 |
| British prime minister Theresa May on election night (Photo: Sky News) |
The results of the recent British
general election have plunged the ruling Conservative Party into a crisis of
confidence that could ultimately see them lose office.
British Prime Minister Theresa May
was – I would argue – right in calling the poll. Where she went wrong was in
how the campaign was conducted. The manner and style was not in sync with how
the majority of the public were feeling. ‘Strong and stable leadership’ was Mrs
May’s mantra but this message failed to connect with the voters. The dementia
tax and other harsh social policies in the Conservative manifesto helped draw a
picture of an uncaring and tightfisted government led by a robotic prime
minister who wasn’t in listening mode. Contrast that with the performance of
Jeremy Corbyn. The Labour leader displayed humility and decency where this was
absent in his chief opponent.
Many – including this writer –
predicted that the Conservatives would win and that Labour would be badly
defeated in June’s poll. This didn’t happen, largely because the government
failed to prepare sufficiently for the ensuing campaign. The assumption was
that voters would return the Tories with a larger majority and that the opposition
would be torn asunder. As we now know
the Conservative Party no longer enjoys a majority in the House of Commons and find
themselves in a minority position – but still in government – needing the
support of some other MP’s (at time of writing the Conservatives are trying to
stitch together a deal with the Democratic Unionist Party).
This is not how things were meant
to turn out back in April when Mrs May called the vote. It came as a great
surprise to me when I first heard that the PM wanted to hold the general
election. Everyone was caught off guard - even some cabinet ministers seemed to
have no idea of what their leader was planning. The Conservatives seemed to
have a big advantage and therefore one couldn’t understand as to why Mrs May
had not gone for an election sooner. Everything was perfectly poised when she
announced her intentions on the steps of Downing Street. What could possibly go
wrong? We were about to find out.
One of the first things that
struck me about Mrs May’s announcement was the length of the campaign. A seven
week duration seemed far too long. The risks must surely increase the longer a
campaign lasts, I thought to myself. Surely the Conservatives, given their
commanding position in the polls (some had predicted that Mrs May would return
to parliament with a majority of over 100), would have been better off snipping
the campaign to three weeks, thus minimising the risk factor? A long campaign,
such as the recent one, gives greater opportunity to the opposition, something no governing party should allow.
During the month of May I travelled to Brazil for a family
holiday. Before leaving for South America I pondered the election campaign. A
terrorist outrage could occur at some point. I shuddered at the thought. Very
sadly this awful thought proved true and there were in fact two horrible
terrorist attacks before Polling Day. On another day, while driving through the
streets of Sao Paulo, my mind was drawn back to the ongoing election campaign
back in the UK. What if Mrs May were to have a reversal in fortunes? What if
the result gave her a smaller majority than anticipated? I asked myself these
questions repeatedly for a few hours and then thankfully my mind went back to
more pleasant thoughts.
What I and others failed to
realise was that there was a growing resentment among large swathes of the
British public at the policies of this Conservative government. The failure of
the latter to realise this fact has now put Mrs May and her party in a very
difficult position. Not only did they fail to attract votes from Labour
supporters but the Tories also lost votes from liberal Conservative supporters.
Several Conservative MPs (Anna Soubry and Ken Clarke among them) have
criticised the way in which the governing party ran the campaign. The focus
should have been on the economy, they have said. Ah yes the economy of which
more later.
The results of GE 2017 mean that the Conservative programme of government will have to be cut drastically. The government – and Mrs May – will have to be a good deal more
conciliatory in their approach during the upcoming parliament. Any more
strident ambitions will have to be forgotten. By the end of the summer the
Conservatives will, in all likelihood, have chosen a successor to Mrs May. The vicar’s
daughter is now too much of an electoral risk and she will have to be replaced
before the Party goes into battle at the next significant poll. The chief candidates
to replace her are probably the following: Boris Johnson MP (current Foreign Secretary),
Amber Rudd MP (current Home Secretary), David Davis MP (current Secretary for Exiting
the EU) and Phillip Hammond MP (current Chancellor of the Exchequer). These are
the most likely characters to be in the final running but one cannot rule out a
dark horse emerging from elsewhere. Of the names mentioned above I would put my
money on Mr Hammond succeeding Mrs May, but for now – of course – that is only
an educated guess.
No matter who goes on to lead
this minority administration, one senses trouble ahead. A general election –
few seem in any doubt – will have to be held sometime within the next two years
or so. As history has shown us governments tend to lose – not win – general elections
when the economic fundamentals are not positive. The Conservatives badly need some
good news on the economic front if they are to regain the advantage at
Westminster. One of the few positives for them in this year’s vote is that the electorate
still has some level of trust in the Tories’ economic record. This is why they
are still in office. But, if for any reason, should this trust be lost and the
Conservatives lose control of the economy then the expectation cannot be that Mr
Corbyn and John McDonnell (the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer) will take
the blame. No, the blame will be apportioned to the incumbents. Now should that kind of scenario emerge,
one could very well see a Labour government at Westminster – something no one
could have predicted until recently.
All of this is hypothetical. However what is now perfectly clear is that this Conservative
government at Westminster will have to overcome hurdles on a weekly, if not a
daily, basis. Indeed one gets the distinct impression that the current administration
is nearing the end of its days. All governments are hostage to fortune in some way;
this has never been truer of the present British government. The future could not be more uncertain.
