As the get the vote out operations are finishing off knocking up their promises and stuffing letter boxes with voting reminders, it's worth thinking about the character of the general election campaign and what it says about politics in Britain.
Considering how seismic the result will be, the putative scale of Labour's victory and the promise of annihilating the Tories for at least a generation, if you're outside the hurly burly of campaigning and following politics on social media this has been the lowest key election for some time. Probably since 2001. Those around back then will remember that the result was also a foregone conclusion, and it was a low effort affair where the main parties were concerned. Even so, window posters and sign post placards were a common feature of election season. These days, local authorities are precious about their "street furniture" and far fewer people advertise their voting intentions. Just from my experience living in Derby, around where I live and on the route to work I've seen one Labour sign (tucked away down a back road) and one Vote Green board plonked on an arterial route in and out of the city centre. Not even the local Tory councillor or prominent Tory activists have signs on their properties. Similarly, unlike previous elections where the doormat has been buried under small mountains of party literature, it's been conspicuous by its absence this time. We've received every Tory leaflet, two direct mails from Labour, and that's it.
The hack obsession with "cut through" doesn't extend to why the election hasn't cut through. There are, of course, long-term reasons that trouble most liberal democracies. And it's also true that the main parties almost collaborate over what the salient issues are going to be. This election is no different. The pollsters show that the cost of living crisis and the NHS are right at the top of people's concerns, with immigration coming a distant third. But you wouldn't know that from the dreary debates and the press coverage. Except this time, a certain weariness has set in. People worried about how to pay their bills, or fed up with the 8am rush for emergency GP appointments are not hearing any solutions to the problems that make everyday life difficult, if not an ordeal. Renters are hearing nothing about housing. Disabled people nothing about making life easier. Parents worried about cuts at their kids' schools, people of all ages despairing at the dearth of mental health support, the hope of action on climate change, the collapsing transport infrastructure, climate change, and the outright indifference/support of Israel's massacre of the Palestinians. The conspiracy of silence about these issues have turned millions of people off.
As such, both the mainstream parties have run awful campaigns. The Conservative campaign has proven far worse than Theresa May's ever did in 2017. Not even John Major's doomed effort in 1997 plumbed the depths of Rishi Sunak's incompetence. What the Tories needed was something that could have changed the course of the campaign and ceded them the initiative. They thought they had this with their stupid conscription scheme, but in a campaign where even the base of mass conservatism is feeling the pinch, attacks on young people were not going to convince. Especially when Nigel Farage's posh bloke authenticity is a more convincing repository for punters who are motivated by spite and fear. But there was almost a master stroke at the beginning of their campaign. The Sun excitedly announced that under the Tories, pensioners could look forward to an extra £2,000/year. This was how they chose to announce Sunak's promise to raise the tax threshold so the state pension didn't fall into it, which led to some weak attacks against Labour's plans to impose a "pensions' tax". And this £2k was cumulative up to 2030. If instead they'd gone for an uncomplicated £2k uplift, politically it would have been a big hit. Probably stemming the bleed in Reform's direction and forcing Labour onto the back foot, maybe even inducing Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves to attack it from the right. No, it wouldn't have fit the fiscal framework both main parties are abiding by, but Sunak wouldn't have to implement it anyway. An opportunity to salvage a few dozen more seats, lost.
Labour's has been a weird twin track campaign. The leadership have tried dampening expectations and have pushed messages about not being complacent. And to be fair to teams on the ground, in the main candidates haven't been. Fewer bodies than 2019 has meant longer sessions and harder work. Again, locally here in Derby North, given the hard yards she's put in for a couple of years no one could accuse Labour's Catherine Atkinson for treating the election as a foregone conclusion. Judging by the spread of social media reports, the same has been true nearly everywhere. That, however, cannot be said for Starmer and co. Despite their warnings, this has been the most complacent campaign run by Labour since 2005. Not just because of its thin manifesto, assuming anti-Tory voters will back Labour come what may, but because of its faux pas. No one forced the Labour right to chance their arm at purging candidates in full public view. Or openly admitting to lying for factional reasons. Or singling out Bangladeshis as the sorts of refugees they should be deported. These were th actions of a party unconcerned about their electoral consequences, and were took place under zero pressure from the media, are contributing toward the decomposition of Labour's base which will be increasingly felt over the course of their first term, and also suggest they will come to grief when the media does turn the heat up on their government.
This election then has almost entirely been defined by the duopoly domination of British politics. Reform were covered because its campaign plays direct into their use of immigration as displacement activity. The daft stunts by Ed Davey to try and get the Liberal Democrats noticed, particularly their emphasis around fixing social care, and the strong challenge of the Greens and the stress on climate change has bounced off the shielding Labour and the Tories have built to shelter themselves. How long this will last after the election with a severely weakened Tory party and leading Labour figures taking to their ministerial motors, no one yet knows. But also with a press in long-term decline and their ability to set the agenda going with it, the narrowness that typically defines British politics might be about to get wrenched open.
12 comments:
Now we watch as the NeoLabour leadership use this over-flattering mandate to destroy what interest n democracy that the public have left. Probably suiting their string-pullers and friends in the press just fine. The triumphalism is going to be sickening, ruining most of the enjoyment that we are due from finally seeing the blue rosette monsters undone.
Unlike the last time they did this, they will have no shortage of serious extremist challengers nipping at their heels; of which capital will side with the murderous (but stringently hierarchical and classist) right, in the hope of keeping the angry left from touching their privilege.
But we get the Good Cop, "Diet Evil" for a while. Perhaps the rate of descent into the abyss might slow temporarily, much as it did in the US during the Biden interlude.
«the promise of annihilating the Tories for at least a generation»
Plus the promise of the PASOKification of New Labour within a generation (or even sooner)! Here are the absolute voting numbers
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2024/jul/04/uk-general-election-results-2024-live-in-full
Summary: Con 6.81m (23.7%), RUK 4.09m (14.3%), NLab 9.67m (33.8%), LD 3.50m (12.2%).
As the combined Conservative+Reform UK votes (and percentages) are significantly higher than those for New Labour, Farage in effect won these elections for Starmer who has achieved a lower number of votes than Corbyn in 2019 and for Ed Davey has also achieved a lower LibDem vote than in 2019.
2010: 65.1% 30.00m/45.60m: 08.61m Lab. 10.70m Con. 6.84m LDP
2015: 66.1% 30.70m/46.43m: 09.35m Lab. 11.33m Con. 6.30m LDP,UKIP
2017: 68.7% 32.17m/46.84m: 12.88m Lab. 13.64m Con. 2.37m LDP
2019: 67.3% 32.01m/47.59m: 10.30m Lab. 13.97m Con. 3.70m LDP
But considering that the politics of New Labour, Conservatives, Reform UK, LibDems only differ in small identity/cultural details, the Conservative party may have been defeated by Reform UK, but conservativism has still an overwhelming majority of the votes.
That is why abstaining rose so much and Reform UK got so many votes: Conservative voters understood that the 2024 election is an election that does not matter as to policy, like the 2019 EU elections or by-elections, so they could protest by abstaining or voting for Reform UK, plus they are still mad at the Conservatives for "confiscating" the big property gains to which they are entitled, for as long as the past 2 years.
The collapse of the SNP is also a marvelous result for those factions that have persecuted Salmond and undermined Sturgeon, just as they persecuted Corbyn and undermined Johnson and Truss (and certainly did not help Sunak).
«The Sun excitedly announced that under the Tories, pensioners could look forward to an extra £2,000/year [...] If instead they'd gone for an uncomplicated £2k uplift, politically it would have been a big hit. Probably stemming the bleed in Reform's direction [...] An opportunity to salvage a few dozen more seats, lost.»
Not really: the bulk of tory voters vote on property, and 2 years of stalling property prices mean that the Conservatives have "confiscated" around £50k-100k of property gains to which they have entitled themselves, compared to which £2k hardly matter. There must be a minority of quite silly tories who vote Conservative to whom the state pension matters more as they don't have a property or it is in a "pushed behind" area. My guess is that it would not have swung as many as a “few dozen more seats”.
But note that New Labour did not promise “an uncomplicated £2k uplift” that would have benefited poor pensioners because that is... SOCIALISM! :-)
«locally here in Derby North, given the hard yards she's put in for a couple of years no one could accuse Labour's Catherine Atkinson for treating the election as a foregone conclusion.»
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derby_North_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2024/uk/constituencies/E14001193
2024: 40,900/57.0%: Con 9,704, RUK 7,488, NLab 18,619, LD 1,822, GRN 3,286
2019: 47,017/64.2%: Con 21,259, BXP 1,908, Lab 18,719, LD 3,450, GRN 1,026
2017: 48,762/69,1%: Con 21,607, UKI 1,181, Lab 23,622, LD 2,262
2015: 44,745/69.1%: Con 16,042, UKI 6,532, NLab 16,361, LD 3,832, GRN 1,618
2010: 45,080/63.1%: Con 14,283, BNP 2,000, NLab 14,896, LD 12,638
2005: 43,818/64.3%: Con 15,515, UKI 864, NLab 19,272, LD 7,209
2001: 44,054/57.8%: Con 15,433, ___ _____, NLab 22,415, LD 6,206
1997: 56,143/73.8%: Con 19,229, Ref 1,816, NLab 29,844, LD 5,059
1992: 59,019/80.7%: Con 28,574, ___ _____, Lab 24,121, LD 5,638
It is good that she Atkinson worked hard because the NLab/Lab vote has fallen significantly since 2017. There are other interesting trends here that reflect national trends, but as usual the media that use the "Westminster politics is like student politics" line do not care to look too closely at absolute vote numbers and turnouts.
It's interesting to hear that Farage is now going to push for PR. Is that going to be the new project for the right?
Hooray, hooray,hooray; we're Tory free today
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GwjfUFyY6M&list=RD3GwjfUFyY6M&start_radio=1
"Not really: the bulk of tory voters vote on property, and 2 years of stalling property prices mean that the Conservatives have "confiscated" around £50k-100k of property gains to which they have entitled themselves, compared to which £2k hardly matter."
Except property prices are up, not down, or even stalled, and certainly are up taken over 4-5 years, considerably, as a result of the inflation of the currency, in response to lockdowns. I bought my house in 2019 for £225,000, and its current market price is £330,000. The same inflation of asset prices, as a result of liquidity injections can be seen in stock markets that rocketed in 2020, and although they dropped by around 20-30%, in 2023, as global interest rates began to rise, just the prospect of cuts in central bank rates, towards the end of last year, reversed that, and has sent them higher.
The FTSE 250 went from 22k at start of 2020 to 24k in July 2021. It declined in 2022, even before Truss, as a result of rising global interest rates, to 20k and to 17k, spiking down due to Truss, before rising again to 21k after Truss, in early 2023. The continued rise in global rates gradually reduced it to 17k again towards the end of 2023, and hints of rate cuts has since sent it back up to 21k.
In large part outside the control of government or BoE, but subject to global interest rates, made worse by Brexit, and a problem that Blue Labour now faces.
Well Robert, I fear your claim that we are " Tory free today" , couldn't be further from the truth , if the openly stated actual policy directions of the Starmer government is examined in any depth . In fact ALL the neoliberal, austerity for the majority, and ever greater wealth for the tiny billionaire class, policies of the last 14 years will be continued, and indeed accelerated. For a very useful analysis of what the thoroughly bought by the rich, new, New, Labour Party , intends for the UK , have a read of the latest article in the online Tribune Magazine, " No, WE Haven't Run Out of Money" , by Joe Guinan and Howard Reed.
Under Starmer's utterly neoliberal , deeply corrupt and authoritarian Labour administration, the public realm services will collapse further still, physically in the case of hospital and school buildings, , and essentially be bought up by finance capital, as Labour re-enact , on steroids, Blair and co's disastrous PFI route to financing the public sector .
This will be a Macron-like, one term disaster of a Labour government, with the Far Right only likely to benefit electorally in five year's time. Anyone who picked up Wes Streeting's bizarre , and sinister, statement yesterday that , The Department of Health's new "POLICY" was that "the NHS has collapsed ", should be very afraid of what mega privatisation he has as a 'solution'. 'NHS Collapse' is surely an 'analysis' - requiring policy-based SOLUTION , not a 'policy', Streeting -- unless that 'collapse' stated as a 'policy', actually means you intend to collapse it entirely as a matter of Labour policy !
«austerity for the majority, and ever greater wealth for the tiny billionaire class»
This is the usual "whig" right-wing coinceit that "we are all in the same boat" (Cameron) except for “the tiny billionaire class” or, more frequently, the 1%.
Note: that conceit also usually evolves into the foolish argument that therefore the 10-14 million people who have voted Conservative for the past 14 years do not vote for the right on their interests but because they are very bad people they vote on racism, misogyny, homophobia, antisemitism, and that therefore politics is not about interests, but ideas and values, because "we are all middle class now" (Cameron again).
Actually most of those 10-14 million people and their families have had 14 years of booming living standards thanks to falling real wages and rapidly rising asset profits, and many started registering their protest at election time because of “2 years of stalling property prices”:
https://blissex.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/dataukhousingprices2020-2024.png
Blissex' one-trick pony argument of a mechanical link between property prices and the Tory vote is nonsense as I have set out previously. First of all its factually incorrect, as property prices have not fallen or stagnated recently. But, its logically inconsistent too.
The biggest drop in property/asset prices came from the Truss government and spike in interest rates. But, if we take the immiserated petty-bourgeois and lumpen vote in the "Red Wall", many of those Tory voters will be either renters, or in low value owner-occupation anyway. So changes in asset prices do not really affect them, they are likely to have little or no savings let alone stocks and shares either.
The shift of these votes to Reform cannot be explained on that basis, and given that Reform offers a repeat of Trussonomics, why would they see that as beneficial anyway?
If we take the other element of the Conservative vote, the professional middle-class, owner-occupiers in the Blue Wall, who would see a paper rise in wealth from inflated property/asset prices, these voters have moved overwhelmingly to the Liberals and Greens. But, both Liberals and Greens propose more spending and borrowing, and so higher interest rates, causing property/asset prices to crash, so why would they vote for that?
The reality is that the first component of the Tory vote was not driven by property/asset prices, but by its concerns on immigration/Brexit, and went to Reform as the Tories failed to deliver the undeliverable on it. The second component of the Conservative vote was also not primarily driven by property/asset prices, but by Brexit and immigration from the opposing direction.
There's an elephant which everyone, or at least everyone who doesn't actively desire a decent into ethno-nationalist murder mayhem, needs to get their eyes around post haste.
I'm talking about the spectre of young people starting to vote in significant numbers for the far right, here as well as on the continent. That's the far right vote that you really need to worry about, because decrepit and senile oldies don't have the physical ability for the violence which the far right always desires, but young people do.
So why are they doing it?
With a percentage of them - probably much less than half - it will be the same reason as it visibly is with so many of the elders: because they're intellectually deprived and/or brutish, and they either can't learn enough history to resist the far right's simplistic scapegoating, or they genuinely think that another Hitler would be just what they need for better prospects in life. We simply have to account for the presence of this lot, because they have probably always existed and probably always will.
What about the rest of them?
My guess would be that they are in a position of "We've tried everything else." They know full well that they need at least a partial reset of out-of-control wealth inequality before their world will do anything other than keep getting steadily worse and more intolerable. They know that the economic Overton Window has been dragged so far to the right that they can never expect this readjustment to come from a political position of "centre-" ANYTHING. And up until the French election, they've watched as every time that there is a genuine leftist option, the "centrists" treat it as a greater threat than the far right, and do everything in their power to crush it. They've seen that happen to their own votes when they have tried voting left. They see a "democratic" political system that asks them to believe in it yet cannot bring itself to even admit that meeting their needs would be a good idea. But they're not quite dumb enough to disengage entirely.
The French election is a very interesting moment, because I think it marks the first time since 2008 that a political "centre" bloc in a western country has finally decided that the right edge of the present Overton Window is a greater threat than the left edge. What they do now probably matters a lot. Will they refuse to give an inch on reducing wealth inequality and ceasing the asset stripping of the commons, instead acting as though they have no further use for their momentary leftist allies? Or will we see a long overdue change in priorities?
After these previous laughable hallucinations:
«your very regularly stated claim that the British voter is simply a personal house price monomaniac when deciding which party to back»
«it cannot, does not and will not ever amount to a theory of everything which always and everywhere explains how people vote»
More recently:
«one-trick pony argument of a mechanical link between property prices and the Tory vote»
Ah the usual comically silly hallucination.
«2 years of stalling property prices»
«property prices have not fallen or stagnated recently.»
Yet another comically silly hallucination. Again (and this graph was posted just some lines above the hallucination):
https://blissex.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/dataukhousingprices2020-2024.png
There was an abnormally large surge in 2020-2021, so *on average* tory voters have done fairly well in 2019-2024, but many petty-bourgeois voters are pig-headed and they get angry if their gains get "confiscated" in any given year. For them 25% in 2 years and nothing in next 2 years is much worse than 25% in total at 6% each year.\
Many of those get angry because they rely on yearly property rises to not-save for their pensions or to re-mortgage. A year without property gains means a large cut in their living standards.
Post a Comment