“All things are subject to interpretation. Whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.”
The philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche believed that in a Godless world there was no objective truth, only endless interpretations. I wonder what he would have made of the results of last Thursday’s election. Being a smart fellow, I’m guessing he would have immediately noticed that far from the epochal era-defining triumph for the Tory party proclaimed by the more excitable elements within the Conservative press, what we in fact saw was a modest uptick in the Tory vote, courtesy of a thin slice of the 8% carved from the rotting carcass of the putrid, and possibly moribund, Labour Party.
Oh, and Boris Johnson is no superman.
Well done and all that to the team at CCHQ but let’s get real, the Tory’s haul was only a smidgeon better – albeit far more advantageously distributed – than poor old Mrs May gathered in against a still relatively pristine and scandal free Glastonbury-tastic Jeremy Corbyn, and a far more credible Liberal Democratic challenge. And it was achieved with the help and cooperation of the potentially dangerous Brexit party, obligingly standing down in half the seats, and largely silencing their guns of criticism.
Boris Johnson is quite right to see his “red wall” votes as short term loans conditional on his delivering on one very big promise: and I cite as evidence here a certain “Wendy from Wakefield” a life-long Labour voter interviewed on Channel 4 news just before the election:
“What do you think of Jeremy Corbyn?”
“I can’t stand him”
“So, you’re voting Conservative.”
“I am, yes.”
“Do you like Boris Johnson?”
“No, but he might get us out of Brexit (sic), and I voted Leave.”
In a nutshell, I suspect.
And what of the other great “winners” of the night – the ever-delightful SNP? Old obituaries for the Union are being dusted off and submitted anew after a supposedly “stunning” 48-seat victory and 46% of the popular vote. A euphoric Mrs Sturgeon was captured fist pumping frenziedly as a tearful mother of two young children was made redundant and humiliated on national television (the hapless, culpable, but still human Jo Swinson). As I said, delightful.
The SNP leader wasted no time in declaring the result a clear mandate for independence. She followed this up with threats of legal action – the SNP’s new hobby – should the UK government, which she clearly views as a foreign power, dare to keep Scotland within the UK “against its will”.
This interpretation really is a function of power not truth, or to put it in simpler language – all talk and not much trews. What really happened in Scotland was this: 54% of Scots voted for parties other than the SNP, despite those parties all languishing in various states of unpopularity and all led by figures that have little appeal north of the border. Voting for the Nats offered a free hit at the Westminster establishment with little fear of any serious consequences. Even La Sturgeon admits not all of the 46% would vote for separation in any future “Indyref” – though we can be pretty sure all of the 54% would vote for the Union. Viewed from another perspective then the result could be seen as a majority of Scots, in trying circumstances, endorsing the Union and rejecting a second independence referendum.
As for the “losers”, while the Lib Dems, whose election strategy will surely one day be chronicled in a cautionary “How not to conduct an election campaign” guidebook are understandably shell-shocked, they did not quite suffer the catastrophe so many have reported. Swinson’s demise was traumatic, and will be indelibly etched on their supporter’s memories as a wince-inducing embarrassment for years to come, but it is far from the whole story. The party increased its vote share by a not inconsiderable 4% of total votes cast, and victories over high-profile incumbents (Zac Goldsmith in Greenwich and Steven Gethens in North East Fife) will offer hope that if the party can learn from their errors (big if) there may yet be a way back.
And the Brexit party? Glum faces all round after an apparently pitiful 2%, but again this requires closer scrutiny. Firstly, that 2% is really 4% given that only half the seats were contested. Moreover, the Brexit party, despite far broader aims exemplified by their “Change politics for good” slogan, are still principally regarded as a one-issue pressure group. Supporters were voting for a policy, not a rosette, and if many were grudgingly persuaded that the Tories were, in complicated and high stakes circumstances, the best hope for that policy, that can’t be seen as a rejection of the Brexit party. Only time will tell if their faith will be rewarded, but the Conservatives would be wise to reflect that their freshly loaned red wall Brexit supporting voters have comprehensively rejected one attempt to fob them off, and won’t react well to a second.
Only for Labour would it appear that the immediate interpretations are borne out by the facts, though you have to credit the bruised Corbynistas for trying to argue with cold, bleak reality. “Our policies were incredibly popular” they bleat, though this is surely questionable. After all, when asked if they are in favour of being given humungous amounts of free stuff, it is unsurprising that few people object. It’s more probable that Labour’s manifesto promises (or some of them) were “liked” in the same way people may like J.K Rowling’s latest fantasy film, or an amusing cat video on social media. Who, apart from Lilly Allen, was daft enough to take it all seriously? And as for the old chestnut “we were destroyed by the vicious personal assaults on Jeremy by the right-wing press”. Yeah, right. Boris Johnson didn’t complain when a famous rapper dangled a facsimile of a severed Boris head live on stage, and live on the BBC, or when author Philip Pullman mused about having him strung up from a lamppost on social media.
So there already are, and will no doubt be many more, interpretations of what happened and why at the 2019 election. Some will be a function of power; some a function of desperation, some will be self-serving, some will be recriminatory, and some will be sincere and heartfelt. But the overriding message of the 2019 election for me was simple: respect democracy; have a clear credible message; and don’t insult the electorate.
And above all, listen to people outside your immediate circle.
Or as Dominic Cummings, one of the undoubted victors on the night, put it: “MPs need to reflect, the media needs to reflect, and they need to realise that the conversations they have in London are a million miles away from reality.”
