Snap Saboteur election
Theresa May called a snap election to help her implement a clean Brexit with an increased majority. The Daily Mail celebrated this decision by denouncing her Brexit opponents as “saboteurs.”
That much is well understood. Less well understood is that the Prime Minister shared many of those Saboteurs’ basic beliefs, and how this led her to sabotage her own “strong and stable” election campaign.
Who are the Saboteurs?
The Mail’s headline prompted many Remain supporters to self-identify as “saboteurs” on social media. These self-described Saboteurs are hardline Remainers who want to stop Brexit from taking place at all, or, failing that, retain the strongest possible links with the EU, including freedom of movement and jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. They do so from a Left wing, pro-political correctness perspective, with some even self-identifying as snowflakes:
Establishment Saboteur ideology
Less obvious, though not surprising, are the deeper assumptions that underlie the Saboteurs’ angry stance. It is worth unpicking those assumptions in order to understand the extent to which, despite obvious differences, the Conservatives’ election campaign approach shared a common underlying philosophy with the Saboteurs. Saboteurs, for the most part, hold a number of core views and beliefs:
- An opposition to populism;
- An assumption that this opposition is the fruit of superior cultural sophistication and intellect on their part;
- A related assumption that any support for populism can be blamed on ignorance, stupidity and bigotry;
- A consequent view of populists as embarrassing, shameful, social pariahs;
- Support for establishment, centrist politics, such as those of Emmanuel Macron in France;
- Support for so-called “experts” against misguided or ignorant popular opinion;
- Support for international institutions like the European Court of Justice – governed by some of those (un-elected) experts – and their ability to curb populism in any nation state;
- Support for the international world order from which those institutions derive their legitimacy, as embodied, for example, in human rights legislation or UN conventions;
- Support for foreign military intervention in (purported) defense of that international world order, as, recently, in Libya, Ukraine and Syria;
- Support for free trade, free movement of people, immigration and multi-culturalism.
These beliefs are all represented in the following collage of Saboteur tweets and profiles, which display an eye watering contempt for populists and Brexiteers:
Miaow.
Blairite Saboteurs
Although a very small handful of Saboteurs did support Jeremy Corbyn, the vast majority held a pro-European, internationalist and anti-populist philosophy which was strongly consistent with that of the establishment wing of the Labour party from which Corbyn wrestled power, and which rebelled against him on numerous occasions (notably over airstrikes in Syria and in a leadership bid by Owen Smith) and effectively tried to sabotage his electoral campaign (for example by leaking the Labour manifesto). Corbyn, by contrast, was seen as the kind of populist – and his supporters as the kind of great unwashed, low-information voters – who are reviled by the Saboteurs over Brexit:
Other constituents of the Saboteurs include those, like the Liberal Democrats and Remoaner Tories such as Anna Soubry, who, some people speculate, may join this establishment Labour faction in a new breakaway centrist party.
Core Labour Saboteur
Labour entered the general election with catastrophic poll ratings, having experienced poor local election and by election results. This helped the establishment Labour Saboteurs to argue that the party was losing support because Jeremy Corbyn as leader and his hard Left policies didn’t appeal, particularly not to core Labour voters.
Corbyn’s Saboteur opponents believed a more “Saboteurist,” establishment Labour candidate, in the mold of arch-Remoaner and neo-liberal internationalist Tony Blair, would be successful in winning over that core Labour support:
Parking tanks on Saboteur lawns
The absence of such a centrist Labour candidate emboldened the Tories to target traditional working class Labour seats in Wales and the North and Midlands of England, thinking they had two aces up their sleeve:
- Theresa May was the sensible leader and offered the mainstream policies those traditional Labour voters wanted;
- She clearly supported the Brexit they overwhelmingly voted for in the referendum.
May included a number of Left-wing policies in her manifesto, such as enhanced workers’ rights and an energy price cap to appeal to those voters. In so doing, she moved squarely into the Centrist territory occupied by the Saboteurs.
The only difference between May and many of the Saboteurs was, in effect, her support for Brexit.
Clinton establishment Sabotrice
But it was much more than just her manifesto. Theresa May clearly ran an establishment-style campaign against Corbyn, dismissing him as a radical, embarrassing fringe politician who couldn’t be taken seriously. The tone and messaging of her campaign were, in fact, almost a carbon copy of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign against Donald Trump, whom Clinton dismissed as dangerous and inexperienced. May did exactly the same to Corbyn. May’s relentlessly repeated (and rightly derided) “strong and stable leadership” soundbite echoed Clinton’s claim that Trump was “temperamentally unfit to hold an office that requires knowledge, stability and immense responsibility” (my emphasis). Crucially, each point of similarity with the Clinton campaign illustrated below is also a point of agreement with the Saboteur sentiments analysed above; May and Clinton both tried to present themselves as the educated, on-message, internationalist, establishment experts reverenced by the Saboteurs, and their opponents as the ignorant, embarrassing, amateurish, parochial populists the Saboteurs abhorred.
Both Clinton and May enjoyed a strong favorability rating advantage over their rival as they approached polling day:
They were encouraged by this to personalise the election, using their experience in government as proof of their suitability for office, while accusing their opponent of being unqualified and personally unsuitable:
Both argued that their opponent would embarrass the country if he were ever to hold office:
The idea of Trump or Corbyn “sitting down” to take important decisions on behalf of the country was presented as excruciating:
And this perception was shared by former heads of state in a cross-party political consensus, which gave May and Clinton’s opponents, as outsiders, the cold shoulder:
These personal attacks were summed up by the claim that Trump and Corbyn couldn’t be trusted to lead their country:
The trust gap was hammered home by presenting them as outright security risks:
And as enemies of Nato:
Both were even presented as nuclear risks (albeit for different reasons):
Both were also discredited due to their associations abroad with terrorists and foreign governments:
Or with anti-Semites and radical groups at home:
Both Trump and Corbyn’s populist economic policies were accused of being fiscally irresponsible:
And there were other surprising (and possibly coincidental) similarites. Both Trump and Corbyn were accused of being disrespectful to veterans:
And both had their education and intelligence denigrated:
Anti-pleb Saboteur
The comparison with the Hillary campaign rams home just how contrary to the spirit of Brexit the May campaign was.
- She asked voters to reject an embarrassing candidate who was beyond the pale – which was how Remain presented the Brexit option.
- She asked voters to trust the experts and the experienced establishment, not the dumb, unwashed outsider – the Brexit referendum was one in which the great unwashed and supposedly ignorant stuck two fingers up to the establishment and the (supposed) experts with glee.
- She asked voters to reject risky economic populism in favor of a sensible economic orthodoxy – Remain’s “project fear” presented Brexit as economic catastrophe whereas Leave presented it as freedom to spend £350m on the NHS.
- She asked voters to reject any challenge to Nato-led, neo-liberal, internationalist interventionism – Brexit was a rejection of just this neo-liberal internationalist order (May seems to have shot herself in the foot with the traditional Labour Brexiteers by making her manifesto even more internationalist, when she committed the UK to spending 0.7% of UK GDP on foreign aid).
May, in short, tried to run a Brexit election with the kind of “project fear” platform which failed for both the Clinton and Remain campaigns. In so doing, she heaped the kind of derision on Corbyn normally dished out by the Saboteurs to her Brexit-supporting target voters.
“Strong and stable in Europe” – what a perfect Saboteur slogan.
Self-sabotage
The way the Tories just swallowed the Blairite view that these traditional Labour seats were crying out for a centrist, establishment candidate seems very odd indeed. You might have imagined they’d be suspicious of thinking like Alistair Campbell or Nick Cohen. Or maybe this shows just how incestuous the country’s political establishment is.
But there was a massive problem. May and the Blairites, the Saboteurs united, were completely wrong. It didn’t work. In fact, Corbyn’s populist policies proved ragingly popular in the working class seats targeted by the Tories, with Corbyn enjoying a big increase in votes compared to what Labour moderates achieved in previous elections:
Surprise, surprise: it turned out you couldn’t summon the disruptive, populist Brexit spirit with a robotic, mainstream Blairite message. The Tories couldn’t have their cake and eat it too. Their establishment, Clinton-style campaign proved to be spectacularly misjudged.
Labour’s border control sabotage
But was there anything the Tories could have done to appeal to the traditional Labour populist vote? Did their campaign really jump the wrong way, like an English goalkeeper in a penalty shoot out, or were those seats simply never there for the taking in the first place?
I think there clearly was something the Tories could have done. Although Corbyn’s anti-austerity message might have been superficially appealing to traditional Labour voters, his policy on European freedom of movement would have been a major turn-off, had its implications been made clear. Labour said:
Immigration rules will have to change as we exit the EU, but we do not believe that immigration should be the overarching priority.
Labour’s White Paper will have a strong emphasis on retaining the benefits of the Single Market and the Customs Union as we know that is vital to protecting jobs and the economy.
Given the EU’s insistence that Single Market benefits are tied to freedom of movement, Labour was effectively saying it was prepared to accept limits on the UK’s ability to control EU immigration, in order to increase access to the Single Market. What this concession would amount to would of course be subject to negotiation, but it meant that Labour wasn’t ruling out policies such as a minimum quota for EU workers, or guaranteeing EU citizens with job offers access to the UK labor market.
For the working class Brexit-supporting voter in marginal seats like Darlington or Wrexham, this would have gone down like a cup of cold sick. One of the reasons they voted Brexit was to stop cheap foreign labor from Europe undercutting them and driving down their living standards. But here was Labour saying they would be prepared to keep letting large numbers of European workers in. They were going to put the UK’s control over immigration from the EU in a kind of straight jacket. Under Labour, Brussels could, to some degree, keep ramming the EU immigrants (like me) down the British worker’s throat forever.
What surprised me about the Tory campaign is that it didn’t attack this ambiguity in Labour’s policy (the surprising low profile of immigration in the election was noted on the BBC’s Today programme on 3 June). It didn’t so much as ask Labour to clarify, for example, whether they would agree to allow a minimum number of European workers in every year, and, if so, how high that number would be. In fact, immigration barely featured in the Conservative campaign.
What the general election demonstrated above all was the extent to which most MPs, from the Remoaner Tories to the Blairites in Labour, are out of touch with their voters. Most post-mortems of the Prime Minister’s campaign focused on her coldness, her refusal to participate in debates or her U-turn on social care costs. What this analysis misses is the degree to which her core campaign message wasn’t fit for purpose.
Meanwhile, Labour’s Brexit policy was confusing and ambiguous. But this, ironically, allowed Corbyn to pander to the London metropolitan Remoaners while not antagonising traditional voters further North. Because they didn’t have the gumption to denounce this subterfuge, the Conservatives let him get away with his double message scot free. Thanks to the Conservative campaign, it was Labour that managed to have its cake and eat it.
Theresa May famously worried that people thought the Conservatives might be seen as the nasty party. Immigration is a controversial subject, not to be mentioned in polite conversation. For the Saboteurs, it is bad form, racist, narrow minded, to bang on about it. It seems May was so keen to run a polite, well-groomed, uncontroversial campaign, a campaign imbued with the Saboteurs’ values, that she completely misjudged the traditional Labour swing voters she was targeting, and was too embarrassed to play the one card she had to win them over.
By thinking like the Saboteurs, she sabotaged herself and – potentially – Brexit and her country.
PS Theresa May’s advisers Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill resigned over their responsibility for what was seen as an unpopular manifesto. But, as we have seen, her really fatal strategic mistake was to run an establishment campaign, and shy away from any populist campaigning on immigration. Responsibility for this, surely, must rest with the much feted Sir Lynton Crosby, the Tories’ campaign strategist, who so far (with some exceptions, none of which identify the Tories’ mainstream message as his mistake) seems to have attracted no criticism.
PPS So why didn’t I predict Labour’s better than expected performance? Partly, as a European, I attribute a bullshit detection faculty to the sensible, no nonsense British voter which should have seen through Corbyn’s subterfuge on immigration, but which is probably overly stereotypical and exaggerated by my folkloric imagination. I’m embarrassed to say that it’s also partly an echo chamber effect. Corbyn’s message is a politically correct, virtue signalling, metropolitan one which I find off-putting. It seems incompatible to me with a populist wave like the Trump movement. I couldn’t imagine such woolly jumper wearing, local authority sub-committee homilies appealing to normal blue collar people. But, contrary to what I thought, it seems that this right-on, lentil-eating Left wing populism has broader appeal than I imagined. Had I been in tune with this, I would have likely picked up on the fact that the Tories weren’t using the one tool they had to challenge it: an attack on Labour’s immigration policies.
Thought provoking, well researched article.
You did overlook the key factor as I see it.
It was the more “advantaged” voters, who had been used to getting their children’s early education at the expense of the taxpayers, wanting that to continue to tertiary education. Plus those student with large debts who saw this as an opportunity convert that debt into one which benefited them.
It was the tuition fees that won it for Corbyn.
That, and Corbyn’s duplicitous support for the interests of wealthy pensioners and their beneficiaries.
LikeLike
Hi Tamimisledus, thanks for commenting. I agree those were very important factors and I didn’t mean to imply they weren’t. I wanted to focus on the neglect of immigration as I thought that factor had itself been neglected, both by the Conservatives and by the media in its commentary on the election.
The tuition fees promise was a good electoral ploy but highly cynical. As you rightly say, it benefits voters who are already advantaged. I’ve said it was the equivalent of the triple lock for students. That and the unrealistic promises to pensioners are “magic money tree” with a populist appearance which in reality, you quite rightly point out, benefit the elites.
However, my view is that the students overlap with the London and university town Remoaners whom the Conservatives were going to lose anyway. My point was that losing them would only be a price worth paying if they could gain seats in blue collar Brexit voting areas. By pulling her punches on immigration so as not to be seen as “nasty,” May did not get that benefit.
In the end, it is always difficult to weigh up the impact of different factors, and I certainly think the factors you highlighted were very important.
Thanks again for commenting.
LikeLike
First, to confirm that I also tweet under this handle on Twitter.
LikeLike
Second, WordPress has some excellent features but I have (local only?) trouble retrieving my previous comments which is why I asked on Twitter for details of your blog.
LikeLike
Third, I am not disagreeing with your main points, just showing that I think that it was more the Corbyn handouts that “won it” for Corbyn than any other factor.
LikeLike
Fourth, I won’t be commenting in detail on your other points, though I do need to revisit them for myself to get their full import.
Now that I know you are listening (many bloggers just like the sound of their own voice!) I have a high level point I would like to make when I find the time to correctly formulate it in the context of your blog. “I’ll be back!”
LikeLike
Finally I am always glad to give my input if I feel it could be of value, even though sometimes my input may be off the mark and need correction.
Keep up the good work!
LikeLike
Thanks for following my blog.
I am not as well organised as you are so it it is not very coherent at the moment, although I hope you will find it thought-provoking.
Although I do get “distracted” by other topics, islam is really the focus of my thoughts. For example, over simplifying, I would prefer EU without islam over islam without EU.
I have had a plan in mind to describe an “interpretation” of islam in the world which would revolutionise how people view this doctrine. I have done some initial work but now that your are following me, I know that someone will be listening who might understand what I have to say and also provide some valuable criticism. You might just be the impetus I need. More later (I hope!).
Meanwhile, keep up the good work.
Best Wishes,
Tami
LikeLike
Tami, nice to hear from you. I am happy to follow you and comment. I think Salafist Islam (including Wahabi, Deobandi and others) is a cancer. It is fine for camel shag – I mean herders in the desert, but should not exist in developed societies. The Salafists are primitive.
LikeLike
I have two caveats. One is that we, the West and at the front of that the US & UK, actively promoted and supported the spread of the Salafist doctrine throughout the Muslim world. Pakistan is a classic example. Its very creation was a Western idea. Even then, its founder Jina was a drinker. Sufi mysticism and its musical tradition, as exemplified by Nusrat Ali Khan, which the Salafists consider haram, were vibrant. But we sponsored Zia’s accession to power in the 70s. He promoted the training of Jihadists in Pakistan to fight in Afghanistan. On top of that, years of corruption in Pakistan led to an absence of affordable education. So the Saudis came in with Wahabi madrassas to fill the gap. All with our puppet, Zia’s, blessing.
LikeLike
So the West is complicit in the spread of Salafism. I have no problem with most Muslims, who are not Salafists. They are what I would call “habitual Muslims.” They don’t take it that seriously. My daughter’s two best friends are like that. Normal teenage girls (which is to say, with all the usual teenage girl abnormalities). Both interested in boys and not averse to a drink. They just happen to be Muslim. I don’t have a problem with that.
LikeLike
However, that habitual Islam is in retreat. The younger generation is increasingly under pressure to become more orthodox and Salafist. That is a deadly problem which has to be fixed.
LikeLike
As a religion, though I don’t have a problem with habitual Muslims, I do find many aspects of Islam rather limited. Especially the prohibition on representation of living creatures. That is a block to the imagination. I also find it literalist and narrow. If you read French, there is an excellent book from the late 80s (I think) which anticipates many of our problems: Jean-Claude Barreau, De l’Islam en général et du monde moderne en particulier.
LikeLike
The god of islam, _allah_, says that those who don’t follow the religion are an inferior sub-species of human.
_allah_ says that sub-human non-muslims will be condemned to suffer for eternity in hell as they do not worship him.
_allah_ tells muslims to have no compassion for non-muslims suffering from his punishments.
From this, and other comments in a similar vein from _allah_, follows muslim contempt for non-muslims.
And yet you have no problem with muslims who worship _allah_ and believe that this vile creature created the world and dispenses justice?
As they have done since the foundation of islam, followers of islam represent an existential threat to the future of humanity, since they embody the very worse aspects of human nature.
If you fail to recognize the deep-seated flaws of islamic doctrine, you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.
LikeLike