Why its not business as usual for the political parties following the election

The Exit Poll shocked the political establishment

In the aftermath of the General Election attention has turned inevitably to how this result occurred. It was not supposed to be like this. 

Theresa May should have been celebrating her increased majority, whilst Jeremy Corbyn was supposed to be clinging on to the Labour leadership by his fingernails as his right-wing opponents circle. Both the Conservative Party and the Labour establishment are, if truth be told, in a state of shock.

The ability of Labour to pin back the Tories, win seats they had not expected to and to deliver a defeat that feels like a victory has been analysed by a Westminster-based commentariat who, it seems to me, are still missing the key to Labour’s victory. 

Whilst some have mentioned Momentum as having had a ‘good campaign’ the secret weapon was not the ability, as some Tory MP’s have claimed, to offer young people what they keep saying is an “undeliverable offer”, but rather the ability to mobilise a mass membership in key marginals. 

The Labour Party is the largest social democratic party in Europe. It boasted around half a million members at the start of the election campaign (somewhat more now) many of whom had joined directly to support Jeremy Corbyn. Around 25,000  or so are also members of Momentum. During the Labour leadership campaign John McDonnell, campaigning for a Jeremy Corbyn victory, had wondered aloud what effect half a million members might have on the outcome of the next General Election. We now know. 

Jeremy Corbyn had plenty of young supporters

Popular, though incorrect, discourse has cultivated an image of Momentum as a youth organisation dominated by young idealistic first time voters. Although it is true that many of the activists on the ground were young people, those I met during the campaign ranged in age from 19 to 60. It is a mistake, therefore, to assume that young people, and particularly students, delivered the unexpected result for Labour.

Whilst some of Corbyn’s supporters are young, many are not. Whilst many were members of Momentum, many were not. This movement is a broad coalition of young, old, traditional and new Labour members.

When the election was called it was clear that Theresa May intended to hijack what she saw as an impregnable poll lead in order to destroy the opposition once and for all. This was to be a realignment of the country to deliver the hard Brexit she had once ‘campaigned’ against. 

The failure of the Conservative campaign was not a failure to win votes. Indeed, the vote share was second only to the 1983 election in which Margaret Thatcher won a landslide. The problem was that the vote increased disproportionately in so-called safe seats. The end result was that, as is now well known, the Tories threw away a parliamentary majority. 

On the other hand, Labour's success was won by a politically astute campaign from Jeremy Corbyn, and those around him, coupled with activity on the ground which counteracted the lacklustre approach of the Labour establishment who very nearly sabotaged the campaign. 

That Jeremy Corbyn had an impressive campaign is now acknowledged even by what the Daily Express called his ‘grovelling critics’ including Owen Smith, David Miliband and Chuka Umunna. 

Of course, it did Labour no harm that Theresa May ran what Tory apologist Rod Liddle, writing in The Spectator, declared “the worst Tory election campaign ever”. (https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/05/this-is-the-worst-tory-election-campaign-ever/#)

The Labour establishment also believed the polls and expected to see a huge increase in the Tory majority. Despite Jeremy Corbyn’s two leadership triumphs, it is the right of the party who still hold key positions  and crucially maintain control of the National Executive Committee. Corbyn's inability to cut through the poor public perception of him, they clearly believed, would trigger a leadership challenge in which a so-called ‘moderate’, Hillary Benn, Yvette Cooper or Chukka Umanna, would emerge to restore their control of the party.

Labour's Anna McMorrin winning Cardiff North

Many in UK Labour, believed that the campaign was doomed to failure and as such committed minimal resources to seats such as Cardiff North (where I happen to live) which were, in hindsight, clearly winnable (in the event Cardiff North turned a 2,000 Tory majority into a 4,000 Labour majority). 

Had Labour lost, say 20 or 30 seats, there is no doubt that we would now be looking at a vote of no confidence in Jeremy Corbyn and a rule change so that the members would have less say in the election of the Labour leader. The first is highly unlikely at present, the second will be the result of decisions taken at the Annual Conference in September.

The win in places such as Cardiff North and Kensington and Chelsea were undoubtedly successes  for the individual candidates who undertook their campaigns with enthusiasm and vigour. But, they were also a success for the hundreds of activists who flooded marginals. Finding a marginal was made considerably easier by a Momentum website that enabled activists to easily identify their nearest marginal seat. They were enthused by Jeremy Corbyn and a radical manifesto that was proving more popular than any manifesto from Labour in a long time.

As the campaign developed,  potential Labour voters were slowly warming to Jeremy Corbyn. One undecided voter told me “I’m not sure if I’ll vote for him but I’ve been really impressed with Jeremy Corbyn.” Another said “I was thinking of voting for her but if she won’t turn up for the debate what chance has she got against Europe.”

The Labour establishment were lukewarm about Jeremy Corbyn and were calculating at what number of vote losses a leadership challenge would be viable. A few days after the election was announced the Daily Telegraph reported that “Labour MPs privately admitted .. that it would be a "good result" to lose 45 out of 230 seats.” (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/20/labour-not-trying-win-general-election-senior-mp-admits-least/). 

A number of sitting MPs, all critics of Jeremy Corbyn, stood down whilst Bob Marshall-Andrews defected to the Liberal Democrats saying “To many, including me, there was a forlorn hope that a reformed and radical Labour Party would rise to historic occasion. It has not and shows no real sign of doing so.” (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4428548/Even-Labour-MPs-walk-out.html#ixzz4kRa1Krw3 )

A poor election result which would have seen 30-100 Labour MPs lose their seats would have been justification for their decision to pretend that Jeremy Corbyn did not exist. He was supposed to be ‘toxic’ and a vote loser. As one Labour MP reportedly told a potential voter when questioned about Corbyn: “Don’t worry about him we’ll get rid of him after the election.”

The problem for all those constituencies who tried to ignore Jeremy Corbyn was that most voters have little interest in politics most of the time. The national media, which is where most voters get their information, were concentrating on May versus Corbyn. On the doorsteps this emphasis was reflected back.

In Wales the situation is slightly confused by the existence of the Welsh Assembly which has devolved power for education and health amongst other things. However, on doorsteps nobody ever mentioned Carwyn Jones. As one canvasser told me, “ the only time Carwyn’s name came up, it was as a reason for not voting Labour.” 

But, the reality remains that national elections are dominated by national media and national figures. Whilst much has been made of the apparent unity in the Labour Party currently, both left and right will now enter a period where both sides will seek to outperform the other in vital elections to Party positions. In many ways, this is business as usual. But this time there is a difference.

Many first time canvassers, mostly on the Corbyn wing of the party, turned out. Some of them were young people involved in their first General Election campaign. To mobilise a mass party at an election is relatively easy as there is a lot to be done and people’s enthusiasm has a channel. 

Many of those who have joined Labour over the past couple of years have no idea what it is they have signed up for. They will not be happy with some of the arcane decision making processes, the meetings dominated by procedural issues or the lack of politics which does still characterise much of the Party’s activity. 

Transforming the Labour Party may not be an easy task

They will demand change or they will leave. It is the left of the party who need to facilitate a cultural change if the mass movement they favour is to survive. If the left do disappear into a party bubble in which winning positions against the right becomes the be all then the Labour Party will quickly lose its members and its momentum. Those hundreds of thousands of members now have to feel comfortable being part of a party that gives them a home for their political aspirations and a party that welcomes change to the old ways of doing politics.

For both the Conservative Party and the Labour establishment it is tempting to regard the result in 2017 as an anomaly that will soon be corrected. For the Conservative Party they can console themselves with the knowledge that their Faustian pact with the DUP keeps them in power (for now); the Labour establishment will pay lip service to Jeremy Corbyn and claim that the successes were theirs, whilst at the same time biding their time in an attempt to take the Party back by bureaucratic manoeuvres if not another coup. For both they are trying to carry on as if it is business as usual. This is a massive mistake. 

Electoral campaigns are won and lost by many things, but any party that can mobilise hundreds of thousands of people to knock on doors and take the arguments to people who are the victims of Government policies which have ignored them, will have a major advantage. So long as Jeremy Corbyn remains as Labour leader the activists will continue to stand behind him. Whilst he is by no means unassailable he, and the left he leads, have a clear advantage both in terms of controlling the Labour Party and challenging the cosy hegemony of the Conservatives.

Respecting the vote

You may have missed it but there’s a General Election taking place in the UK on June 8th. 

Now, it is not my intention to tell you how to vote. I’ve previously suggested that we might want to think about a more compassionate politics, and that we should prioritise the eradication of poverty, I’ll leave it to you to decide which party is most likely to achieve those things. (Hint: probably not the Tories though.)

We know that, generally speaking, politics and politicians are not held in high esteem. Despite this, you might think that, of course, most people vote. Very few people admit to not voting, and those that do are not usually proud of the fact. But, at the last General Election (in 2015) 15 million people (some 34% of the electorate) did not vote. At no election in recent history has turnout exceeded 80% (it was 78% in 1992). And, whilst that figure might sound high it means that somewhere between 10 and 15 million potential voters do not vote in General Elections.

Is this something we should be concerned about?

After all, voting is not compulsory in the UK. Surely it is a persons’ right to decide not to vote? It is worth noting however that where voting is compulsory, such as in Australia, turnout still doesn’t reach 100%. Having said that over a comparable time period turnout at General Elections in Australia never fell below 91% and is usually around 95%.

Voting is not just the process of putting a cross on a ballot paper every few years, but a reminder that the voter is a member of a social and political community. Democratic processes are a means, albeit often flawed, whereby ordinary citizens get to shape the kind of society they live in.

According to the political philosopher John Rawls in his highly influential books A Theory of Justice and Justice as Fairness, the most important of what he termed primary goods was ‘self-respect’. Self-respect matters to people for as Rawls says in its absence “nothing may seem worth doing, or if some things have value for us, we lack the will to strive for them. All desire and activity becomes empty and vain and we sink into apathy and cynicism.” (Rawls, 1971: 440)

Of course, when we think about voting it is not usual to think of it as related to self-respect. It is more often seen as a ‘device’ to choose representatives, parties or particular policies. 

Which of these depends on the type of vote and the voting system employed. Robert Dahl’s excellent book On Democracy points out that democratic systems rely on voters and votes being equal. Each voter has one vote and each vote is equal to any other vote. Nobody’s vote counts more than anybody elses and nobody has more votes than any other citizen. Ordinary citizens have exactly the same say as the rich and powerful. 

The advantage of such a system was described as long ago as 431 B.C. by Pericles who reportedly said: “Our ordinary citizens, though occupied with the pursuits of industry, are still fair judges of public matters.”

The idea that each vote is equal is the basis of a recognition that in democracies all citizens are, nominally, equal. Being an equal citizen in terms of rights (and responsibilities) reminds us that despite differences in wealth, income and life chances we each have a stake in society. As Rawls notes our self-respect is a recognition that “what we do in everyday life is worthwhile.” (ibid. p.441) Voting is one way in which self-respecting citizens present themselves as equal to others in their community.

A person who fails to use their vote is doing more than abstaining from the democratic process they are undermining the basis of their own self-respect. What is important in this sense is the way in which our self-respect is, in part, a reflection of the respect we perceive from others. In the act of abstention a non-voter is usually not making a positive critique of democracy. If they wanted to do so they could ‘spoil’ their paper. Rather, they are saying that their vote does not matter. That all the democratic decisions taken in their name, from going to war to reducing (or increasing) the benefits of those in poverty, do not concern them. Or, if they do, they have no right to a say in them. In effect, they are saying that they are not a mature, self-respecting member of their political community. By undermining their self-respect they infantilise themselves in a way which is inconsistent with their being the type of person who should be respected.  

This may sound a rather harsh judgement as there may well be good reasons for not voting. The non-voters may feel that their decision is rational and, in some cases, even a political act in itself. A survey by Survation in 2014 finds that in many ways non-voters are similar to voters in terms of their general attitudes. The reasons they gave for not voting included not believing that their vote will make any difference, that the parties and candidates are all the same, a lack of interest in politics, and not having enough information or knowledge to choose. In addition to these factors, a large percentage of those who did not vote in the last election and do not intend to vote in the next election said their main reason for not voting was that their beliefs are not represented by the parties and candidates. All of which sound like good reasons.

There is certainly a sense that in some constituencies the same party always wins, or that there is very little difference between the parties (though that is certainly not the case in the forthcoming election), but it is also instructive to note that in the last four general elections, the number of non-voters was significantly higher than the number of votes for the winning party. If the non-voters had got together, formed their own party and stood they would probably have won! Of course, that would never happen partly because of the lack of self-respect that non-voters have and partly, perhaps more importantly, it is unlikely that non-voters would be able to agree a platform that all of them could sign up to.

Whilst non-voters tend to justify their inactivity it is difficult to know how to overcome their apparent apathy. If they have a lack of interest in politics it does seem that they have a lack of interest in decisions which directly affect them. If they claim not to have enough information in an information age it can only be that they are deliberately switching off from the barrage of information that is made available particularly at election times. It is more likely that they see themselves as powerless, and the decision to disengage politically would not be affected, on the whole, by politics being conducted in any other way.

Research conducted by the Hansard Society in 2002 following the low turnout in the 2001 General Election suggested that people who do not vote have made that decision long before the election. The election campaign, if they noticed it at all, made no difference to their decision to abstain.

We might argue about whether the present voting system (first past the post) is fair or not. We might argue whether those who stand for office are the best people for the job (almost by definition anybody who wants to be an MP is unsuited for the job!). We might argue whether the current political party system allows for minority views to get a hearing. We might argue whether the influence of the media (print and broadcast) is a force for good or not. In other words, there is a perfectly legitimate argument along the lines of ‘if voting changed anything, they’d abolish it’. Nevertheless, if a person is to be a part of a community and if they believe that they are equal to others in their community that comes not just with benefits but responsibilities.

A self-respecting person is one who feels that they are a legitimate member of society with all the rights and benefits that entails. One of the benefits of living in a democracy is the ability to both stand for office and vote for those who do stand.

Elections, whilst often conducted on the personalities of the leaders, are in reality about the shape of society. They ask the question: what type of society do you want to live in? Sometimes, and I believe it is the case in this coming election, voters are presented with alternatives that are very stark. For the sake of their own self-respect every potential voter should take sides.