ISSN (Online) - 2349-8846

British Elections: There Is An Alernative

As the euphoria of a victorious defeat subsides, there is a sense of determination within Labour ranks
as well as a degree of real hope among those in the broader electorate who wish to see Tory rule
and austerity come to an end sooner rather than later. The way ahead will not be easy, not least
because of the still very deep divisions of Brexit both within the Labour party and beyond.

Priyamvada Gopal (pg268@cam.ac.uk) is at the Faculty of English, University of Cambridge and Fellow of
Churchill College, Cambridge.

On the morning of 9 June 2017, many progressive people in Britain woke up with a familiar sense of
dread. The memories of 24 June and 9 November 2016 were still fresh in our minds. On both those
occasions, the opinion polls had been wrong in calling it, in the rst instance, for a Remain vote in
Britain's referendum on membership of the European Union (EU) and, in the case of the United
States (US), indicating that while it would be close, Hillary Clinton, rather than Donald Trump would
win the presidential race. I was, therefore, not placing my faith in the exit polls of the previous night
which had suggested that the snap election called by British Prime Minister Theresa May would result
in Britain's Conservative government losing its majority.

A Gulp of Fresh Air

How glad I and many others were to be wrong, delighted to see the ticker tape running across the
BBC screen conrming a hung parliament, no party having won an overall majority. The widely
anticipated coronationthe distinct possibility of a landslide having been May's motivation for calling
the gratuitous snap electionhad been cancelled and to widespread amazement, the Labour Party,
led by the veteran left winger, Jeremy Corbyn, had increased its seat share, putting paid to repeated
prediction of total annihilation at the ballot box. Instead, it had acquired 32 more seats and
increased its share of the vote to 40 percent, only slightly behind the Tories' 42%. Just days before,
May had sternly warned voters that as few as six lost seats for her party could see Corbyn
negotiating Brexit instead of her. She lost 18. It may yet be that her government falls sooner rather
than later.

The Labour Party had, of course, not won the election but as defeats go, this was a startlingly
triumphal one. For many on the broad left and liberal spectrum of British politics, a sense of euphoria
now prevails, and certainly, of a reprieve from that state of aairs in Britain and beyond, where the
near inexorable rise of rightwing forces had started to seem like being sewn up inside a fresh animal
hide which would suocate its wearer as it shrank. For us, the shattered Tory expectations of a
decisive majority combined with what was patently a huge swing in Corbyn's favour felt like
someone had gashed open the shrinking leather, allowing in a gulp of fresh air. Perhaps it could be
that the juggernaut of scal austerity and the rule of capitalist greed could, after all, be slowed
down. This victory in defeat for Corbyn and defeat in victory for Theresa May could have seismic
repercussions.

What had happened? Only a part of the story is that of the entitled arrogance of May and her fellow
Conservatives in setting a date for re-anointing themselves supreme rulers of Brexit Britain,
authorised to run roughshod over the concerns of half the populace about Britain's withdrawal from
the EU and the "hard" terms on which it would be conducted. In the seven years of Tory rule,
ISSN (Online) - 2349-8846

"austerity"blamed repeatedly on supposed prior Labour proigacywas inicted ruthlessly with

benets for the poorest and the disabled slashed, public services eroded and the National Health
Service performing at breaking point. Meanwhile, also slashing corporate taxes more than once, the
Tories repeatedly informed a population where wages remained depressed and whose living
standards were further worsened by a weakened pound in the wake of Brexit, that we were "all in it
together."

May, not blessed with charisma as it is, was brazen enough on live television to inform an
overworked nurse concerned that her pay had not risen in years that "there's no magic money tree".
Up until the Brexit referendum, the time-honoured formula of blaming the decimation of public
services, including the NHS, on migrants while peddling the crassest forms of nationalism tinged with
a good measure of imperial nostalgia had appeared to be working beautifully. Until, one day this
June, it did not.

Compelling Counter Narrative

The other half of the story, of course, is the less predictable and meatier one. In the six weeks
following May's snap election announcement, Corbyn and his team criss-crossed the country
speaking to large crowds at rallies, making the case that a dierent kind of society was entirely
possible. To the rightwing Tory tale of a Britain being taken for a ride by the EU, the well-being of
ordinary citizens jeopardised by immigrants whose presence the government was powerless to stop,
Labour at last oered a compelling counter-narrative that was outlined, in due course, in a succinct,
clear and carefully-costed manifesto. What had hurt people and society, Corbyn repeated, was that a
small number of people were getting wealthier under a 'rigged economy' and government that
secured and nourished the rich at the expense of the many. This had meant a fall in living standards
for the larger number as well as growing job insecurity. The NHS was struggling from underfunding
as were schools, social care and public services even as tax avoidance in high income brackets was
rife and enforcement poor. The electorate had a very clear choice: they could either settle for more
of the same if the Tories were re-elected or choose a party which would emphatically invest in the
NHS, education, public transport and social care.

Surely this is the stu of any electoral battle, the opposition party promising to do the needful,
accusing the incumbents of having failed, only to break pledges when in power? While it remains to
be seen, of course, what Labour will actually manage to achieve if they are voted into oce again,
there is little doubt that Corbyn brought to the eld a narrative that outlined clearly where the battle
lines were to be drawn based on ideas that Labour itself had essentially abandoned in the heady
years of Tony Blair's ascension to power. Now there would be a return to rst principles, emphasising
economic redistribution and a measure of social justice since, as the manifesto put it, "the creation
of wealth is a collective endeavour between workers, entrepreneurs, investors and government."
Secondlyand here Corbyn's own personality mattersswathes of the electorate were clearly
persuaded by the veteran backbencher's patent personal integrity and manifest commitment to
principles of economic redistribution. As May and other conservatives mechanically parroted the
mantra, "strong and stable government" as a talismanic invocation intended to answer any and all
questions about what the post-Brexit future held for Britain, it became clear that British voters were
no longer prepared to countenance the meaningless sound bytes of condescension over thoughtful
arguments and concrete proposals.
ISSN (Online) - 2349-8846

Corbyn also eschewed personal attacks on his rivals, a move that simply entrenched his credibility,
even as he and members of his inner circle, especially the articulate black female member of
parliament (MP), Diane Abbott, were subjected to frequently nasty and, in the latter case, racist and
misogynist smear campaigns. Corbyn also displayed a willingness, when labelled, for instance, as a
"terrorist sympathiser", to take a dicult position, noting after the London terror attacks of 5 June
that Britain needed to assess the role played by its foreign policy in fomenting Islamist militancy. A
similarly bold move was to propose high levels of spending on public services and investment in
infrastructure given the relentless accusations of proigacy with nances that had been the
mainstay of Conservatives' attacks on Labour.

Emergence of Young People

Refreshing and welcome though its recent high prole has been, Corbyn's brand of Labourism is not,
in and of itself, the game-changer in British politics. The one single factor that has transformed the
British electoral landscape over the last year is the emergence of young people, particularly
students, as an electoral forcethe youth turnout in this election was in the vicinity of 72%, an
unprecedented gure. There are sound reasons for this including a political class across the
spectrum which has largely pandered to middle-class, middle-aged and older voters, relying on the
presumed apathy of those under 34 and, concomitantly, an economy which has seen young people
signicantly worse o than their parents and grandparents in terms of job security, housing and
retirement benets.

In 2010, the Tory-Liberal Democrat Coalition government also tripled tuition fees in the face of
widespread protests with further increases expected in this parliament. Young people, if they got an
education at all, would enter the workplace already saddled with thousands of pounds of debt, an
amount that would only increase exponentially if they found themselves able to get on the property
ladder in the rst place. It is into this milieu in which Momentum, the organisation set up to
campaign for Corbyn, was able to make signicant inroads, registering thousands of new Labour
members and bringing in young people in unprecedented numbers to work as activists and
organisers who would also be involved in voter registration drives to bring more young rst-time
voters on to the electoral rolls. In the days leading up to the election, 10000 Momentum volunteers
knocked on about 1.2 million doors, pounding marginal seats by foot, to make the case for Labour.

The Labour manifesto in their hands, dismissed by opponents as a "spending spree,"' promised
massive investment in public services without raising taxes for anyone but the top 5% of earners and
corporations who, under the Tories, had been enjoying the lowest corporate taxes in the
industrialised world. Under Labour, the rigged (a description used frequently) economic system
which disproportionately rewarded the most well-o would be recongured and those individuals and
entities avoiding their fair share of the tax burden would be brought to justice and compliance. The
Tories, meanwhile, amazingly and brazenly, had refused to rule out tax increases for all but the top
earners and large corporations, oering a vague manifesto that was also fully uncosted. May's "U-
turn", after widespread criticism, on a manifesto pledge which would make people pay more for
social caredubbed the "dementia tax" by Labour, also did not help her cause.

It is worth noting that the most progressive electoral manifesto Labour had produced in decades
was, in fact, essentially social democratic in spirit and letter. It was keen to be seen as supportive of
business and conditions which would foster jobs and economic growth dened in traditional terms
while yet ensuring that progressive taxation kept schools and hospitals open and well-resourced.
This did not, of course, prevent tabloids and the right-wing press screaming that Corbyn would drag
the country "back" into socialism and the "seventies", a time period and scare story which, of course,
ISSN (Online) - 2349-8846

has no meaning for a large section of the youth who would comprise Corbyn's social base. It was
always unlikely, of course, given the formidable array of forces against even this perfectly moderate
if highly welcome promise to return to the fundamentals of social democracy that Corbyn's Labour
would sweep to power. It is in this light that Conservative losses can be regarded as a victory for the
Labour left.

Corbyn, it must be remembered, did not just face the arrogant condescension of his Conservative
opponentsformer British prime minister, David Cameron, famously told Corbyn at the dispatch box
to wear a tie and sing the national anthembut also relentless undermining from the centre and
right of his own party. Labour members and voters were repeatedly and lugubriously warned that
Corbyn would nish o Labour and that his tenure as leader would only help the Tories win. The
former Blairite minister, Peter Mandelson's words were not untypical as he committed himself to try
to do something each day to "bring forward the end of (Corbyn's) tenure in oce" and "to save the
Labour party from his leadership." What was the main problem with Corbyn? He was, in a word used
repeatedly from within Labour, "unelectable."

Unelectable?

This much-bandied about term is a word that exceeds its pejorative and personal remitdismissing
Corbyn as a remnant of a bygone era whose views would not be palatable to a public accustomed to
being treated as consumer-stakeholders rather than as citizens. At stake, ultimately, was nothing
less than the a panic-stricken defence of the failing "Third Way" project pioneered by Tony Blair and
his legatees, the so-called "modernisation" of the Labour Party which would involve a complete
jettisoning of any commitment to socialism, capitulate fully to the demands of capitalism in creating
a supposed "centre ground" and focussing as far as possible on a middle-class property-owning
electorate while throwing a few sops in the direction of the fading welfare state.

It was, in others words, the last panicked screams of New Labour's embrace of the notorious
Thatcherite TINA, that is, "there is no alternative" to neoliberalism, precisely the claim which
Corbyn's narrative was challenging. The Blairites had famously insisted on being "intensely relaxed"
about the "lthy rich"; now they were anything but relaxed faced with the prospect of the Labour
Party spearheading a modest degree of redistribution. Another kind of society, Corbyn was saying,
was not just possible but perfectly viable. The Parliamentary Labour Party's own insistence on
Corby's "unelectability" tells us much about how far Labour had come by the beginning of the 21st
century from its modestly socialist beginnings, set up by the socialist, Keir Hardie, and others in the
early 20th century as the electoral face of the British working-classes.

The intense anxiety displayed by factions within the Labour Party were mirrored in the press, not just
the usual suspects owned by Rupert Murdoch (the Sun and the Times) and the Barclay Brothers (the
Telegraph) but also in the Guardian which, for a very long time, ran hostile editorials and opinion
pieces by sta columnists which repeated the charge that Corbyn was a throwback to a time best
left behind. As the tabloids and their twin broadsheets ran hysterical pieces about Corbyn's
purported links with terrorists and extremists of every ilk, liberal commentators in the Guardian and
the Independent, agreeing that Corbyn had rendered the party "unelectable," also oered snide and
unsubstantiated suggestions that Corbyn and his circle were hospitable to anti-Semites and
misogynists. Since the elections, a few have retracted though not perhaps as fully and as honestly as
might have been proper.

Victorious Defeat
ISSN (Online) - 2349-8846

What next? As the euphoria of a victorious defeat subsides, there is a sense of determination within
Labour ranks as well as a degree of real hope among those in the broader electorate who wish to see
Tory rule and austerity come to an end sooner rather than later. The way ahead will not be easy, not
least because of the still very deep divisions of Brexit both within the Labour party and beyond.
Where the wider membership of the Labour party and the overwhelming majority of Britain's
younger voters were and are against leaving the EU, Corbyn was charged, not without justication,
of running a lacklustre campaign in favour of the Remain vote last year. More dismayingly, Corbyn
issued a three-line whip ordering Labour MPs to vote with the government when Theresa May sought
parliamentary approval to trigger Article 50 which would set in motion the negotiations leading up to
Britain's departure from the EU.

Since 48% of the United Kingdom (UK) voted to Remain, including the majority of Scotland and
Northern Ireland, there was widespread feeling that Labour under Corbyn could and should have
done more to represent this half of the country. The Labour manifesto does, it is worth noting, make
clear that freedom of movement between the EU and Britain will end which may have been a
tactically clever move to placate Britain's Leave voters and indeed there is some evidence that
Labour picked up votes which would have otherwise gone to the wildly xenophobic United Kingdom
Independence Party (UKIP). The question of whether it is right to give up that principle in a world
where it is necessary to open up more borders rather than re-inscribe them, however "soft" the
Brexit Labour proposes, remains on the table, a bitterly divisive issue as does immigration on which
the Labour manifesto prevaricated.

What does remain heartening and hopeful, however, is that young people have now asserted
themselves as citizens and agents of democracy; it is vital that they be supported and cheered on as
they do so. They do necessarily have a fully mapped-out version of the future but have a keen sense
that the present is unacceptable. Their new mood is progressive and coalitional in spirit, something
that the Corbyn camp would do well to keep in mind, both as principle and as strategy. The decisive
end of Tory rule in short order might well necessitate the "Progressive Alliance" that many have
called for, one that would involve the co-operation of the Greens and the Scottish National Party. For
one thing is at last crystal clear: contra Thatcher's famous pronouncement, there is an alternative
and it is nally beginning to make its presence felt.