One of the more surprising policy announcements from UK Labour during this election campaign is their free broadband policy. Described by the BBC as Broadband Communism (maybe someone should point out to the BBC how they are funded) the policy certainly got discussion going.

The policy is to deliver free full-fibre broadband to all individuals and businesses by 2030. The government will own the network that is rolled out and will deliver free full-fibre broadband as the network is completed, starting with communities with the worst broadband access.

British Telecom was privatised by the Conservative Government led by Margaret Thatcher back in 1984. Rather than renationalising the whole company, Labour’s policy is just to bring the broadband part of the business into public ownership. The justification is that internet is a public good and therefore the state needs to ensure all citizens have access to it. This would put internet in the same public good basket as water, electricity and similar utilities. While consistent with Labour’s overall philosophy of bringing back these services back into full public ownership, few expected this policy before it was announced.

As a vote winner, it’s not clear whether saving 20 quid a month on broadband is going to swing that many voters. However the policy when linked with a wider economic strategy of investing in communities throughout the UK has merit. Installing ultra fast broadband in parts of the UK where internet access is poor could well encourage business investment.

While seen as a policy of the left, and decried as much by political opponents, significant investment in broadband infrastructure has considerable merit. The private sector is highly unlikely to invest in full-fibre broadband in poorer parts of the country, so it is up to the state to step in. Thus having this under public ownership is also logical.

Get Brexit done. Its all Boris Johnson says. If he is asked about the NHS, the economy, education, climate change what he ate for breakfast last night all you gets is “well, um ah, that’s a well, we a need to just get brexit done”.

From a marketing and psychology perspective its a clever strategy. The British public are utterly sick of Brexit. They are sick of hearing about it. They are sick of the country being deeply divided by it. They are sick of the fact that 3 years after the referendum virtually no progress has been made. And people are angry and upset that parliament is been so bogged down in it that it seemingly cannot get on with anything else.

Can the Conservatives get brexit done by January 31st as they are promising in the election? The short answer is no. The slogan is catchy, and taps into public sentiment. But it is also pure unadulterated bullshit. If the Conservatives do form the next government these words will haunt them, especially Boris Johnson.

So why can’t the Conservatives get Brexit done?

In a leaked recording by the EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier says The Conservatives plans to wrap up Brexit in the next 11 months is “unrealistic”. Even if the Conservatives manage to pass the withdrawal agreement in January, this is only a transition arrangement with a limited life on it. Once this expires, if no permanent arrangement has been agreed, the UK once again finds itself on the knife edge of no deal hard Brexit.

For an ongoing relationship between the EU and the UK, the EU would expect the UK to continue to comply with various EU regulations. Other states like New Zealand who trade with the EU currently have to comply with various EU regulations in order to sell to that market. Given Brexit was about giving greater independence and autonomy to the UK, this is very difficult for Boris Johnson and the Conservatives to sell to the public.

The other problem is that trade agreements take time to negotiate. The EU free trade agreement with Canada took 7 years. If the Conservatives want to try and negotiate trade deals with other countries like the United States – they’ll soon find the US play hard ball when negotiating trade. Trying to get a deal that benefits the UK won’t be easy at all, so again will likely take years.

For Labour, Brexit is no less of a headache. Initially Jeremy Corbyn, very sensibly in my view, tried after the referendum to avoid Labour being too far on either the leave or remain side, others in the Parliamentary Labour Party have pushed it towards a remain position. The wailing and whinging of former deputy leader Tom Watson, Emily Thornberry and other Labour MPs firmly enmeshed in the Westminster bubble have actively pushing for 3 years for Labour to support a second referendum and campaign for remain. Effectively these so-called moderates thought Labour’s path to government was to tell 52% of voters they were wrong in 2016.

Many friends and former colleagues on the left in New Zealand when they talk to me seem surprised that Labour didn’t jump straight on the second referendum campaign bandwagon after 2016. Anyone who has visited or worked in the Midlands, the North or indeed most places in England outside of Greater London will realise that taking such a stance would not go down well. On the left, many regard the EU as an institution that for the last decade has pushed austerity, privatisation and is generally undemocratic. What happened in Greece during the 2015 bailout is often cited as a reason not to be tied to this entity. Brexit wasn’t just something supported by the political right.

The current Labour policy is the best compromise it can come up with given where it is now, which I outlined along with all other party’s Brexit positions in a post last month. But the challenge is that any deal Labour does with the EU will likely see the UK stay in the customs union. A second referendum where this and remain are the options, will not please many Brexit supporters who see the being in the common market as the problem.

The Liberal Democrats anti democratic position of ignoring the referendum result and revoking article 50 went down like a cup of cold sick on the campaign trail. The Lib Dems have now had to revert back to the second referendum position. For remain voters wanting to stop the Conservatives hard Brexit, the discussion has now turned to tactical voting. However this is messy and voters are having to rely on highly dubious polling data or previous election results to make tactical calls. The situation is a bit easier on the Conservative side where the Brexit Party have stood aside in Constituencies the Tories currently hold. However for the Tories there is still concern about The Brexit Party running in key Labour  marginals where vote splitting may prevent a Conservative gain.

Brexit is messy and complicated, and has contributed to making tomorrow’s election both volatile and unpredictable.

Whatever the results of this UK election, Brexit will not just get done. The division and confusion will continue for years, whoever wins and whatever policy gets implemented now. What lies behind Brexit is a more fundamental question of English national identity. I say English, not British or UK. In the 2016 election England voted 53.4% to leave and 46.6% to remain. If you take out the strong remain voting stats for London, the picture in England is very much a nation where the majority favours leaving the EU. And that has not changed.

England is at a cross road with its national identity. Increasingly The Saint George Cross Flag rather than the Union Jack are flown across the country. While many still support retaining the union of the United Kingdom, increasingly there is a view that England needs to focus more on its own interests. However this is not universally shared, with many in England, and especially in London saying they identify as much if not more as European than as English.

84% of the British population live in England, so if England votes a certain way, that’s what is happening. I’ve already posted about the impact this has had on Scotland and Northern Ireland. These are very different electorates, and nations with very different view to that of England on Brexit. This is a tension that will continue whatever happens in the general election. For Wales the picture is a bit different. Wales voted to leave, though the voting margin was closer than in England, especially when you exclude the London votes. Time will tell whether similar tension starts to happen in Wales also takes a different position to England on the Brexit question.

So getting Brexit done? Sorry everyone, Brexit hasn’t event started. This was the easy bit. If the next government can survive the next 5 years, Brexit uncertainty and disruption is likely to continue.

Former Conservative Prime Minister John Major in 2016 commented that the NHS would be as safe as a pet hamster in the presence of a hungry python if Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and Iain Duncan Smith rose to power following Brexit. 3 years on and those three have risen to the top of the Conservative Party. How safe is the NHS?

Today Boris Johnson had a train wreck of an interview today, where he refused to look at a photo of a 4 year old with suspected pneumonia forced to lie on a pile of coats on the floor of a Leeds hospital. Rather than acknowledge the photo, the Prime Minister snatched the phone and put it in his pocket. Bizarre behaviour. And the actions of someone rattled and on the back foot.

Recent polling surveys have shown that the NHS has overtaken Brexit as the main election issue. This makes the terrible interview by the Prime Minister even more concerning for the Tories. 

Secret documents released by Opposition Leader Jeremy Corbyn show that in talks with the US the topic of access to the NHS has come up. This is consistent with the approach taken by the US in other trade negotiations. Back in 2016 when negotiations for The Trans Pacific Partnership (TTPA) trade agreement between pacific nations were in full flight, this issue came up. In New Zealand there was concern that subsidised prescriptions would be put at risk due to conditions being pushed by the US in the trade negotiations. 

Because the Conservatives have said they stand for a hard Brexit, rather than retaining a customs union with the EU, they need to find significant trading parters. The US is the obvious one. But the US don’t just give away easy trade deals. Healthcare and medicine is highly profitable, and the US would want a piece of that action in any trade deal.

The NHS is well loved by the British public. It is seen as something which makes British society decent and civilised. That the NHS is now stretched and badly underfunded is seen as a national outrage. Fears of even further privatisation of the NHS due to a US trade deal has unsurprisingly made the NHS the number one election issue.

With only 3 days to go until the election, we can expect to hear much much more about the NHS before polling opens.

On Friday, UK leader of the opposition revealed a leaked Treasury Paper which undermines the Prime Ministers claims that there will be no checks on goods moving between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. My earlier post on each of the party’s Brexit positions pointed out how critical Northern Ireland has been in the Brexit debate.

In my post about Scotland and the 2019 election I said that understanding of Scottish politics throughout the rest of the UK was poor. The situation is even worse in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland has a fraught history of conflict and sectarian violence. Bitter divisions within the community go back generations and continue to run deep.

Since the Republic of Ireland gained independence in 1922, the six counties of Northern Ireland have been in dispute. From the late 1960s through to the Good Friday Agreement in April 1998 a bloody conflict occurred. Whilst this was often portrayed as Catholic vs Protestant (and this played a part), the real issue was whether Ireland should be part of the Irish Republic in the South or be part of the United Kingdom.

The Good Friday Agreement achieved a compromise. It was agreed that were would be power sharing between involving both communities within Northern Ireland. Stormont, the Northern Ireland parliament would have greater autonomy to make decisions in the 6 counties. Though Northern Ireland would remain part of the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland was also a party to this agreement. Critical to making this agreement work, was that both the UK and the Irish Republic were members of the European Union, thus were part of a common market. This made it easier to have borderless trade and free movement between Northern Ireland and the Republic.

I have been lucky enough to visit the area a couple of times. Currently when you drive from the Republic of Ireland to the North you barely notice the border. The main differences are the road signs go from kilometers to miles (very confusing at first), and the signs in the Republic say Derry and in the North say Londonderry.

For the last 21 years people have moved freely between north and south. The sectarian violence and division hasn’t completely gone away. But for the generation reaching adulthood now, they have known relative peace compared with the situation in the 1980s and early 1990s.

Brexit threw a massive spanner in the works. It seems when people voted on 23 June 2016, few outside of Northern Ireland considered the impact this would have on the Good Friday Agreement. Northern Ireland voted to remain in the EU with 55.8% voting to stay and 44.2 voting to leave.

The Good Friday Agreement was always a compromise. In each Stormont election, the margin between the Unionists and the Republicans has narrowed. Many expect that in the not too distant future Republicans will be the majority in Northern Ireland. What could have happened under the Good Friday Agreement, is a peaceful transition where hopefully both communities continued to be heard. What the Brexit result and subsequent brinkmanship and grandstanding has done, is inflame old divisions and risk the precarious peace in Northern Ireland being lost.

In the March 2017 Stormont elections, The Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) remained the largest party, but only by one seat. Sinn Fein won 27 seats and the DUP 28. Negotiations for power sharing broke down. Shortly after Theresa May called an early election and lost her majority in Westminster. For the DUP this was a golden opportunity. They no longer needed to negotiate with Sinn Fein, they could just jump into bed with the Tories in Westminster.

The DUP support Brexit, and a hard Brexit. Their position in government has been that they don’t want Northern Ireland to be treated any differently to the rest of the UK. Two problems. One, the people of Northern Ireland voted to remain, so they are not representing the views of Northern Ireland voters. Two, Geography is not on their side. Whatever your views on Northern Irish politics, the fact remains that Belfast is a 2 hour drive from Dublin. Northern Ireland is part of the Island of Ireland, and their economies are intertwined. Having had 21 years of free movement and being part of a single market, there is no way to protect this without having some sort of special arrangement for Northern Ireland.

Sinn Fein refuse to take their seats in Westminster, as they refuse to swear allegiance to the Queen or accept English rule over Northern Ireland. This would seem quite a principled position by Sinn Fein, however despite not taking their seats, Sinn Fein have claimed over £1 million in expenses over the last decade. Given the serious impact Brexit will have on Northern Ireland, and given the role the DUP has played in government, Sinn Fein needs to really consider whether they are representing their community well.

Boris Johnson’s promise that there would be no checks on goods between Northern Ireland and Great Britain don’t stand up to scrutiny. What is clear is that the Conservatives understand there is no way to get what the DUP want from the European Union. And the DUP don’t do compromise. At all. The tighter the margins are between the DUP and Sinn Fein, the more hard line the DUP become. They seem to have applied the same tactics with the Tories – and ended up being the coalition partners from hell.

Thursday’s general election may not be an easy one for the DUP. Having failed to form a government in Stormont, they instead formed an alliance with the Tories in Westminster and achieved very little. Like in many parts of the UK, there will be tactical voting at play. Sinn Fein has stood aside in 3 constituencies and encouraged their voters to support other remain parties. In the May 2019 EU elections the DUP lost of the two seats they previously held. They potentially may face similar loses this week.

Since the 2016 Brexit referendum, there has been a surge in Northern Irish from protestant/unionist communities applying for passports from the Republic of Ireland. We can’t assume that this means support for a united Ireland has increased, but it does indicated a shift in attitudes. For many in Northern Ireland, especially those who’ve grown up since the Good Friday Agreement, there is a desire for pragmatism and to not return to the conflict of the past. Also for Northern Ireland to have a strong and prosperous economy. The main political parties in Northern Ireland will find that if they don’t evolve, they’ll be cast aside.

I was a bit late to the party in following the rise of Greta Thunberg. In August 2018 she began her activism by spending school days outside the Swedish parliament holding up a sign saying (in Swedish) “School strike for the climate.” This movement soon spread with high school strikes and protests happening throughout the world opposing climate change.

It’s strange that media and social media create phenomena like Greta, whose name has now become synonymous for the single biggest issue facing the planet. I admire Greta, and all climate activists who have stood up and demanded that action be taken to stop the impending climate catastrophe.

But Greta was far from the first person to warn of the climate crisis and the need to take action. In 1989, then Prime Minister of Great Britain Margaret Thatcher made what I believe was one of the finest speeches of her political career to the UN general assembly. Thatcher, a Conservative Prime Minister, is far from everyone’s favourite political leader. And there are plenty of criticisms that can be made of her time in office. But on this crucial issue Thatcher acted as a real leader. She highlighted what she called the “credible” scientific evidence of environmental problems caused by the release of green house gasses, and proposed global action to counter this.

Thatcher was someone who rarely shied away from an argument. Former UK Labour Party back bencher Austin Mitchell in his book Revenge of the Rich describes this.  Austin claims when hey wrote to Thatcher as a backbench MP, she would always respond, usually with 1 page justifying her government policy and 2 further pages explaining why the opposition position was wrong. Thatcher was Britains first woman prime minister and the longest serving UK PM in the 20th century. While a very polarising figure, she was a leader, and one who would stand up for what she believed in.

This is in stark contrast to the actions of current Conservative PM Boris Johnson. Last week channel 4 hosted the worlds first leaders debate on climate. Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Brexit Party leader Nigel Farage refused to attend this debate. Channel 4 responded by displaying ice sculptures on the podium where these two men should have been standing. The Tories have complained to the UK media watch dog that displaying these ice sculptures was media bias, a complaint that has been rejected by that body. The climate crisis is one of the greatest threats to life on our planet, and as Prime Minister Boris Johnson should have fronted this debate. By failing to do so, he has shown himself to be a weak and feeble leader. By not engaging on the critical issue of climate change, Boris Johnson has shown not only UK electors, but the world that he is a fool.

The increased occurrence of extreme weather patterns, like the flooding in the north of England a month ago are becoming more common. The slow and disinterested response from the current government is consistent with not attending the climate debate. Internationally we have seen climate change deniers like Donald Trump come to power. There are also a number of governments around the world who pay lip service to the climate emergency but continue to take little action. Unless this changes very quickly, it may be too late to stop the climate crisis. 

In an earlier blog post I mentioned the increased number of young people enrolling to vote in the 2019 election. Climate change is a massive issue for young voters, who are very aware that during their lifetimes the impacts of the climate crisis will hit. Globally we have seen youth leaders like Greta Thunberg stand up and demand action. It’s time the world listened to these young leaders, and Margaret Thatcher’s UN address back in 1989, and take real action to prevent a climate crisis. 

Scotland matters in the 2019 UK general election. Yet much of the electorate have little understanding of the place, it’s politics or what could happen after the December 12 election. Scotland could well decide the outcome of the 2019 UK Election. It did in 2017.

At the last election fierce electoral competition between Labour and the Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP) split the vote and allowed 13 Conservative MPs to win Scottish Constituencies. In the 2015 election the Tories only won 1 constituency in Scotland.  Without these 13 Scottish Tories, Theresa May would not have been able to form government in 2017.

After Boris was elected leader of the Conservative Party in July 2019, Scottish Conservative Leader Ruth Davidson announced she was standing down from parliament. It was clear that Ruth, and many others in the Scottish Conservatives did not like the direction Boris Johnson would take the Party and the country. Many now believe the Tories will face political annihilation in Scotland on December 12th. If this comes to pass, the Conservatives will need to win 13 other new constituencies to the south just to maintain their current numbers, and many more than that to get the majority the Conservatives seek in this election.

So what is at play in Scotland?

In 2014 a referendum was held in Scotland, asking the Scots if they wanted to become an independent state rather that stay part of the United Kingdom. Scotland voted to stay in the UK with 55% voting No to independence and 44% voting Yes. Case closed, Scotland voted to stay. So thats it right?

Nope.

June 2016, the UK holds a referendum on membership of the European Union. We all know how that referendum result went, 52% voted to leave and 48 voted to remain. Not so in Scotland. In June 2016 62% of Scots voted to remain in the EU, compared with 38% who voted for Brexit.

In the 2014 Scottish independence referendum, membership of the EU was a significant factor in many Scots voting to stay in the UK. Early on in 2014 then President of the European Union Manuel Barroso said with would be “extremely difficult, if not impossible” for an independent Scotland to get the necessary approval from the member states for it to join the European Union (EU).

After the 2016 Brexit result, the SNP wasted no time pointing out that when Scots voted to stay in the UK in 2014, they did so thinking they would be remain a member of the EU. Now that the UK has voted to leave, the SNP claim a second referendum on Scottish independence is now needed.

Since 2007 the SNP have been in government in Scotland. During this period the SNP have actively pushed the independence agenda. While 2014 referendum result was a set back for them, overall the SNP has performed well electorally and built support for Scottish independence.

For all that Boris Johnson, and many others in the Westminster establishment may whinge that Scotland has already had a referendum, the objective fact is that things have changed since 2014. Scotland wanted to remain in the EU, and now is being taken out against its will. Since the Brexit referendum the European Union has now indicated that they would now be much more open to an independent Scotland joining the EU. So in 2014 if you were Scottish and wanted to stay in the EU, your best bet was to vote No to Scottish independence. In 2019, Scottish independence now offers Scots a way to stay in the EU if the rest of Britain leaves.

Labour initially opposed another referendum, but has more recently softened their position saying they would respect a vote of Scots to leave the UK. In turn SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon has said her party would back a Labour Government if they agreed to a second referendum. Nicola would like an independence referendum within a year of forming government. Whereas Jeremy Corbyn has indicated he’d like such a referendum, if it were to happen at all, to occur after the next Scottish Parliament elections in 2021.

The Conservatives in the 2019 election have been saying that electing a Labour government would put at risk the Union of Great Britain.

First point: there is no guarantee a second Scottish referendum would result in Scotland voting to leave the UK.

Second point: if the Conservatives win the coming election, the SNP who are in government in Scotland, could still call an independence referendum. In October 2017 the Catalonia state government in Spain called a referendum on Catalonian independence, and 90% of those that voted supported independence. The Spanish government didn’t recognise the referendum and civil unrest and political instability ensued. The SNP have already indicated they would consider holding a similar referendum, even if not recognised by Westminster after Britain leaves the EU.

Forcing Scots to stay part of the UK against their will would do nothing to “defend the precious union” as Boris Johnson waxes lyrical about on the campaign trail. Many in the UK may not want Scottish independence to happen. But it needs to be accepted that the situation has changed significantly since 2014. If people in Scotland don’t want to be part of Brexit Britain, then this needs to be democratically tested and the result respected.

Whatever happens in next weeks general election – the issue of Scottish independence is not going to go away.

 

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.