I will be honest: I thought May had bottled out of a general election this year. And so, right now I will admit I got the first thing about the forthcoming general election ,which is the fact that it is happening, wrong.
Second, let me be clear from the outset that I will not be supporting a party line in this election on this blog. I am already pretty sure who I will vote given the profile of the constituency in which I live, but that will be a personal decision and it will be for others to make their own choices.
Third, that said I will offer praise and criticism where I think it is due.
And I will say at the outset that this election troubles me.
It troubles me because it shows contempt for a decision of parliament to hold elections every five years.
And it troubles me because it is intended to reinforce a decision to Brexit that parliament did not take and which a majority of parliamentarians, we know, do not want.
It also troubles me because it is quite clearly designed to reinforce the UK's hopelessly unfair democracy that leaves three of our four nations largely unrepresented in the government at Westminster and great swathes of the population alienated from the whole political process.
It's also of concern because the timing is so cynical: I have been suggesting over the last week or so why many of the economic indicators for the UK are now looking decidedly unfavourable, and May is clearly running to the country before the coming recession really hits.
Finally, it troubles me because, like Erdogan's 'success' in Turkey, this election is designed to reinforce the imposition of the view of a minority in this country on the majority. That's of massive concern for the stability of the whole of society.
I have no doubt that this election will be significant. Like Prof John Curtice I suspect May might believe her support much stronger than it actually is. In some parts of the country the idea of a Tory majority may be enough to restore old voting patterns. And for the left? Who knows, expect for the fact that Corbyn may have the chance to really emulate Foot after all.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
A nine bob note says it is all going to be a shambles.
“…let me be clear from the outset that I will not be supporting a party line in this election on this blog…..”
Great!
“Who knows, expect(sic) for the fact that Corbyn may have the chance to really emulate Foot after all”.
But you will be sounding like the Sun at times…
Make up your mind.
Criticising Corbyn is not sounding like the Sun
It’s slightly absurd that you cannot see that
But you are criticising Corbyn and you are sounding like the Sun
And it is absurd you cannot see that… doh!
That’s how it works
but anyway I’m outta here.
Bye
Please shut the door
I think Paul Mason has hit the nail on the head with his call for a progressive alliance to stop “hard Brexit” at the polls. Paul tweeted a 5 point plan today, which hopefully he won’t mind me reproducing here, as it’s very good IMHO:
1/ If Theresa May calls an election today, a progressive alliance can beat the Tory hard Brexit plan. Here’s how…
2/ We set up an independent website to show how tactical voting can beat the Tories and grassroots cross party alliance promotes this
3/ Labour has to guarantee Scotland a) right to remain in Single Market b) second referendum
4/ Labour should offer *today* Caroline Lucas to be in shadow cabinet, form Green/Red alliance, stand down 1x further candidate for Greens
5/ Libdems need to decide: with the progressive forces of Britain or in a perpetual flip flop with the Tories. You have 15 minutes.
If a progressive alliance won they could push through a PR bill in a matter of days and then hold fresh elections under a STV (or whatever) voting system. My guess is that this will be blocked by boneheads (on left and right) in the Labour party, which is a shame, because given that the Tories are likely to be polling only at about 40% in the election, a progressive alliance could win. It’s as simple as that.
I agree with Paul
And you
In regards to those on the left and right of the Labour party potentially blocking a progressive alliance, I wrote a comment on Richard’s blog last year saying McDonnell and Corbyn know that they two choices: one, fight the centre left with a very small chance of a Labour majority and very high chance of losing a lot of seats, or two, electoral alliance in favour of PR and there’s a good chance Corbyn becomes PM, so surely McDonnell and Corbyn know this and under any risk-benefit the only course of action they can take is 2. Richard replied that he’d be delighted for this to happen.
However, this still might not be enough for some Labour MPs to support it, but there is another important factor that needs to be considered: outside of political beliefs, many Labour MPs will have a slightly different version of this choice on a personal level: one, block a progressive alliance and lose your job, £74,000 a year, and various perks, or two, support a progressive alliance, keep your job, £74,000 a year (or even more if you get into a progressive alliance cabinet), and various perks. And for those who really value their job for they good they want to achieve and their ability to help constituents, again, they can keep or lose this.
As someone who is naturally optimistic and hopeful, I have to believe that these MPs will make the only rational choice that can be made, if not for the sake of the country then for selfish reasons.
Count me in,
I agree that we need a progressive alliance but believe that this description of it is precisely, exactly, 100% wrong.
The alliance needs to state that its sole objective is to arrive at the best possible constitutional outcome now that Art 50 notification has been given. It needs to recognise that this is far more important than party loyalty, political careers or getting one over the other. Which tribe is in office for the next five years just isn’t important enough. The long-term consequences for the UK and its place in the world must be the only issue.
Every single one of these five points listed above mentions a political party and is designed to promote or disparage the party mentioned. It’s a recipe for division and disaster. The alliance’s mission statement must not mention any political party. It must simply state its mission. Individuals, political parties and other groups or organisations can then sign up to it and work together within it to achieve that mission.
Please can everyone stop this life-of-brian political self-indulgence and face the issue.
The issue is stopping the right destroying the UK
Haven’t you noticed?
Nice to see you admit a wrong predication. How about this one:
4 December 2014: “This is why he has also has sought to undermine the power of democracy by creating fixed term elections”
Today: “It troubles me because it shows contempt for a decision of parliament to hold elections every five years.”
But once it was done it is then contempt of parliament to ride roughshod over it
You really need to get your head around this arguing thing Noel: there’s more to it than the ability to use a search engine
But it’s not being ridden over roughshod. Labour will have to support May’s action in order to get the 66% needed to override the 5 year term. They have indicated they will (as have Lib Dems and SNP). It’ll be a brave party to stand up and say “we don’t want an election now”. Parliament gets to vote on it.
Noel
Stop wasting my time
There are real issues of concern in the world. Why not find one to worry about?
Richard
The Fixed Term Parliaments Act provides for general elections every five years, but section 2 of the Act explicitly allows an early general election to be called if two thirds of the MPs vote for it. Assuming the Commons votes to hold an early election under the machinery of an Act of Parliament, as I am sure they will, how can that be contempt?
Surely better to have a vote now, before we go through with Brexit, than afterwards. Remain voters need to realize this is possibly the last chance they have to change the course of the supertanker, and vote for Remain candidates accordingly. If they don’t, a parliamentary majority elected on a Leave platform will be able to ram Brexit through to the detriment of us all.
So why have the Act?
It is meaningless now
Richard is quite right, Noel.
Mrs May was not elected PM so has no democratic mandate to now call for a general election using rules laid down by parliament.
Richard, I’ve been up at GreenAcres Colney, making final arrangements there for my wife’s Memorial on April 21st, so wasn’t able to make an immediate response to your post, but I have two observations.
First, further to Mr Scoper’s complaint above, accusing you of flip-flopping, I entirely agree with both your judgements on the Fixed Term Parliament Act.
It WAS an attempt to undermine the power of democracy, since it’s real intent was the neutering of the power of a “No Confidence” motion, in the tricky circumstances of a cobbled-together Coalition, where the danger of a lost “No Confidence” vote was very real, so that it’s REAL name should have been “The Abolition of the No Confidence Vote Act”.
Had the FTPA been in force in 1979, Jim Callaghan would not have had to resign, and surely would not have, when he lost by 1 vote, and would probably have stayed on to the end of his term in October, 1979, when he could possibly have won. Instead Callaghan honoured the unwritten constitution of the UK, and resigned.
The fact that May has completely ignored the FTPA, shows its entirely bogus nature, as having nothing to do with Fixed Term Parliaments, nor with preventing a Prime Minster from having the power to “cut and run” when the odds are in his or her favour, since this is exactly what May has done – “cut and run” when the odds are in her favour, which brings me to your second point – that it shows contempt for Parliament. I would go further: I would say it shows contempt for the electorate, since it is a clear attempt to lock in the “silent Right Wing coup” of which you have spoken, allowing mistrust of the Opposition to be – entirely mistakenly – read as support for her “hard BREXIT”/deconstruction of the State in favour of the 1%, which is her real programme.
Which brings me to my final point; you have heard me argue before for the need for a Fundamental Law Act, which would set out clear parameters for such things as a Fixed Term Parliament, the clauses of which could only be altered by an 80% vote in favour in the Commons, subsequent passage in the Lords/Senate and a final validation by binding referendum. If the Americans wished to change the date of their Elections, they would need to pass an amendment to the Constitution, which would require passage of the Amendment by 2/3rds of the States, where the vote in each State would in some cases certainly be by direct vote by the Electorate.
For May to toss aside the FTPA in the way she has, does indeed argue for total contempt for the electorate, and base motivation in seeking to capture the State in perpetuity for her narrow vision of the UK. It’s a sad day for the UK, and yet one further step in the direction of a neo-feudal state “of the 1%, for the 1% by the 1% (unless some real work is required – rather than creaming of rent – when it will be “by the 99%”)
Let us hope that the Opposition – ALL of it – listens to Paul Mason: the juggernaut must mb stopped.
We can only hope Andrew
I will see you on Friday
Here is a tactical voting spreadsheet, how to stop the Torys
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/19_yf4RL133fBKscvSbID4eRKwztzY9KSI_2BMaI1bU8/htmlview?usp=embed_facebook&sle=true
I’m sorry but how has May “completely ignored the FTPA”? The Act explicitly states that two thirds of MPs can vote for a general election, and they will do precisely that.
I have explained already, as have others
This expresses more elegantly and clearly what I was trying to argue concerning May’s contempt for the electorate:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/18/general-election-coup-mps-theresa-may?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Tweet
I thought that was good too
At a push I’d settle for a minority government which might be more realistic but possible??!! http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/ampp3d/general-election-results-just-900-5682492
My cynical side says that the CPS might have more to do with it and forcing 29 bye-elections might be a worse situation for May than having a general election.
Indeed. It may be that May(hem)’s decided to get in quick before a significant portion of her party and party machine are forced to resign or be jailed. However, countering that argument is the thought that there’s still no law about how much money can be spent buying ads on social media, even in the run up to an election. It’s recently come to light the Tories spent £1.2mn on Facebook ads in the run-up to the last election, probably not just for fun, a sum Labour were obviously unable to even approximate, I think they managed about half that amount. Given the volume of Faceboook readers and that FB offers targeted ads, until that unfair situation is addressed and remedied the Tories seem likely to win any electoral contest they care to enter. No doubt May(hem)’s well aware of this.
According to the LSE Report, Labour lavished all of less than £17k on ads on social media.
They really are the Generals fighting an earlier war – the problem is, its not the LAST War, but the equivalent of Agincourt, relying on longbows against “smart” guided missiles!
I believe that figure of less than £17k was revised upwards to the region of £600k. But still… the Tories could spend a few million more if they really wanted to, and this at the same time as they’re trying to cut Labour off from Unions, the traditional source of its funding, and reduce Labour’s MPs by changing boundaries… they’re only interested in power, not democracy, by any definition. I get that revised figure from Buzzfeed,by the way.
I agree with everything you say Richard. One further thought struck me this morning after Theresa May’s speech and it was to do with her language.
I think it’s highly disturbing to hear someone talk of unity at the same time as employing so many ‘them and us’ divisive phrases in their speech.
She has no idea how to create unity. She acts like a dictatorial head teacher. You can’t impose unity on a divided nation with wildly different values. If you want to bring people together you have to meet them where they are. She has shown no signs that she is even capable of this.
Like Cameron’s gamble, victory is not clear-cut as the MSM present. PM May has other deceptions to conjure; she is playing for time and modulating the battle arena to seek opportunities, whilst working out how to fulfill her historic role of keeping the Tory Party intact through a Brexit divorce.
I welcome a chance to fight, even though we’re mid-way through canvassing in local democracy. More funds to raise for a GE from local supporters, no honey pot for Greens to feed on or hide.
Some relaxation first – “Everybody knows the fight was fixed”
Leonard Cohen https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lin-a2lTelg
My guess is that the Conservatives are hoping that in constituencies where parties don’t currently have an MP, those parties will be caught off-guard as they’re busy canvassing in local elections at the moment. They now have to squeeze in a nomination, registration and campaign for an MP when often they only meet once a month, whilst keeping up the momentum of the current campaign AND highlighting to voters the difference between local policies (affecting council elections) and national policies (effecting the GE).
I thought Mrs Mayhem was going to announce she was having a love child with Donald Trump.
Ah, now you may have in mind that famous picture of the pair of them hand in hand, looking for all the world like love-struck teenagers. Sadly, I have it on good authority she was only holding his hand on that occasion to stop him from ‘grabbing her by the pussy’ 🙂
Mr Kruse
Do you mind!! Very naughty for a family blog that was you know?
First knee-jerk reaction:
– So, the lady is for turning.
– As usual it’s more about the Tory party than the country (as was the referendum) whatever PR garbage emanates from Conservative Campaign Headquarters, which will go into over-drive.
– The right wing press will print anything and everything to back May. Thank you Mr Dacre, the Barclays and Murdoch.
– As Simon Jenkins comments – it could be good for the Labour Party in that it will be the death-knoll of Corbyn and they’ll have to find a new leader in the autumn.
– The very bad news is that it will significantly increase the Tory majority – hence more years of regressive neo-liberal junk economics.
– Probably no change for the Greens, with Caroline holding Brighton.
– The LibDems might claw back a few seats in the SW, but no renaissance.
– Not sure about Scotland. Maybe Ruth Davidson could strike lucky and slightly weaken the SNP position.
I’m useless at predictions so it’ll probably turn out totally differently. Gotta go. Look foirward to reading what other posters have to say.
“The LibDems might claw back a few seats in the SW, but no renaissance.”
No chance, the SW voted heavily for Brexit. More chance in the London constituencies that the LDs lost to the Tories last time. Expect Vince Cable to be back in Twickenham.
I strongly suspect a south-west recovery
But I may be wrong
Will be interesting to see how the many Progress-backed MPs who have spent the past 20 months or so sniping at and briefing against Corbyn (unimpressive though he has been) behave in this election.
I’d imagine self-interest ought to mean they should start to put more effort into opposing the Tories than their own leadership!
That said, I’d also hope that the leadership will put a bit more effort into the opposition aspect as well!
So many open goals to aim at, but I wonder what chance they have of hitting them or getting any shots on target actually reported in the media?
I can only imagine that the anti-Miliband media onslaught we saw in 2015 will be just a taster of that which Corbyn and Co will face.
I’ve said all along that the Tories want to be seen as the party that takes us out of Europe and today’s announcement has proven it really.
For once, May’s behaviour matches her demeanor. She ‘s no better a Tory than Cameron. If she’d put as much foundation into the British economy as she puts her face, things would not be so bad. But I struggle to match her deeds with rhetoric before this manifestly cynical move. The real Theresa has at least been revealed.
The Tories must know that their policies are really beginning to hurt people and maybe this is becoming more self evident so why not wind people up by talking about BREXIT and ‘other parties’ (but of course no-one within the Tory party) planning to stop it?
I’m all for a progressive alliances but I cannot see it happening. Labour Blairites and Centrists will just want an excuse to get rid of Corbyn. The SNP should now be called ‘Putting Scotland First’. The Liberal-Demi-twats will just smell the blood in the water and think that they are in with a shout.
But the political benefits of all this is too high a price to pay for the many of us in the country who will see the end of their jobs and living standards by 2022.
I’m surprised that Labour seem to want to vote against the Fixed Term Act. Suicide? Stupidity? Scared of being accused of being scared? Oh for Gods sake Jeremy!!
All people will think is that Parliament and its politicians has just turned their back on the country and decided to have yet another contest amongst themselves to see who is king of the castle. I think that this is very damaging for politics as a whole.
My only hope is that some talented people somewhere get so angry that a movement that a mobilises people for real change materialises.
Does anyone know what the ratios of private and public debt now are?
Not when on a train with limited internet connection
The BoE has the data
& finally – what a great day to bury bad news – well bad news for the Tories – as the national debt hits an all time high (yes I know – soverign currency etc). Tories portray themselves as the party of economic competence whilst parrotting the economics of the corner shop (thus showing simulaneouly heroic stupidity & breathaking hypocrisy).
Virtually the whole world fell victim to the forces of global capitalism from the late seventies onward. This was accompanied by the attendant weakening of the trade union movement, the decline in influence of the socialist and communist parties and their adoption in whole or in part of neo-liberal policies. This nearly universal trend cannot simply be explained by accusations of failed leadership, greedy capitalists, media distortions and an ignorant and misguided working class. If the phenomena are universal, then laws are at work. If laws are at work, then science is involved. To understand these laws and at the same time navigate a path for Labour victory and more importantly advance the interests of the 99% we need to understand something of this science
If Labour get the science right there is every prospect they could win by a landslide. Labour must recognise that the economy is not primarily a money system. It is principally thermo-dynamic system. That is every single aspect of its operation from the concepts within our brains to the resultant production of goods and services and every endeavour involves the expenditure of energy and the simultaneous transfer of information. These transfers are social and system wide.
Alfred N W Whitehead wrote: “The human brain individually does not have the processing power to comprehend the universe in the round. Instead we sub-divide it into manageable portions, economics, history, chemistry, mathematics and so on. This sub-division is a very practical way to manage human affairs of all sorts. It has proved a tremendous success in all human endeavours. But it is important to keep in mind that (these) sub-divisions, theories are in essence abstractions. Very powerful and useful in the practical conduct of human affairs, but nonetheless abstractions. Within their legitimate, remit it is permissible to treat them as reality. However, this remit is limited and furthermore contains no warning as to its limitations. The temptation, especially in the social sciences is to ignore this truth. We are too prone to treat our theories as concrete reality in circumstances beyond their remit”.
Economics is such an abstraction, as such it acts as a proxy for thermos-dynamic events. Much like a film acts as a proxy for real life. Cinematic as opposed to kinematic. Only the kinematic acts with force, cinema is just make believe. It is force that determines outcomes, not make believe. In the cinema, we know we are only watching a film which can either be very realistic or utter fantasy. We can spot the difference. Not so in life. In life simply following the prescriptions of our abstractions is fraught with danger. It is not a question of what we would like to see done. It is all about a credible program of how to do it.
In the cinematic example our real-life experience acts as a control language to separate fact from fantasy. The thermo-dynamic system is the principal control language for the economy. There is no “left” or “right” there are only concepts that exert force. Where the system gains order, it loses costs. Where it loses order, it gains costs. That is not only costs in the market place, but costs in the wider system sense of the weakening and breakdown of civil society, including war and terrorism.
We are nine years and counting still in the worst economic crisis in eighty years. What recovery there has been has only helped the top 5%, the bulk of the population have been bypassed — no recovery for them. Real wages for the mass of the people have been declining for 30 years and although the standard of living has risen during this period it has only been fuelled by debt. Capitalism is in deep crisis. Many experts on both sides of the debate are seriously concerned that Capitalism will not be able navigate its way out of its present difficulties. By deep crisis we mean the system is losing information faster than it can be injected. It is thereby gaining cost. A positive exponential cost curve. That suggests near cost infinities. Where the economy cannot express cost in money terms the system expresses it as a failure to meet human needs. For many parts of the world this includes war and pestilence.
As in all systems relativity applies. Relativity forbids master clocks. Capitalism operates as a master clock, as such it is inherently unstable. It requires the social concept of believe to provide stability. This social concept is failing globally — hence the polarisation of left and right around the world.
All Labour needs is a couple of tweaks to its economic policy and a little shove to move away from a master clock solution. Get the science right and the manifesto will write itself.
I think it a little late for that even if I agreed
The main reason for the Uturn election is to strengthen her hand over her own backbenchers. She is, and always was according to her former staff at the Home office, a complete control freak. Sadly, I don’t think she feels that the Labour Party is much of a threat, either now or in 2020, Corbyn or no Corbyn.
Deeply ambivalent about this; I can’t help bu think this is the Brexit zenith and things will go downhill rapidly as of June
Mike Galsworthy’s take is interesting as usual
https://www.facebook.com/scientistsforeu/videos/1029504423818233/
Not just interesting but a spot on analysis, Sean (as indeed The Guardian argues today). Sadly, that “master strategist” (not) Corbyn has called it wrongly already. Let’s hope a good number of his MPs watch Mike’s video and/or The Guardian analysis and vote accordingly.
They didn’t…..
I agree with your piece, and the Paul Mason suggestions reproduced in the comments. In my constituency there is only one party who have sufficient support to have even the proverbial “cat’s chance in hell” of unseating the Tory who bar a four year gap between 1997 and 2001 has been in office since 1983. Therefore, barring miracles the direction of my own vote is pretty much already decided.
Precisely
I will be voting tactically in this election
Voting tactically is important but not enough. We need to make the opposition parties agree to field only one candidate against the Tories in each constituency.
I wish
The Greens seem to be trying