What Theresa May Probably Won’t Say (but should)

In this post, I will try and sketch out a possible speech which the Prime Minister could give in Parliament in the immediate aftermath of MPs voting to reject the Withdrawal Agreement (WA) and Political Declaration regarding the UK’s future relationship with the EU. Personally, I believe that the WA is a good and conscientious attempt, in very difficult political circumstances, to achieve Brexit and many of its key aims while retaining a friendly and co-operative relationship with the EU. If MPs do, as Theresa May hopes and implores them to do, and look at what the impact would be if they were to reject the deal, I share her view that voting for the WA would be the best outcome. I appreciate that I am in a minority in that.

But, more pithily, I think what she is really saying to MPs of all persuasions on Brexit is “do you feel lucky, punk?”- if one is a supporter of leaving the EU on 29 March 2019 without a deal, would voting the WA down really lead to a government which could in practice be strong and stable (sic) enough under any leadership, to get through that form of Brexit? If one is a supporter of further renegotiation, a second referendum or some other means of “softening” Brexit or even stopping it, do you, on 11 December 2018 believe that there exists in Parliament today a government which can emerge and deliver that? Even if you do think either of those things, could you bear it if the alternative won out – as a No Deal supporter, would you bear the consequence of voting down the WA being there was No Brexit, as a supporter of No Brexit, would you bear the consequence of a No Deal Brexit? Or is the imperfect compromise on offer in the WA better (however reluctantly and privately you may voice this ahead of going through the lobbies) than the outcome you most hate? We will find out very soon. So, here it is, what I think the Prime Minister should say if (or when) Parliament rejects the WA.

“Mr Speaker, the job of Prime Minister requires many attributes. On a day like today, the two most significant are the ability to face the reality of uncomfortable truths and the ability to make hard choices about how to act when faced with them. The decision by this House to vote against the proposed Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration regarding the UK’s future relationship with the EU is one very uncomfortable truth for me and the Government I am honoured to lead. But it is not the only one which we must all in this place now face up to and it is not in itself a decision about the hard choice we must now all make about the future of the UK.

This Government has worked tirelessly to negotiate the Withdrawal Agreement over the last two years. I pay tribute to my Right Honourable friends, the current and former Secretaries of State for Exiting the EU, for their conscientious efforts in that regard, as I do also to the teams across Government and the Civil Service supporting their efforts. I  regret that some Honourable and Right Honourable friends, on leaving Government, have on occasion affected an unawareness of the uncomfortable truths they knew full well while in office.

When I became Prime Minister and started the negotiations for Brexit, I said, ‘Brexit means Brexit’ and that we must make a success of it. Since then, I have been clear that our approach to giving effect to the vote of the people of the UK in the 2016 referendum had to be to one which made a success of Brexit itself. Brexit is a process which will have a long impact on this nation whichever way it ultimately plays out. Nobody of conscience carrying out the role of Prime Minister could approach it as merely an instruction to leave the EU with no care for how that should in practice be effected and that is why there was an overwhelming majority in this House for seeking a negotiated agreement to exit the EU even among those who did not personally agree with the decision to do so. 

Throughout, the aims we have had were clear and based on the reasons for the majority having voted for the UK to leave the EU. We would be ending free movement of people with the EU and regaining full control over immigration. We would be ensuring a continued close trading relationship with the EU while being free to make trade deals with the wider world. We would be acting in the interests of the whole of the UK by ensuring that there was no hard border between the UK and Ireland and no differential treatment of the different nations of the UK. We would be ceasing to be subject to the European Court of Justice. We would be regaining those aspects of our sovereignty which as members of the EU we had agreed to pool with the other Member States. I believed and continue to believe that the Withdrawal Agreement which this House has rejected satisfied all of those aims and would have enabled the UK to leave the EU on 29 March 2019 in an orderly and beneficial manner, giving effect, as promised, to the outcome of the referendum. 

At each step of the process, this Government has worked tirelessly to maintain for itself and the country, the most flexibility possible to enable us to achieve the best available deal with the EU. This is why the Government contested the legal proceedings brought by Gina Miller. It is why it has at no stage done as some have recommended and dramatically flounced out of negotiations. It is also why we resisted to the fullest extent possible the application made to the Court of Justice regarding the unilateral revocability of the notification I made to the EU under Article 50. We have been steadfast in our commitment to negotiate an agreement to leave the EU even to the extent of having had to bear defeats along the way in defending that ideal and that approach.

I also said that ‘No Deal is better than a Bad Deal’. I continue to believe this. But the uncomfortable truth is that the deal which this House has decided to reject was not merely “not a Bad Deal” but a good deal which was far better for this country than No Deal. Another uncomfortable truth is that it is clear from the EU that it has no appetite for any further substantial negotiation and in particular that it will not negotiate any further concession or removal of the back stop. The reality which all in this House and the country must now face is that there is no other deal for the UK to exit the EU under. All alternative deals which may be conceived of, whether they involve seeking to join EFTA or some “different, social Europe” which never existed and is inconsistent with the nature of the EU must include provisions relating to the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland and so must either indefinitely extend the transition period or have a backstop provision. If there was one clear unifying thread for opposition to the Withdrawal Agreement from the debates before this House it is that any such indefinite backstop or extended transition would be unacceptable. It is therefore now impossible for any government to argue for any renegotiation of substance even if the EU were amenable to it because any form of new deal would founder on the same rocks. 

So, as Prime Minister, I am left with the uncomfortable truth that no deal for Brexit will be acceptable to this House. But there is one further uncomfortable truth that some of my Honourable and Right Honourable friends must also face up to. No Deal Brexit, leaving the EU without any agreement with the EU as to the UK’s future relationship, is also not acceptable to this House or to many in the country away from this place. 

Some have criticised me for not having planned for No Deal. They have breezily opined that it would be easy enough to manage, just as they thought that we could get an agreement with the EU just by turning up with a sunny disposition and a smile. However, as explained by my Right Honourable friend, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, even if we just look at the NHS, the immediate impact of a No Deal Brexit, however much contingency planning and mitigation were to be put in place, would be substantial shortages of essential medicines. My Right Honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport has outlined the likelihood of at best 6 months of logjam at our sea ports. Some in this House may look to Venezuela for inspiration for another way of doing things and bearing material privations in basic goods for some greater ideological aim, but I cannot in conscience say that I do. The uncomfortable truth is that the reality of No Deal Brexit is not a reality that most ordinary people in the country would want to have to bear. And nor should they. This is not World War 2. There is no murderous dictatorship raining bombs on our civilian population to unify ordinary people in the desire to dig for victory and sacrifice their health and services to winning the war. This is not Project Fear but reality. 

This then leaves me with a hard choice. In the circumstances, an easy choice would be to conduct my own personal Brexit and leave this to someone else to deal with. That would be cowardly. I hope that it is clear that I am no coward.

Another easy choice would be to call for another referendum. But that would merely prolong things and leave the country in a state of uncertainty. I would hope that in a second referendum, the country would agree that the Withdrawal Agreement is, for the reasons I have given many times to this House and in the country, the best and only way to secure a Brexit which provides for the bright future the country deserves. But were they to do so, there is no guarantee that this House, where the nation’s practical sovereignty resides would agree. 

Therefore, with regret, I propose that I should exercise the power still available to the UK as a sovereign nation, and in the interests of all, notify the EU of our revocation of the notice given under Article 50. In order to do this expeditiously, my Right Honourable friend, the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU will forthwith introduce before this House a Bill which will provide for a statutory basis for that decision. Further Bills will subsequently be introduced to reverse the legislation for Brexit already enacted. In addition, my Right Honourable friend, the Home Secretary, will publish a White Paper on the future management of migration to the UK within the context of the UK continuing to be a Member State of the EU.”

Corbyn’s Brexit Hokey Cokey

I’m not very good at predictions but one I made a couple of years ago has turned out to seem fairly prescient. Back in 2015 when Jeremy Corbyn had just scraped onto the ballot for the Labour leadership, I noted that he was very strongly and consistently anti-EU and this in itself ought to give pause for thought even to eurosceptic Conservatives. For those who supported continuing EU membership at a time when David Cameron had won the first Conservative majority (what’s that?) in 23 years, having someone leading the Opposition, however scruffy and apparently unelectable, who firmly sided with Tony Benn in believing the EU to be an anti-democratic imposition of neoliberalism on the UK, should not have been seen as anything other than a huge threat. For those who supported Labour and its embrace of EU membership gained in the long struggle back to government after humiliation in 1983, it ought to have been reason enough to reject Corbyn. 

But, as we know, nobody very much from any side of the political spectrum did notice or care very much about this, even if since the EU Referendum, Brexit is the biggest political issue we all face. Indeed, it isn’t so much that people didn’t notice, it’s more that they deliberately ignored the ample evidence of it as inconsistent with their broader perception of what Labour was offering on Brexit. Despite Corbyn having gone on TV the morning after the Referendum to say that Article 50 should be triggered immediately even now I hear his supporters say that that was either because he didn’t know the ramifications of doing so (which is an odd thing to call in support) or because he is a democrat and wanted to respect a result he did not want. Despite him having refused to share a platform with Cameron to campaign for Remain and been described by the leaders of the Labour In campaign to have barely participated in it, it is claimed that he worked tirelessly on the Remain side. Nipping off to Portugal for a holiday during the campaign is similarly dismissed as irrelevant, along with his expression of “7 out of 10” support for the EU on Channel 4’s Last Leg. Only last weekend, a Labour activist sincerely argued to me that in this year’s Labour Conference members will vote overwhelmingly for a second referendum and opposing Brexit, and that Corbyn will pursue that policy, despite having been re-elected as leader in a campaign where he denigrated Owen Smith’s call for a second referendum. 

Detailed analysis of the 2017 General Election and attitudes of voters through the campaign from the British Election Study shows that not only was Brexit by a long margin the biggest issue informing who voters voted for but that Labour picked up a very big majority of the support of those who supported Remaining in the EU or having the “softest” Brexit possible and remaining in the Single Market and Customs Union . Individual Labour candidates did strongly pursue this line (including my local one who had criticised the LibDem MP he defeated for having sat on the fence by abstaining on the Article 50 Bill, proudly signed up to the Queens Speech amendment put forward by Chuka Umunna then promptly was persuaded to abstain, thereby avoiding censure in his first week on the job while other MPs lost their shadow ministerial posts over it). Overall, there was a perception that a Labour Brexit would somehow be softer and gentler than a Tory one, even though there was nothing in what Corbyn had ever said or his manifesto to support this. 

Since then, Corbyn has railed against the “wholesale importation” of foreign workers and essentially moved to a position more strongly against free movement of workers than heard from anyone other than Nigel Farage. Farage approvingly described him for these comments as “almost a proper chap”. Given that Corbyn is unsurprisingly critical of the other fundamental freedoms of the EU there really isn’t any significant bit of the EU that he doesn’t have a basic problem with. If attempting to retain as many of the benefits of the Single Market as possible while no longer having free movement of workers is a difficult problem for David Davis, doing so while wishing to curtail free movement of goods, capital and freedom of establishment is an impossibility. 

Where my 2015 warning went wrong was in expecting Corbyn to be open about his position on the EU and to have led the calls to leave. Instead, what has happened seems to be more subtle in that he did the least amount possible to support remaining in, which was just enough to prevent his largely pro-EU supporters and voters abandoning him, and then waited in hope that his ideal outcome of leaving the EU without any future relationship or agreement will transpire and for the Conservatives to take blame for something he could not have delivered on purpose. With no external check against subsidies or moving away from market economy principles coming from the EU, he would be free to pursue the Bennite dream of a socialist siege economy in the UK.

Whether he and those around him are clever enough to have done this on purpose, or that it is a happy coincidence, we’ll never know. But even on a purely partisan basis leaving aside any of the policy or political issues, it ought to have always been clear that the biggest beneficiary of a defeat for Remain in the referendum was going to be Corbyn because of the damage that defeat would inflict on Cameron. This may explain why he felt that he was strong enough to sack Hilary Benn and start to purge himself of the disloyal immediately after the referendum. That this benefit was not felt immediately is in large part down to the challenge to Corbyn’s leadership which followed, which was itself partly motivated by a significant minority in Labour who could see that Corbyn wasn’t going to lead them anywhere other than towards a “hard” Brexit. 

The best defence against this will of course be for the details of the Brexit agreement to be somewhat “soft” in retaining those checks which are beneficial*, albeit as sovereign decisions of the UK made bilaterally with the EU rather than as rules of the EU which we are bound by our accession to the EU 45 years ago. At the moment it is unclear where things stand because of the nature of the negotiations but it is interesting that the Chancellor, Philip Hammond, is talking of transitional arrangements which make UKIPpers froth at the mouth while Corbyn’s position on the EU is getting Farage to purr. Ripping up all of the legacy of 45 years within the EU wouldn’t be in the EU’s interests or in any potential Prime Minister’s other than Corbyn. 

But the people who voted for Corbyn, don’t want what he wants. So we are in the strange world of May having lost her majority because people thought she would aim for too hard a Brexit now being the bulwark against the ultra-hard Brexit which the man they voted for actually wants. I suspect that being canny folks, the EU team led by Michael Barnier will know that if they cause this government to fall, it will be replaced by one which won’t even want a deal at all. 

The question is whether the large proportion of people who voted Labour in June on the basis of expecting them to soften the impact of Brexit will continue to support Labour under Corbyn if and when they realise that he has no intention of doing that. Maybe they will. Or maybe, as with the discovery that he had no intention of writing off or reducing past student debt despite saying “I will deal with it”, it will take more examples to overcome the cognitive dissonance of evidence of Labour’s actions coming up against people’s perceptions of their intentions. 

So, we put our left leg in, our left leg out, in out, in out, shake it all about. Do the Hokey Cokey and turn around. Brexit, it’s all about!

I am not at all discounting the possibility that there will be aspects of Brexit which could be advantageous, merely acknowledging that there are also many aspects of the EU which are also beneficial and where there is no obvious major improvement to be gained by doing something different or in conflict. The purist approach of “let’s just get rid of all the regulation” is unrealistic in practice because it ignores the costs of change even where the thing being changed to is better. In many cases economies of scale or of effort would mean that even if there were a lighter UK regulatory regime, most businesses would comply voluntarily with the dominant foreign standard. We can see this in reverse in anti-bribery compliance where the UK has one of the toughest regimes globally and so most businesses seek to comply with it as doing so then involves minimal additional adjustment to comply with laws elsewhere in the world. Even if we were to ditch all EU regulation, from experience, much of it would end up being incorporated contractually by businesses (at least those doing cross-border work), regardless of whether they liked the regulations – e.g. it is now pretty much standard practice to extend by contract the application of the new EU Data Protection Regulation to beyond the date on which the UK will leave the EU. There’s not much benefit to business in repealing EU regulations and replacing them with lighter touch UK ones if businesses will shun the additional freedoms and comply with EU ones! On the other hand, were a future UK government to decide to regulate more stringently than the EU does, particularly for “suspect” foreign countries (as might be expected from a Labour Party which was not so keen on globalised trade and was naturally more suspicious about the activities of big corporations), that would potentially be harmful. 

Reflections on General Election 2017

First off, I have learned that I need to give up on making predictions about elections. After thinking Ed Miliband would win a majority in 2015, right up until the exit poll last week I was pretty sure the Conservatives would win a 100 seat majority in the 2017 General Election. Unlike in 2015, this was not just based on the media, polls and pundits but also on my experiences helping the campaign of the Conservative candidate for Leeds North West, Alan Lamb (pictured below with the victorious Labour candidate, Alex Sobel, at the count in Leeds Civic Centre, a little before the formal declaration).

Apart from a small amount of token campaigning during the 1992 election while I was a student this was the first General Election I had taken an active part in. That was in the safe Labour seat of Oxford East and at a time when the expectation of an overall win was so low that the Oxford University Conservative Association hadn’t even organised an event to watch the coverage of the results, let alone a party to celebrate the possibility of a win. When the 2017 election was called, a victory looked much more likely, even though coming from third in Leeds North West itself not particularly so. Not that it was entirely out of the question on paper – back in 2015, had there not been tactical voting by those who voted Conservative in the local elections here on the same day to support the LibDem, Greg Mulholland, who’d campaigned on the basis of “don’t let the two Eds destroy what we’ve achieved with the economy”, and instead had voted Conservative in the General Election too, the difference between the three main parties would have been a mere 1200 votes.

I’ll not go too much into the minutiae of the data here or nationally – that’s being pored over by many people far more expert than me and will be filling newspapers and articles for months to come. Instead I’ll share some of the things I learned from being closer to the actual action.

  • People are nice

One of my friends had commented that he expected that going round leafleting and speaking to people on the doorstep for the Tories would mainly involve me spending the day being told to eff off. In practice, that did not happen at all, the nearest being a handful of people (out of about 1500 houses I visited) handing their leaflet back or saying “no thank you” (and a couple of those added “nothing personal, I just never vote”).

There is also a problem about people being nice. It means that their natural politeness makes them say what they think you want to hear. Some people are keen to have an argument or to vent their frustration at you for your party, but most know that those things aren’t really your fault and you can’t do much about them. So we all rub along with people who come to our door and don’t pick a fight. This is why things like knocking up on the day of an election to persuade people to come out and vote right now are effective – those who are wavering are unlikely to be so rude as to say no and at that very moment, not saying no means that they only have to walk a couple of hundred yards to go along with you to the polling station.

  • People pay a lot more attention to what they’re voting for than they’re often credited with- policies matter a lot

From the discussions I had on the doorstep, it was clear that lots of people had actually read the leaflets they’d received and had paid some attention to the main points of the manifestos as they’d been presented in the media. Unfortunately this was a bit of a negative for a Conservative, because the weaknesses in the manifesto and how it had been presented were picked up on (in particular the proposals for social care and the withdrawal of universal free school meals which had widely been understood to be a complete abolition of them for everyone). Worse still, where there were good explanations to give, the usual response was “well why didn’t they just say that then?”.

This shows the importance of having a good and positive story to tell. While there were many serious holes that could be picked in the policies which Labour had in their manifesto, those policies were popular and easy for people to understand would, if brought in, provide them with things they liked and wanted. As I’ve blogged before, the NHS has been very important for my family as my mother has been seriously ill for most of the past 20 years and has spent about half of the past year in hospital so rewarding the doctors and nurses who work for the NHS is a good thing and something I’d support where possible. Merely (as unfortunately some Conservatives too easily do, including disappointingly  Theresa May on the Leaders’ BBC Question Time programme) saying it is impossible without a “magic money tree” is not a good look. There are serious and real practical problems about how to balance out increased spending on the NHS while making the whole economy function but those cannot and should not be reduced to unattractive soundbites which reinforce the stereotype of Conservatives not caring.

The reality is that everybody (apart from the tiny minority of ultra-libertarians) would like to see public services maintained and improved. Last summer, when I went to one of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership re-election rallies, I was irritated by the implicit narrative that only Labour cared. This was continued to the extent of the speaker introducing Corbyn at an event in Manchester during this election saying “I want a leader who gives a toss about stuff”. After all the work to stop being the “nasty Party” (ironically coined by Theresa May herself) under Cameron, it is not an improvement to let it stick in people’s minds that we’re now the “don’t give a toss about you Party”.

My personal view is that despite having apparent costings set out, the numbers for spending and raising revenue in the Labour manifesto were unrealistic and could not be achieved in practice. This would have meant that the tax increases proposed would not have yielded the money which apparently neatly paid for the spending increases, so those increases in spending would not have in fact materialised, while at the same time, they’d have damaged the economy to make future prospects for raising the money to pay for such things even less likely. Regardless of whether objectively the Coalition government of 2010-2015 succeeded in striking the right balance between raising revenue, spending it in the right places and cutting or limiting increases in the right things, the successful and positive message of the 2015 campaign of having a “Long Term Economic Plan” communicated this response to promises focused on just spending a lot more on all the things everyone likes. But having made a break from not just the approach to Brexit of David Cameron’s time as PM but also apparently the overall approach to government and the economy under him, there was a vacuum in the Conservatives’ economic message in the 2017 election. It is perhaps no surprise in this context that the Conservative manifesto was noticeably lacking in any numbers and the Chancellor, Phillip Hammond, was conspicuously absent from the national campaign.

It did not have to be that way. The most interesting part of the Conservative Manifesto was its introductory section which spoke very clearly of a belief in the “good that government can do”. That could have been the platform for policies which were set out and explained as good in a persuasive way. Unfortunately it didn’t happen. Whereas Labour were relentless in promoting themselves as “For the Many, Not the Few”, the Conservative message ultimately seemed like “Not for the Any”.

  • Most people are not very partisan or can put their party preference to one side

Whether they were primarily supporters of Labour or the Conservatives, I only heard one person have anything bad to say about Greg Mulholland (and he’d voted for him anyway because he didn’t want Labour to win). Everyone else was quick to say that they’d appreciated what a visible, approachable and active local MP he was, even if they had reasons for supporting one of the other candidates this time. Similarly, I met a pensioner who proudly pointed to the signs he’d put up in his local community with his Conservative councillor to make it a “no door to door sales zone” who also said that he’d only in the last week gone for a pint in the pub with Mulholland.

  • Negative personal campaigning only works if it is a surprise

For me, there are several aspects of Corbyn’s history and preferences which would make the idea of him being Prime Minister horrific. Regardless of whether he believed he was making a genuine contribution to securing peace in Northern Ireland, I think that inviting convicted IRA terrorists to have tea with him in Parliament only days after other IRA terrorists had killed five people at the Conservative Party Conference in Brighton and hoped to murder the Prime Minister was a terrible thing to have done (as indeed the Labour leader at the time, Neil Kinnock said publicly). Ditto for his willingness to share a platform with people from Hamas and Hezbollah and to use “inclusive language” in describing them as friends. That contrasts with his refusal to share a platform with Cameron when he was notionally campaigning for Remain in the EU referendum and so meant to be on the same side. If you can be on the same side as terrorists whose violent methods to secure something you want by peace, you really ought to be able to stand alongside the Prime Minister of your own country when both urging people to vote to Remain in the EU. Related to his views on Palestine is the fine line between his opposition to the actions of Israel and the tolerance and support for anti-semitism which has reared its head among a significant section of his supporters.

But, all this and more is known and has been known by the public since at least Corbyn’s initial campaign to become leader. He’s been elected and re-elected as leader in that time. The only real conclusion on this that I can reach following the election result is that many people simply do not care very much about them, or at the very least are willing to accept very generous interpretations of his motivations in doing them. Much like at the opposite end of the political spectrum, many American voters were able to vote for Donald Trump even though he had provided multiple, recent, examples of views and behaviour which many others there and around the world thought appalling. These negatives have all already been priced in and do not reduce support. If anything, they might increase support among those who think it unfair to throw personal criticisms at their favoured candidate. Anything of this sort will therefore not have any adverse impact on Labour (or positive impact for anyone else) unless new and surprising because not of a piece with the stuff we already know. Short of Corbyn having acquired his £1m house in Islington by exercising his right as a council tenant to buy it at a discount and then released some equity to allow him to buy shares in Royal Mail, I’m not sure what would be in this category. Let it lie.

  • Money is not the big issue for campaigns, people are

Leaflets are cheap. Even ones which are posted through Royal Mail. The £12000 or so spending limit locally is very ample to cover sending at least half a dozen publications to everyone in a seat, and on top of that can be added the communications sent out from the parties on a national basis. What money can’t buy is having enough people to deliver, to go and talk to people and to remind them to turn up to the polling stations on the day itself. That’s where having lots of members and active supporters makes a huge difference.  But it is not just in the month or so of an election that this is important – it is needed the rest of the time too. Having councillors who know their part of a constituency well and have spent the previous few years regularly going around and listening to people and helping them with their problems helps to target the messages you send out and to identify those who agree, those who can be persuaded and those who might not normally support your party but trust you personally.

A personal example of this was from my time living in Headingley where I’d had a grumble on twitter about my street not getting Brown Bins for garden waste. One of the local Labour councillors got in touch quickly to try and sort it out. We’ve since had friendly exchanges on twitter and finally met up and had a nice chat at the count. If I still lived in Headingley, I’d vote for him, particularly as in the 8 years I lived there and the 4 since moving one ward away, the Conservatives have only ever put up “paper candidates” in the ward (ie someone who has been nominated and appears on the ballot but does not in fact send out any materials or do any campaigning). Whatever the appeal of national policies or even the quality of the candidate for Parliament for the wider constituency, that counts for a lot when it comes to translating national appeal into the local action of voting.

  • Brexit

Leeds NW voted strongly in favour of remaining in the EU but Brexit was barely an issue locally. This might have been surprising in the context of an election which was supposedly called in order to give Theresa May a stronger mandate for negotiating Brexit, but as there is little detail about the specific choices to be made and the detail of the differences between the Parties on it, not so surprising.

The LibDems’ national policy of opposing Brexit and seeking a second referendum barely impacted on their vote in the one ward where they sent out leaflets about this (Headingley) – they didn’t even mention it in other wards where there were more pro-Brexit supporters or in that case the fact that Mulholland had defied his party’s position in Parliament to abstain from the votes on triggering Article 50. Hardly anyone that I spoke to mentioned it, let alone raised any detailed points or favoured “hard” v “soft”. The 3,000 who voted UKIP in 2015 largely seemed to vote Labour this time. I think at least locally, I’m not alone in just wanting it to be got on with as that is what we have agreed to do as a nation.

  • Everybody matters and nobody can be taken for granted

This might sound a bit trite, but one of the things which pollsters and pundits like to do is to segment populations into different categories – by age, class, whether they voted for Brexit, favourite TV programme, whatever. Certainly some segments of society can feel that they are not sufficiently listened to so will respond if directly addressed. It is no illusion that Labour were very good at enthusing and motivating younger voters, but even in a seat where there are a lot of students, it is too easy to put Alex Sobel’s win squarely in the hands of the students he persuaded to turn out to vote (as indeed he did in his speech at the declaration where he said his win was a sign that students should never again be described as apathetic).

It is true, from my experience at the count sampling the vote in several of the Headingley polling districts, that Labour had pretty much cleaned up in this demographic. Spotting Conservative and LibDem votes in the piles of ballots for Headingley was dispiriting – in some cases I’d tallied up over a hundred votes for Labour before getting to twenty for the sitting MP or ten for the Conservatives, but not as bad as for the Green Party agent stood next to me who often didn’t see a single cross next to her candidate’s name, to the extent that one of the counters paused and gave a little “yay” to make sure she spotted one! Turnout was somewhat increased too in the ward. However, the final healthy majority achieved on what was a slightly reduced overall turnout across the seat was likely to have been at least as heavily drawn from former UKIP and Green voters in wards which had fewer students and an older population. In fact it looks like overall the most significant rise in Labour support here and elsewhere was in adults going up to their mid-40s. In retrospect perhaps this is not so surprising – things like free university tuition might well ultimately have greater appeal to parents of teenagers who worry about supporting their children through university than to the teenagers themselves, who had already decided they wanted to go to university even with fees at £9,000 a year. They are also the age group most likely in a few years to have parents who might need care and the ones most likely to have children in school.

Where next?

I don’t know, but I really hope there isn’t another election any time soon! But I do urge everyone that whatever their political preference, they should get involved to the extent that they can make time for it. Despite having always taken an interest in politics, I think I’ve learned more in the past few weeks of being actively involved than in all the years previously. But, despite having even gone to the effort of printing it out on the day of its launch, I don’t think I’ll ever now get round to reading the LibDem manifesto.

 

– the only blue in Leeds NW on 9th June 2017 was the early morning sky