We are only
just into the general election campaign but the Tory government’s themes are
already crystal clear. They will paint themselves as the only party to deliver
Brexit, attack Labour as economically incompetent and attack the Labour leader,
Jeremy Corbyn, as soft on defence and security. Part of this strategy is to
claim that they are the only party who can deliver ‘strong and stable government.’
At Prime
Minister’s Questions on Wednesday in Parliament, every question from the Labour
leader, went unanswered by Theresa May, the Prime Minister. Instead, she
repeated campaign slogans, especially ‘strong and stable government,’ over and
over again. She is not a quick thinker on her feet, and finds it difficult to
respond properly to unexpected questions, which is why she is refusing to take
part in televised debates, which have become de rigueur in recent general
elections.
What the
Tories are trying to do is frame the debate around the fact they are the only
party likely to gain an overall majority in Parliament, at this election, and
that Labour would need to form a coalition of at least three parties, probably
more, to be able to form a government.
This worked
well two years ago at the last general election, when they managed to worry
English voters with the prospect of Labour needing to rely on the Scottish
National Party (SNP), to form a government. This was graphically illustrated by
the poster showing Ed Miliband, the Labour leader at the time, tucked away in
the then SNP leader, Alex Salmond’s, top pocket.
So, this is a
tried and trusted tactic, and the Tories have rehired Lynton Crosby who
masterminded their successful 2015 campaign. They appear to be broadening this
out this time to include the Lib Dems, Plaid Cymru, the Northern Irish SDLP and
the Greens, to make the prospect seem even more ‘chaotic.’ The Lib Dems
sensibly, have ruled out a coalition with either Labour, or the Tories, so this
may reassure voters to some extent, but the British tend not to like the idea
of coalition governments, especially such a multi-party one.
The Tories
themselves, of course, entered into a coalition with the Lib Dems in 2010, because
they were short of an overall majority, but with just the Lib Dems as partners,
and it was briefly popular. The Lib Dems were routed in 2015, by the Tories in
the main, so the coalition in the end was not popular.
The British
electoral system, first past the post, as it is known, makes for a clear winner
more than in other countries which have a proportional electoral system,
although over recent years, the number of voters that the big two parties,
Labour and the Tories, can command has gradually got less and less of the share
of the vote. So this may be changing a little on some levels, but I still think
coalitions are something of an anathema to most British voters.
But maybe it
is changing. Vince Cable, Lib Dem, who was business secretary in the last
coalition government, told Sky News: “The coalition of chaos stuff is pathetic.
It did work last time. People were frightened of Ed Miliband and the SNP. This
[time it] isn’t cutting through, nobody seriously believes Jeremy Corbyn is
going to get into government. It is almost certain that we are going get a
Conservative government, probably with quite big numbers. What we now need is
credible opposition.”
The point
Cable is making is that a coalition government is unlikely, and not really the
aim of tactical voting, but reducing the size of the Tory government, in what
is a special election, centred mainly around the issue of Brexit.
I watched BBC
TV Question Time last night with interest, and when they discussed tactical
voting and coalitions, the audience didn’t seem to be phased by this, judging
by the applause for points raised in favour. This was in Oxford, so may not be
representative of the country at large, but even so, I was taken a little by
surprise by the reaction.
If the
opposition parties did achieve a majority, which is not impossible I think, I
see no reason why a ‘progressive’ coalition could not be formed, and there is
no inherent reason why this needs to be either chaotic or unstable, since there is
plenty that these parties can agree on, enough for a full Parliamentary term at
least. It will depend on how the numbers add up, of course.
Perhaps
someone should knock up a meme (I don’t have the skills for it) showing Theresa
May in Donald Trump’s top pocket? Now that would be a powerful image of what
this election is all about.
I suppose we could say that the lower the Conservative majority, the 'rockier the ride' through Parliament of some of their legislation. I commend reading of the last two paragraphs of the Community Care report Children and Social Work Act 2017: social work reforms become law.
ReplyDeleteSpin and changing the context of statistics is of increasing importance in politics.
When John Hutton was Labour's Work & Pensions Secretary, he ignored the factor of fuel poverty as a contributory factor when saying, "After two years on Incapacity Benefit you are more likely to retire or die than get another job." At the time, over-60's in work such as Hariet Harman got winter fuel payments; under-60's on Incapacity Benefit who did not have employers' premises heated at others' expense were more likely to die young.
I believe it very important for smaller parties such as Green Party of England & Wales to engage more marginalised groupings such as jobcentre users, especially before those jobcentres are closed in the name of 'improving the service'. I would argue that after two years on a Claimant Commitment — if a Jobseekers Allowance claimant survives that long without being sanctioned into eventual eviction, or a Universal Credit claimant does not get evicted before receiving their first payment of Universal Credit — one is more likely not to vote or to vote for whatever political party dares to engage with them outside the jobcentre.
Meanwhile, I believe it worth drawing attention to the role of opinion pollster's dissing of offline folk, and also the role of registered charities and their relationship with Government. Oxfam was rapped over the knuckles for its 'Perfect Storm' social media campaign a few years ago; the think tank Reform, on the other hand, receives charitable funding while conjuring up Conservative Party policy. I bore those matters in mind when 'revisiting Kwug Blog's 2015 UK General Election post 'Pollsters' vision excludes those offline ?'
Meanwhile, is the NSPCC colluding with turning the children of paupers into adoption fodder? I would argue that the Conservative Party in Government has a very covert agenda.
Alan Wheatley, aka 'Dude Swheatie of Kwug' for the Kilburn Unemployed Workers Group 'Kwug Blog'