Boris vs Corbyn: Will Britain’s December election break the Brexit deadlock?

Those who join or keenly support political parties normally follow the maxim that their worst government is always better than their opponents’ best government. An Australian political aphorism is that only an inch divides left and right – but it’s the inch we live in. 

The long pull of Britain’s two main political parties broke down when they achieved just 23 percent of the vote in the 2019 European elections, down from 82 percent in the 2017 general election.

Whether the lower figure was a blip or a sign of changing times depends on how much that optimistic maxim is questioned on polling day next month by Labour and Conservative voters, many of whom feel politically homeless, often on the Brexit issue. 

Many once senior Conservatives have concluded that their party has become ideologically obsessive on Brexit and have either left the party or are standing as independents. These include former cabinet ministers David Gauke and Rory Stewart who have resigned their membership and are standing, respectively, as independents in the current election and in next year’s London mayoral elections. 

The Times newspaper columnist Matthew Parris, who once worked for Margaret Thatcher before becoming a Conservative MP, now advocates voting for the Liberal Democrats to stop Brexit.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn’s position on Brexit is testing the faith of Labour members, although many dissenters also cite other fears. Antisemitism has become more normal, as has what I call knee-jerk anti-imperialism. A recent example of this was a Corbyn tweet that damned the supposed coup against the former Bolivian president Evo Morales, who sought to break the term limit on his once beneficial presidency.

That passionate and swift tweet contrasted with decision not to make an immediate comment on the death of the Islamic State (ISIS) leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Corbyn could have then taken the moral high ground by saying, for instance, that a trial was preferable, although Baghdadi used a suicide belt, and commended the Kurds for their role in tracing the genocidal leader of a fascist death cult. No one knows what difference all this makes electorally. 

Labour however, got off to an electrifying start with telegenic rallies before a policy bombshell grabbed the headlines and gave it momentum. It was the offer to provide free full fibre broadband to every home and business by partly nationalising British Telecom and making the tech companies pay the running costs.

The goal of connectivity is widely shared and this offer reminds me of former Labour leader Harold Wilson’s famous promise in 1963 that a new Britain would need to be forged in the “white heat” of a scientific revolution. Labour is again claiming ownership of modernity.

The offer may survive arguments during the campaign about its costs, feasibility, and fears that a state monopoly would be inefficient. Its audacity is accompanied by other radical nationalisation measures and spending promises. The Conservatives have had a bumbling start and are offering increased spending but not as much as Labour. The question is whether people who have been hit badly by austerity for a decade go for broke with Labour or intuit that the offers are too good to be true. 

As a Labour press officer in Brighton in the 1983 election I dangled the radical manifesto’s many meaty goodies before various lobby groups. But we came third there and Labour lost badly nationally while the manifesto was dubbed the longest suicide note in history because its cornucopia of commitments was ultimately deemed incredible. But Labour enthusiasts argue that the time is now right for a decisive break with the consensus of the last generation.

As I’m not a betting man I won’t predict the outcome of this election because there are too many national, regional, and local variables to juggle, especially the salience of Brexit. The Liberal Democrats are doing their best to be the main party of Remain and hoover up votes from Conservative and Labour Remainers to maybe double or even treble their representation to about 40 or 60 MPs.

Labour’s position seeks to appeal to both sides of the Brexit debate. A Labour government would negotiate a new withdrawal deal with the EU and then put a credible Labour Brexit plus the Remain option to a new referendum. Corbyn says he and the party will decide their position when a deal is done. Whether that is seen as the best or the worst of all worlds is an open question for those who are passionate about doing Brexit or scrapping it. 

The Brexit party withdrew its candidates from the 317 seats currently held by the Conservatives and implicitly endorses Johnson’s Brexit deal. But they are still contesting Labour seats where the Conservatives are second-placed. It’s anyone’s guess what traffic there will be between the parties and if the reduced Brexit party challenge would let Labour retain seats crucial to a Conservative majority.

The guru of electoral arithmetic John Curtice argues that the Conservatives have a 66 percent chance of winning while Labour has an almost zero chance, but then argues that if the Conservatives fail to win an outright (if small) majority then Labour’s offer of a Brexit referendum will unite remain parties behind a minority Labour administration. 

The first live TV debate on Tuesday night was between the leaders of the two main parties and will please those who want that to be the main choice. It was the first time for millions to judge them in roughly 1,000 seconds each. Johnson was less bumbly but sometimes more bumptious while Corbyn was more humorously humble. Johnson made stronger points on Brexit while Corbyn repeatedly refused to clarify his own position in any new Brexit referendum but won points on the National Health Service. A YouGov snap poll said it was a score draw on the night. How that translates on the day depends on whether Brexit or health counts more in December.

In the meantime, unexpected domestic crises could expose party leaders’ instincts and policies for good or for ill. Who knows? Maybe more floods and a severe flu crisis judging by the outbreak in the Australian winter, which is usually a bad sign for Britain. And international events could be awkward or advantageous for leaders. A military crackdown in Hong Kong and worse or bloodier chaos in Iraq and Iran come to mind. Furthermore, President Trump will be in London before the election. And we have yet to see the fine print of their manifestos. Many will cast postal ballots in the next fortnight and seal some results before the campaign ends. We don’t have long to wait. 

Gary Kent is the Secretary of the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) and a Fellow of Soran University. He writes this column for Rudaw in a personal capacity. The address for the all-party group is appgkurdistan@gmail.com. The APPG is currently suspended ahead of the general election.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of Rudaw.

• SHARE ON
• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter
• Share on Whatsapp
• Share on Telegram
• Share on Viber
• Share on Messenger