Will Boris Johnson go the country (as it now is) this autumn? My answer is yes for three reasons.
First, this will distract from preparation for no deal.
Second, if he wins he can blame the country for choosing no deal, and he likes blame shifting.
Third, he thinks he can win. The Tories have a bounce right now.
Of these three the second will be the most important to him. Denying responsibility is his goal.
Will he win? That's harder to predict. But I fear he will.
Corbyn is looking tired and out of ideas on Europe and green issues, where he can't even refer to a Green New Deal, unlike everyone else, and so seems far from the action.
This leaves the opposition divided in two key areas when it needs to be united.
And third, the momentum is simply with Johnson right now.
Such a win will be a disaster, of course. For the economy, environment, every minority, those on low incomes, international relations, development, inequality, tax justice and so much more. And the defence will be people voted for it.
But what is the real reason why he will go for an election? Because he knows Gordon Brown always regretted not doing so. That's why. When it comes down to it everything will be ego. And he just wants the win.
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:
Buy me a coffee!
Highly likely.
And then we will go to the dogs methinks.
I am sure you are right – there is one small detail: Johnson may well lose his seat. It is highly vulnerable due to his failure to oppose runway 3 @ heathrow.
With some canny campagining johnson could lose his seat – ditto quite a few other Tory marginals – depends on the level of tactical voting.
Theory: if g.e. result means Tories don’t need dup, then they will resurrect original NI only backstop. Allows them to do their desired Canada style deal with EU without breaking GFA. Hard brexiteers don’t really care about NI in UK – Brexit first, union second. This could be their plan??
Possible….
But they could have had an NI only backstop and got that through the Commons already, I think
Boris thinks he can buy the election on Facebook. He’s probably right too given they appear to have bought the last one and nothing’s changed to stop them from buying the next one. Legislation to prevent this is unlikely to succeed while they have effective control of the House. So long as they can keep buying elections in perpetuity, he and his well-financed little clique will always rule. So, farewell then democracy, we hardly knew ye. Whither now? The cultivation of local autonomy seems to be the next order of the day, unless or until Boris can be taken down by force.
Bill Kruse
As we all know but the commentariat fails to acknowledge :
‘Hard Brexit’ was always the only option for the government and architects if the referendum – any customs union and alignment that would leave the EU’s evolving regulatory and taxation policies under the CJEU authority is an anathema that the ‘financial’ hoccus poccous ancients cannot veto.
A hard brexit is built into the time limit for A50 – that is why the’Withdrawal Agreement’ took so long to cook up. It only happened because a ‘Meaningful Vote’ was eventually won by Labour, A vote that was fiercly opposed. Hence a WA with the ‘Backstop’ issue was cooked up to provide a causus belli for the hard brexiteers to reject the WA – meaning that the clock would have run down on 29th March and the EU would have declared a unruly brexit according the EU rules of A 50. What a whizz! Getting the cake and eating by blaming the nasty EU.
But May blew it by first asking for a short extension for another vote on the twice rejected WA expecting that EU would not grant any further extensions and then being blind sided by the EU and being given the extension to October! Their ‘Hard Brexit’ was suddenly snatched away! May’s punishment was a rapid defenestration to let the architects of Brexit into the control room to make sure that the hard brexit happens – their effort aimed at not asking for any further extension or letting the dastardly EU hoodwink them into one again!
“Throw us out like it says you will in A50 you beggars!!!”
That is the motto of the ‘A’ team of Brexit in the Cabinet, to unchain Britannia and set sail from their tax free ports with their tax free City…
Will there be the quick election or will it be after? – that depends entirely on the Tory MP’s as it has done since 2017 – the only way is if enough vote against their own government. It is not in the power of the opposition benches.
As for ‘Dr Strangelove’ Cummings – the stealer of Brexit, the ‘Brains’ of the FB targeted illegal adverts with the help of the DS/ Cambridge Analytica/ SCL cabal – can his dark arts deliver a general election victory?
It is one thing to deliver a simple majority in a referendum (or EU type election) and quite another in the FPTP constituencies we have! I think it unlikely that he would have the same influence.
So what of the ‘Brexit Party’? (is it even one?) – they would be much the same as ukip in a general election – maybe a significant share of overall votes but no seats to show for it! They may even destroy the few Tory marginals and hand them to the opposition.
Cummings appears to be of the opinion Brexit simply can’t be done with the present system of government: “… the wiring of power in Downing Street is systemically dysfunctional and, worse, those with real institutional power (Cabinet Office/HMT officials etc) have as their top priority the maintenance of this broken system and keeping Britain as closely tied to the EU as possible. There is effectively zero prospect of May’s team, totally underwater, solving these problems not least because they cannot see them – indeed, their only strategy is to ‘trust officials to be honest’, which is like trusting Bernie Madoff with your finances. Brexit cannot be done with the traditional Westminster/Whitehall system as Vote Leave warned repeatedly before 23 June 2016.”
https://dominiccummings.com/2018/05/23/on-the-referendum-25-a-letter-to-tory-mps-donors-on-the-brexit-shambles/
Are we hearing of the existing officials being replaced? So far as I’m aware, we are not, so this seems to suggest that what we are seeing is empty theatre. Again.
I wrote this to AMcG on your other post which you seem to have just closed.
I suppose you might include it because what I try to put across here is that Johnson will use MMT to try to get himself elected and this is why he will go to the country – using/abusing MMT principles.
AMcG
Thanks for the very thoughtful response and your thinking is close to mine but I would like to raise a few points if I may?
1) ‘But ownership of the NHS is very significant because whoever owns it controls the scale, availability and quality of our healthcare. The point is not that we would be sending profits abroad (although doing that for no gain is stupid) but that health-care would then be re-fashioned by the market to serve the needs of the wealthy’.
To be honest, it’s both. Both are equally bad – the first acts as the incentive to the second and its no different to the subsidy system the private providers on the rail network benefit from. And who benefits from the taxes from the profits of the U.S. based providers? Certainly not the UK. Which for me is even worse and unacceptable.
2) ‘And the real effects on the economy are likely to be good. There is no point trying to twist that as bad because it is Boris doing it’.
Yes but only up to a point? I thought that the best way to help stop rampant inflation ( a risk with any increase of money either as real money or as credit into an economy) was also to use the tax system as a coolant? So although there might be a short term lift, as inflation took hold it might take the shine off things somewhat. No one is trying to twist anything here. It’s a question of where the money is aimed in the economy and a wider question of ‘Qui bono?’ (Who benefits?). My biggest worry would be that the money would bleed into the asset economy and asset led booms would result. Thus using MMT to say push forward the green agenda are likely to be squandered and it looks as though HS2 is going to be used as a showpiece bit of investment (Why?). The Tories like using consumption taxes. It is not hard to see them racking up VAT and putting it on yet more essentials in an MMT environment in the name of ‘balancing the books’ (Zzzzzzzzz).
And also, if I may say, what might be the long term actions of an economically orthodox Tory party to the resulting ‘deficit’ (which we heterodox lot all know is just a record of money spent – not necessarily money owed by a Government – and if they owe – so what? They print some more and pay what is owed – does Johnson know and accept that?)? The Tories have a reputation for giving with one hand and taking with another. How long would MMT last? Until it has reached its real goals as you rightly advocate? Or more likely until the Tories have yet another 5 years through a bribe-primed election win in which they can tell everyone ‘Well we’ve tried MMT and it did not work or worked a bit and you all had a bit of fun but now we must consolidate the deficit and now we must privatise the NHS, cut this and that blah blah……..’.
To sum up, a bribe is a bribe – whether it is ‘reality’ based MMT or not. To me it is an abuse of a reality – abuse of very good idea (MMT) because the REAL aim is to secure a 5 year tenure for people like Johnson, Patel, Raab and Cummings. It is not to lift this country out of the doldrums where it has been since 2008, but especially since 2010. The real aim is to create more time to refashion our country into something a lot of us do not want to live in.
I have always seen a morality within the use of MMT. MMT without a moral dimension to it seems to me to be a rather empty idea – weak even. Where is the morality in a bribe?
MMT’s morality is about the fairness of the distribution of money in society ; about investing in new ideas that take on the challenges of environmental destruction and resource management; about investing in people not just products or financial returns; about adding value to that which is undervalued in societies. Tell me – where are these things mentioned in the present Tory party? Where are the people in the Tory party who advocate such principles? None seem to be in Johnson’s cabinet.
I’d rather have MMMT (Modern Moral Monetary Theory) perhaps than plain vanilla MMT. As John Ruskin said ‘There is no wealth but Life’. MMT (or MMMT) could be the foundation of such an outlook if used properly and morally.
But isn’t the point that if the election delivers preference for No Deal, aren’t the voters then collectively responsible for that decision and the consequences that flow?
Same if they elect a right wing, left wing, Monster Looney wing? They get what they voted for, for good or bad.
Yes.
I think you’ll note I said that
Whatever else is going on, one thing is certain: Nigel Farage will stir up as much trouble as possible. Over the years he has acquired a few very influential friends whose interests do not coincide with those of the nation – https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/nigel-farage-teams-up-with-trump-campaign-chiefs-to-launch-brexit-lobby-group.
“they get what they voted for” – not under FPTP. Many millions of votes count for nothing. Why do we put up with it?
I wish I could answer that
I am not sure we will for much longer
‘The Guardian’ reports that Jeremy Corbyn has today stated that he is ready to fight a General Election; furthermore, that he will not commit the Labour Party to fight for a Remain vote in any possible referendum.
Unfortunately, he appears to be serious.
There’s no hope of a Rainbow Coalition, which will be needed to face Boris Johnson’s Tories and their ally Nigel Farage, with Corbyn still in command of Labour. He’s a burnt-out ember – he should resign now and allow a new leader to take the Labour Party into either a General Election or a second referendum.
Because, if he won’t, we’re heading for a no-deal Brexit on 31 October.
If he did I think it would be first Thursday in November. From what he has said in the past he would be able to say “I have delivered Brexit” but it would be early days and it’s ramifications unclear. Fixed term parliament means he can control the fallout for a full five years. He’s always wanted to be PM I also expect he wants to be PM for as long as possible. In five years the country might have turned the corner post Brexit by then.
It’s extraordinary. When I look at Johnson I can’t help seeing Hermes, the trickster who likes to screw with our sense of reality. He really is a reactionary shape-shifter and in our society I don’t really think we have an adequate archetype for him. He is a crosser of boundaries, a transformer of reality, a duplicitous trickster for whom lying is first and last nature. I cannot help thinking that the majority are going to fall for all his s–t. He finds it so, so easy to change form. In fact he’s make a good werewolf.
As a former boss of his once said, only those who don’t know him personally will believe him. I have no answers. When there are no rules we are all on very shaky ground. I’ve said it many times before and I haven’t changed my mind. Corbyn is a large part of the problem. He has never provided the country with an adequate or clear position on Brexit. Now it’s anybody’s guess.
https://www.labourgnd.uk/
Have you missed this? Both Corbyn and Rebecca Long-Bailey endorse it, as does John McDonnell.
https://www.labourgnd.uk/motions
I welcome it as a step
It needs to go much further
I think Johnson will be forced into an election because – as Andrew Rawnsley said in the Observer yesterday – he doesn’t really have any better options. Climbing down on the rhetoric over ditching the backstop and going for a softer Brexit deal would result in the Brexit Party overtaking the Tories once again in the opinion polls, while an attempt to force No Deal through by shutting down Parliament looks like it would be ruled illegal. There’s also a good chance of a No Confidence vote in the administration in September – but Johnson will probably push for a 2/3rds majority to call an early election rather than being defeated in a confidence vote, as then he looks like he’s calling the shots rather than reacting to setbacks.
So the election will be in October – and my prediction is Labour as the largest single party, but short of a majority.
Why? Mainly because the Tories have decided to go all-out for No Deal, thus peeling off some (but not all) of the Brexit Party’s support (there are a hardcore of Brexit Party supporters who simply don’t trust Johnson and I would expect the BXP to go no lower than 10% in the opinion polls because of this). At the same time the Tories are likely to lose votes on their pro-Remain (or pro-soft Brexit) side to the Lib Dems, as many Tory voters don’t want no deal and don’t particularly like Johnson. I would be surprised if the Tories managed much above 30% of the popular vote. They will run a better campaign than last time but in their current formulation, they are toxic to a key part of their traditional voters
I expect Labour to do somewhat better than their current polling indicates – maybe 33-35% of the vote – because Corbyn is a very good election campaigner, the manifesto will be much better than last time (and last time was already pretty good) and also there will be some consolidation of the anti-No Deal vote in constituencies where Labour is in 2nd place. I also expect the Lib Dems to do well – maybe 20% of the vote – and also to benefit from anti-No Deal tactical voting in seats where the Lib Dems are in 2nd place. In other words it could be a bit like 1997 and 2001 where the Tories were squeezed by tactical voting for Labour or Lib Dems in particular seats – even though the Labour vote won’t be as high as 1997, not even close.
In Scotland, the SNP will pretty much clean up. Ruth Davidson has been thrown under the bus by Johnson, while Richard Leonard has not made much headway for Scottish Labour. It’ll probably be similar to the 2015 result where the SNP won almost everything.
So in terms of seats, I would say we’ll end up with something like:
Labour: 290
Tories: 240
Lib Dems: 40
SNP: 55
Coming out of this, I would expect a Labour minority govt to be formed with an SNP confidence and supply agreement, in exchange for another independence referendum in Scotland in 2022 or 23. I don’t think Labour will trust the Lib Dems enough to do a deal with them.
It’s important to recognise that Boris Johnson is a desperation choice for the Tories. They’ve been forced into making him PM because of the threat from the Brexit Party, but in doing so they have increased the threat from the Lib Dems and Labour. And in the end, that is what will take them down. Going for an election is also something of a desperation move… in some of the latest polls the Tories are only 1 or 2 points in front. May only went for an election in 2017 when she was consistently 20 points ahead in the polls – and even then it turned out that the poll lead was very soft, and she lost the Tory majority. So Johnson, only a few points in front of Labour, would not call an election unless he had no other choice. The Tories are in an exceptionally weak position, all things considered.
I hope you are right Howard
But that deal with the SNP would be very fractious
On the topic of Green New Deal:
Corbyn often refers to a “Green Industrial Revolution”. My presumption was he does this because it draws on British history rather than American. I like the sound of GND more personally, especially because when several nations start to propose it, it could give heart to the demoralised and cynical that we don’t just have to roll over and cook.
On policy: we know he’s against the Heathrow extension and Fracking. He’s also *for* quite a few things: He’s proposed new tidal projects in the North West and Swansea, huge solar rollout, a new off shore farm in the North Sea and lifting the ban on on-shore wind farms.
My understanding was that the National Investment Bank was too going to be a big player for the GND (GIR)?
I’m not an expert on this by any means. My instinct tells me this is the best Labour have ever been on these kinds of issues, but there is still more to do; such as a re-wilding project.
So in spite of him using the term ‘GIR’ rather than ‘GND’, I’m hoping you can expand on your point about Corbyn and green issues with constructive criticism about what other policies he should be looking at? It would be good to get on the same page with the GND vision.
Some in labour are undoubtedly in tune with the required thinking. I have Clive Lewis especially in mind
Others are maybe less so
I see little merit in the GIR name – this is not just about industry for a start – that misses all the wider social dimensions
I welcome what Labour says – but it has to appreciate the scale of what is required