The Labour Party has learned its lesson from the previous election. After socialist Jeremy Corbyn’s poor management of the party for the previous four years, the direction is now set to change under Keir Starmer, who is about to say goodbye to Corbynism and hello to a new, moderate agenda.

Labour’s 2019 Results

A result of 32.2 percent is what Labour managed to obtain during the 2019 election, a decrease of 7.8 percent within just two years. Moreover, the showing was the party’s worst since 1935. Contrary to Jeremy Corbyn’s belief, the country was simply not inclined to follow him in his plan to remodel the U.K.’s entire system. A change in leadership was thus inevitable.

On Saturday, it was finally time. Labour members elected Keir Starmer as the party’s new leader and Corbyn’s successor by a comfortable margin. The choice was not really a surprise, as Starmer has been leading the polls since January. However, with 56.2 percent of the vote, the party members have made a strong statement for a change in a different direction, notably as Corbyn’s heir apparent Long-Bailey only received 27.6 percent of the vote. With Corbyn, there were only two directions: a turn back toward moderate, sound leadership or one to the extreme left that would ultimately lead steeply downhill. Now the same party, which in 2015 witnessed a significant increase of new left-wing members, has decided to redefine its identity.

Where Starmer Overlaps With Corbyn

During the race for the leadership, however, he also adopted a few elements of the Corbyn agenda, including the nationalization of public services. It remains to be seen whether this was just a Machiavellian maneuver by Starmer in order to appease the party’s radical core for the time being, however.

Previously, Starmer was a member of Corbyn’s shadow cabinet. Here he acted as a Brexit expert who opposed the UK’s exit from the EU. However, it is not expected that Starmer will demand to reverse Brexit. Back in February, he stated that the dispute over whereabouts or leaving was “over.”

Starmer also seemed initially reluctant to criticize the Johnson government’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic, though he has uttered concerns in regards to key workers currently being overlooked and underpaid.
Outside of politics, Starmer was a civil rights lawyer at the beginning of his professional career before working as the head of the public prosecution office until he was elected to parliament. Needless to say, his role as a prosecutor caused criticism and even accusations of betrayal by some ideologues in his party.

Starmer: Champion of Labour’s Moderate Wing

Unlike the ideological socialist Corbyn, Starmer is considered to be part of the moderate circles of the party, a wing within that spoke out against Corbyn in a letter shortly before the previous election. That Starmer is very different from Corbyn was also made clear in his video message. Unlike Corbyn, who conducted partisan politics, incapable of deviating from his apodictic ideology for the good of the party, the new party leader presented himself as a mediator. Someone who seeks to merge the hostile factions within the Labour party. He also formally apologized on behalf of the entire party for the growing anti-Semitism under Corbyn’s leadership and promised to fight the evil at its roots.

In terms of a political vision, Starmer remains vague, though he has formulated the goal of regaining the trust of the people after four electoral defeats, and making the party capable of governing again.

Nevertheless, he declared that he sought to provide constructive support for the government’s health and economic policy measures and to avoid party-political games during the current crisis.

Starmer’s first days as Labour leader provide thus hope to a party that has been through a lot under Corbyn.

L'articolo Keir Starmer’s Election Means Goodbye to Corbynism proviene da InsideOver.

The Scots are a stoic bunch. On a cold, wet and windy Saturday in January, when only dogs and their owners braved the elements, an estimated 80,000 of them marched through the sodden streets of Glasgow to demand Scottish independence. They came in good voice and brought all their coloured flags, the red and yellow of Catalonia, the blue and white of the Scottish saltire.

When asked, they said remarkably similar things. Why are you marching? ‘Because we voted to stay in Europe (by 62 per cent to 38 per cent) and we are being hauled out against our will. We voted overwhelmingly for the Scottish National Party (SNP) at the general election – the SNP won 48 of the 59 seats available in Scotland – but we, nevertheless, have a Conservative government ruling over us in London.’

John a former coal miner from Glasgow revealed he had once been a staunch supporter of the Labour Party.

“Things have changed now,” He told InsideOver. “I feel that now is the time for independence for Scotland. We are being dragged down a road that we don’t want to go by Westminster. We vote time and again for our own MP’s and we end up with a foreign country ruling us.”

The foreign country in question? England, Wales and Northern Ireland collectively known (with Scotland) as the United Kingdom.

“Independence for Scotland,” John continued. “Means that we are going to… vote in our own government, we can have a Labour government…Conservative government, you can have Liberals…whoever you like. Independence doesn’t mean that Scotland is going to be ruled by the SNP, people must realise this. If we come out with a strong Labour party who have policies and the vision to take Scotland along people would go with that.”

John is not alone in his disaffection with the Scottish Labour Party. As recently as the 2010 UK general election, the party had secured 41 of the 59 Scottish seats available. By 2019 that majority had been reduced to one seat. In nine years they had lost a remarkable 40 seats.

On the day of the march their leader Richard Leonard was trying to steer his party in the direction of a spring conference to, at least, consider and discuss the issue of a second referendum on Scottish independence.
His efforts to find a middle road, however, ended in humiliating defeat.

The Scottish Labour Party, by their actions, seem to want to drive a wedge between themselves and the contemporary sentiments of increasingly large swathes of the Scottish population.

Scottish Labour’s refusal to acknowledge the complexities of Scotland’s political landscape, the debate around independence, and the dissonance between what the Scots’ vote for and what is forced upon them seems shortsighted. It leaves the SNP looking as if they are the only political grouping in Scotland remotely interested in the concerns of the majority of Scottish people and they have sought to capitalise on that.

But the political situation in Scotland is far from simple.

Despite the upbeat atmosphere I couldn’t help but think the weather was symbolic. This was more of a damp, good-spirited trudge than a full-blooded revolution.

Perhaps, it mirrors the near 50/50 split in Scotland between those who demand independence, and certainly a second referendum on the issue, and those who are not so sure and who would – for now – remain as part of the United Kingdom.

Similarly, while the SNP claimed 81 per cent of the seats available, they only polled 45 per cent of the total Scottish vote. The same as they claimed in the referendum for Scottish independence of September 2014.

Meanwhile, Prime Minister Boris Johnson and his Conservative government, now firmly installed in parliament with an 80 seat majority following the December 2019 election, has sent a letter to SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon telling her there would be NO second referendum on independence.

Johnston suggested the SNP carry out the democratic wishes of the people of Scotland who voted to remain in the UK in September 2014, and concentrate on running the country properly. He also reminded the SNP that they agreed, at the time, that this would be a once in a generation referendum.

Sturgeon countered by saying that the situation north of the border had changed significantly in the intervening five years plus. So much to warrant indyref2. She believed that Johnston was now ‘denying’ Scotland a democratic say in its future.

Frustrated by this turn of events one Scottish National Party MP Angus MacNeil has suggested that Holyrood organise its own, what he termed as a “legal referendum”. He then suggested that, rather than take the Catalonia go-it-alone route, the Scottish parliament should then wait and see if Westminster challenged the concept of a second referendum in the courts. Mr MacNeil also suggested making the 2021 Holyrood elections a mandate for indyref2.

But, many have been critical of the SNP’s handling of their internal policies, especially concerning Scottish education and health. Many have criticised them for being singularly obsessed with independence to the detriment of the country’s domestic situation.

Questions have also been raised on the nature of the Scottish political landscape given independence. Would there be a bicameral democratic infrastructure? I have asked the nationalists and have still to receive a definitive answer. Some have also asked what currency would be used, and how would all the attendant dangers of launching Scottish money be avoided (sufficient reserves and so on)? Yet others have been alarmed by and questioned the present £12.5 billion deficit, seven per cent of GDP – six times the level in the rest of the UK – which would, on current rules, and ironically, prevent an independent Scotland from re-entering the European Union.

Key moments will come when the UK finally leaves the European Union and the May 2021 elections to the devolved parliament in Edinburgh.

It would be hard to deny the waves of change battering the shoreline of Scotland. There is unrest, a Scottish Labour Party lost in its march to oblivion, and the SNP, whose nationalist ideology is not universally popular, but present the only glimmer of light disenchanted Scots can gather around.

But it also seems certain that Johnson and his government will not entertain a second referendum in this government’s lifetime, and he, given his 80 seat majority, could be in power for a long time.

L'articolo London Says No To Second Scottish Independence Referendum proviene da InsideOver.

Uttering the name Boris Johnson alongside the epithet blue-collar would have been incongruous, to say the least until just a few months ago. As mayor of London 2008-16, Johnson positioned himself as a liberal Conservative who advocated an amnesty for illegal immigrants, touted his green credentials and attacked Trump after his controversial comments in 2015 about the Islamification of London. The Prime Minister, who attended Eton College before going on to study at Balliol College, Oxford, had earlier gained notoriety for insensitive and snobbish comments about the residents of Liverpool in 2004 that necessitated a public apology. Johnson’s slightly German appearance, without doubt, has its origins in his Bavarian ancestors of the von Pfeffel family some of whose members were ennobled in the nineteenth century. On the face of it, then, the former editor of the Spectator magazine would seem an improbable champion of Leave-voting Labour supporters outside the metropolitan bubble.

Realignment

The shift from the largely class-based politics of the twentieth century to a world marked by the new fault lines of patriotism vs. globalism and traditionalism vs. cosmopolitanism is, however, creating some strange bedfellows as doors open to politicians who can make this realignment work to their advantage. In December 2019 Johnson, following in the tracks of Donald Trump and others, proved particularly adept at superseding the old divisions of his country. A glance at the electoral map before and after 12 December makes this abundantly clear. What had become known as Labour’s red wall crumbled as Leave-voting seat after Leave-voting seat in the North, the Midlands and Wales fell to the Conservative Party.  The constituency of Wrexham in North East Wales, purely by way of example, had never delivered a Conservative member of parliament since the advent of universal suffrage in 1928, having been Liberal, Labour, Social Democrat and Labour. All in all the Conservatives gained 57 seats from Labour across the country.

Labour’s electoral base

In Britain’s first-past-the-post electoral system, political parties inevitably represent coalitions of views and sections of the electorate. To understand the outcome of the general election of 12 December 2019 it is necessary to understand the coalition that had been the Labour party before that date. At the risk of oversimplification: in the one corner stood the socially conservative patriotic white working class that are left-wing to the extent they support Britain’s free at point of delivery national health service, the welfare state, workers’ rights and, with varying degrees of intensity, the trade union movement; in the opposite corner stood middle-class progressives in the metropolitan areas, woke graduates, champagne socialists, ethnic minorities and Muslims. Ultimately, the gulf between the two different parts of the coalition proved impossible to bridge, especially given the large metropolitan middle-class leadership of the Labour Party.

Snobbery and the metropolitan elite

The widening cultural gap between Labour’s metropolitan leadership and its base was nicely exemplified by an episode that occurred during the Rochester by-election of 2014. As Labour MP Emily Thornberry was campaigning on an estate in the Kent town she noticed a house draped in English flags with a white van parked outside. The MP for Islington South in London tweeted an image of the scene. Accused of snobbery and condescension she resigned from the Labour Shadow Cabinet later in the day. During the 2019 election, Thornberry was again at the centre of controversy when she allegedly called Leave voters in a pro-Brexit colleague’s constituency “stupid”. Thornberry denied the allegations and brought legal action against the Labour MP who made them. These episodes had echoes of the notorious incident in the 2010 election campaign when the then Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, called a Labour-supporting pensioner, who challenged him on the street about immigration in her home town of Rochdale, a “bigoted woman”. Brown was subsequently forced into a grovelling apology.

Somewheres and anywheres

Using the terminology of the British political scientist David Goodhart, the divisions within the Labour electoral base reflects the division of British society into the two camps of “Anywheres” and “Somewheres”. By “Anywheres” Goodhart means those individuals who are well-educated and value openness, fluidity and personal autonomy. They are mobile and have, or at least purport to have a cosmopolitan mindset. “Somewheres” on the other hand value rootedness, a sense of locality, familiarity, security and patriotism. Anywheres, according to Goodhart, are generally graduates and affluent people who make up around just a quarter of the population but this value block has in recent decades dominated political discourse through cultural hegemony in the education system, the civil service, the media and the arts. The two worlds collided in the Brexit debate.

One Nation Tory-ism

The chaos of the 2017-19 Remain dominated Parliament, the Labour Party’s shift towards support for a second referendum and the threat of the Brexit Party produced a seismic shift in the December 2019 election. Indeed, the election itself was in some ways reminiscent of the 2016 Leave Campaign as the Conservatives focused relentlessly on Brexit and funding for the National Health Service. For the moment at least Boris Johnson seems to have brought about a new settlement in British politics, bringing together an electoral coalition between the working class of Labour’s old industrial heartland and the Tory voting shires. Further, Johnson’s “One Nation” rhetoric alludes to the Disraelian conservatism of the 1860s and 1870s that sought to unite the country around social reform, patriotism and opposition to soulless utilitarianism.

The outlines of Johnson’s One Nation Toryism or what his detractors label as populist nationalism, then, are taking shape: Brexit, greater funding for the NHS, a substantial increase to the minimum wage, increased public spending in the north, a clampdown on foreign criminals, an extension of police stop and search powers and symbolic acts such as reducing the UK presence at globalist glamour events like the Davos World Economic Forum. Such measures may not please some on the corporatist-globalist wing of the Conservative Party but the prospect of a very long period in government thanks to the new dispensation may assuage their concerns.

L'articolo Boris Johnson and Blue-Collar Conservatism proviene da InsideOver.

He smashed Labour’s so-called ‘Red Wall’ on Thursday – but now Britain’s Boris Johnson must pick up the pieces. From Dudley in the West Midlands to Sedgefield in England’s North East, former socialist strongholds turned blue as Johnson’s Conservatives swept the board. Brexit undoubtedly played a pivotal role, but honouring the UK’s EU exit vote won’t alone sustain his newfound working-class support. The Prime Minister must fulfil a raft of socially-minded policy pledges, and fast.

“I am humbled that you have put your trust in me,” Mr Johnson said warmly to his party faithful on Friday morning, though the message wasn’t for them. It was for the hundreds of thousands of first-time Tory voters, residents in the seats that once formed Labour’s now ruined Red Wall – a string of supposedly safe Labour constituencies running northward from the Midlands. By and large, they backed Brexit in 2016, and in Boris they see a leader who will fulfil their decision to leave.   

But if the Conservatives are to cling to this new support, they must deliver far more than just the UK’s departure from Europe. Within his first 100 days, Mr Johnson must make clear his government’s shift away from the Tories’ traditional, patrician roots and towards the political centre-ground. 

The National Health Service is of particular concern to the Prime Minister. Keen to head off Labour’s promised NHS spending splurge, Johnson says he’ll enshrine in law an annual funding boost of £34bn, train ten of thousands of new nurses, and build dozens of hospitals. Attractive pledges which no doubt resonated on the doorstep, but critics are not convinced. Of the 40 new hospitals promised, just six have had funding committed – and construction is underway at none. The yearly investment guarantee, though welcome, won’t cover the NHS’s chronic underfunding, experts say also.

Most worrying, however, is the gradual nature of Johnson’s proposals. Britain’s health service is in the throes of crisis. New figures published last week revealed English hospitals’ worst A&E winter performance on record – building new facilities and recruiting for the future, while prudent, does little to address the NHS’s urgent overstretch. Swift action by Number 10 is needed to alleviate the worst of winter’s burden on the health service.

Likewise, Mr Johnson will soon be under pressure to tackle the UK’s shameful social care situation. In July, the Prime Minister promised to publish a “clear plan” of action after successive Tory governments failed to reform the system – but details are yet to be released. Cross-party dialogue will be established to address the sector’s critical shortcomings, the Conservatives have said, but with Opposition parties reeling from their beating at the ballot box, that process could be protracted. 

On criminal justice reform, Johnson will feel more sure of decisive action. Empowered by its parliamentary majority, the government’s tough-on-crime agenda can get underway in earnest. The sentences for sexual and violent crimes will be reworked, removing the current provision that allows for automatic early release.      

The issue seized headlines last month, when a convicted terrorist murdered two individuals near London Bridge. Released after serving half of his sentence for involvement in a bomb-plot, Usman Khan stabbed and killed Saskia Jones and Jack Merritt in a frenzied, unprovoked knife attack on November 29. In response, Johnson pledged to overhaul the UK’s penal system – a move rubbished as “draconian” knee-jerk policy-making by Merritt’s family. 

With immigration policy, the government will hope to be on safer ground. Its much-teased Australian-style points-based system will rank foreign workers according to their professional abilities – and should, in theory, reduce the nation’s net migration. The scheme played well with electoral focus groups, insiders say, but many question whether it can make a seamless shift from Australia’s job market to the UK. Also, given the Prime Minister’s hesitance to enforce a cap on skilled workers, or in other sectors, like hospitality and construction, some analysts have expressed doubts on the scheme’s ability to meaningfully bring numbers down.

Johnson will care little for these critics – emboldened by his electoral bounce, the policy will shortly start its journey to the statute book, as will new legislation on schools funding and better rural phone signal.

L'articolo Beyond Brexit – Boris Johnson’s Foremost Domestic Priorities 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 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.