One of the cliche’s you hear from those active in politics over the last 30 years is that “you have to win the centre”. What is this centre? Presumably the people who float between the political left and the political right in the construct that is western parliamentary democracy. But what does this mean?

The reality is the concept of this centre has always been a bit of nonsense by those who want to simplify politics down to very basic groupings of voters. The theory is that there are those on the left and those on the right. Then there are these centrist voters who swing between left and right and they decide the election. In the UK context where there is a First Past the Post electoral system, this means that elections are won or lost on a couple of dozen marginal constituencies, mostly made up of middle class aspirational swing voters.

So who are these centrist voters. It’s generally believed that they are middle class and aspirational voters who seek short term gratification in politics. They maybe enticed by a tax cut here, or a spending promise there. Or maybe they are looking for a slick charismatic leader who looks good in a suit? Whoever this group are, those who’ve been active in politics have been told its existence is real and to believe in it. When media report on elections, they talk about the centre and we are all told this is where things are won or lost.

In 2008 a major financial crisis hit the world economy. In Britain and many other countries this was followed by policies of Austerity where the majority of people took a hit to their standard of living to pay for the foolish and selfish decisions of those in the major financial institutions and governments globally.

In 2017 UK general election, it was predicted that the Conservatives would win by a landslide. Why? Well the polls said so. The polls made various assumptions about turnout and which constituencies were marginal and likely to turn. Also commentators assumed that Labour under Corbyn had moved too far left, and could not win the centre ground and win. All of this commentary and analysis proved to be bullshit.

So what happened? Since 2008 the policies of austerity hit people in the UK hard. Specifically they have hit young people hard. A generation ago, home ownership was achievable for many, now its a pipe dream for all but the privileged few. Tertiary education was free until the late 1990s, when the Blair Labour government introduced tuition fees. Under the Conservative/Lib Dem coalition tuition fees in the UK rose to the highest in Europe. 1/3 of all new jobs in the UK since 2010 have been precarious, often on zero hour contracts or insecure in nature. For many under 30s, including university educated and middle class, paying the rent and doing the groceries each month has become a challenge. The middle class swing voter was suppose to be aspirational, generally on an ok income but wanting to do better. For the generation of young people coming through now, life is much harder than it was for their parents generation – and they are rightly pissed off.

Not so surprisingly, when this group of voters were offered austerity or austerity light in the 2015 UK general election, many under 30s stayed at home on polling day. 2 year later, when Labour offered an end to austerity, abolishing tuition fees, increase the minimum wage and investment in public services – young people turned out. What became known as the youth quake, young people enrolled and voted in much higher than usual numbers. As a result, instead of getting their best election result since 1983 the UK Conservatives lost their majority and Labour were only a handful of seats away from government.

The journalists and political establishment couldn’t work it out. The centre, the centre – this result makes no sense. The centre wouldn’t vote for a Labour Party thats moved left. And why are young people voting, and voting in ways that differed from older generations. Even within the Labour Party establishment there was shock. The offical Labour Campaign in 2017 was a defensive one aiming to hold onto seats and survive the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn, who everyone assumed would be gone after the crushing defeat of 2017. Labour MP’s critical of Corbyn were shocked and in many cases not happy to discover that Labour having moved to the left had gained votes. What about the centre? Was everything they learnt studying Political Science at Oxford University a load of bullocks? Surely not?

The campaign by Momentum, the faction set up to defend Corbyn’s leadership and anti austerity polices run their own election campaign in 2017, seperate to Labour Party HQ. This campaign engaged thousands of young voters using social media and running numerous campaign activities across the country. They didn’t get Labour into government, but they got close. Labour’s national vote increased by over 9% – the party’s single biggest gain in any election.

The Conservatives also increased their national share of the vote by 5%. But for them this increase happened mostly in constituencies the party already held, and did so by taking votes off UKIP. Labours increased vote share, in many cases came from new first time voters. The result was so-called un-winnable constituencies like Canterbury or Kensington falling to Labour.

Two years on what has been learnt? Many pollsters assume 2017 was a one off fluke, and again assume turnout for under 30s will be low. The media, political scientists and commentators and senior people in most political parties are assuming that the election will be won by winning centre voters. Although many are adding the the Brexit vs Remain divide into the mix. Record numbers of young people have enrolled to vote, with high profile musician Stormzy allegedly causing a spike in enrolments. This has been reported, but many commentators are ignoring it.

We will find out on December 12th whether young voters turn out in large numbers like 2017, and if they do what impact it will have on the final result. But what is clear is that the old rules of politics can’t be taken for granted. Much as many in the political elite would like politics not to have changed from 25 years ago, it has. Elections are now far more volatile, unpredictable and polarised. And for the generation of younger voters coming through, the old rules do not apply.

 

 

 

On Friday 29 November 2 people were killed and others injured in a terror attack on London Bridge. I live near to this area, and like most in South East London was shaken and upset to learn of this attack. What happened on London Bridge was an outrage and sickening. My heart goes out to the friends and families of the two victims.

Inevitably this horrendous attack has become part of the 2019 UK General Election campaign. After the terror attacks during the 2017 election then Conservative PM Theresa May came under criticism for the Conservative Government cutting police numbers. In 2019 Boris has gone on the attack and blamed Labour for the early release of the terrorist, as the legislations that allowed this to happen was passed under a Labour Government in 2008.

This has been part of a wider strategy by Boris’s campaign to act like they are part of a new government. They are trying to distance themselves from the Conservative’s last decade in office. This becomes difficult when Boris was a senior minister under both Cameron and May. In 2016 when warned about the early release of prisoners Boris said there was no money de-radicalise terrorists in prision.

As PM, Boris may wish to change the direction of the Conservative Party. And yes he can point some of the blame on the previous government. But after 10 years in office, the Conservative Party have had plenty of opportunity to make changes.

Opposition Leader Jeremy Corbyn has blamed the Conservative Governments cuts to public services and Tony Blairs support for the Iraq invasion as being responsible for the London Bridge attack. However the local Labour MP for Bermondsey and Old Southwark Neil Coyle, a prominent critic of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, has come out against. Neil is quoted in the London Evening Standard as saying “it is a fallacy for anyone, including Jeremy Corbyn, to claim this was “set off” by the Iraq War.”

The father of one of those killed on London Bridge has said Boris Johnson is “beyond disgusting” for using his son’s death to promote “vile propaganda.” Victim Jack Merritt, worked in a program aiming to rehabilitate prisoners into the community through education. Jack’s father shared a tweet by academic Ash Sarkar which said: “It’s beyond disgusting that Boris Johnson, Priti Patel and newspapers like the Mail are using Jack Merritt’s death and image to promote an agenda he fought against all his life. He was a passionate believer in rehabilitation and transformative justice, not draconian sentencing.”

With just over a week to go till the UK General Election, polls (which are questionable in reliability) show the race getting tighter. Expect lots of harsh word and dubious tactics. In all this, political operators shouldn’t forget that real people’s lives are impacted by events like terror attacks. Politicians from all sides need to think about their actions before trying to gain political points.

 

 

Prior to the release of UK Labour’s manifesto, Unite Union General Secretary Len McCluskey come out in the media saying it would be unwise for the party to support extending free movement of migration with Europe. My first question for any trade union leader when they make these sorts of comments is: are you representing the majority view of your union membership? Or have you assumed that as a union leader you can express your personal view without seeking wider endorsement?

I am a Unite Union member, and have been since I moved to the UK in 2017. I can confirm that in that time, rank and file members have not voted to take a position opposing free movement with Europe. In fact Unite as a union with over 1.3 million members have a range of views on topics such as immigration.

In the autumn edition of Unite Works the union paper, there was an article which pointed out that the number of EU migrants working on UK farms had dropped by 10% in 2017 after the Brexit referendum result. The article went onto say that due to labour shortages crops could be “left to rot.” (Farmageddon, Unite Works autumn 2019). McCluskey’s intervention in the general election on this issue seems to contradict the concerns raised in the Unite paper just weeks earlier.

Immigration is a fraught issue. Human being have been moving throughout the history of our species. It is how we have evolved. The idea of the modern nation state is only a few hundred years old, and for most of our species existence on this planet nation states have not existed. Nation borders are often arbitrary and based on historical divisions or conflicts. And we know from even recent history these lines are often moving and evolving.

For all the scaremongering about immigration, there are plenty of economic arguments for letting in migrants. Research from University College London shows that migrants from the European Economic Area contributed 34% more in taxes than they received in benefits between 2001 and 2011.

Yet this isn’t the message we hear from politicians…

The general impression regarding migration is that migrants are a drain on public services and society. In response to the 2008 Global Financial Crisis, internationally politicians have tended to turn the blame on migrants, rather than on the financial institutions and systems that caused the crash. This has mostly come from those on the political right, though often the left have failed to be strong on this issue. In the 2015 election, then UK Labour Leader Ed Miliband decided the best way to beat UKIP and the Conservatives was to steal their policies. Miliband announced that Labour would support tougher immigration controls, though was opposed by others in the party including now Shadow Home Secretary Dianne Abbott. Unsurprisingly, Miliband lost the 2015 election, making even David Cameron appear a strong competent leader in comparison.

Labour’s immigration policy has moved on since 2015, despite the best efforts of Len McCluskey.

My personal experience as a migrant to the UK from New Zealand is that it isn’t easy. I’m English speaking, university educated, white, male and from a middle class background. I have it way easier than most migrants. Yet there are a number of restrictions on the type of work I can do as well as restrictions on access to public services in the UK. Also the process of getting a UK visa was costly, time consuming and involved jumping through many hoops.

Conversely I know many people in England who would love to immigrate to New Zealand. However if you are over 30, don’t have very specific qualifications or a high income it is incredibly difficult. Logic would suggest that there must be a way to make it easier for English people to move to New Zealand and Australia, and vice versa. The numbers moving between these countries would be comparable.

More broadly, I have moved on from my radical socialist days when I believed all immigration controls should be scrapped. While total free movement of people would be ideal, in the current economic and geo political model it would be impractical. But trying to restrict the movement of people is like trying to control the tide. Humans always have and always will move around the planet. And by and large it is a positive thing. What we need are sensible immigration polices by domestic governments that allow immigration to occur in a sustainable and equitable way. And more importantly, we need strengthened and properly democratic global governance structures to support national governments and allow this to happen.

But most importantly, we can’t be succumbing to fear campaigns about immigration causing a crisis. The economic arguments do not support this. The economic hardships people face in the UK and globally were caused by a financial crisis, the root cause of which is still to be addressed. Continued attacks on migrants for this is at best a distraction, and at worst feeds xenophobia and fear in our communities.

One feature of the UK election has been various electoral alliances or deals done. This has mostly occurred around the issue of Brexit.

Early on in the campaign I wrote about Trump’s intervention in the UK election, specifically him calling on The Brexit Party and The Conservatives to do a deal. My view at the time was that the Brexit Party would be better off not doing such a deal, as it would tie their fortunes too closely to the Conservative Government. However, the pressure to not split the leave vote eventually meant The Brexit party did a deal whereby they wouldn’t run candidates in constituencies the Conservatives currently hold. The assumption has been that Brexit Party voters will flock to the Conservatives where there is no Brexit Party Candidate.

On the Remain side there has been this somewhat odd pact between the Liberal Democrats, The Greens and Plaid Cymru. The main benefactor of such an alliance is predicted to be The Liberal Democrats. The Lib Dems have been a close second to the Conservative Party as running the most dishonest campaign in this election, as I outlined in an earlier post. If the Liberal Democrats are coming second in the dishonesty race, it’s the only race they are even close to being second in. Their withdraw article 50 and stop Brexit in its tracks position has not gone down well, so now the party has been forced to flip flop back to calling for a second referendum.

Within the Green Party there has been considerable dismay at the Party leadership decision to form a pact with the Lib Dems. In Bristol the local candidate defied this decision and made the call to stand aside and support the Labour candidate. Many Green Party supporters have expressed the view that their leadership is out of touch. Further that the Lib Dems environmental policies are poor, and not a party the Greens should have formed a pact with. This blog post by London Green Left Blog sums up some of the concerns.

Under First Past the Post, a system that leaves much to be desired minor parties struggle. Vote splitting can be a real problem, and a party can win government despite only receiving over a third of the vote. In this context we can see why there is pressure on the Brexit Party not to take votes off the Tories, or for the Lib Dems to try and soak up the votes of other pro EU parties. The question is, how to voters feel about this? As we’ve seen, plenty of Green Party supporter did not appreciate being told to vote for the Lib Dems, and have decided themselves in many cases to vote Labour or do something else. The assumption that everyone who voted the Brexit Party in the 2019 EU elections would switch to Tory if told so by the party is also a huge assumption. Some will of course, but others will go elsewhere.

An interesting example of how tactical voting can play out in illustrated in the below poll result from Salvation polling done in Bath before the 2017 election:

Whether their statement below is true or not is speculation. However it is interesting when the same group of voters are asked their intentions, one with the assumption that race was between Conservative and Lib Dems, the other when its a 3 horse race.

So what should we take from this. Voters can be influenced by polling and at times do chose to vote tactically, even when polling has proven to be very unreliable in UK elections. Forming electoral pacts is risky, as potentially you are asking voters to support a party because of a position on one issue (Brexit) when actually they find their other policies unpalatable. To assume voters will uniformly fall in line and vote for a party other than they one they really support for tactical reasons would be naive.

There is plenty of criticism about the role that Social Media plays in democracy. There have been plenty of high profile cases such as the Cambridge Analytica where people’s personal data from Facebook had been used without people’s consent. This data was then used by those campaigning for Brexit.

After the horrific terror attacks in New Zealand earlier this year there was considerable criticism about the role social media had played. There have been plenty of other examples of the far right using social media to promote messages of hate and bigotry.

But social media can also be a force for good. I have used Facebook live to film a Wellington Regional Council meeting where they were discussing the future of the regions bus service. The media had failed to show up to this event, and it was this tool which meant drivers and concerned members of the public could be kept informed.

Social media played a significant role in the 2017 UK election. The so-called youth quake where under 30s turned out to vote in much higher numbers than usual, is largely attributed social media campaigns run by Momentum and other campaign groups.

Since living in the UK I have seen how social media plays a vital role. In early 2018 there were large protests in London demanding increases for to NHS funding. The BBC didn’t bother to report on these protests at all. After days of considerable social media footage and posts, US president Donald Trump mentioned the protests in a tweet (where he inaccurately claimed people were protesting against the NHS, when in fact they were demanding more funding). Only after Trumps Tweet did the UKs national broadcaster bother to report that these protests had occurred.

In my previous post I alluded to some of the common complaints and concerns about traditional media. The beauty about social media is that anybody can publish anything. It’s very hard to suppress a story or completely shut down a debate as did often happen in the pre internet age. Conversely though, it does mean anyone can post anything. And it means people can pretend to be someone they are not, or present something in a deliberately misleading way.

During the ITV leaders debate on Tuesday, The UK Conservative Party changed their twitter handle to factcheckUK. This allowed the Conservatives to rebut statements made by Labour, not as the Conservatives but by pretending to be an independent fact checker site. Twitter has condemned this action and warned the Conservatives they will take action if it happens again.

Two days later the Conservatives were at it again. They released a fake Labour manifesto page on the same morning that the Labour Party were releasing their manifesto in Birmingham. There has been widespread criticism that the Conservative Party are using digital media to run a misinformation campaign.

A major discussion is happening globally about how much freedom of speech there should be on social media. There are growing calls for social media platforms to monitor their content, and calls for platforms to remove misleading or offensive content. There is  concern that during elections it is too easy to spread misinformation which could then affect the election outcome.

As someone who has used social media platforms to run campaigns or to engage in political discussion and debates, I can see both sides. Misinformation is never a good thing. Social media has at times meant certain voices or perspectives get a hearing that  struggled to do so with traditional media. But that in turn also means certain voices many of us are uncomfortable hearing from, such as the far right, also get a voice.

We should be wary of calls for greater regulation, censorship or general control over what can and can’t be published online. Who do we want policing this? Social media companies like Facebook or Twitter? They are private businesses with their own motives. The government? We can see above a government using online media to spread misinformation – do we really want them being the censors?

Social media offers enormous opportunities to improve our democratic societies, and engage people in debate and discussion in ways that haven’t been possible in the past. But like traditional media, it is far from perfect. In the UK we’ve seen it used to engage young voters and to get news stories out that otherwise wouldn’t have been given airtime. But we also see political organisations using social media deceptively.

Social media platforms are still relatively young, and are still developing as democratic tools. As citizens we should decide what we want our social media to look like. Also to call out and expose those who try to use it for ill or deception.

Accusations of media bias are nothing new. It is impossible to be totally objective, and to claim otherwise is simply misleading.

In a democracy, the role of the forth estate is critical. Media are one of the main ways people become informed about issues so they can make informed choices. Most people can see through editorial lines or declared bias. What is less excusable is when reporting deliberately misleads.

Jeremy Corbyn used the Labour Party’s election campaign launch to attack the Rupert Murdoch claiming he was a “billionaire media baron, whose empire pumps out propaganda to support a rigged system.” Many claim Corbyn has not received a fair hearing in the British media. Academic research has been produced highlighting ways in which the UK media has misrepresented or shown a negative bias towards Corbyn’s leadership of the UK Labour Party. Though one explanation for this could be the number of Labour MPs who openly criticise Mr Corbyn in the media.

General elections see heightened interest in politics. More than ever people turn to the media for information before they cast their ballot. So how are the UK media doing? It’s well known that UK newspapers have editorial lines. For example most people realise that the Sun is a right wing tabloid, and The Guardian is more liberal (small L). But are the UK media providing accurate coverage?

Much of the reporting of the election has focussed on polling. As mentioned in my first post about the UK election polls have been woefully inaccurate in the UK. Prior to the Brexit referendum in 2016, polls showed that Remain would win. In the 2017 election polls showed the Tories would increase their majority, when instead they lost it. In 2015 polls showed Labour and Conservative to be neck and neck – the Conservatives won a majority. In 2010 polls overstated the Liberal Democrats support by 10%. If we go even further back, in 1992 polls showed Labour would win that election, then on election day the Conservatives were returned to government.

Despite this, many in the media still seem to report on polling numbers as reliable and scientific. The polls may well be right this time, but given the history one should be dubious. Some polling companies continue to make the assumption that turnout for under 30s will be low, despite higher than usual youth turnout in 2017 and a large number of young people enrolling to vote after the election was called.

On Tuesday, the day the first leaders debate on ITV, two polls were released. The first was an online twitter poll where 30,000 people responded. This poll was not scientific.  The second was a You Gov poll, one of the UK’s most established polling companies. The twitter poll results were that 78% thought Jeremy Corbyn won compared with Boris Johnson who got 22%. The You Gov poll had Boris Johnson winning 51% of the vote, and Corbyn 49%. The second poll was widely reported, and used by commentators in their analysis. The next morning, it came out on twitter that the You Gov poll was released at 6:50pm – 70 minutes prior the debate starting.

We can speculate as to what happened here and why. But needless to say, there are many who question whether the media coverage of this election has helped inform public debate.

Increasingly though, traditional media is no longer people’s main source of information. My next post will look at the role at social media is playing in the UK election and its contribution to media and society generally.

 

 

My previous post talked about the 2008 financial crisis and the long shadow it casts over politics and society still a decade later.

In the UK, the financial crisis was followed by a decade of austerity. These policies included significant cuts to public services, underfunding the NHS, tertiary fees being raised to the highest level of any country in Europe and wages being held down throughout the British economy. Earlier this year it was reported that policies of austerity had resulted in 130,000 preventable deaths in the UK.

The policies of austerity were introduced by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Coalition Government of 2010 to 2015. It is worth remembering at this time that the opposition Labour Party led by Ed Miliband also accepted the Tory Lib Dem framework of austerity. Prior the Labour Party membership electing Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader in 2015, many in the parliamentary Labour Party were prepared to support or at least abstain on the Tories Welfare bill which cut welfare payments.

The Political establishment after the financial crisis poured billions into bailing out banks like NatWest and Lloyds. Then spent the next decade cutting public spending. Comedian Alexei Sayle says austerity “was sold to the country on the basis that the global crash occurred because there were too many libraries in Wolverhampton.”  

After a financial crisis unpleasant and difficult decisions needed to be made. And these decisions were unlikely to be popular. Austerity was a political choice, as was bailing out the banks and allowing their executives to continue to pay themselves bonuses by ordinary people suffered. Many economists and academics have criticised austerity saying that it failed to result in an economic recovery. In the UK, austerity widened the already significant gulf between rich and poor. For the generation reaching adulthood after 2008, they now leave school facing precarious low paid work, crippling student debt and very low prospects of ever owning a home.

So what were the alternatives to austerity? In the 1930s President Franklin D. Roosevelt introduced the new deal, where the US government borrowed and invested in big public works schemes to stimulate the economy. By creating jobs that paid decent wages, more people were paying tax and were spending in the economy. A number of other countries followed a similar model after the 1930s depression. The response in the UK as well as much of Europe and North America of implementing austerity policies has resulted in greater poverty, crime and social problems. In the UK, while the overall economy may have recovered from the 2008 crash, many parts of the country remain badly deprived and in need of help. In Canary Wharf the bankers maybe doing ok now, but in Jaywick and Blackpool the recession never ended.

After the election of Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader in 2015, the Labour Party moved to a position of opposing austerity. In the 2017 general election the Labour Party, though not making it into government, had its biggest increase in vote in the party’s history. Austerity is not popular, and the British public have had enough.

In September Chancellor of the Exchequer Sajid Javid declared the end of austerity. A convenient thing to announce just before a general election. However the damage has been done. The Conservative Party pledge to increase police numbers by 20,000 belies the fact that police number have been cut by 21,000 since this government came to power. Also after a decade of under resourcing the police the UK has seen a significant rise in knife and other violent crime. The cost of these cuts to the police budget has been enormous, and increasing numbers now is needed but won’t repair the damage.

Even if the policies of austerity are now over, with increases to public spending being promised by all major parties in this election, the last decade of cuts has taken a huge toll. The policies of austerity have resulted in cuts to services, increased poverty and a massive growth in the divide in the gap between rich and poor.

Austerity was never inevitable. It was a political choice. A choice of whether those who caused the crisis should pay, or whether ordinary people should be made to suffer and pay for the mistakes of banks and financial institutions.

During the 2019 UK general election there will be new issues and developments on a daily basis. But there is a major issue this election isn’t new, but remains highly relevant. The 2008 financial crisis and the subsequent policies of austerity the followed it continue to heavily impact on peoples lives.

To really understand what happened in this crash, I recommend watching The Big Short. This film manages to strike the difficult balance of explaining how the banks and big business caused a major financial crisis in the first decade of this century, whilst still being entertaining.

The short term thinking of banks and major corporations caused a massive economic crisis. Governments world wide were forced to bail out banks and financial institutions that were considered too big to fail. Having been bailed out, senior executives and boards of directors used the money to pay themselves massive bonus whilst forcing many to sell their homes, and forced people who hadn’t caused the crisis to pay for it.

One thing that struck me moving to the UK in 2017, was how much harder the crisis hit here compared with New Zealand. Both in terms of the initial crisis, and the austerity policies that followed, the global financial crisis has cast a long shadow over the UK and Europe.

This will be the fourth UK general election since the crisis hit. In terms of politics the crisis has eroded public confidence both in politics, financial institutions and the ruling establishment in London. Many believe that the financial crisis and austerity in no small measure influenced the 2016 Brexit referendum result. In terms of politics, the landscape has been far less stable in the UK since 2008. Two of the last three elections produced minority or coalition governments (something that the First Past the Post Electoral system is suppose to avoid).

The Conservative Government took power in 2010 under David Cameron. This party has blamed the previous Labour administration for what happened to the UK economy after the crisis, blaming their high public spending. Former bank of England Governor Mervyn King refutes this, saying that political parties across the spectrum thought the markets were doing well prior to the crash. The reality is the 2008 financial crisis was the result of decades of free market policies that failed to regulate or apply appropriate scrutiny to markets. A decade on, there is little evidence in the UK or elsewhere that adequate safe guards have been put in place to ensure this will not happen again.

As the parties release their manifestos next week, a key feature will be how each party plan to manage the economy. After a decade of austerity the country is now looking for change. But along with various spending promises, the public will be demanding to know what their politicians are prepared to do to prevent there every being another financial crisis like the one in 2008. A decade after the crash, this question remains answered. Until it is, public trust and confidence and politics will remain very low.

The Conservative Party in the last week have had two serious PR blunders. One was Jacob Ress Mogg’s careless and hurtful comments about the victims of the Grenfell tower fire. The second was Prime Minsters Johnson’s comments that flooding in the north of England did not constitute a national emergency. Why are the UK Conservatives showing such lack of compassion and empathy?

The comment by Boris Johnson was made to the media on over the weekend. It came after reports that a women had been killed and that hundreds of residents had evacuated their homes in Fishlake due to flooding. The Prime Minister said the floods did not constitute a national emergency. If you take this comment literally, Boris is correct in that the flooding is a localised rather than a nation wide event. However it is still a national emergency, where state resources will be required to help people living in the area.

As mentioned in this blog before, Boris Johnson is no fool. However what we see here is a lack of compassion and empathy in his comments. When you are the Prime Minster, you are judged by your response to events like natural disasters. When commenting on events like this, you pick your words very carefully. Specifically you try to be comforting and show sympathy and willingness to help. Boris Johnson has failed to do so with the Fishlake floods.

No doubt the Conservatives strategists were alarmed by this blunder. The Conservative election strategy is to try and pick up Brexit voting marginal constituencies in the north of England, many of whom have traditionally have voted Labour. The assumption that as Brexit voters they’ll be more attracted to the Conservative Party is a big assumption. Many who voted Brexit did so due to a feeling of being neglected, both by Brussels and Westminster. In the north, the policies of austerity and the loss of jobs have hit the region hard. Advisors have no doubt explained to Boris, that these comments could well cost the Conservatives crucial votes in key marginal constituency races. The opposition have also been quick to call Johnson out on this, saying that if the floods had happened in the south of England he’d have been more likely to call a national emergency.

In response to all this, the Prime Minster has called an emergency COBRA meeting to respond to these floods. This is the right thing to do, but it looks now like he is reacting to criticism and is clearly on the back foot.

The other big blunder made by a Conservative Party MP this week were the comments made by Jacob Rees- Mogg. A key ally of Johnson, Rees-Mogg is a strong supporter of Brexit and was chair of the European Research Group (ERG). Rees-Mogg became leader of the House of Commons after Johnson became Prime Minister.

In an interview on LBC last week, Rees-Mogg made the comment that victims in the 2017 Grenfell Tower fire “lacked common sense” for listening to emergency services and staying in their apartments.

Rees-Mogg was forced to apologise for these comments. Families of Grenfell victims and their supporters including British rap artist Stormzy have hit out at Rees-Mogg and called for him to resign. Conservative Party Chair James Cleverly said the comments had caused a “huge amount of hurt and distress.” No doubt party advisors will be trying to keep Rees-Mogg out of the media for the remainder of the campaign if possible.

Grenfell Tower is in the Constituency of Kensington. Days before the fire in the 2017 the Labour Party un-expectantly won Kensington from the Conservatives by just 20 votes in that years general election. Kensington is a key marginal that the Tories will be trying to win back. For residents in the area, memories of the horrific fire are all too vivid. Even today the tower still stands on the horizon with the green heart covering the burnt building. For residents of Kensington, the comments by Rees-Mogg will do nothing to convince them that the Conservative Party want to help those affected by the Grenfell fire.

Both Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees-Mogg are from privileged backgrounds having both studied at Eton and Oxford. I am not of the view that people from privileged backgrounds or with a high net worth are not capable compassion for those less disadvantaged, as plenty are. But having self awareness, and understanding your own privilege is crucial. The comments by both Johnson and Rees-Mogg show a stunning lack of empathy, awareness and political judgement. UK voters will view these comments with dismay.

As an end note on Grenfell:

The Lib Dem candidate for Kensington has been making dishonest statements. Specifically, that Kensington Labour MP Emma Dent Coad was responsible for the decision to put the combustable cladding on Grenfell Tower. Emma was part of the Labour minority on the Kensington Council and had no involvement with the decision to install this cladding. My previous blog post discusses the Liberal Democrat’s seeming inability to be factual so far in this election.

The Conservative Party leadership have failed to show compassion in this election, and the Liberal Democrats seem to struggle with honesty. No wonder the British public are very angry with politics at this time.

 

 

 

The Liberal Democrats have seen an increase to their polling since Jo Swinson became the party leader in July 2019. The Lib Dems may have already overplayed their hand, and risk alienating voters. Firstly their changed position on Brexit, which essentially is to ignore the 2016 referendum result will alienate many even on the remain side. The second has been the cynical and misleading messages encouraging voters to “tactically vote” for their party.

Who are the Liberal Democrats?

The Liberal Democrats were Founded in 1981. They were a Coalition of the Liberal Party and the Social Democratic Party. The Liberal Party was the direct descendant of the 18th-century Whigs and prior to the creation of the Labour Party were the main rival to the Conservatives in the House of Commons. The Social Democratic Party were a slightly less pathetic version of Change UK formed by breakaway Labour MPs in the early 1980s. These two parties formally merged in 1988.

The Lib Dems have at times made a positive contribution. When Tony Blair’s New Labour Government were pushing to invade Iraq in 2003, the Lib Dems were strong opponents of this. As someone who was active in opposing the Iraqi invasion, this certainly earned them some respect in my eyes.

In 2010 the Lib Dems held the balance of power after the General Election. Naively before the election, then party leader Nick Clegg gave away his leverage by saying the Lib Dems would likely go with whichever party got the most votes. Given at this point the Conservatives were only polling a few points ahead of Labour this was a clumsy move. Probably as a result of this blunder, the Lib Dems went from polling around 30% (neck and neck with Labour and Conservatives) to getting just 22% of the vote on election night.

For the next 5 years the Lib Dems were in coalition with the Conservatives. These were the years where austerity cuts hit hard. Funding to local government services were slashed, NHS funding was frozen, Student tuition fees sky-rocked, police numbers were cut and the mantra of doing more with less became common in Whitehall.

In 2015 election the Lib Dems were punished. In 2017 the Lib Dems vote increased, however due to the First Past the Post electoral system they did not increase their number of seats in the Commons.

But now its 2019. UK politics is a mess. The Lib Dems have a new leader and this could be their year. Except its already gone to their heads, and they are making poor decisions.

My previous post outlined the parties Brexit positions. The Lib Dems have since 2016 been advocating for a second referendum. Now that most opposition parties in parliament, including Labour, have adopted this as their policy the Lib Dems want to go further. They now are saying if they win a majority in parliament they will withdraw Article 50 and just stop Brexit in its tracks. Plenty of people don’t like the Brexit result. and there are plenty who’d like to see and end to Brexit and the chaos it is creating. But its a big call to say you are going to ignore a democratic decision by the people. And an arrogant one. Even many of the most ardent Remainers will find this position to be a bridge too far. The Lib Dems could be saying, we campaigned for a second referendum from the outset, and now other opposition parties are copying us. Instead, the Lib Dems are trying to differentiate themselves, a position that could badly backfire on them.

Recently, the Labour opposition moved an amendment in Parliament seeking to prevent the Privatisation of the NHS in any post Brexit trade deals with the US. The Lib Dems decided it best to abstain on this motion, rather than being seen to support a Labour Party amendment. Yes as a party you want to show you are different to Labour and aren’t aligned to Jeremy Corbyn. But what signal does abstaining on an issue like this send? Especially after supporting 5 years of austerity cuts last time you were in government.

The Lib Dems are essentially a party that is economically on the centre right and socially progressive. They maybe aren’t too fussed if the NHS gets privatised as this is consistent with liberalism and their track record in power. The issue is that the Lib Dems present themselves as moderate economic centrists. Their history has been to back austerity and free market economics. In effect they are the pro Europe Tories. Conservative Party supporters who are pro the  EU may find they have a natural home in the Lib Dems, in much the same way as Blairite politicians from Labour such as Chuka Umunna have. But winning these people over will only win the party so much support. They want more.

The Lib Dems have formed a pro Remain Electoral pact with the Greens and Plaid Cymru. The Lib Dems will likely be the main winners in such a pact. More concerning is the way the Lib Dems are trying to encourage voters to be tactical. Under a First Past the Post electoral system vote spitting is a challenge, and there are times when it is wise to be strategic. But this does not excuse dishonestly and deceit.

The above images shows a leaflet distributed my the Lib Dems in York Outer claiming there is a two horse race between their party and the Conservatives. The aim is to encourage Labour voters to tactically vote Lib Dem. Below this are the 2017 voting figures, showing in fact the two horse race is between Labour and Conservative with the Lib Dems coming a distant 3rd place. Similar leaflets have been put out by the Lib Dems in Labour held constituencies where they falsely claim that they and not the Conservatives are the main challenger.

The Lib Dems represent a section of the British voting public. On the issue of Brexit they have consistently pushed the remain cause, and there will be voters who support them for this. But integrity is important in politics. Trust in politics is already low. Being deliberately misleading, anti democratic and arrogant will not impress voters. The Lib Dems might really want to rethink how they are now approaching the upcoming election.