All Quiet on the Western Front

The British elected, by a big majority, a Conservative government run by certified liars and incompetents in order to ‘Get Brexit Done’.[1] What a contrast to the countries that have recently seen widespread protests about a lack of democracy, corruption in government and attacks on the living standards of the mass of people. Mass action has worried the ruling elites from France to Georgia, from Hong Kong and South Korea to Iran, Iraq and Lebanon, from Chile and Brazil to Algeria and Sudan. In the UK, the electorate has endorsed the ruling elite.

The lack of a pulse in the British ‘labour movement’ – unless moaning can be seen as a sign of political life – confirms my longstanding scepticism about the potential for anything progressive happening in Britain. The British working class will likely learn nothing positive from the outcome, and may well become even more conservative and reactionary when it suffers the consequences.

In the map below, from the BBC, the dominant Conservative vote in England is shown in blue, while the Labour Party constituencies are in red, the Liberal Democrats in orange and the Scottish National Party in yellow.

Tony Norfield, 13 December 2019

---

[1] The Conservative Party message was ‘Get Brexit Done’ and this gained them a large majority of seats in Parliament. The irony was that, according to a BBC report, only 48% of UK votes were for Brexit-supporting parties! But this potential anomaly was widely known, leading to many advocating tactical voting in the ‘first past the post’ UK electoral system. In Scotland, the Scottish National Party won 48 of 59 seats and was strongly against Brexit. It is worth noting the relative population and seat numbers for the UK: England 56 million people and 533 seats; Scotland 5.4m and 59 seats, Wales 3.1m and 40 seats, Northern Ireland 1.9m and 18 seats. The General Election results are principally determined by the English vote, which this time supplied 345 of the Conservatives’ 365 seats in the 650-seat Parliament.

Political Fundamentals and the UK Brexit Referendum

What explains the desperation of British capitalism and Conservative Party in the lead up to the Brexit referendum on 23 June? Opinion polls have shifted in favour of a Leave vote and, while the accuracy of the polls is always in doubt, a shift towards Leave seems evident from widespread vox pop views in the media, in the panic of the Remain camp and in the financial market setbacks for sterling’s exchange rate. Equity markets have also been hit, and not just in the UK. As a sign of desperation, the Remain camp has even called upon the Labour Party’s lumbering has-been, Gordon Brown, to add his weight to what looks like a failing balance. Her Majesty has so far been allowed to stay above the dispute, just about. One can imagine that if the polls get any worse for Remain, then Downing Street could try to prompt a Royal appeal to her loyal subjects to do the right thing. Where has this revolt of popular sentiment come from?

My previous coverage of the Brexit referendum has focused on the situation facing the British ruling class in a world where its economic and political interests are clearly bound up with Europe, but where there has been a minority view that an alternative is possible ‘outside’, especially in a context of European economic crisis. But the significant support for Leave shows that this has underestimated a key point. What might otherwise be considered simply as popular disgruntlement with political elites – ‘vote Leave to teach them a lesson’ – is better explained as a widespread view that these elites have broken their pact with the people. The ‘Leave’ support, however disruptive it might be to existing power structures, is based on an appeal to the British state to restore the status quo ante. To understand this point, it needs to be put in context, one that will also confirm that this is not a debate in which one can take sides.

The World System of Power

No country’s politics, still less its economics, can be understood outside its relationships with the rest of the world. Since at least the early 19th century, the world economy has increasingly shaped the position of all countries within it. The world system as we have known it in recent decades has been based upon three elements: American dominance and supervision of capitalism, the European Union project and the relationship between America and Britain. These elements may have come under some threat, for example with the growth of China and the crisis in Europe, but this pattern of world power remains intact.

The dominant European states wish that Britain would be more European, and that it would do more to curb the xenophobic, anti-European drift of British popular culture. But Britain’s relationship with the US is in their interests, because Britain’s mediating, intermediary role helps keeps the whole structure of Western dominance intact, with America at its apex and Europe benefiting from it. The Europeans are worried about an increasingly unstable world that sees the rise of China, a more assertive Russia, all sorts of threats around the Mediterranean and the Middle East, and in Africa. They are concerned that a Brexit vote would begin to unravel their security network, or at least begin to call into question who is allied with whom, and how committed they are to a joint project.

The dominant European imperialist states could easily accommodate Britain’s refusal to join the euro zone, a central plank of European policy. Britain’s role with respect to the European Union is not so much the product deeply ingrained cultural attitudes (although these do exist); it is more an expression of its important role within the pattern of power and the dynamics of its mediating role on the world stage. This role allows, and calls for, the British state to operate at the same time both outside and within the continental European political and economic set up. For example, the British-based financial system is a worldwide one, brokering the US dollar, and the political and economic interests of Britain do not support its membership of the euro zone. But the British state also needs to have a say in the development of European policy to sustain its position and the workings of the world financial system that it has helped to create and from which it benefits. The US also wants Britain in Europe because it is vital to US-European relationships. Every time Britain has shown itself truculent over European membership, and especially now, the US has reminded it, in a firm but friendly way, that it would prefer no change.

A new series of bilateral arrangements between Britain and other countries, as envisaged by the Brexit camp, cannot replace this system. The point is not only why on earth it would make sense for Britain, one of the major world powers, to tear up longstanding agreements that it has helped to produce and try to start again. It is also that a country stepping outside an established system of power would not have much leverage to devise another one. The pro-Brexit calculation can only convince those who ignore, or do not understand, the structure of Western dominance and Britain’s vital role within it. Britain’s business media has reminded the Leave advocates both that Britain alone is a small share of the EU market and that exiting the EU would put at risk all the other relationships that give British imperialism status in the world, from permanent membership of the UN Security Council downwards.

The Working Class Brexit Vote

Nevertheless, British opinion polls show that Brexit looms. A broad section of the population, especially the working class, is now liable to go against the establishment consensus and vote Leave as a way to complain, especially when it sees its troubles as resulting from global economic trends that the establishment has embraced. The focus of complaint is immigration. While the claimed economic benefits of the UK staying in the EU have been the main argument for ‘Remain’, this has been submerged by immigration as the dominant anti-EU point in the referendum debate. Many Brits, perhaps most, including those who themselves or whose families may have been relatively recent immigrants, support tighter immigration controls, as was already clear in the 2015 UK General Election.

Immigration plays such a role because it touches on a key point in British working class consciousness, one that reflects its material interests: a loyal commitment to the British state. This longstanding commitment has given the working class social protection as part of a deal not to cause too much trouble, a kind of ‘social contract’. Now, the immigration question helps to identify the national, British-based working class as the legitimate recipient of state assistance versus the immigrants (or even refugees) from other countries. In this pro-imperial outlook, the issue of inadequate housing, jobs and services delivered by capitalism becomes a moan about the supply of housing, jobs and services taken by migrants. In previous decades, the moan was about blacks and Asians; now it is more about white (East) Europeans.

This is not to say that such a view is held by all working class people, but the fact that it is so widely held should not really shock those who have read any history. For more than a century, despite occasional trade union militancy, the British working class has supported British imperialism and its war efforts. From the First World War, even earlier, the British state had made concessions to workers with welfare measures, ones that were developed further in the late 1930s and into the Second World War, when more ‘sacrifices for the nation’ had to be made. Introducing future plans for comprehensive welfare spending in March 1943, the arch-imperialist and violent opponent of the 1926 General Strike, Winston Churchill, declared himself in favour of ‘national compulsory insurance for all classes, for all purposes, from the cradle to the grave’ as part of his attempt to secure a solid national consensus of all classes.

It may surprise readers familiar with the story that the 1945 Labour Government invented the National Health Service, and broke the mould with state ownership of national assets, that Churchill also said in the same speech that ‘we must establish on broad and solid foundations a national health service’ and that there was ‘a broadening field for State ownership and enterprise, especially in relation to monopolies of all kind’. To underpin his endorsement of a national consensus, Churchill praised the Labour Party’s coalition government Minister for Labour and National Service, Ernest Bevin, for ‘the practical absence of strikes in this war compared to what happened in the last [ie in World War One]’. The rationale for Churchill’s support of welfare spending for the working class was that for Britain ‘to keep its high place in the leadership of the world and to survive as a great power that can hold its own against external pressure, our people must be encouraged by every means to have larger families’. Supporting more education spending, he added that the ‘future of the world is left to highly educated races who alone can handle the scientific apparatus necessary for pre-eminence in peace or survival in war’.[1]

Other articles on this blog have shown how, in the post-1945 period, Labour Governments continued in this pro-imperialist outlook, using exploitation of the colonies to help fund their national welfare spending to benefit the domestic working class.[2] But this perspective is not of only historical interest; in the same way that imperialism – a system of privilege and domination in the world economy – is not confined to the colonial period.

The Brexit debate shows that the British working class wants not so much a better deal within the existing system, but a return to the previous post-war consensus.[3] This perspective is not only far from being any challenge to capitalism; it supports Britain’s privileged position within the world system of power from which the working class had benefited. Brexit has risen in popularity because the domestic working class has faced the problem that British capitalists have benefited greatly from their increased links to the world economy, including an influx of cheap workers, less so from the more ‘home grown’ operations, so British workers have felt neglected. That is why Wetherspoons, a UK and Irish pub chain, very dependent upon local business links, is one of the few large UK companies to be pro-Brexit.

From the perspective of the British working class, the call for Brexit is a call upon the British state to keep to its previous compact with the workers for what can be presented as a fair, national deal. (Incidentally, the British left has the same approach to economic and political problems) Widespread complaints such as this may work to some extent, shifting the balance of the government’s policy tactics. For example, the collapse of Tata Steel Europe’s UK operations in the lead up to this troublesome EU referendum led to some government measures to delay the inevitable. However, the game is up. Whether Britain leaves the EU or not, capitalist companies will not turn their back on the world market and the relevant calculations. Neither will the UK government pretend in its policies that there is no capitalist crisis to deal with.

Above all, the British working class cannot explain to itself why the British ruling class has broken its previous agreement to deliver national welfare, and why it has turned its back on its natural supporters in favour of seeking better profits in international market dealings. That is why its anger is real and solid, although its political economy remains crap because it cannot understand why what used to work before does not work now. Simply belonging to a rich, imperialist country does not mean that you necessarily get a decent share of the rich pickings.

Awkward Moments for UK Policy

Now take a step back and ask yourself why the Conservative Party, the unabashed defender of big capital and the super-rich, has got itself into this mess, which now witnesses senior ministers attacking the Prime Minister’s stance for ‘Remain’. The simplistic view is that there were Conservative Party divisions that had to be resolved by Cameron calling a vote on EU membership, or that Conservative votes were being threatened by the rise of UKIP. But, while true, this story hides a more telling, political problem suggested by what has already been explained.

If a political party is openly ruthless in enforcing capitalist market discipline on everyone, unfortunately for the ruling class that is no way to win the necessary popular support to get elected. Instead, a broad base of loyalists has to be built, one of the annoying features of universal suffrage. The need to have a broad base of support is the reason we still find many ‘one nation’ Tories, why successive Conservative governments did not reverse the post-1945 welfare state reforms and why Prime Minister Cameron still claims to defend the National Health Service. But this creates political difficulties when popular opinion in the UK turns against what is evidently the best policy for British imperialism, ie staying in the EU.

US President Obama, a wide range of other US and European politicians, together with the IMF, OECD, etc, etc, have declared that they favour the status quo, as do the majority of British corporations and the leaderships of the main UK political parties. The logic here is that the existing pattern of world power relationships would be upset, unpredictably and possibly dangerously, if any major country tried to strike out on its own.

At risk is the EU itself, which could well see other countries heading for the exit, undermining an economic and political project that has been decades in the making. Neither is this a good environment for other agencies of imperial rule that have been in place since the late 1940s, the UN and NATO. These could be faced with new questions on who is a key member and why, or who has voting rights on the UN Security Council.

A Referendum Dispute Between Loyalism and Imperialism

At first sight, a vote for Brexit might look to be the more progressive option, because it would help undermine the established structures of power in the world. Many UK voters disagree, noting that it would also give credence to a set of policies that would be driven by reactionary pundits and politicians. The problem with these views is that they do not understand how the debate is between a pro-imperialist populace and British imperialism. That is why the debate lacks any content and there are few substantial differences between the respective positions.

The ‘Leave’ side is not against developments in world capitalism. The bulk of its votes will come from a working class that has sided with imperialism and would like the British state to return the favour, backing up its privileges against others in the world economy, as in the good old days. The ‘Remain’ side too argues for no change to world capitalism, and will attract those who fear an upset to their current economic circumstances. The former expresses complaints against the status quo, wanting an exit in which they think changes could be implemented within the imperial system; the latter thinks the status quo is acceptable, although it might be amended somewhat within the imperial system.

How can complaints about capitalist market discipline be resolved in a crisis-ridden world economy, if the complainers want to keep the system that enforces that discipline, and especially the imperial privileges that accrue to one of the leading powers? If the complainers understood this problem, then progressive politics would be in with a chance. However, that is not the case in the UK, or in a number of other rich countries where the working class is loyal to its powerful state. Instead, the political logic is for pro-imperialist policies to win the day.

If you want to oppose the depredations of capitalism and imperialism, then please do so, but this is not what the Brexit debate is about. Above all, remember the classic revolutionary phrase: ‘the enemy is at home’.

Tony Norfield, 16 June 2016

---

[1] To emphasise this point, note that Sir William Beveridge, the main early planner of the UK welfare state – not the UK unions or the Labour Party, or pressure from them – was a collaborator of Churchill’s and supported by him, even though Churchill had doubts on committing to spending when it was not clear it could be afforded. The most that could be said for the 1945-51 Labour Government is that it implemented a more generous welfare system than had been envisaged by Beveridge, although that was paid for by loans from the US and by exploiting the colonies! A transcript of Churchill’s BBC broadcast in March 1943 is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1943/1943-03-21a.html.

[2] For example this article.

[3] I will not cover this point further here, but for further information I recommend a book on the history of the Labour Party by Edmund Dell, A Strange, Eventful History: Democratic Socialism in Britain, HarperCollins, London: 2000. A Labour right-winger, Dell also spells out, in ways one rarely finds from the left, the consistently pro-imperialist and state-‘socialist’ nature of the British Labour Party, something that was consistent with the political outlook of their electoral constituency.

The Dogs of War: Syria and the Middle East

International crises can have the effect of making clearer what is going on in the world. At least, that is a potential benefit, although it is one not likely to be used by those who would prefer not to see. Today, the UK political position has become clear with a large majority of 397 versus 223 members of the British Parliament being in favour of bombing Syria. This article looks at the background to why the British government is aiming to get more involved.

The most important reason behind UK Prime Minister David Cameron’s campaign to bomb Syria is that he does not want the UK to be left out of the running when a new carve up of the region occurs. That means bombs, and bombs mean prizes![1] Cameron’s rationale is that this is an attack on IS/ISIS/ISIL/Daesh to ‘protect the UK’, because the UK cannot allow its ‘defence’ to be left up to ‘other countries’. Further, Cameron raises the rhetorical question of what will the UK’s other allies think of the UK if it cannot come to the aid of its ally, France, when France has asked for assistance. For example, what about Britain’s allies in the Gulf, including Saudi Arabia, on which many commercial and financial deals depend? The key issue for the British state is that game changing political moves in the Middle East involving Syria and Iraq should not take place without Britain properly being in the game. All those networking opportunities and deals that could be done – but only if you are recognised as a player.

This underlying rationale is cloaked in implausible arguments about defending national security against IS, ignoring, as usual, that the UK has on innumerable occasions trampled on the security of others around the world. Just to mention the Middle East, how about recalling when the Royal Air Force bombed Iraqis in the early 1920s, both to repress revolts and to encourage them to pay their taxes, let alone the bombing of Iraq and Libya in more recent years?

A big problem for all the major powers is that the ‘country’ boundaries that they had drawn, especially in the Middle East, but also in Africa and elsewhere, have no legitimacy. All countries or nations are political inventions that depend for their stability on some form of political agreement, or acquiescence, among the population that exists within its boundaries. This ‘national’ set up can be quite fragile, even in what might look like established states, such as Belgium, Spain and Italy. Most strikingly, even the three-century old political deal between England and Scotland was questioned by Scotland’s independence referendum. How much more fragile are the lines in the sand drawn by external powers in the oppressed countries of the Middle East less than a century ago. Even more damaging was the way in which colonial powers often established reactionary regimes that had little popular support and depended upon the colonist’s military force – a specialisation of the Brits. This often underpinned a repressive society, one that was both defended by the ‘democratic’ imperialist powers and one that liberal critics from these powers would criticise as being backward and reactionary, while ignoring their own country’s role in the proceedings. All this prevented a legitimate political power developing within the ‘national’ borders.

The focus of most attention in the news media these days is on IS. Something this group of brutal, militant jihadis would not want to recognise is that western powers have given backing to Sunni-based regimes in a number of countries, particularly those in which much of the population is not Sunni. Neither would it want to recognise that the key opposition to western rule in these countries has been from secular nationalists – ones whom they have often opposed on religious grounds, while being in the pay of the major powers! However, the main problem IS causes for the major powers today is that it does not accept the national barrier between Syria and Iraq. Some historical examples show that they have a point. The existing national lines are not, as one might say, ‘God given’.

Before 1918, much of what we now call the Middle East was part of the Ottoman Empire, run by Turkey. It was mainly organised on a regional level, with the main objective being to have a local administration that would pay duties and taxes into the centre, Istanbul. These regions were often multi-ethnic and multi-religious. The largely Sunni Moslem ruling centre had no significant prejudice or discrimination against Christians, Jews or other versions of Islam, as long as they paid their taxes and did not cause trouble for the Empire.

After the First World War in 1918, and even before it ended, the UK and France planned to carve up between themselves Turkey’s colonies in the Middle East. A key deal between the two countries, subsequently modified in favour of the British, was the infamous Sykes-Picot Agreement in 1916. This was the deal over which Lawrence ‘of Arabia’, the British intelligence officer fighting with the Arabs against the Turks, had his pangs of conscience about betraying Arab nationalists. Not worrying too much about this problem, however, was the British Prime Minister of the time, the Liberal Herbert Asquith. He said ‘if … we were to leave the other nations to scramble for Turkey [ie its wider empire] without taking anything for ourselves, we should not be doing our duty’.[2]

In this context, the UK took over and invented the modern boundaries of Iraq in the early 1920s, out of an area that, more or less, had been called Mesopotamia by classical scholars. By 1926, Britain had edged out France and added the Mosul region (now called the Nineveh Province) to the new Iraq, which was under its domination, after large potential oil resources were discovered there. Britain had far less interest in Syria. It had already manoeuvred to get the Palestine Mandate from the League of Nations, so having access to Eastern Mediterranean coastal ports and a means to protect the hinterland to the Suez Canal. Basically, the British left the Syrian region to French imperialism, which also allowed France’s division of Syrian and Lebanese territory. Arab nationalism’s plans post-1918 for a ‘Greater Syria’, incorporating most of the previous areas, were then stymied. As part of the new arrangements, in 1921 Britain made Faisal, a capable but trusted collaborator, the King of Iraq, as long as he dropped his previous claims to rule Syria. Britain had a dominant role in Iraq for decades afterwards.

The UK also invented the country now called Jordan in the early 1920s. Initially called ‘Transjordania’, it was made up from part of the area awarded to the British with the League of Nations’ Palestine Mandate. This area was a place in which they could place their Hashemite stooge, Abdullah, the incompetent older brother of Faisal, and keep him out of trouble (especially trouble with Saudi Arabia). Their rationale was mainly to have a military base in a strategic area and with a compliant country ruler, although that meant subsidising him more than they had bargained for.

As is often forgotten these days, there had been several attempts to construct Arab unity in the Middle East region, even after the challenges to the Ottoman Empire during and immediately after World War One. These were often undermined by internal rivalries between different governments, the most recent being the United Arab Republic of Egypt and Syria, in 1958-61.

A big problem in all this also comes for Israel, the least legitimate state of all in the region, one that is based not on imperial line drawing after 1918, but in 1948, and also upon the theft of land beyond these artificial borders. Of course, Zionists like to claim that Palestine is theirs, ‘a land with no people, for a people with no land’. But while Palestine was not previously a ‘nation’, being part of the Ottoman Empire, the racist, absurdly ethnic definition of being a Jew common to the Zionist outlook, something that dates from 19th century European racism, can still less invent its own ‘nation’ in this area, one that its aggression extends to ever wider borders. When boundary lines are being redrawn by IS, or being pushed back by the major powers, can the undisturbed extension (even ‘internally’) of Israel’s borders continue? No wonder the voluble Israeli government has kept relatively quiet on this issue!

The US role in the Middle East is paramount, but clearly not in anything that can be considered to be ‘control’. Russia has been a relatively new element, also militarily involved, with its aim being to support Syria, where it maintains a seaport, and also to prevent itself from being enclosed by the ever-expanding NATO forces surrounding its borders. Problematic for the US, this has undermined the influence of the supposedly overwhelming power of the US military, although the US will attempt to push Russia to agree to its aim of regime change in Syria. France, like Russia, having been attacked by IS, but having lost much influence in Syria, wants to re-establish an interest there, and determinedly bombs Syria to exact revenge. Its efforts nevertheless kill many civilians and Hollande’s firepower only highlights how fragile is his own domestic political support.

As for the UK, the government pretends that there is a pliable 70,000 group of rebels to oust Syria’s Assad. It may even give them almost ‘democratic’ credentials, but the main thing is that they will bend, at least a bit, to British interests. After all, showing British flexibility, British official flags were set at half-mast for the death of that other great leader, Saudi King Abdullah in January 2015, as a sign of the lucrative defence, commercial and financial deals with the right kind of regime.

Jeremy Corbyn, leader of the Labour Party, is in a more tricky position. He has had a consistent view that he is against the UK military bombing of Syria, although he also thinks that it would be OK if the United Nations legitimised such an imperial policy. He considered that the decision to go to war was a ‘most serious, solemn decision’, but then refused to exert any leadership discipline over his MPs’ votes, with no threat of sanction if they disagreed with him. I cannot say I was surprised, since he has found it possible to belong to the pro-imperialist Labour Party for more than three decades. The farce here is that a Labour MP voting for the Conservatives’ austerity measures would have faced party sanctions, whereas, if an MP votes to bomb Syria, that is a matter of conscience.

Tony Norfield, 2 December 2015

(note: some later rephrasing of  text, 6 Jan 2016)

---

[1] I am too polite to mention that Dave’s first foray into military matters, teaming up with French President Sarkozy to encourage US and ‘allied’ intervention in Libya, has not turned out that well.

[2] This and some other details are taken from an informative and well-written work by John Keay, Sowing the Wind: The Seeds of Conflict in the Middle East, John Murray: London, 2003.

Labour ‘Leadership’ and British Politics

The British media is focused on Jeremy Corbyn, the radical outsider who, according to opinion polls, might win the Labour Party’s leadership vote. That vote is in about seven weeks’ time, so don’t hold your breath. But it is worth making some comments on what this reveals about British politics.

Most of the Labour leadership contenders make Ed Miliband look like a charismatic guru who could inspire followers to walk over burning coals and not feel a thing. By comparison, Corbyn is an exception, at least in having a personality and some political beliefs. I would only point out that his political beliefs have not prevented him from remaining a Labour Party Member of Parliament for more than thirty years. Just consider what that means. So many years and so many crimes, either committed by, or supported by, the party to which you belong. Was the Labour Government’s interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq weird anomalies – against which a critical voice could build an effective opposition? Or would history judge instead that Labour has always supported British imperialism’s interests and that dissident voices reflected naivety at best?

However, Corbyn’s dissident beliefs on Iraq and Palestine, among other things, are not the basis of his support, either in his London constituency or among ordinary Labour party members in this leadership contest. Instead, that support comes from his anti-austerity stance. Yet while his inner-City constituency might support Corbyn’s position on opposing cuts in welfare payments, the rest of the UK does not. Against his stance, one has to consider why the other Labour leadership contenders basically support the Conservative government on the need to slash welfare payments, something summed up by the recommendation of Harriet Harman, acting Labour leader, to abstain in the recent Parliamentary vote on welfare cuts. The Conservative government’s proposals reflected not just a Conservative prejudice, but also a view that they would go down well with their supporters and others. Recall that, in the May 2015 UK general election, close to 50% of the British electorate voted either for the Conservatives (36.9%) or for UKIP (12.6%).

This is the substance of the horror expressed in the news media, by Tony Blair and others who are shocked by Corbyn’s rise to prominence in the polls. A vote for Corbyn as Labour leader will make Labour even more unelectable! It is not a question of his anti-New Labour beard, or even his opinion that the government should discuss with Hamas and Hezbollah. The key point is that he has failed to reflect in his political stance the fundamental conservatism of the British electorate.

It will take an eruption some years in the making even to begin to alter the scene. Perhaps that will come when this Conservative government eventually encounters its own ‘Poll Tax’ moment, a wall that Thatcher hit after believing that British politics was at her command. But, at close to the peak of her power, even she could not make her favourite adviser, Alan Walters, like Caligula’s horse, a consul and instead lost Nigel Lawson, her once-feted Chancellor. This miscreant group of slimeballs has less ability. It is full of low-grade chancers, not least Boris ‘water cannon’ Johnson, so it could unwittingly contrive to generate protest from the UK populace. However, personally, I do not bet on that eventuality making any real difference.

Tony Norfield, 25 July 2015
(some small amendments to the text on 31 July)

A Deeply Conservative Country

I had not expected any good news from the UK general election. So I was pleasantly surprised to find that the Labour apparatchik and Shadow Chancellor, Ed Balls, had lost his seat as an MP, that Nigel Farage, leader of UKIP, had failed to get his, and that I would probably in future be hearing much less from the weird Ed Miliband, now that he has resigned the Labour Party leadership. Small mercies in a result that only confirms that the UK is a deeply conservative country.

The election result unexpectedly gave the Conservative Party an outright, although small, overall majority, when previous opinion polls had only suggested it would have the largest number of seats in Parliament. The best summary of results for the UK, including breakdowns by region and constituency, the number of votes, changes in voting share, etc, can be found on the BBC website here.

In the wake of the biggest capitalist crisis for a generation or more, the share of votes for the two major political parties hardly changed. Compared to the previous general election in 2010, the share of the vote for the Conservative party went up a tiny bit; the Labour party’s vote went up by a tiny bit more. The big changes were elsewhere. The Liberal Democrat share of the total vote collapsed by 15.2 percentage points, offset by a rise in the UKIP share (up 9.5%), while the Scottish National Party got an extra 3.1% and the Green Party an extra 2.8% of the total vote.

The share of votes only counts as a measure of opinion. It does not lead to a seat in the House of Commons, which is determined by a first-past-the-post ballot in each constituency. So, for example, a winner with 20,000 votes gets the seat. If the runner up has 19,999 votes, then these votes go nowhere. A strictly proportional representation of votes in the 650 seats in the UK Parliament would mirror public opinion (assuming that voters fully agree with a party’s political programme). Comparing the seats implied by a PR ‘opinion’ with the actual seats gained, these are the results:

	Share of vote	PR-implied seats	Actual seats
Conservative	36.9%	240	331
Labour	30.4%	198	232
UKIP	12.6%	82	1
Liberal Democrat	7.9%	51	8
SNP	4.7%	31	56
Green	3.8%	25	1
Others	3.7%	23	21

One can assign different scores on a spectrum of progressive to reactionary for each of these parties. But the overall picture remains depressing, although it is not surprising. In political terms, I consider half the UK electorate to be on a different planet, and the other half to be in a different solar system.

Tony Norfield, 10 May 2015