There is the portentous prospect of more elections on the horizon. Pros and cons? Chances of them happening? Let's have a look.
A General Election This Year?
My father, usually far wiser on things like this than me, told me yesterday that there will not be another GE this year, nor before the natural end of elected term (2020?) because there was no advantage in it for the Tories, who will ultimately decide. Mrs. May, long odds favourite to become the next PM confirmed this position this morning, citing the need for calm and stability in the political arena after a tumultuous 10 days.
The cynical side of my nature questions whether the decision taken on the timing of the next GE will have anything whatsoever to do with a benevolent concern for the stability of society or even the political arena - it will be cold, clinical determination based solely on personal and party political ambitions. I think that Teresa May's spiel about calm is aimed a characterising her as the sensible choice, the mother hen. There there, sit back for a bit, close your eyes, I'll take care of you all. Maybe she will? Maybe she'll be excellent?
The next Downing Street Premier will not be constitutionally compelled to offer a GE even though they would be directing the ship, to borrow a David Cameron metaphor, without ever receiving a personal mandate from the electorate - and we're talking about four years of leadership here, ample time to improve or diminish the nation. There is no doubt that the votes cast for one's local MP is, in the majority of cases, based on the opinion of the leader of said party, as opposed to one's opinion about the local MP. The 2015 election was a vote for David Cameron - or - a vote against Ed Milliband - neither of whom are relevant anymore.
Although constitutionally unenforceable, a strong opposition would be able to heap enough pressure on the new incumbent to highlight the democratic inconsistency in not offering an election, that further evasion on the issue may appear weak and affect the Tory leader, who ever that may be (May), negatively in the public eye and press them into a snap election before they suffer anymore. There is currently no such opposition, however.
Could this paradoxically encourage the new PM to call an election almost immediately? I won't predict such an event with any degree of certainty at this moment, but it is an interesting notion. The Tory majority in the Commons in precarious, especially in a divided party, even in an only recently reunited one. A desire to implement tough new policies, social reform etc. will most probably need a more comfortable majority. Why not call an election when the Labour Party are in disarray and fundamentally unelectable?
Will Corbyn be in power by the Autumn, when Cameron goes? If so, will he have isolated most of his party by that time? Oh yes, he already has! What situation will British politics be in if this is the case? A split? Like I mentioned in my previous post, the lack of clout in terms of personality, if a split was to occur, might well cause a decimation of both ends of the Labour spectrum. Many moderate Labour supporters could conceivably turn to the Tories, purely as a vote for calm stability - exactly what Mrs. May is presenting herself as a vote for. This dynamic should be monitored closely - I've have no doubt that Mrs. May, or possibly Mrs. Leadsom, will call an election early if they calculate great gains in their parliamentary majority - but it will always be a risk, a throw of the dice - will the next leader risk four years of definite rule with a minimal majority for the possibility of a far greater one, knowing that they could conceivably lose the only crack at power they'll ever get?
Another EU Referendum?
Didn't we all see it coming? Surely we did. A throng of dissenting voices have joined ranks with the likes of Damon Albarn in claiming that a another referendum should be offered - presumably ad infinitum - until we get the correct democratic result. It's a pesky little blighter that Democracy. The Demos, the people, are clearly unable to think straight. Now, I don't know whether or not we will do better inside or outside the EU; I don't know what was fact and what was fiction in the claims prior to the referendum, but I am quite sure that once a referendum as substantial as the one we have just endured, is ignored, we are entering dangerous territory that WILL be worse for Joe Public.
With 72.2% turnout and over 30 million individuals casting their vote, the referendum was quite rightly described as the greatest expression of democracy in modern history. The decision was relatively slight, but the 4% difference between the two results equated to 1.3 million votes. A huge number of people. It is inherently unfortunate however, that beneath the beauty of democracy lurks the acrid shadows of division. Millions of individuals feel let down.
Europe always ranked lowly in polls that asked "what's the most important issue (for voters)?" The referendum campaign has changed that. Those who usually answered "the economy" or "healthcare" are finally aware of the power that the EU parliament does, or potentially could, have to direct those two elements of UK governance - as well as others. The political elite, who are in near universal agreement on the EU, have failed to point this out over recent years and denied or avoided the issue when asked. The more the electorate got to know the EU and how it works, the less they seemed to like it.
The political instability in both main UK political parties is making the future negotiations on Brexit, and whether we will Brexit at all, decidedly unclear. Those aggrieved with the result have exploited this instability clinical cynicism. Let's not for get that Sammy, Labour MP for Tottenham, immediately called for an "end to the madness" insisting that parliament doesn't have to respect the verdict of the referendum. That should be his political legacy written in black marker for the rest of recorded history. Sammy made these remarks on the back of his constituency voting overwhelmingly to remain, like most of London. A calculated manehouvre.
Tony Blair and Peter Mandelson, two sceptics of democracy, have added their voices to "ruling nothing out" when it comes to ignoring the result of the referendum or having another. Blair has suggested that people should be able to "feel the affects" of Brexit before possibly being asked to decided again. How clever. The grass is always greener. Any problem, Brexit related or not, can be attributed somehow to Brexit and, with no way of knowing what might have happened had we voted remain, this will probably swing the result of the next referendum, if we have one, towards a Remain vote.
One of the distinct problems laid manifest after analysis of the results, is the geographical relativity of the voting patterns. London, Scotland and to a lesser extent N. Ireland voted categorically to Remain in the EU. Nearly every other individual constituency voted to Leave, far more that voted to stay, although the number of votes concentrated in London made the final polling close than the coloured map, indicating Remain or Leave, implied.
This has magnified the problem because Remainers in London feel buoyed by the localised support for EU membership. Democracy has not failed them - democracy either fails or succeeds, and it has evidently succeeded, or will have once (if) our EU membership is revoked. On the national scale, the vote simply didn't go their way. If we are to preserve national unity, then the economic and cultural bubble that is London, despite being the most heavily populated and significant city in the UK - will have to bow down and succumb to the will of the rest of the country. The only other option is an internal breakaway, with London remaining part of the EU and becoming virtual principality. I can't see this happening as it is the sort of cherry picking that the EU chiefs have already warned will not be possible. They are proud totalitarians.
What we must avoid, which I can see becoming more and more possible as the weeks, months and years slide by, is that we come out, officially, then, on the back of a Pro-EU party (such as the Lib Dems who have already made rejoining the EU their primary policy in the next GM) or a Pro-EU section of one of the two main parties, ask to rejoin on inferior terms.
It's A Roffey
