Shadow Brexit Secretary Sir Keir Starmer has confirmed that he is entering Labour’s leadership race. He is currently the favourite to win the contest. His declaration comes hours after Lisa Nandy and Jess Phillips announced they were entering the competition.

Shadow Foreign Secretary Emily Thornberry and Shadow Treasury Minister Clive Lewis have also stated that they are standing.

Shadow Business Secretary Rebecca Long-Bailey, another favourite, is also expected to officially join the race.

Whoever succeeds Corbyn has a monumental task awaiting them. Last year, Labour suffered its worst defeat since the 1935 General Election. With the SNP having won almost every seat in Scotland and the Tories winning in traditional Labour heartlands, it is almost certain that Labour has already lost the 2024 General Election. The best result the next leader can hope for is to increase the number of seats Labour currently hold.

Labour’s Brexit policy was one of the biggest factors that went against them in last year’s election. The Conservatives succeeded in winning 74 percent of the Leave vote, up by 9 points from 2017, whilst Labour only won 14 percent of Leave voters, down by 10 points since 2017. Labour’s support among Remain voters also shrunk by 6 points to 49 percent last year.

Another factor that went against Labour was Corbyn’s unpopularity. A survey conducted by Ipsos MORI in September 2019 for the Evening Standard discovered that the Labour leader had a net satisfaction of -60, with 76 percent of people unhappy with his leadership.

With the current leader’s supporters dominating the party’s National Executive Committee, this gives anyone close to Corbyn an advantage, which is why Long-Bailey is seen as a frontrunner. Although policies like raising the tax rate for higher earners were popular among 64 percent of pollsters in one YouGov poll, 53 percent of people branded Labour’s policies as unaffordable.

This immediately puts Long-Bailey, Thornberry, or Lewis at a disadvantage if either one of them become the next Labour leader. The three of them are all unashamed Corbyn supporters, with Lewis once declaring ‘New Labour as dead.’ The best decision a future Labour leader can make is to steer the party away from the far-left policies that many voters perceived as expensive and unrealistic.

Thornberry is also prone to gaffes. She was sacked from Ed Miliband’s shadow cabinet in 2014 for mocking white van drivers with England flags. Former Conservative MP Ed Vaizey told Good Morning Britain a Thornberry victory would be ‘good news’ for the Tories. But neither she nor Lewis are likely to do well.

The Daily Express surveyed 4,000 people and found that 31 percent of readers liked none of the candidates. Nandy was the most popular choice, with 818 readers opting for her. Whoever wins the Labour leadership race will find it tough to convince the electorate to vote for them.

Nandy has some advantages in her favour. She urged Labour to respect the result of the 2016 EU Referendum and understands that her party must change course immediately if it hopes to win an election in the future. But a YouGov poll found that only 6 percent of members are willing to vote for her.

Phillips wrote in the Daily Mirror that she has a record of working as a community activist and is the daughter of two public sector workers, which she believes makes her more in touch with working-class voters than the other candidates. She has been praised by different newspapers like the Daily Record and the Standard, but polls suggest she would come third in a leadership race behind Starmer and Long-Bailey.

Starmer is the favourite to win the Labour leadership race and has pitched his campaign on the idea that he would not advocate far-left policies. He has the best chance of revitalising Labour’s fortunes if he initiates a New Labour strategy that allowed the party to perform so well in the 1990s and the 2000s. Polling carried out by BMG Research found the Shadow Brexit Secretary was the most popular choice among voters.

But anything can change in a three-month leadership contest. Andy Burnham was expected to win against Yvette Cooper in 2015 and Corbyn’s candidacy upset the race. The New Statesman’s Stephen Bush also said Corbyn may not endorse Starmer and his opinion could change everything.

Therefore, Starmer is the best hope of transforming Labour’s fortunes. He is the one most likely to win the leadership race and he has a more sensible outlook than his main rival, Long-Bailey. But David Miliband was also the most popular candidate among voters in 2010 and he lost the Labour leadership race that year. Labour leadership contests from the 2010s prove that Labour members and the public have very different outlooks.

L'articolo Which Leadership Candidate Could Transform Labour’s Fortunes? proviene da InsideOver.

The recent general election in the UK was more than just a landslide victory for the Tories and the equally dramatic demise of Labour. It was a blueprint for western left-wing parties on how to lose an election. The question now is whether the US Democrats can learn their lessons from Labour’s debacle.

Labour’s loss did not come as a surprise. Corbyn’s campaign was dominated by fear-mongering and an aimed shakeup of the current system. Traditional working-class areas such as the Midlands or the North of England were thus lost, and former loyal voters chose the Conservatives and Boris Johnson.

This phenomenon is not new. In 2016, Donald Trump demonstrated how a conservative party could reach the working class. Trump spoke a language that was mostly understood by people in the Rustbelt, where the American industry was continually suffering from automation and globalism.

In a nutshell, Labour and the Democrats both lost due to their political visions. These did not match the realities of life nor the wishes of the voters. In broad terms, the Democrats in 2016 insinuated that transgender toilets were more important to them than creating jobs. To Labour in 2019, it was a Green New Deal that seemed more important than the working-class fears of how to maintain jobs in industries that have been dying.

Considering the US election in 2016 and the UK’s this month, two observations appear to indicate a trend. First, a party should not compete with a candidate whom the majority of the population believes is either terrible or unfit for office. Applied to the United States, on the one hand, this can be argued against Donald Trump, who is historically unpopular with his citizens. However, Trump has the support of approximately 33% of the country, his extremely loyal, impervious base. Moreover, thanks to the Electoral College in the United States, these can be sufficient to win an election.

The situation is different for the Democrats. As early as 2016, Hillary Clinton was as toxic for Democrats as Jeremy Corbyn was for Labour. Of the three current favorites, Sanders and Warren proposing a change of the current system – away from capitalism and towards more socialism, open borders, and medicare for all.

Now, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are, despite the shared ideology with Corbyn, quite frankly far more cerebral than the Labour leader and would not pose a threat to national security per se. However, their polling across the nation indicates that their vision of the country cannot command a majority, particularly not through the Electoral College.

Trump is aware of this and does not miss an opportunity to state how the country would suffer under such leadership. Furthermore, even President Obama recently said that “crazy” would not win an election. If a Labor Party with its manifesto cannot win elections in liberal Europe, the uber progressive model will certainly not win an election against Donald Trump in the United States.

The recent defeats, however, do by no means equate to a default setting. The fact that the Democrats can still win elections was demonstrated in the midterm-elections in 2018. Here, Democrats won back the majority in the House of Representatives because they put up candidates – except for “The Squad” – who restrained themselves from conducting identity politics and measures to save the world. As a result, the voting public was not divided into two extremes; one can witness so often these days. Instead, pragmatic moderates won by addressing what people care about, what makes a real difference in their lives, e.g., jobs and fiscal issues.

Hence, if the Democrats seek to learn a lesson, they should have a look not only at Corbyn and Clinton on how to lose but at their victory in 2018. Trump is beatable. Nevertheless, a win will require a candidate who does not dream of an unreachable socialist paradise but promises to solve conundrums that will make the daily life of a majority of the people easier without completely transforming it. Crazy will not and cannot carry the general election in 2020.

L'articolo Labour’s Loss is a Blueprint for the Democrats in 2020 – One Way or the Other proviene da InsideOver.

David Cameron – the British Conservative party prime minister who triggered the EU referendum – was buoyant following the release of the results of last week’s election. He told reporters that the Conservatives had proven they had the ‘people’s trust’. However, Conservatives might be wrong to celebrate this latest result as a victory: instead, they should be celebrating Labour’s defeat. That party, founded in 1900, has suffered its worst electoral loss in not one, but several generations, including the colossal loss of many Labour ‘strongholds’ in the North, counties that had once been styled the ‘Red Wall’ of Labour. The question is: why?

Polls taken during the run-up to the vote provide some answers. They show that voters were moved to vote not for the love of the Conservative party, but by an intense dislike of Corbyn. Words like “ditherer” appeared in descriptions of him: someone unsure of themselves and unwilling to commit. His vacillating attitude to Brexit and his own withdrawn nature – in contrast to Johnson’s affable buffoonery – are suspected to have alienated supporters.

There was also an intense materialism to his campaign. Whereas the Conservatives were offering Brexit – interpreted by supporters to mean freedom and sovereignty – Labour marketed themselves with ‘free microwaves’. It had the appearance more of bribes than generous economic reforms.

This isn’t the first time these criticisms have been heard. When he became party leader in 2015, it was routine for politicians and media figures across the political spectrum to poke fun at his supposed lack of charisma and media savvy – but Corbyn seemed to have proved them wrong. Labour party membership surged: from 193,754 in 2014 to 388,103 by the end of 2015. He withstood multiple leadership challenges, and then snatched away the Conservative majority during the last snap election. After that, he had credibility as a competent – if reserved – leader.

There remained grumblers, however. Party members, some of whom left, argued that the support was coming from a vocal but electorally insignificant group. For example, data leaked by the Guardian described Corbyn supporters as disproportionately ‘high-status city dwellers’ – a far cry from the working-class voters it was supposed to serve.

Indeed, Labour has seen a gradual shift in where its support comes from in the last few decades. In 1974, Labour enjoyed a 23-point lead among skilled working-class voters (C2), but by 2010 the Conservatives had overtaken them in this demo to lead by eight points. By contrast, among graduates, Labour-led Conservatives by 17 points in 2017, up two points from the previous election.
Corbyn seems to have overseen the moment at which point that change has become electorally significant. However, it may be his politics – rather than his personality – to blame. His consistent criticism of British military action over the years, for instance, is bound to have armed him during an election where many felt the sovereignty of the UK was on-the-line. During the election campaign, his support for leading members of the IRA – a militant pro-Irish unification group, which engineered many terrorist attacks – was a common taking point. There are many still living who remember that period or actively served British forces against the IRA. At a time when British nationalism is a thing keenly felt by a large number of people, Corbyn’s history severely curtailed his appeal.

Meanwhile, the people left to support him were those younger people were not alive or else very young during these periods. Corbyn’s connection to them won’t be as visceral to them as for those who lived through those events.

While much of this was also discussed in the run-up to the 2017 election, it was Corbyn’s leftwards swing that tipped the scales. Corbyn could be no longer given the benefit of the doubt of having anything other than quite a radical program for the transformation of the country. Social media analyses found these messages amplified far more than they had before.

Corbyn attempted to tap into an older, pre-Blair Labour. However, unlike that Labour movement, which had the passionate support of the British working class: Corbyn found himself supported by a smaller coalition of the university-educated and city-dwellers. It was one that, it is now clear, stood little chance of swinging the election.

The British left has taken an extraordinary battering and now has to find itself again – or face many more years of powerlessness.

L'articolo Fall of the Red Wall: Why Did Labour Lose so Badly? proviene da InsideOver.

Boris Johnson has just given the Conservative party its largest victory in over thirty years. With all the 650 seats declared, the Conservatives secured 365 seats representing a gain of 47. For Labour, it was the worst performance since 1935. Jeremy Corbyn has already declared that he will not lead the Labour Party into another election and will step down as soon as his replacement is found.

The significant majority now gives Johnson mandate to lead the UK for a full year term of five years. However, his plan to repeal the Fixed Term Parliament Act means he may not lead the UK into another election in 2024. Nevertheless, the huge majority now gives him the best opportunity to deliver all his promises.

There are already some disquiets from certain quarters that he may misuse his huge majority by disregarding divergent views, and pushing Brexit through parliament on his terms.

“With such a big majority none of the contentions of the past should block Johnson’s path. But expect some amendments, most likely on Northern Ireland trade and the transition period extension decision,” said The Guardian.

Tony Blair the former British Prime Minister had warned about this during the election campaigns urging people to vote tactically for a hung parliament so that the winner of the election would have no majority to govern without considering the interests of others. He feared that Boris had no chance of securing a trade deal with the EU within a year and that a no-deal Brexit is probable.

Similar fears were expressed by Michel Barnier the EU Chief Negotiator who stated that the future trade talks would be difficult and demanding. “Boris’s unpredictability and his erratic behaviour makes it even more likely that he may crush the UK out of the EU without a trade deal if he feels negotiations are taking too long, impeding him from fulfilling his election mantra “Get Brexit Done”.

However, he can still use his resounding victory to secure a Brexit deal by the January 31 deadline.

So what happens next now ?

The new Conservative government is expected to meet the Queen on 17 December, followed by the Queen’s speech on 19 December. The legislation needed for the withdrawal agreement would then be submitted to parliament most probably by 20 December or 23 December for a second reading.

The time table is tight leaving Johnson with only around 16 days to get his withdrawal agreement bill through parliament.

“It will not be fun doing a bill of this kind complexity in a month but is doable,” Brigid Fowler the senior researcher at the Hansard Society told the Guardian. Johnson’s director of legislative affairs had earlier on stated that that passing Brexit legislation through parliament would take 37 days.

To hurry up the process, parliament has been asked to sit on Saturday before Christmas and the House of Lords between Christmas and new year.

Apart from Brexit, another challenge will be the issue of Scottish independence. The performance of the Scottish National Party SNP has renewed, refreshed and strengthened the calls for a second referendum in Scotland.

The party won 47 out of 59 seats, 11 more than what they achieved in 2017. “Westminster has ignored people in Scotland for three years. Last night the people of Scotland said enough. It is time for Boris Johnson to start listening, “said Nicola Sturgeon First Minister of Scotland and the leader of SNP.

“I don’t pretend that every single person who voted SNP yesterday will necessarily support independence, but there has been a strong endorsement in this election of Scotland having a choice over our future; of not having to put up with a Conservative government we didn’t vote for and not having to accept life as a nation outside the EU,”

She had hoped to formally put out the proposal for a second referendum to the UK government before Christmas but held back. Instead, she said, “I have just won an election on the strength of the argument that it’s Scotland’s right to choose. It’s up to the Tories to decide what their Plan B is when my Plan A has just been given a ringing endorsement.”

However in a telephone call with Sturgeon just after returning to Downing Street as Prime Minister, Johnson reiterated that the results of the 2014 referendum were “decisive and should be respected,” This effectively rules out the possibility of a second referendum for Scotland.

Despite Johnson’s intransigence, the calls are getting louder with an online petition demanding independence for Scotland reaching 350,000 signatures.

When Scotland independence referendum was held in 2014, many Scottish voted to stay in the UK. By then the UK had not voted to leave the EU in 2016. Since then, the situation has changed tremendously.

Many Scottish citizens are not happy with Brexit and in case they are given a chance to vote in a second independence referendum, the results would likely be catastrophic leading to the breaking up of the UK.

Perhaps that explains why Johnson is afraid to take a risk. His spokesman said, “The Prime Minister made clear how he remained opposed to a second independence referendum, standing with the majority of people in Scotland who do not want to return to division and uncertainty.”

More than ever the UK needs to take special steps to recover from deep rifts caused by Brexit and a highly contested election. Johnson has already reached out to Remainers and supporters of other parties.

In his first speech as Prime Minister he said, he would use his newfound parliamentary authority to bring the country together and level up opportunities. “The UK deserves a break from politics and a permanent break from talking about Brexit. I urge everyone to find closure and to let the healing begin,” he said.

He told Brexit Remainers, “We in this One Nation Conservative government will never ignore your good and positive feelings of warmth and sympathy towards the other nations of Europe.”

Despite his reconciliatory tone, demonstrators took to the streets of London last night to protest his victory.

L'articolo What’s Next After Boris Johnson’s Victory? proviene da InsideOver.

The 2019 UK General Election awarded the Conservatives a majority of 80 seats, which means that they have a mandate to approve of the Third Reading of the Withdrawal Agreement Bill. If it passes on Friday, Britain will leave the EU on January 31st 2020. The transition period that follows lasts until January 31st 2021, and the British Government will use this time to negotiate a free trade agreement with Brussels.

There was little discussion of the prospect of a no-deal Brexit during the election, although Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon brought it up during one of the leadership debates. If the UK Government fails to negotiate a free trade pact in one year, it will have to leave the EU without a deal and trade with Brussels on WTO rules.

The Withdrawal Agreement allows room for manoeuvre as the UK has the option of extending the transition period up until July 2021, but the Prime Minister would have to decide to proceed with an extended transition in July 2020. He reassured voters that he is capable of negotiating a satisfactory trade deal by December 2020. He surprised many by managing to remove the Irish backstop from May’s original Withdrawal Agreement and securing a deal that pleases all sides. But the odds of securing a trade agreement by the end of next year are slim.

The EU is notoriously slow at negotiating trade deals. The Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with Canada took seven years to negotiate and was almost thwarted when the French-speaking Belgian region of Wallonia demanded safeguards on labour, environmental and consumer standards.

Earlier this year, Brussels’ trade agreement with South America was finally implemented after twenty years of negotiations.

Considering Nigel Farage agreed to withdraw Brexit Party candidates from seats that the Tories needed to win on the premise that Boris will not extend the transition period beyond December 2020, there is pressure on the Prime Minister to ensure that trade negotiations are completed by then. As The Guardian’s Darren Loucaides argues, the Brexit Party leader’s decision helped secure the Conservatives’ landslide. To betray his promise to voters would result in Boris losing huge swathes of support. This means he will have to deploy every tactic possible to ensure the EU meets Britain’s deadline.

The Prime Minister struggled to threaten a no-deal Brexit on Brussels because there was no majority for it before December, but parliamentary arithmetic is the one tactic Boris can use to force the EU to speed up negotiations. He can deploy the no-deal threat knowing there is a mandate for it now.

He should remind Brussels that preparations for a no-deal Brexit are in place. Michael Gove told Conservative Party activists at its October conference that Britain is ready for no-deal. Health Secretary Matt Hancock also created a trade and readiness unit to ensure the smooth delivery of medical supplies if the UK quits the EU without a deal.

The EU is fearful of the disruption a no-deal Brexit can cause. This is particularly true in Ireland as Dublin exports 90 percent of its agri-food products to Britain. Therefore, the Prime Minister knows Brussels is eager for a deal to avoid economic chaos.

Since the 2019 election outcome, there has already been goodwill among European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Irish Taoiseach Leo Varadkar to agree a deal. The latter has suggested that a ‘bare bones’ trade agreement is possible between both sides if a full trade deal cannot be negotiated in time. Their willingness to cooperate is something Boris should take advantage of.

If the EU is serious about avoiding a no-deal Brexit, they should at least agree a ‘bare bones’ deal before December 2020. Either way, a Tory majority has changed everything and it is the most useful tactic the Prime Minister has to his advantage now.

L'articolo What Tactics Will Boris Deploy to get his UK-EU Trade Deal? proviene da InsideOver.

After the British general election on Thursday, London is on a collision course with Edinburgh, as the First Minister of Scotland and leader of the Scottish National Party (SNP) Nicola Sturgeon has announced a formal request for a new referendum to break away from the UK. However, Prime Minister Johnson continues to oppose the plan and is unlikely to grant a referendum.

It would be the second referendum since 2014. That year, 55 percent of Scots had voted against the separation from the United Kingdom. Sturgeon argues, however, that the Scots’ majority voted in favor of remaining in the UK and the EU. The situation had changed with the EU referendum in 2016, in which Scotland voted to remain.

Moreover, Sturgeon has been impelled by her party’s election result, where it obtained 48 of the 59 seats available in Scotland. The landslide victory was providing a new mandate for a second referendum on Scottish independence. However, one problem remains. For a referendum to be conducted, Johnson’s approval is required under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.

Meanwhile, Sturgeon emphasized she was not asking for permission but asserting the right of the Scots to determine their independence and thus their future.

However, Johnson had emphasized his opposition for a second referendum on Friday night, when one of his spokesmen called Sturgeon to deliver the message. After all, the 2014 result was clear, and it ought to be respected.

Johnson, who must have anticipated this scenario and knew what would be at stake, published a comment in a Scottish newspaper prior to the election in which he ensured the Scottish public that he was a Unionist “to the bone,” who would do everything he could to ensure that the United Kingdom would not break apart under his leadership.

It is a situation that could become a considerable nuisance for Johnson, who, after endless EU negotiations, is facing the next conflict from within and not from Brussels. In any case, Sturgeon will have no interest in pouring water on Scotland’s independency momentum and will likely further exacerbate the situation. However, it is doubtful whether a few thousand people demonstrating on Scotland’s streets will persuade Johnson to grant what Sturgeon is demanding. The risk is too significant, the possible consequences for the United Kingdom too epochal. Thus, the question is, what would have to happen for Johnson to succumb?

He has witnessed a blueprint – though a somewhat suboptimal one in Spain over these last years. Here, the Catalans demanded independence from Spain and were severely hindered by the Spanish government, including the Constitutional Court ruling against a referendum held in Catalonia in 2017. As a result, the fronts have been hardened fronts and wounds, the healing of which will take years, perhaps decades.

Johnson will, therefore, have to put Scotland on the agenda as soon as practicable to nip Sturgeon’s plan in the bud. To do this, he will undoubtedly utilize the following facts: Scotland would not automatically become a member of the EU if it left the United Kingdom, however, would have to participate in an admission procedure that could last years. The latter will only be possible after leaving the United Kingdom, and ergo would leave Scotland practically out by itself in Europe.

Communicating this scenario and making it appear as unattractive as possible will be Johnson’s ultima ratio. Whether it can be sufficient will be seen in the next few weeks, as it will display how great the urge of the Scottish population for independence is.

L'articolo Scotland Seeks Independence… Again proviene da InsideOver.

The 2019 UK General Election resulted in a crushing defeat for the Labour Party. They have suffered their worst electoral defeat since 1935 and they have been reduced to 203 seats. They have lost constituencies that should be true Labour heartlands like Dennis Skinner’s former Bolsover seat, West Bromwich West and West Bromwich East. The former Labour MP for Stoke-on-Trent North, Ruth Smeeth, questioned where her party goes next after this election.

The next year will witness a debate at the heart of the Labour Party; which direction will the party travel in once Jeremy Corbyn resigns as its leader?

In normal circumstances, this election should have been an easy win for an opposition party. The Conservatives have been in power for ten years and presided over ten years of austerity. NHS waiting times are at their worst level ever. With home ownership rates falling to 63.4 percent in 2016, which represents a 9.9 percent drop from 2007, and wages only increasing by 2.9 percent this year, a more formidable opposition would have taken advantage of this context and argued that the need for austerity is over. This is what Corbyn tried to do in 2017 and 2019.

Two years ago, Corbyn managed to increase the number of Labour MPs from 2010 and he was close to achieving power. But this year was different as it was an election that centred on Brexit. The Conservatives had a simple message of ‘Get Brexit Done’ so that they could then focus on other issues like health, education and reversing police cuts, policies that Labour are traditionally stronger on than the Tories.

Meanwhile, Corbyn’s Brexit stance was a neutral one. Considering 61 percent of constituencies that Labour won in 2017 voted to leave the EU, this left many of his voters feeling abandoned by their party. That same year, Labour campaigned for a hard Brexit, but they have wasted two years frustrating Britain’s EU exit, which meant the desire to ‘Get Brexit Done’ was far stronger this year than in 2017. This is why we witnessed so many seats in the Midlands, Wales and the North switch allegiances.

Although many Labour policies like scrapping tuition fees proved popular in 2017, this year promises of free broadband failed to wash with the electorate.

A rejection of far-left politics is a trend that is being witnessed throughout Europe. Since Germany’s Social Democratic Party chose Saskia Esken and Norbert Walter-Borjans, two staunch socialists, to lead them, a Forsa poll found that their support has decreased by three percent.

As Andrew Neill said last night- Labour have already lost the 2024 election because the SNP dominate Scotland. This gives them time to reinvent themselves.

As Brexit unfolds, the SNP will push for a second independence referendum in the next decade. Considering leaving the EU gave the nationalists a renewed purpose following the 2014 Scottish Referendum, a second defeat would rob them of their purpose. This means Labour may have an opportunity in the 2020s to reclaim lost seats, but that depends upon the SNP’s fortunes post-Brexit.

Like 2019, 1983 was an election that changed the political landscape. Margaret Thatcher was re-elected with a 144-seat majority and she brought in policies like privatisation, low taxes and small state government. Labour responded in 1994 by electing Tony Blair, a moderate who accepted the Thatcherite settlement.

Labour wins elections when they fight for the centre ground. Their next leader must be another centrist who can accept the Conservatives’ Brexit settlement, and other radical changes they will implement, that appeal to the electors they lost to the Tories this year.

But the problem Labour faces is that the far-left dominates the party. Last year, pro-Corbyn group Momentum won control of the party’s National Executive Committee, which sets the strategic direction of the party and initiates policy development. They were also instrumental in deselecting established MPs like Frank Field, and they are unlikely to go anywhere. This will make it harder for a moderate to win a leadership election.

The favourites to replace Corbyn are Angela Rayner, Emily Thornberry, Sir Keir Starmer and Rebecca Long-Bailey, all close allies of the current leader. The Week reckons the only centrist with a chance of winning is Yvette Cooper, but her odds are 14/1 as she might be seen as ‘too close to Blair and Brown.’

Labour is facing an existential crisis. With the Tories and the SNP occupying the electoral ground for the most important constitutional issues of the day, they have struggled to adapt to this era. But until Britain has left the EU and the Scottish Question is settled, Labour must aim to use the next decade to reinvent themselves or face permanent defeat.

L'articolo Where Do the Labour Party Go After Corbyn proviene da InsideOver.

His message of “Get Brexit Done” was a simple as it was efficient. Indeed, it was as if Johnson took out a chapter of Trump’s book and his successful slogan of 2016. Johnson’s tactic of promising to end the endless, Britain’s exit from the European Union resonated with the public. Moreover, Johnson was the beneficiary of a Labour leader in Jeremy Corbyn, who was not only the worst candidate his party had to offer but who was unfit to be Prime Minister.

It is a result Johnson had been seeking ever since he came into office: a de facto mandate to deliver Brexit effectively. After all, a task, his two predecessors Cameron and May, failed to facilitate. His victory now equips him with all the necessary freedom and, yes, leverage; he needed for further negotiations with the European Union.

The voters did not mind the latest election, as the Brexit gridlock has been concerning the country for too long. For three years, Westminster continued to disappoint the majority of the country that had voted in favor of Brexit. Countless debates as well as failed votes, and a never-ending demand by Remainers for another referendum are in the past, while Brexit has been confirmed with an emphatic aye.

The question now is whether or not Johnson will be able to facilitate Brexit without the often clairvoyantly proclaimed economic crisis occurring. The negotiations on future economic and political cooperation with Brussels will begin soon; however, one must not think that Brussel has forgotten Johnson’s hardball approach of earlier this year. As a result and despite having received quasi carte blanche by the British, these negotiations will likely be another tester for Johnson’s Brexit legacy.

Despite these previous years not necessarily indicating it but there are also domestic tasks Johnson will have to focus on. Traditional Labour voters in the Midlands and the north of England cast their ballots in favor of the Conservatives in this election and made the landslide victory possible. To bind them, Johnson must implement his promised comprehensive investment program for these neglected regions of the country.

As for his opponent, Jeremy Corbyn’s post result postulations illuminated brilliantly why the Labour party is in shambles. Naturally, Corbyn blamed the Brexit debate. It had taken away the spotlight off his vision for the country. A vision “For the Many, Not the Few,” as his campaign credo stated. Moreover, a quasi-conspiracy by the media that – according to Corbyn – had conducted continuous character assassinations did not only allow him to deliver his message but did all in their power to elect Boris Johnson. In layman’s terms: Corbyn’s manifesto was genius, but no one took notice.

In reality, however, Corbyn’s hard-left takeover of the Labour party, national security concerns under his leadership, the fact that he never committed to a definitive stance on Brexit and his appalling anti-Semitism that had sparked outrage beyond UK borders, alienated even traditional Labour voters and Brexiteers alike. However, one did not expect class in defeat from Mr. Corbyn.

However, more than ten million people voted Labour and, virtually, in favor of a Prime Minister called Jeremy Corbyn despite the implications as mentioned above. It is a concerning display of how the UK has joined the not so exclusive club of politically divided nations, with one fraction on the hard left and one conservative side. This division may create issues for Johnson. While the hard left seldom converts to conservatism, the aforementioned former Labour voters, as well as independent voters, need to be able to find a home in the Conservative party, as, by all accounts, the next Labour leader is unlikely to be as incompetent as Jeremy Corbyn.

Nonetheless, the stage is set for Johnson not only to deliver Brexit and make a shiny example of what life outside of the EU can look like but for him to create his legacy as the most impactful Prime Minister since Johnson’s idol: the great Winston Churchill.

L'articolo Johnson’s Win and the End of Corbynism proviene da InsideOver.

The exit poll for the UK General Election indicates that the Conservative Party will win 368 seats, whilst the Labour Party will win 191. This will result in a majority of 86, the largest majority for the Tories since the 1980s. For Jeremy Corbyn, this will be Labour’s worst result since 1935.

The Scottish National Party (SNP) are set to increase their dominance in Scotland and win 55 seats, whilst the Liberal Democrats may only gain 13. The Brexit Party is unlikely to make any gains at all.

If these results are accurate, Boris Johnson may have turned around the Conservative Party’s fortunes. He has always been a divisive figure in British politics, but compared to 2017, he has always had one advantage over Theresa May- he campaigned for Brexit. Since he became Prime Minister, Boris has tried to ensure that Britain leaves the EU on time. He deployed every tactic in the book from proroguing Parliament to securing a deal satisfactory to all sides of the Conservative Party. A general election was his last resort, and it has worked to his advantage.

Throughout the election, the Tories’ mantra was ‘Get Brexit Done.’ Their message was simple- if the electorate awards the Conservatives a majority, they can vote through Boris’s deal and complete the Brexit process. They have also focused on areas that Labour are traditionally strong on, like health and education. Throughout the 2019 General Election, the Tories have consistently said the Brexit paralysis has delayed their progress on these issues, and by securing that majority, they can invest in public services and concentrate on other issues that matter to the British people.

The Tories have conducted a safe campaign. They have avoided cowering out of debates, the game-changing mistake that May made in 2017, and they had a simple manifesto message. The 2017 manifesto was damaged by policies on fox-hunting and making pensioners pay for their social care.

They have also been fortunate enough to witness the Brexit Party’s vote collapse. Nigel Farage agreed not to contest candidates in seats the Conservatives need to win. They were also damaged by bloopers like four of their MEPs declaring their support for Boris.

Considering how close they came to power in 2017, Labour hoped that their campaign of ending austerity would work to their advantage after almost ten years of Conservative rule. Corbyn tried to rally his coalition of voters that almost shifted him into power two years ago, but his support has collapsed.

Many of their policies have been exposed for being expensive, like free broadband, which would have to be paid for through nationalisation. Their campaign of ‘saving the NHS from Donald Trump’ was damaged by revelations that the health service would not be included in a US-UK post-Brexit trade deal. Furthermore, Corbyn’s neutral Brexit stance left its voters unsure whether the party stood for remaining in or leaving the EU, which left them vulnerable to the Tories and the Liberal Democrats.

The Liberal Democrats hoped that their anti-Brexit message would appeal to Remainers, but Jo Swinson failed to cut through to them because her position was viewed as extreme. This is why she failed to win over Tory Remainers who voted against leaving the EU, but believed that a democratic result should be respected.

The Tories’ Brexit message failed to resonate in Scotland, which voted to remain in the EU. They hoped their unionist message would prevent an SNP onslaught, but Nicola Sturgeon won the argument there. This shows that Brexit, not the Union, was the dominant theme north of the border.

Brexit overwhelmingly influenced this election outcome, and this result reflects that the majority of voters want it completed. But this poll leaves Labour in dark territory. As Andrew Neill said- they have already lost the 2024 General Election. This vote will change British politics, no matter what the final result actually looks like.

L'articolo 2019 UK General Election: How Britain Reached this Outcome proviene da InsideOver.

It’s the most important election for a generation. ‘Boris’ is ahead in all manner of polls but the result remains unequivocally unpredictable.

The 2017 snap election presented many Brexiteers with an opportunity to unseat the MPs attempting to sabotage the result of the EU referendum. Other voters may have called it a ‘Selexit’: a means of selecting the political party to deliver Brexit and by extension nominating the preferred version. Either way, voters participated in the last general election on the assumption that Brexit was going ahead. That certitude has been increasingly eroded with each rejected deal and each episode in Parliament.

The upcoming election is, at first glance, a coded second referendum. Remainers are being persuaded towards the Liberal Democrats who vow to cancel Brexit, whereas the Conservatives, who pledge to ‘Get Brexit Done’, are going for the Eurosceptic vote. The newly created Brexit Party is deliberately not standing in Conservative strongholds to avoid splitting the pro-Brexit vote. Early speculations even envisaged the Brexit Party and Liberal Democrats as the two new major parties. But this general election is not simply an EU referendum in party political clothing. If it were, the result would be predictable and it is anything but.

In the time that the UK Parliament has vainly negotiated a Brexit deal, so many socio-economic issues disappeared from the frontlines of political discourse. These include poverty, inadequate housing, low wages, educational cuts and poor job security, especially zero hours’ contracts. The announcement of the December election caused these problems to step back into the limelight and they became highly weaponised in the Labour Party’s election manifesto that vows to address them.

While the other parties’ Brexit policy is their main vote winner, the promise to address ongoing austerity is central to Labour’s game plan with the Party promising to give the People ‘a final say on Brexit’. Reminding the electorate of the problems that have worsened while Brexit has dominated has worked in the Party’s favour, providing ‘its strongest lead over the Conservatives as the Party most concerned about people in real need in Britain (59% vs 34%)’. Thus, the return of forgotten austerity seems capable of securing a Labour victory and affecting the subsequent ‘Final Say’. We could see voters persuaded to forgo Brexit in favour of fixing the austerity long overshadowed by EU matters. Just that outcome seems plausible, further opinion polls contradict it.

The latest Ipsos MORI Political Monitor polls show Labour to have convinced voters of their compassion, but not their leadership competency. The party’s ‘being fit to govern’ rating is nine points lower than in 2017 and a staggering 75% of those asked described the Party as ‘divided’. The perceived schisms in Labour can only have been strengthened by its ‘Leave’ wing that actively opposes the Party’s official ‘Remain’ stance. And here is where the Conservatives’ selling points come in. Until now, the Tories were always more divided by the EU than Labour. Now the tables have turned and that ability to keep to a consensus and plan may well be what is attracting voters. 49% of those polled see Boris Johnson as ‘the leader who would make the most capable Prime Minister’ and Johnson has a 21% lead over Jeremy Corbyn for general likeability. More voters say the ‘Conservatives have a good team of leaders (37% [+10] vs 22% for Labour) and are fit to govern (46% vs. 29%).’ Concurrently, the polls predict traditional Labour strongholds of Bishop Auckland, Great Grimsby, Stoke-on-Trent North and Workington will elect the Conservative candidate. These are all places that voted to leave the EU.

That the traditional Socialist heartlands are now favouring Tory rule poses the question – why? Is it simply because voters there favour the Brexit that Boris promises or because the Tory Party seems simply more organised? Or does it bleed into the wider issue of delivering the will of the People? Many voters feel those with the power to uphold the referendum result have deliberately sabotaged it. That some Labour MPs have needed to be persuaded to respect the ‘Leave’ outcome has angered so many, as did the vetoing by the ‘Tory Rebels’. The Liberal Democrats have been ridiculed by some for keeping the word ‘democrat’ in their name while vowing to overrule the result of a democratic vote. Yet 18% cannot trust them to keep their promises in any event. Thus, are the Tories doing so well in the polls and winning in Labour heartlands because voters are adopting a ‘better the devil you know’ mentality, enhanced by the good organisation the Party espouses? Or is it because many British voters feel ignoring the vote to leave would be so undemocratic, any future votes would simply not be worth the ballot paper they are cast on?

Simply put, this election is chiefly so unpredictable because it is impossible to tell what people will prioritise: tackling austerity, party reliability, good leadership and organisation, delivering Brexit or the upholding of democracy, the definition of which is open for interpretation.

L'articolo UK ‘Elexit’: The Most Important and Unpredictable UK Election proviene da InsideOver.