap workers will now find it a lot more difficult to come and work in the UK, anyway. But that is capitalism for you: In seeking short term gain is also usually fails to see the long term loss!
In summary: the Labour leadership (good policies or not) lacked what was needed and did not articulate what it would do (to satisfy it’s traditional supporters) clearly enough. The campaign was poor and the manifesto was not believed as being achievable.
As a supporter of Scottish independence there is, of course, a positive side to the Labour Party not doing better than it did. If it had done so then the SNP would probably not have done as well is it did - and Sturgeon’s claim of a mandate for IndyRef2 would not be as strong as it now is (I suspect the SNP would still have done well and taken the Tory seats it took - but it might not have won the Labour seats it did). The down side is, of course, that the UK is stuck with Johnson for five years (probably four and a half if he repeals the fixed parliament act) and that is not good for the millions of working people of the UK. Johnson might, for example, increase the minimum wage - but that’s not much good if his Brexit deal results in a serious number of businesses folding, or moving abroad, and many jobs being lost. At the same time the people of England voted for Johnson in large enough numbers for him to do whatever he wants to do - it’s just a pity the people of Scotland, who did not vote for him, are stuck with that, too.
For reasons not yet fully understood, that (in my opinion) cheating, dishonest buffoon Johnson won by a majority of eighty seats. That, amongst other things, means that his pretty hard Brexit deal will go ahead - without a second EU referendum being needed. As indicated in a previous post, that will likely leave the country still badly split over leaving or remaining in the EU. Then again, perhaps the size of the majority will result in the remain side just accepting the decision? That might be the case but with the parties either wanting to remain or have a second vote getting around two million more votes than the parties who just wanted to ‘get it done’, we are left with a minority pushing through a major change against the wishes of a majority who didn’t want to proceed with this under Johnson’s deal. I am not saying a majority voted to remain - that’s unclear due to Labour sitting on the fence - but I am saying that a majority, at least, wanted a second vote on this very vital issue, and that second vote has been denied. I’m not sure that will bring the country back together.
The election also saw the SNP almost sweep the board in Scotland with 45% of the votes and 80% of the seats - but Johnson still continues to insist he will not grant a section 30 order for the Scottish parliament to hold IndyRef2. How come Johnson can go ahead with Brexit on a 43.6% share of the vote, with 56% of UK seats, and claim he has a mandate to take the UK out of the EU while, at the same time, denying that the SNP has a mandate from the Scottish people to hold IndyRef2 after winning 45% of the Scottish vote and 80% of the seats in Scotland, The reason is simple: Johnson and the Tory party do not recognise Scotland as a country in it’s own right but, instead, see it as a region of the UK (or worse, a region of England). If more proof was needed that Scotland needs independence then I’m not sure what that would be. Of course, if Johnson continues to refuse Scotland it’s second independence referendum then this will only result in even more Scots switching to support the SNP. The best thing Johnson could actually do, if he really wants to keep the Union together, would be to grant that permission now as it may well be that while a majority of Scots now want a second referendum the majority for independence might still be lacking - but keep on saying ‘NO’ for a couple of years and that might well change.
But why did Labour do so badly? Lots of reasons, I fear. Johnson has charisma - Corbyn does not (despite Johnson, in my opinion, being a lying, cheating, double-dealing twit, he does have charisma - but keep in mind that Hitler had charisma as well). I am not, here, suggesting that Johnson is anything like as evil as Hitler - just that charisma goes for nothing apart from the ability to win power. I suspect Labour would have done better if the Tory party was still led by Theresa May - who does not have charisma, either. The right wing media also destroyed Corbyn over the past two years with attacks on his previous contacts with terrorists and the so called anti-semitism within the Labour party which he had failed to deal with. Some of the latter might have been true (I don’t know) but a lot of this was anti-Israel, which is not the same thing. Being willing to meet terrorists, and terrorist organisations, in the hope of finding paths to peace, might well have been positive moves - but not for someone seeking the high office of Prime Minister (not yet, anyway).
There was a lot in the Labour manifesto I approved of (and the SNP government in Scotland had already implemented many of those ‘new’ policies) but the whole thing just seemed to be too much pie in the sky that would prove undeliverable. It strikes me that political parties would be better served by promising less but, at the same time, making clear what they’d like to achieve if developing circumstances permitted. That way they’d at least come across as more believable.
I also felt that the Labour party had decided to ignore many of it’s traditional supporters who had voted to leave the EU. The Labour policy seemed to be to negotiate a deal with the EU which maintained access to the Single Market while also remaining in the Customs Union (or having a customs union of some description). Staying in the Single Market (or paying for access to it) meant that the Free Movement Of People would continue - and Labour made clear that that would be the case. I have no problem with having access to the Single Market or the Free Movement Of People - but the latter was one of the main aspects that many traditional Labour voters (rightly or wrongly) were against it - and why they voted to leave the EU (along with other reasons). In saying Free Movement would continue the Labour Party seemed to be ignoring their own supporters. It would not have been so bad had the Labour Party addressed this issue and explained what they were going to do to sort the problems which had angered their supporters to the extent they had - but they didn’t. It’s my view that free movement is a fine idea: It allows EU citizens to live and work or study in any EU country - but it broke down when economically backward countries (ex soviet countries, mainly) were allowed to join before their economies were on a par with the more wealthy EU nations. This resulted in large(ish) numbers flooding into the wealthier countries looking for jobs which would allow them to live and send money back home. Many of those people moved to areas where unemployment was already high and wages were low but jobs were available (often with illegal wages - but still more than they could earn back home) and where rents were low (but often with rogue landlords packing too many people into small rooms). These areas were usually already deprived (lack of schools, hospitals, health centres and well paid jobs, for example) and the influx of extra inhabitants only made the situation worse - and then, of course, we had the right wing media making a meal of this and blaming the immigrants instead of blaming the employers and landlords and the governments (both Tory and Labour) that had failed to deal with those problems and invest in those areas, before the immigrants even started coming. If the Labour Party, while saying that free movement would continue under it’s plans, had also made very clear how it was going to deal with rogue employers and landlords AND invest in those deprived areas, then it might have prevented many of it’s traditional supporters from switching to the Tory Party instead. Fixing those problems would have, of course, also resulted in increased wages - and the cheap labour costs, along with the good profits, wanted by employers, would have been lost. It's ironic that, instead, those cheap workers will now find it a lot more difficult to come and work in the UK, anyway. But that is capitalism for you: In seeking short term gain is also usually fails to see the long term loss!
In summary: the Labour leadership (good policies or not) lacked what was needed and did not articulate what it would do (to satisfy it’s traditional supporters) clearly enough. The campaign was poor and the manifesto was not believed as being achievable.
As a supporter of Scottish independence there is, of course, a positive side to the Labour Party not doing better than it did. If it had done so then the SNP would probably not have done as well is it did - and Sturgeon’s claim of a mandate for IndyRef2 would not be as strong as it now is (I suspect the SNP would still have done well and taken the Tory seats it took - but it might not have won the Labour seats it did). The down side is, of course, that the UK is stuck with Johnson for five years (probably four and a half if he repeals the fixed parliament act) and that is not good for the millions of working people of the UK. Johnson might, for example, increase the minimum wage - but that’s not much good if his Brexit deal results in a serious number of businesses folding, or moving abroad, and many jobs being lost. At the same time the people of England voted for Johnson in large enough numbers for him to do whatever he wants to do - it’s just a pity the people of Scotland, who did not vote for him, are stuck with that, too.
Comments
Post a Comment