I have been in discussion with a number of people about the election result.
Many I spoke to are deeply despondent. There has been a common line that we will be heading for hard Brexit / hard austerity / pro-US policy / aggression with Scotland / hard constitutional reform. Britannia will be Unchained.
I agree on hard constitutional reform. The five-year parliament act will go. So will many rights to judicial review. It will be made much harder to vote. There will be boundary reform / gerrymandering, and more. That's because Johnson's game from day one will be winning the next election. It is all he cares about.
But for precisely the same reason he may well not do the rest. Johnson has no political backbone. He has no principles at all. He is just in this for him.
So he will not hard Brexit. Getting a deal done by 31/12/2020 is all that matters to him. So he will do whatever the EU asks. If that upsets Trump, so be it. He can live with that. No one will notice.
And he will let Scotland go, because he sees no way of winning it again, and so it helps his majority when the SNP will never align with him but it might with Labour.
And as for austerity, I have no doubt there will be a lot of it. But he will do vote-winning stuff that might look like a Green Deal (or some term like it). This will be flood defences in Doncaster, for example.
And there will be hospital spending in the ex-Red Wall to make sure it stays Blue.
He can do this because he has a majority. Watch the ERG fade - and expect Rees Mogg to have a decidedly low profile from now on. He'll be kept in Cabinet, but well out of sight.
The point is - and he gets this in a way few other politicians do - winning matters. Government can do a lot or little. But even when it does a little - his inclination - it stops someone else - Labour in this case - doing anything. And that is his long term goal. So he will do enough to prevent Labour from getting back.
And such is his pragmatism - as seen in October - he won't care who he offends to achieve that, and in how own party the chance of opposition right now is low.
I do not change my mind on how bad things will be. But will it be economically as far right as we might expect? I doubt it.
That said, there will be no Green New Deal.
Public services will suffer.
And many people will not have the support they need.
But every element of the media will be aligned to say he is doing all he can.
That will not be true. But if I was Cummings that is what I would do now. And Cummings, like Johnson, is all about winning. And this is how they will win the next one.
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:
Spot on, Richard. I believe you’ve called it exactly right. Whatever it takes to WIN. Johnson will have sufficient options available to keep those who voted for him satisfied for a while. But don’t you think his Achilles Heel will be the macro economy? As with Trump. Plus the global reaction to the climate crisis which could (should) put the brakes on global capitalism. But, right now, he’ll be thinking he can shore up his majority with a range of popular fiscal policies, that he’ll milk to the max. It’s his chameleon-like nature that makes him difficult to pin down. If, for whatever reason, the going gets tough, he’ll effortlessly mutate to ‘one nation Toryism’ with a Macmillan-style’night of the long knives’. It has been said that a British PM with a sizeable majority has more power than any other leader in the ‘free world’. This coupled with their flexible, pragmatic policy space has enabled the Tories to survive political vicissitudes since the late 18th century. Having said that, I do believe they’re on their final lap, in direct parallel with the capitalist model that currently prevails. Hope springs eternal!
You say “And he will let Scotland go, because he sees no way of winning it again” Well, perhaps. I have said all along that he would dump Northern Ireland, which is a burden and an embarrassment. But Scotland? It is tempting for him to get rid of Scotland and cease any Barnet formula subsidies to the Edinburgh government. But Johnson is very much aware of his role as the leader of a Britain that hbe is (at least according to Tory dogma) a leading military power. And this military power depends on Britain baing a nuclear power with a fleet of nuclesar submarines. Where are these based? Scotland. The Holy Loch. Could a Conservative government led by Johnson seriously contemplate abandoning the nuclear “deterrent” and relegating itself to being a non nuclear power ranking with the Netherlands and Italy and Argentina in the leage table of military power? And how would Mr Jonson deal with the problem of a border across the island of Britain? Having a border down the Irish Sea in order to ensure no border across the island of Irelandd is one thing; but creating a land border between England and an EU member sate called Scotland is something else. I doubt whether his overwhelming pride would allow him to cast Scotland aside.
Some people – perhaps Ms Sturgeon? – might see Scotland’s hope from the example of Ireland after WW1 when the Dail was formed by Sinn Fein Westminster MPs withdrawing to Dublin. A less hopeful historical precedent might be the predicament of present day Catalonia. Mr Johnson could well be ruthless enough to ignore any acts of rebellion by the Scots Nationalists.
I accept I may be an optimist
Mike, re the nuclear weapons in Scottish waters, the nuclear submarine base is on the Gare Loch (not Holy Loch), some 30 miles to the west (upwind) of Scotland’s largest city. Another 3 miles further west on Loch Long are the storage facilities for the nuclear warheads and other armaments. Thus the biggest nuclear target in Western Europe lies in close proximity to and, crucially, upwind of the Central Belt in which approximately 75% of Scotland’s population lives. We are at existential risk every day of our lives and every time a Westminster Government goes to war, or facilitates it through arms sales etc, that risk is increased.
It used to be even worse when the American nuclear submarine fleet was based on the Holy Loch (also a mere 30 miles from Glasgow’s city centre). Thankfully they’re gone now after a £5m clean-up (other sources claim it finally totalled £11m) paid for by UK’s Ministry of Defence – https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15320720-200-cold-war-waste-fouls-the-clyde/ – but we still have to live with the legacy of toxicity and a drugs problem which was fuelled by US servicemen peddling Class A substances to local communities.
Scotland had no say in any of these developments at the time, but we’ve had to live with their consequences ever since and, as long as they remain here, we’re exposed to the very real risk of accidents (which do happen) and cyber interference.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/25/nuclear-submarine-collision-cold-war-cia-scotland
That’s why removal of these illegal weapons is a sine qua non in the SNP’s policies for an independent Scotland. Public opinion here will not tolerate their remaining. If Mr Johnson is determined to keep his WMDs, he’ll need to find somewhere else to keep them outside of Scotland and, if it takes him some time to find an alternative site, he can be assured that the rental charges for use of facilities in Scotland won’t be cheap.
I think the SNP logic is entirely rational
I worry about Sizewell
You have much more reason to be concerned
Well…he now practically ‘owns’ Anglesey where Wylfa2 has been put on the back boiler…ready-made site for him? with a population desperate for jobs…
Sturgeon is the same kind of politician and Boris. The point i am making is Sturgeon lies to the scottish people just like Bojo does to the UK/England. Get brexit done, independence for scotland et al, both have hidden the cost of independence, one from the EU, other from the UK.
The EU break will cost the UK billions in trade if Boris does not do a deal. I cannot see Bojo rushing for a deal with EU, he has the numbers and can sit there and for a better one to come out. Bojo has time and he can play the EU and USA off each other. The issue here is what will the voters do if they find out he is not leaving the EU or surrenders to it completely on everything? What If he surrenders fishing, keeps the european courts, or allow some free movement? All that will inflame the voters who voted for him and things could get nasty fast. After all they treated labour with contempt and blamed them for holding up brexit. I can imagine Bojo being strung up the rage of the mob if that happens.
Then we have the same scenario in Scotland – Sturgeon gets a referendum Scotland which she wins and holds talks with England. Bojo like the EU will plays hard ball, Sturgeon really needs access to english markets, otherwise a big recession, but this is the least of her problems. The £13 bn + share of national debt, England playing nasty with the oil. So how is Sturgeon et al going to sell her lower share of the Oil than expected and £13bn in cuts to the scottish people?.
This is 1/4 of Scotland’s budget, the cuts will be massive and make the tory austerity look like socialism. Then you add the problem scotland will most likely use the British pound. Of course the Scots have the same hubris the English has. ie the english will give in because we are scots and the brits say the same to the EU. We both know that is not going to happen. So the scots have a declining oil share, plus revenue, facing massive cuts,and very limited foreign reserves ie the £.
Scotland in this situation will not be sustainable for the future. The EU will not want her in that state, so if scotland is prepared for mass riots for a few years then then they will get through. They are more than likely ask london to send english police up to help out and that will go down like a lead balloon. The first act of an independent scotland asking the english to help out, the irony of it all. Then of course you got the problem of London controlling the scots economy.
So brexit will not get done, more like Boris will get done by it, and Scotland will not get a second referendum and if they do the SNP will lose it.
The SNP can get independence done
Then it will split
Common Weal has the model for the Scotland that is needed
Well Darren, where to start on your “analysis” of Scotland’ economy? Well, for starters, you need to do some properly researched in-depth reading and not rely on what you read in the mainstream UK press. I have some sympathy for anyone trying to determine accurate figures for Scotland’s exports to rUK and abroad as it’s not easy to find firm Scotland-specific info in UK Government statistics and all data will refer to 2018 and earlier.
Let’s start with Scotland’s need to maintain trade with rUK. Only about ¼ of the electricity generated in Scotland is consumed in Scotland, which means the bulk goes to England via the grid. Do you imagine that will disappear on Scottish independence? If so where is England going to get its electricity? We are already a net exporter of energy and, with Scotland having 25% of all of Europe’s offshore wind power and tidal power resources, that is set to increase markedly.
On oil and gas, this market will decline as we phase out fossil fuels, but for the immediate future, Scotland’s share of oil output is 96% of the UK total, with gas at 62%. This figure though is understated as a result of a sizeable portion of Scottish waters being deemed to be in England’s sphere as a result of Blair and Brown redrawing the maritime boundary on the eve of Scottish devolution. On independence, the boundary will have to be redrawn according to international law, restoring these waters to Scottish jurisdiction and thereby increasing Scotland’s share to the detriment of rUK. At present 2/3 of Scottish oil & gas production goes to rUK and 1/3 overseas. Where is rUK going to get its oil & gas requirements after independence if not largely from Scotland?
On general trading, it may come as a total surprise to you that Scotland is the only part of the UK which has had a current account surplus (exports exceeding imports) every year since records began. In 2018 this amounted to £4.94bn compared with a deficit of £134.98bn for England.
On currency, Scottish Gov’t policy is to issue its own currency and phase out use of sterling over the Transition Period agreed with rUK to transfer powers, set up organs of state etc. Sterling will be recovered in exchange for issue of Scots currency and held as foreign currency reserves. I suggest you read the chapter in Robin MacAlpine’s book ‘How to Start a New Country’ to understand how it should work. On the question of a share of the UK National Debt, that will be part of the negotiations with the rUK Gov, but so will share of UK assets and elimination of the sizeable part of the National Debt that the UK Gov owes to itself. Indeed, my recollection from the 2014 Indy Ref is that it was determined (and accepted by the UK Gov) that a seceding nation has no legal requirement to take a share of the National Debt. Clearly this would be a topic that would arise in negotiations, but the legal position seems clear.
Contrary to your doom-laden prognostications about Scotland’s future, its economy is not just viable, a number of respected economists have reckoned the Scots currency will rise against the GBP. Scotland’s laws already align with EU law and its economy will almost certainly meet EU criteria once distortions and inaccuracies inherent in the aggregation with the rUK economy are removed. This means accession to the EU, while not a formality, should be readily achieved. I’ve no idea where you get the notion that mass riots are likely or that the Scots would ask “London to send English police to help out”. That is sheer, groundless fantasy.
I’m not suggesting the transition to Independence will be easy — there are bound to be long negotiations and unforeseen problems — but the future appears to me much brighter than you imagine. I recommend you buy the statistic-packed booklet ‘Scotland the Brief’ from the website of Business for Scotland for a picture of the reality of Scotland’s economy. It’ll only cost you £3.50 plus postage and, who knows, you might decide to move here! You’ll be welcome.
Like you Ken I have absolute confidence in the viability of an independent Scotland
I would start with Common Weal’s analysis
Ken i got £13bn figures and trade figures from the scots government. Do not assume i got it from the media I did not. I got it from primary sources. As for scots independence, you did not read what i wrote. If they are willing for mass riots and the massive pain then scotland will be independent. Sturgeon however knows she will lose a referendum if she gets it.
You said the figures for the scots government spending are hard to find then you have not looked very hard. They are on line, as for the rest it’s just the hubris i am talking about. You suffer from the same delusion the English have, you think london government will roll over, they will not. Why because why should they, the have the bigger market and bigger say, just like the EU does over the UK .
“Including an illustrative geographical share of the North Sea, total Scottish revenue was £62.7 billion”
https://www.gov.scot/publications/government-expenditure-revenue-scotland-gers/
Table S.5: Total Public Sector Expenditure: 2014-15 to 2018-19
2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19
Scotland – £ millions 68,403 69,339 71,432 73,518 75,338
The above figures cannot be ignored. Simple as that. The scots have to cut £13bn, the argument is the english are lying to use and stealing our wealth is daft. As for the currency issue the SNP have admitted they will have to use the British £ and that means they will have limited access to that that currency. Whereas now scots banks in scotland can create loans in £ legally. When independent they will not be able to. So either the scots government have to do 4 things, sell off assets, adopt a new currency or make massive austerity cuts, or all 4 together. Either way it will be painful. Personally i think the scots will be mad to use the british pound, better to adopt a new currency and get it over with. Though again there be some screaming. The SNP have said they will adopt the euro, i think that is completely bonkers. Why once independent you give up your ability to create any amount of currency you need and be controlled by Berlin. Though i do know why the scots want to be a member of the EU , of course one is trade but most importantly their population is declining.
As for power generation that is a moot point, it assumes the english will just sit there and do nothing. But going back to the use of the £. The English government will not play nice, they will control the british economy to fit their own needs not in scotland’s interest. After all why should they there, they will be no appetite in England to pamper to scotland’s concerns, and as we have seen in the general election the english public couldn’t care less about what happens in the north of the border.
The oil issue, there will be great pressure from the population to go along geographic lines that means the english border being diagonal from north east to south west. There is no way in hell the london government will just roll over and accept the UN definition of the borders. They at the moment do because it is a moot point. Upon independence scotland will have a hard time getting concessions from london especially on the oil fields. The london government will just ignore the UN as they do with other UN resolutions.
As for the share of the national debt again why should the scots not pay their fair share. You can scream all you but i will tell you this the government in london will not let you go without a price and it will be a big one. Why do i say this? Because bojo is an english nationalist, he holds all the cards, and scotland does not. Also Scotland will have to wait to join the EU and it will have to balance its budget. Somehow it will have to get richer or make cuts. You think it will be easy for Scotland to join because you have the same standards and regulations? Have you been reading bojo’s assertions on the UK doing the same thing and will get a FTA in a week lol. It seems so.
Scotland can be independent, no doubt but like all new countries birthing process it will be a painful one. It may not be as painful as pakistan, india or the US but it will be nonetheless. Time to face up that reality and tell the scots people the truth and let them prepare for it. For me i do not want the scots to leave the union, i wish scotland had believe corbyn’s labour, but they did not. However if they do leave and want to leave then i fully support the london government to get the best deal for ruk, or england and wales and to play hard ball.
Basically ruk should take no prisoners just like the EU is doing with the UK or the US will do with the UK.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/11/22/uk-condemned-ignoring-un-deadline-hand-chagos-islands-back-mauritius/
Darren
Sorry, but your primary sources have been discussed here many times, and the fact that they do not stack has been addressed
I have given evidence on it in Holyrood
Don’t believe all numbers are objective
And right now, I believe Sturgeon would win
She was the only politician to have a good election campaign
Richard
Mr Mathieson,
“On the question of a share of the UK National Debt, that will be part of the negotiations with the rUK Gov, but so will share of UK assets and elimination of the sizeable part of the National Debt that the UK Gov owes to itself.”
In fact the British Government made its position clear in 2014, and it has never seriously been challenged. The Treasury produced a clarifying paper ‘The UK Debt and the Scotland Independence Referendum’. I reproduce the first paragraph (1.1. The Transfer of Debt):
“In the event of Scottish independence from the United Kingdom (UK), the continuing UK Government would in all circumstances honour the contractual terms of the debt issued by the UK Government. An independent Scottish state would become responsible for a fair and proportionate share of the UK’s current liabilities, but a share of the outstanding stock of debt instruments that have been issued by the UK would not be transferred to Scotland.”
Far from it being an obligation for Scotland to accept the debt, even if rUK was prepared to propose passing the debt over, it would be utterly insane for Scotland to take the debt when it has no control whatsoever over the currency (because shared sovereignty over the currency will not work for either Scotland or rUK). In fact Scotland will be debt free from the UK. That has already been decided. QED.
I started to reply when i noticed Ken Mathiesons reply. That is so much better than mine would have been.
I concur with Ken. You really need to find more honest accounts about Scotland, in general, than the MSM.
Where is my reply to Ken ?
Give me a chance
I have spent all day collecting my son from university
And I read comments – including long ones, which take longer to get to sometimes – before they go live
John D – I’m glad that I am not the only one who subscribes to the final lap idea.
Johnson has to be careful in my opinion. If he does not spend money during the BREXIT transition period or keeps up hard austerity as the BREXIT changes bite he could very well lose popularity. My guess is that he will bribe the economy with cash. Yes, the media might very well say he is doing great, but well…………………..as I said, he will have to be careful. If not, he could face another Toxteth, Brixton or Croydon.
Once that delicate situation is out of the way, then of course I think that starving us of cash will come back with a vengeance, especially as trade deals with the US come on stream.
Again, reflecting on Corbyn, I feel sad that it seems that we can only have the Labour leader these days that the Right or the Establishment accepts.
I agree Johnson wants to win, but surely next time will be much more difficult? I know it’s early, but reports seem to suggest that Johnson won for 2 reasons; Corbyn is not trusted and because lots of people remain hugely invested in Brexit and want what was promised
Next time Corbyn will be long gone and the electorate will expect a return on their Brexit promises. By which I think people will want better jobs/ housing/ prospects etc. I just don’t see how he can achieve this?
That’s the hope
But you’re assuming Labour gets its act together
And right now Corbyn is trying to deliver it to Rebecca Long Bailey
And that would be a disaster
RLB? Oh no, surely not.
Corbyn is the kiss of death now. Nothing personal – he should step down really right now. His time has gone.
I agree
Joined the Labour party yesterday – specifically so that I hopefully get the chance to vote on the new leader. Not convinced they won’t fix the process though, if the party conference Brexit motions are anything to go by.
Why do you think this? (This is not a challenge – just a genuine question)
I’m sorry – but when I moderate comments I cannot see the context they are written in and so I cannot answer your question
Sorry!
I’m pretty cynical by nature, but have to admit that I let out an involuntary gasp when listening to the radio on the way home this evening. Interviews in Worksop which saw the largest swing to the Tories (25%, I think it was). One of the vox pops mentioned he was an NHS worker, son of a miner who suffered in the strikes, and had voted for the Tories for the first time because he didn’t trust Corbyn. He was aware that Labour had promised a lot more money for the NHS but insisted he didn’t trust Corbyn – so he’s helped to put the practically pathological liar Johnson into power!
My first thought was, what an idiot. My second thought was to wonder what he’s been seeing on social media or what his friends have been telling him. The disinformation going around, much of it planned, I’m sure, has been staggering.
Mariner
You are right to hint at the ‘disinformation’ – there are all sorts of dynamics at work in this election result – but disinformation rules in our polity now – and on that basis I ask, how can anyone be an ‘idiot’?
We must try and take in the fact that there now seems to be no rules in this country governing elections or referendumbs. As Richard says, it is all about winning at any cost. As John D has said (and I concur) that is because the Neo-libs know they are busted flush – their view of the world does not work because at its heart is greed. So now they will do anything to cling on – even lie – copiously.
But also, you have to look at the view of those who (like me) have relied on the Left – or so-called Left or even centre Left.
When Blair got in in 1997, his party kept to Tory spending plans (accepted Tory economic policy). I was a mature student at the time. Did Labour stop my LA support grant from being reduced 10% a year when they got in? No. Has Labour gone along with the constant poking and messing about of my pension? Yes – and a local Labour party in the LA I work for even took the Tory pension contribution holiday opportunity that led to the pension fund being in difficulty to this day. Where was Labour as the bankers and finance industry turned a blind eye to mortgage backed security fraud that led to 2008? To the growth in zero hours contracts – a result perhaps of the Labour party dropping Clause 4 and also distancing itself from the Unions? These events are Labour ‘Berlin Wall’ moments – events that signal to capitalists that there are now essentially do what they want because Labour was OK with extreme capitalism and there is no alternative?
It is Labour’s timidity in my view that has got us to the point of yesterday. People have actually realised that Labour might not be as helpful as they make out. They seem unable to put things right.
From the Wilson Government thinking arch carpet bagger Jim Slater was the saviour of British industry (focusing on profit but not realising that the profit was generated by asset stripping) and inviting his ‘advice’, to James Callaghan saying that you cannot spend out of a recession; an unhealthy and naïve subservience to the U.S. and accepting its laws about shareholder ‘rights’ and other faulty mechanisms of U.S. capitalism , to Blair peeing marketisation all over the NHS and Brown using PFI , Foot thinking that nuclear disarmament was just as important as the economy, Labour’s woeful relationship and handling of the Trades Unions who I still think are a major contributor to the birth of Thatcherism (thanks boys – because boys you were!).
And now, the patrician Left (who it appears always know better than their supporter) stand accused of not listening to those in Workington and Doncaster and have paid the price because Labour have failed to (1) speak up for the EU over many years of negative press in the first place and (2) enabled its own voters to believe Farage/ERG lies that led to them being programmed negatively about it. Corbyn’s Labour really should have read that situation and gone with the flow. I have always said – despite seeing the whole of 2016 as technically illegitimate – we should just accept and leave well and work towards going back in. Corbyn tried to please everyone – a noble but fruitless effort as we can now see.
I could go on but for me at least, the Left in the UK has been a joke for a long time. Too timid. Unimaginative. Orthodoxy supping. Cosying up to bad ideas. Lacking in principle and taking their long term supporters for granted in an age of hyper-disinformation and dirty tricks which frankly makes them look naïve and weak.
Sometimes you have to concede that you have been beaten, outflanked and out thought. I think that the Lilli-Livered Left is well and truly finished. Johnson and his clever merry men has done them a favour and finished them off. Their long run of failure is now terminated. To see the Neo-Libs off we need a new kind of progressive opposition. It will take a long time to come and I will not see it in my life time. I must now find a way to live in a country that feels totally alien to me and will not look after me after many years contributing to its GDP and catering for its citizens in work and volunteering.
It would great to see a political class emerge who did not need ‘advisors’ and speech writers – all those rear-echelon cling on wankers who enable lesser people to get into politics (usually because by employing such people, it helps those from the increasingly affluent back grounds sound more credible). I think that our political system such that it has become is something I’d rather now not engage with. It is not authentic.
I wish you all good luck in the future. I have nothing to vote for. Nothing. But I will keep an eye out.
BTW: As for a flavour perhaps of what is to come, the Treasury has just told us Council social housing developers that we must add a percentage point to the interest rate loans from the Housing Revenue Account we charge internally for new build that apparently was now ours to manage (but not really). So now even when using our ‘own’ money, we are not allowed to do so in a way we know we can afford. It is the usual sneaky, centralised Tory corrosiveness at work. Expect more under the gloss of Johnson’s regime.
Thanks PSR
Please keep coming
….
It is very easy to criticise Mr Corbyn et al in any understanding and his contribution to what went wrong and while I can understand Mr Pilgrim’s consternation it is an unfortunate fact that we have to live in the real world.
The Labour victory in 1997 provided an optimism, a future which Corbyn tried to replicate given his unexpected success in,2017. Although he was not the best, at least he tried and it behoves us who through our beliefs to support the ‘little’ man or woman, the homeless, the poor, the sick and everyone who has been or will be hurt by life events, by attempting to change the attitudes, perceptions and ultimately government policy which have for so long have pervaded the political discourse to our individual and collective disadvantage.
We should appreciate that he was protective of all who do not know their future and attempting to secure the protection they all and we deserve.
Fallible humans are we all. He must be devastated.
“So he will do whatever the EU asks.”
Was at the European Commission today – great surprise at the result.
The EC team wrt Brexit and the trade deal is Barnier and Hogan (Trade Commissioner). Hogan is irish.
I won’t say any more – I obtained some very useful (first hand) insights as to what is likely to happen in 2020 – suffice to say that Johnson now owns the Brexit problem and will come to wish he did not. Sometimes you get what you wish for.
In any case I have zero intention of giving advanced warning of what is coming down the track for the deadbeats that will roll up into Brussels to “negotiate” for the UK…..or given developments in Scotland that would be FUK (former Uk) which would then make the negotiators FUKers.
Johnson says yes, sir, three bags full sir, or he is shafted
Th option is take it or leave it
He will take it, I strongly suspect
If he gets his enabling law passed, why would Emperor Boris want to bother with more elections?
When Boris Johnson says he has a clear mandate for BREXIT, he should perform a little arithmetic with the votes cast in the general election.
The total votes cast for anti-Brexit parties and Labour’s soft deal and second referendum comes to : 16,698,075 votes: roughly 55%.
And the total votes for the Conservatives, Brexit Party and DUP comes to 14,846,998: 45%. I ignored the Independents and Others whose total of votes is insignificant.
So Boris doesn’t have clear support for BREXIT, in fact the majority is for REMAIN or at least a soft BREXIT and a second referendum. The majority is significantly larger than the referendum now it is 55 to 45, in contrast to 48 t0 52.
I know these figures will do little good, but what price democracy !.
The only crumb of comfort I take from today is that Tories now own Brexit in it’s entirety from beginning to end without exception.
In all likelihood dissenting voices, like this blog, will simply be closed down by threats of court action. Let’s not forget they’ve removed legal aid. John Mann, I gather, is threatening to go after The Canary on the grounds of anti-semitism, ludicrous of course but the expense of defence make fighting him in court impractical. I hear blogger Sue Jones could be in the frame too. Damien ‘Omen’ Green has already been making very public suggestions that we need to to switch to an insurance model, ignoring the idea that, in theory, that’s what we already have. It’s two days since the election and they’re moving very quickly to shut down dissenting voices (not surprising as they can’t actually justify what they’re doing at all) and remove the free health service. I get the impression this has been planned for quite sometime. England and probably Scotland and Wales too will become places where no dissent is allowed, free speech will be banished. It’s beginning. The tanks are already on the lawns.
They will take the same line as the Spanish government on Indyref2. Beyond his class loyalty to unionism and the fact that Scotland is economically valuable to the UK it is a fact that the Right’s biggest achievement is destroying the capacity of large sections of the public to imagine a better country. Scottish independence and a confident progressive Scotland on their doorstep will not help their cause in England.
Sadly I think Scotland is undergoing Ulsterisation where our politics will be solely concerned with constitutional issues at the expense of genuinely vital monetary and fiscal topics.
I hope you are wrong
Civil Contingencies (2021) Amendment Act beefing up Blair’s of 2004? I can almost see this turning into the most authoritarian peacetime government since Pitt.
I was on the phone to a friend last night, and she had the same analysis as you Richard.
She lives part of the year in London and saw how he was as a mayor then: totally unprincipled, and ready to do anything to keep his position which he intended to use, when the time came, as a springboard for the big job.
So he may well try to do as you say, but there are so many unpredictable factors to take into accounts, not all can be controlled from inside the Westminster, or even the UK, not least because it’ll be in a weakened position after Brexit.
When will you put a sock in it? You’re just an armchair commentator who’s a bit too big for his own boots. That’s fine as long as you acknowledge you’re just an armchair commentator. No different to my mate Richard down the pub.
I post this because it’s typical of a high degree of baseless aggression flowing my way, and no doubt the way of many others, in the last day.
What’s really odd about this one is that I’m criticised for being a commentator, which the person making the criticism acknowledges I am.
Maybe it’s a bit much to expect logic.
We, up till now, live in a democracy where free speech and commentary are a vital part. It allows views and comments to be exchanged where dogmas are challenged, perspectives are widened and understood and greater insights into issues are illuminated. Not all views etc are going to be agreed with and not even a consensus of views on a blog like this can expect to change anything but they are entitled to be heard and at least considered.
On Thursday, as an armchair commentator, I voted in a particular way maybe wrongly but should that excluded me from having an opinion and voting.
Each of us should have a voice. a means to express it and nothing should be done to stifle the debate which could flow from it if it does no harm to others.
But we’re now opposed to The People’s Government
And so we’re not part of The People
That makes us Other
How can it possibly be a ‘peoples government’ when they have been given absolute power based on 43 per cent of those who voted.
How can they be a ‘peoples government’ when their chancellor of exchequer, in a previous job ‘earning’ over £3 million a year, can make decisions on behalf of those on far lesser incomes who will have to work many times their lifetimes to even approach his ‘remuneration’ for just one year.
This is all so wrong. Simple. And no apologies, but just plain daft.
We have but one life and so make it the best for all.
Jamie – Sir – Richard Murphy is NOT an arm chair commentator – far from it.
If you took the time to read Sir (as should many of those who voted for Boris should have done BTW), you’d find that Richard’s full time job is made up of many strands – he has been or still is a lecturer, researcher, author, campaigner, accountant, director, father, husband, dog walker, railway enthusiast, twitcher/birder, flautist, media commentator, advisor, political economist and an all round decent human being.
If you want to point the finger at anyone who is an ‘arm chair commentator’ then it is me who you need to talk to – not Richard. I confess!
So, may I politely Sir ask you to wind your neck in?
I forgot to share this in my last comment, some of you might have read it already if you subscribe to this blog, but just in case, it’s interesting and relevant.
https://davidallengreen.com/2019/12/why-those-who-care-for-the-constitution-should-oppose-the-conservatives-at-the-general-election/?subscribe=success#blog_subscription-2
He was right
It will be grim
Whatever your politics, David Allen Green is a must read on constitutional issues. Today’s Tory party is far removed from the old one nation conservatives and is explicitly anti democratic. They have now ticked off every item in Eco’s Definition of fascism and that’s not a term I use lightly.
Arguably the anti democratic nature of this government is even more worrying than Brexit. Meanwhile Labour thrashes around for someone else to blame. Clearly in the denial phases of grief and who knows how long they will take to get through that. Meanwhile The Johnson and co will be allowed to get away with murder. Almost literally.
To be an effective political leader you have to be ruthless. When his parliamentary party launched a leadership spill a little over a year after he won an emphatic victory, Corbyn should have cleaned house. He should have forced mandatory pre-selection contests on all of the MPs who defied the will of the membership. This would have aligned the parliamentary party with the members. This in turn would have prevented the anti-semitism smear campaign, it would have defused the constant sniping and undermining by centrists, and it would have permitted a clear and unambiguous pro-Brexit position that respected the wishes of the electorate. Instead Corbyn was gentle with the centrists. He tried to accommodate them. They never extended the same courtesy to him. Politics is a tough business, and Corbyn proved too gentle for the top job.
You do rather ignore that Corbyn is the problem
More Corbyn really would not have helped
That does not make me a centrist
It means you are looking at this issue wholly incorrectly
If you think this is all about control of the Labour Party you’re not interested in politics
You’re interested in petty power
They’re not the same thing at all
I’m interested in making lives better. Arguing about Labour internal feuding has made that nigh on impossible
My Dear Nicholas
Corbyn did not accommodate the centrists. Momentum and the likes of Milne were a bulwark against them, a citadel. Corbyn never solved this problem. Factions breed factions. But the centrists seemed to me to reject Corbyn too – manifestly and in public. This needn’t have happened. In the end it undermined Corbyn and the party – a situation that added to what they were fighting against – which was already considerable.
Whoever, whatever follows Labour needs to be rock solid in terms of solidarity because it/they will always be trying to convince a disbelieving electorate that they can have a better world. You need a real team to win the world cup I’m afraid. And that means excellent leadership.
In regards to the boundary review, yes, there’s a good chance it will go through, but there’s no guarantee because it reduces the seats from 650 to 600. If that 7.7% reduction applied to the 365 seats the Tories won that means 28 would lose the chance to stand in the next election (obviously it wouldn’t be exactly the same proportion, but somewhere in this region). Not only that, but you can’t say for sure beforehand which ~28 it would be, so a lot more than 28 would have to vote through potentially ending their career as an MP. Obviously the leadership will try to head this off by offering big positions outside of being an MP to anyone who loses the chance to stand again, but there is no guarantee this will work.
Richard, you’ve been saying for a while that you believe a crash is coming and that you think it will be as bad as 2008. How close do you think we are to a global or UK crash and how do you think Johnson would respond?
It’s always impossible to forecast crashes
But debt piles, over-egged stock market values, stranded assets and a banking crisis as the value of collateral collapses all say it has to happen
There’s an interesting article in the Independent which suggests that if the UK was operating a PR electoral system Britain would now have a hung Parliament. Such a perspective affects any post-mortem diagnosis!
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/general-election-results-pr-alternative-voting-system-tories-labour-hung-a9246661.html
Helen, the point was first raised by someone (I hope they’ll excuse my not looking it up and crediting them!) quoted ‘below the line’ in The Guardian yesterday, who said that under the Polish transferable vote system it would’ve been a dead heat between the Cons -v- Lab + LD.
In fact the numbers at that point showed Con 43.6% -v- Lab + LD 43.7% and, crunched down to individual votes, showed that ‘on a knife edge’ majority (to Lab + LD) of 26,000. (The failure of the Left…the Liberals and Labour to get their heads together rather than rip one another to pieces and let the Tories in was first highlighted by the Editor of the Guardian in 1909!!…and was highlighted again by Simon Jenkins yesterday)
BUT…but…Johnson now has his ‘overwhelming’ mandate and we await ‘le deluge’. When people have finished pouring bile on Corbyn I hope they’ll have some left for Swinson. An article in tomorrow’s paper ‘reveals’ that the LD grandees told her not to be so bloody foolish (I paraphrase) but rather to hold Johnson in the minority government mess of his own making for a few months and expose him mercilessly to public scrutiny, rather than facilitate the election he ‘didn’t want’.
As someone wrote elsewhere, an older generation were more familiar with the Brer Rabbit tales…’P-p-p-please don’t throw me in that there briar patch’. Brer Boris begged her not to and, like a fool, she did.
Early days yet, but I suspect, depending on how the next few years pan out, history will not be kind to Swinson. And from this end of the telescope it’ll be justified in its judgement.
I’m looking forward to seeing the leave promises being delivered.
The £350 million for NHS
The trade deals with the whole world, bringing the huge benefits you promised, with them
The NHS protected with no hiked costs or sale to America
Scotland being allowed to remain in the EU
No economic downturn that you said remainders were wrong about.
Bringing unity to the country and so on. We gave quite a few more but we lost the election so I’d be grateful if you can deliver your promises asap please. Thanks a Remoaner.
Richard,
Interesting article as always. But on another note – one thing I have yet to see is anyone explain in detail WHY Corbyn is/was the problem? And who would have been a better leader under the circumstances?
The Guardian us imperfect
But it completely explains this
I’ve just read this interview in The New Yorker with (the usually dependable) David Runciman, professor of politics at Cambridge University, who effectively lays much of the blame on Corbyn’s lack of political judgement. He also explains the uphill struggle facing Labour, no matter who’s in charge, because of the ageing demographic. Anyhow, I post it for what it’s worth and because many people probably don’t read The New Yorker – a magazine that I find interesting & entertaining with frequent analyses of UK culture : ‘How Boris Johnson’s Brexit Won’ – https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/how-boris-johnsons-brexit-won.
In the same issue is another article : ‘What Are the Real Lessons of the U.K. Election for 2020?’ which is much more critical of Corbyn.
As if you’ve not already got more to study than there are hours in a day, and if you’re a glutton for punishment, here’s Tariq Ali talking to the Baltimore-based Real News Network in which, not unsurprisingly, he has a different take and suggests the future could look bright for Labour because of new younger voters (I’m leaning towards Runciman’s view on this) : ‘All Is Not Lost for Labour’ – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8VLoyTOG3Y.
Early days and doubtless the ‘blame game’ will rumble on for an eternity. So, time to move on. Brexit’s not going to be sorted any time soon. And next year we have the US Barnum & Bailey Show to enjoy. If the Dems manage to pull off IMO a far from certain victory, it will impact on a Tory administration with strong links to the American Right. Never a dull moment, is there!
Thanks John
I read Runciman
Gleaned from various twitter sources, incidentally it’s amazing how obvious it is now that people have the freedom to talk openly..
Corbyn is the problem because he was hated on the doorstep, this was evident in 2017 and the sentiment exploded between then and 2019. MPs told him the feedback they were getting but the inner circle did not want to listen.
This is the view expressed from not only from MPs, but canvassers, supporters and focus groups (did team Corbyn do any?). Interestingly, dislike of Corbyn came up far more on the doorstep than Brexit – there are many direct quotes and survey stats backing all this up.
From various bits gleaned, there is a certain pool of voter who is Britain first in thinking, that is that Britain’s interests are most important. We had a leader who consorted with the IRA (there are lots of ex service families in the North where people served in NI), who was anti Royalty, who banged on about the rights of others (Palestine etc), defended Russia, happy with Scottish independence, etc etc. He put others on an equal footing as the British and some people do not like that.
He couldn’t even articulate his position on Brexit, either way. I am beginning to wonder that if he did not have this baggage and he had articulated EU membership, internationalism and immigration in a Britain first way (The EU stood up for Britain with tariffs to protect our British Steel but this Tory government blocked it!) then he could have swung even Leave voters.
He just looked weak and a ditherer and didn’t look like the strong man who sticks up for Britain.
Outside of this group he only spoke to a subset of society. Whilst there are many of us who have empathy for others and like his approach of fixing inequality because social cohesion is important, for those who have no interest in others he did not speak to them. As someone put it, Blair made it acceptable for non Labour voters to vote Labour.
The reason Corbyn was hated was his anti-Zionism. But the reality of those on the Gaza strip who through economic sanctions lead such unfulfilling lives, to those Arabs within Israel whose land has been confiscated to allow Jewish settlements and his comments on this has been conflated into an attack on the Jewish religion itself ergo anti- Semitism. Complete tripe.
No it was not
Candidly, his anti-Zionism had almost nothing to do with this
People in Sedgefield did not give a damn about that
They did about the fact that he had talked to the IRA
And they did about the fact that he did not sign the national anthem
But the idea that anti-semitism had much to do with anything is something only Labour activists say
I had a long conversation with an older (70) friend on Friday of very sound mind on Friday
She is typical of why many people of similar mind could not vote Corbyn:
a) Dithering on Brexit
b) Disliked the Labour solution ion Brexit
c) Distrusted his assurances on all issues because he would not commit on Brexit
d) Did not believe he could or would negotiate anything as a result
e) Was not convinced about him with national security – generically – not specifically on any one issue
f) The economics seemed too generous
So I asked her about anti-semitism and she said she didn’t believe a word of it about Corbyn. Bt it did prove he could not manage a situation.
The obsession with anti-Semitism is something Labour need only keep to get rid of it
But it explains nothing
And I am really bored by the claims made that it explains anything bar the failure to manage the party
I think that’s about right Richard. I’m not sure that the anti- semitism plays much outside a narrow group plus of course the media. My N London, solid Labour, Jewish mate says much says much the same, though Corbyn has handled it appallingly. Even his association with the IRA I could manage to defend
But there is a deeper point which I don’t think gets discussed. Corbyn has spent decades attacking the West in general including the US, U.K. and EU. And yes, in some cases justified. However he has been distinctly reticent about criticising the Soviet Union and now Russia, for its involvement in brutal conflict and dare I say it, colonialist activities. Even when it involves attacks on U.K. soil. ‘Traditional’ Labour supporters are pretty patriotic and I suspect this has not gone unnoticed.
I think it has been noticed
My source where not discussed many times because it was said they were hard to find. I found them in two seconds and they are from the scottish government. Not the UK government . So the scots government is lying or wrong. Ok u may disagree with tem but i think they cannot be dismissed.
https://www.gov.scot/publications/government-expenditure-revenue-scotland-gers/
Please look up all I have had to say on GERS
I won’t repeat it again
As far as I’m aware, the GERS figures are compiled by Whitehall and published by the Scottish government. I’m happy to be corrected.
These figures are for UK spending, so not exactly complimentary to the way the UK economy is run. The Barnett money us spent in Scotland by ScotGov and the books have to be balanced each and every year. Have a look at how that funding is spent.
With respect, that is just nonsense
The GERS figures are widely criticised
In one of your comments, Richard, you say that Rebecca Long-Bailey would be disastrous as the next Labour leader. I’m curious as to why you think so. Is it just because she will be seen as too connected to Corbyn? Who do you think would be better?
I am sure she is competent
But I would have thought it glaringly obvious that she does not have the personal skills required for the job
Your reply to SF has answered my question on Rebecca Long-Bailey’s unfitness. I haven’t seen enough of her to judge if she lacks personal qualities. I don’t suppose you (or someone)can direct me to anything that might show what you mean?
Sorry – but no
That’s not my job here
In response to John S Warren’s post of 14th Dec at 4:50pm, which was a response to my post of 13th Dec at 10:49pm, on the question of the UK National Debt in the event of Scottish Independence:
Thanks for the source info on this topic: I was aware of its existence but couldn’t recall where I’d read it. We’re singing from the same song sheet on this topic. My view is that this is bound to come up in negotiations between the two governments so it is essential that the Scottish negotiators are fully aware of the UK Gov/Treasury’s statement of 2014 and act accordingly by taking it off the table.