What if Brexit was taken out of this election? I know it's a fanciful idea to suggest that we take consideration of Brexit out of account in this election, but just suppose we did? What then would the parties stand for? It's a question worth asking for a number of reasons.
First, that's because we have a government effectively seeking (albeit with a third prime minister) its fourth term in office, and that is unusual.
Second, it is because on all the issues that usually matter, from the economy, to earnings, to the NHS and education, this government has really not done well. Indeed, that might be too generous: with wages (and much else) not recovered from 2008 it is possible to say that they have done very badly. In addition, at least two of the three prime ministers are already being consigned to history as amongst the worst we have ever had. And yet the Tories still have an opinion poll lead.
And, third, when you actually try to discern what the Tories are about, specifics are hard to find.
Their economic policies, some broad election giveaways aside (which will be as quickly forgotten as their promise to investigate Islamophobia), look like a continuation of austerity.
Their Green policies are feeble.
The NHS tells its own story, with 90% of NHS staff believing that cuts are hurting the quality of service and prejudice the care that they can provide, whilst drug shortages are a reality before Brexit.
Elsewhere, what is there to note? They can't even be bothered to try producing a manifesto as yet.
And what of other parties? The LibDems are defined by Remain and a simply dreadful economic policy that they're not even capable of working out guarantees austerity in the event of another downturn when we know this is a disaster now.
The SNP have a message, and an issue. At least they're clear.
And candidly, for Labour if Brexit was taken out of the equation everyone would be talking about them as at least they have ideas, and a clear vision on what they want. They just have the problem of what remains to most people (and this is a fact) an opaque policy on Brexit.
My point is that we have an election one a non-issue when there is so much else that needs talking about. Brexit is not the most important issue on this country's agenda. Our relationship with Europe was fine, and concerned a tiny proportion of the country before 2015, with good reason. And we do know that we will be worse off post Brexit whatever happens, if it happens. And yet the pursuit of that one issue, the reason for which no one is able to adequately explain as a solution to any known problem from migration (if it is a problem) onwards, is what is defining us. And it is doing so wholly inappropriately.
That is because it means there is no real debate on anything else. What we aspire to be as a nation; what services we want and how; how we might really deal with the climate crisis, and so much more; all these are cast aside for Brexit. They are what this election should be about. That, plus the failure of the Tories over nearly a decade. But they're not. It's just Brexit, Brexit, Brexit and will be ad infinitum and forever to come if Johnson gets his way.
We can hope the leadership debates open issues up. If they don't then nothing but the almighty crisis is going to change the direction of this country. And we have not got to that point as yet. In the meantime, politics remains in the ditch Johnson swore he'd die in, because he has dragged it there to share his slow, lingering demise. Of Cameron, May and Cameron my suspicion is Johnson will be much the worst. It's just a matter of time.
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:
What if Brexit was taken out of this election?
If Brexit had never happened, no referendum, then I seriously doubt that Boris Johnson would be Tory leader and PM. Cameron might still be PM. Had he stood down May would probably have won and still be leader and facing her first election more or less now – there would have been no reason for her calling the last election when she did. She was exposed at that election as a leader with little inspiration or desire for the heat of election battle. The Tory Party might be different, still advertising itself as one nation, rather than looking like the Brexit Party or UKIP lite. Brexit has clearly defined what the Tory Party has become. The referendum and Brexit has clearly changed their political outlook although the signs were clearly always there.
I do not believe that no Brexit would make it any easier for the opposition though, not just Corbyn, because of the very nature of the way politics is conducted in the UK. We all know that the Tories and their friends in the press and media will reduce it to personalities and emotive issues, that real debate is hard to find. As an example, right now we know that the Tories have found a magic money tree (until they are elected when as usual they will renege on many of their promises), but when the opposition propose similar spending they are attacked on the grounds of how will it be financed. For the right, the purpose of an election is that figures are plucked out of the air that have no resemblance to reality, but as long as the wool can be pulled over enough eyes they serve their purpose – the Boris bus being a prime example.
The right have always been good at selling lies at elections by tugging on emotions. They know the targets to hit, Foreigners (currently the EU), immigration, welfare scroungers, single mothers, tax raisers, a general belief in unfairness, etc, etc, there’s always someone or something that can be blamed. Calling Corbyn a communist or Marxist seems to work, while ignoring the clear fascist tendencies that many on the right have. Ably supported by their friends in the press, rational and logical debate is difficult to come by. Throw in the most undemocratic electoral system ever devised in FPTP and you have a recipe for disaster and the road to Tory soft fascist extremism. For me it’s a shame that Labour does not support PR despite increasing evidence that the traditional 2 party system is rapidly becoming a 1 party Tory middle England system. I will not vote for any party that does not support PR.
If issues counted for anything this would be a green election, the recent floods being a bit of a reminder of what the earth has in store for us if we continue to live in ignorance. Having said that if these were normal times the election would not be in December, the weather might be sunny, many would remain ignorant as bliss to climate change as they cast their vote on a warm, just right, May day.
Thanks
Richard, I don’t know why you think Labour’s policy on Brexit is opaque; to me, it is clear. We can agree the vote was very close. Labours position is that the position of each side should be respected. Some people claimed they were lied to, others that dirty tricks and foreign influence were unfairly employed to sway opinion. Some voters on both sides have unfortunately passed on, to no doubt continue their Brexit debate in the hereafter. It should not come as a shock that opinions on both sides may have changed. Labour’s Brexit policy merely reflects this reality.
Therefore, Labour, when elected to office, will re-negotiate a better withdrawal agreement. MP’s etc. are free to argue for remain or leave. Jeremy’s position as leader of the whole Party should IMO remain neutral. The British people will, therefore, have the opportunity to confirm or change their original vote. The people’s decision will be respected, that is what is meant by democracy.
When out canvassing some people get angry that Brexit hasn’t happened or cancelled. Some also get angry for what they see as a call for another referendum. But my reply is we don’t decide issues on opinion polls. We need a proper count. If either Leave or Remain can’t be arsed to confirm their original vote, then their position is not serious. So labour’s position is IMO clear the People will decide — end of; this removes Brexit as a major campaign issue.
The whole Brexit fiasco has been a complete distraction as you say, it has pushed consideration of the failure of our economic system to deliver a decent standard of living to a large proportion of our population. In or out of the EU that consideration and battle have to be had. However, Labour is the only party that respects both Remain and Leave and who has promised to put it to the people to decide; that is democracy.
The point I am making is a simple one
First, people want leadership
Second, no one can work out why the EU should negotiate a deal most in Labour say they don’t want
And third, no one understands in that case how this can be delivered
You can reiterate the theory as many times as you like – and it looks good in theory
In practice it looks weak, and hard to explain to the uncertain
And few have your attention span or interest to understand this
So are you saying we should vote Labour?
That still depends on where you are
I can still imagine voting for at least five parties dep0ending on where I was in this election
It was six
In my area Labour are the only serious opposition.
So are you saying I should vote for a party and run led by anti-semites, Marxists and apologists for every disgusting regime in modern history?
Corbyn is not an anti-Semite. There is no evidence he has ever been. Labour has on occasion not been tough enough on anti-Semites. At this election the Tories appear to have candidates who are. And they have not addressed Islamophobia
I am not sure what disgusting regime you refer to. Our current government supports Saudi Arabia.
And have you ever read Marx? Really?
Corbyn isn’t an anti-semite? Really? Why then are the Equalities and Human Rights Commission investigating Labour over it then? Or wh have so many Labour party members ocme forward about it and quit? Or why Labour seems to have managed to put forward so many candidates who have said anti-semitic things in public?
Are you blind to what he and his follwers has said an done?
So this isn’t anti-semitic?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=10&v=wSSONNLB_Ak&feature=emb_logo
or this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEB9PwKYmmA
Or just supporting, sharing platforms and being “close friends” with various other people who are clearly anti-semites.
If you think he isn’t an anti-semites you are either willfully blind, stupid, hypocritical or an anti-semite yourself.
Labour is now an anti-semitic party. Which is nothing more than racism.
Corbyn has also suported Iran, Venezuala, Cuba and Russia, let alone various terrorist organisations (claiming always in the interests of peace, yet he only seems to meet and show support for one side). But you can only say the Tories supported Saudi Arabia. Who sure, are not a nice bunch.
But you forget the last Labour government supported them heavily too – as well as selling ams to Indonesia and Turkey, who have less than stellar human rights records.
The man is not fit to be leading the Labour party let alone the country. Under him and his Momentum mob, Labour has become an institutionally racist party.
I don’t vote for racists, and in my books anyone who does vote for Labour is actively encouraging and supporting their racist behaviour.
Labour has an anti-semitism problem. It’s not of the scale you claim, but it is real.
The Tories have a suspended candidate over the issue.
And which party leader is a known racist? Johnson.
Sorry, but Corbyn is not an anti-Semite, of that I am sure. Could he have been more effective on the issue? Yes, undoubtedly . But that’s a different issue.
And are you being deeply prejudiced in your opinions for other reasons? I very strongly suggest so. If you weren’t You’d turn your fire in the Tories who have the much bigger racist issues.
“My point is that we have an election on a non-issue when there is so much else that needs talking about. Brexit is not the most important issue on this country’s agenda.”
Professor I venture that we had the single issue ‘Brexit’ election in 2017; following the Brexit referendum in 2016; which itself followed the 2015 election where the referendum was a manifesto item.
We all know the addage of fooling people, we also know we only normally get to vote only every 4-5 years on the menu that we are offered and the shineyness of the contestants. I for one am ecstatic to be allowed to vote every year now!
Well the collective mentality KNOWS we have already given our vote on the Brexit election – B means B! Strong & Stable etc. was the alpha and omega of the last campaign – and we voted to take away the majority that would have let them do whatever they wanted (a HARD brexit).
Thus a hard Brexit was avoided in March and October. In an effort to try and snatch that victory from the jaws of defeat (soft/no brexit) the desperate gambit to regain a majority before xmas and immediately move to use it to attain the goal by 31st January is their only hope.
They will say anything, copy anything … and have their mini ‘winnie’ attempt to win with his bulldog manner where May failed with her schoolmarm charm.
But they have disregard for the fact that all of the people can’t be fooled all of the time!
We had our fill of brexit elections sandwiching the brexit referendum – we don’t want the same menu again!
We want a change menu – like we were promised in 79 and 97, so in 19.
The tory strategy to revisit the same question is in my opinion lethal for their cause and their party. In fact I think an unprecedented event is likely – traditional Tory voters will vote Labour in significant numbers.
Because they too refuse to be fooled once again with the same choice! When IDS loses Churchill & Tebbits seat it will be seismic for them. If the seating PM also loses his pants, it will be biblically cataclysmic for the Tories.
I hope you are right …….
Just reading this and it makes me so angry… the Tories are turning over working class constituencies..Corbyn is a big factor. So is the hard left. It is totally bizarre Johnson will get the working class midlands. The Labour Party needs a long hard look at itself and reinvent itself..this is desperate
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/11/18/black-country-turning-blue-frustration-brexit-fear-jeremy-corbyn/?WT.mc_id=e_DM1143291&WT.tsrc=email&etype=Edi_FPM_New_ES&utmsource=email&utm_medium=Edi_FPM_New_ES20191119&utm_campaign=DM1143291
But remember, the Telegraph is not an objective observer and is willing that outcome
Julian is confusing anti-Israeli Government ( which I support) with anti-semitism ( which I oppose)
The good news for Julian is, when Labour form the next government they plan to spend a lot more on mental health facilities.
He’s now being deleted for calling me a racist
And I am most emphatically not and I have no time for those whip make such claims without any justification
One day Julian and others like him will realise that the point of politics is to promote peace – not to prosecute war – which should always be the last sanction (all too often these days we fast forward to military action).
To promote peace you must always talk to the other side and get to know them, work with them and then violence is less likely.
We need more Atticus Finch’s in this world and fewer Trumps, Blairs and Bush’s not mention those up to no good in Turkey, Burma, Syria, Palestine and only God knows where else.
War – civil and other wise – we seem to be awash with it these days.
Why is it good news for Julian that Labour plan to spend more on mental health facilities John?
Have we seriously reached the stage of calling those who disagree with our viewpoint mentally ill ?
I should havde probably deleted that comment
But it’s been a day that’s been very busy with too rapid decision making
No Bob, I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. In fact I welcome criticism. My position is however-that those who disagree should offer evidence. Mud slinging for its own sake is not professional. Slander may be acceptable in the MSM, but on Professor Murphy blog we expect higher standards. Anyone accusing Richard of antisemitism is IMO in need of professional help.
The UK Labour Party has half a million members. Anti-semitic utterances from members of this large organization are not any more frequent than would occur in any other UK organization of comparable size. The UK Labour Party is not systematically or intrinsically anti-semitic; its anti-semitism problem is real but no greater than that of any other very large organization in the UK. The truth is that complaints of anti-semitism are being weaponized by Corbyn’s political enemies. Nearly all of the people who are bringing these complaints are acting in bad faith, or at the very least have an unconscious bias towards distorting the scale of the problem because they don’t like what Corbyn stands for politically. Most of the complaints of anti-semitism in UK Labour push an absurd definition of anti-semitism that includes legitimate criticisms of Israeli Government policy. This is contemptible behaviour. Corbyn’s supporters need to push back robustly at the feckless people who use inflated claims of anti-semitism as a political weapon.