Boris Johnson has finally got what he wanted – a general
election, to be held on 12 December. Never mind the fact that the parliament elected
in 2015 should still be sitting and that the UK is headed for its third election
in just over four years. Only Johnson has the chutzpah to preside over the
legislative shambles that has characterised UK politics over the past two
months and claim that he is trying to “get Brexit done”.
He has defied many of the conventions that underpin the UK’s
political system and may have done incalculable damage. His most significant
move was to try and prorogue parliament, in a move later ruled to be
unconstitutional, to prevent parliamentary oversight of his Brexit bill. But in
the process he served only to alienate 21 of his Conservative colleagues who
were suspended from the parliamentary party for daring to vote for legislation
that would prevent prorogation from resulting in a car crash Brexit.
Johnson then did what he previously said was unacceptable by
drawing up a Brexit plan which involved drawing a border down the Irish Sea. It
is always worth recalling that in 2018 Johnson wrote, “the fatal error was not to challenge the
EU’s position that the only way of avoiding a hard border on the island of
Ireland – an objective we all share – is for Northern Ireland to have the same
regulations for trade as Ireland and the rest of the EU … That is obviously a
non-starter.” Johnson then proceeded to sign up to an agreement in which
Northern Ireland does indeed “have the
same regulations for trade as Ireland and the rest of the EU” and in the
process alienated the 10 DUP MPs upon whom his party has previously relied for
parliamentary support.
His next trick was to try and force MPs to accept his Brexit
bill without first seeing it – a measure which was rejected by parliament. The
government was then forced to publish details of the Withdrawal Agreement Bill
but was defeated when it became clear that it was intent on ramming it through
parliament with only cursory debate. Let us not forget, however, that the WAB
did pass its second reading in the House of Commons. In this sense, Johnson has
already gone a step further than Theresa May by getting parliament to vote in
favour of legislation enabling Brexit. From a tactical perspective, the
government would have been well advised to concede that a delay of up to a
month would be necessary to ensure that the WAB is passed, rather than doubling
down on the 31 October deadline.
But having failed in his efforts to "get Brexit done" by 31 October, Johnson has
shamelessly pushed for an election only to fail to get sufficient support for
this option under the terms of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act and has been
forced to rely on circumventing it. In another of the great Brexit ironies,
Conservative MPs have repeatedly told us that parliament is dysfunctional and
we need a reboot in order to start passing legislation. But it is in this
position precisely because of the way the executive has behaved over the past
two months, potentially alienating 31 MPs who until recently were on their
side. The government may want to reflect on the fact that any of their
proposals that lost by a margin of less than 62 could have turned out
differently had it not done its best to ride roughshod over the wishes of those
who oppose it.
Early last month Johnson said he would rather be "dead in a ditch" than postpone his
"do or die" Brexit beyond October. I am happy to report that the
prime minister is hale and hearty, although his plans are dead from a glitch –
the glitch being that MPs want to devote more care to getting Brexit done in
order to serve the needs of their constituents than Johnson’s cavalier attitude
will permit. But whilst what I have described so far sounds like a litany of
government failures characteristic of a serial loser as it trampled over constitutional
conventions, it will all stand Johnson in good stead in the December election
that will clearly act as a quasi-referendum on Brexit. His pitch will be “I
tried my best to deliver but I was thwarted by a Remainer parliament.”
And it will almost certainly work, for even though many
long-standing Conservative voters will break the habit of a lifetime and lend
their support to another party, Jeremy Corbyn is so reviled by centrist voters
that Labour will not be in any position to capture their votes. In other words
the swing away from the Conservatives will not follow the historical pattern of
being matched by a swing towards Labour.
But there is also another political
narrative at work which is too often ignored. The conventional view is that
politics is dysfunctional and we need a cleaning of the Augean Stables.
Arguably, however, the institutional framework is standing up very well to the
pressure exerted by government. The judiciary, for example, has consistently
refused to be intimidated by the executive. Nor should MPs feel bound to
support a policy proposed by their party if they do not believe it to be in the
interests of their constituents. MPs are representatives of the people, paid by
the taxpayer. They owe their allegiance first and foremost to the electorate
rather than the prime minister, and those who appear to be blocking the path to
Brexit are speaking for the near half of voters who feel they have not been
heard over the past three years.
What the past three years have taught us is that the UK’s
representative democratic system is not capable of dealing with an infusion of
direct democracy. It is simply not acceptable for MPs, who we pay to resolve
such problems, to throw an important question such as EU membership to the
electorate without giving proper guidance and consideration. But having chosen
to introduce direct democracy, it is equally unacceptable to then exclude the
electorate from subsequent discussions. And whatever else the election may be
about, it is not right to bind Brexit up with the host of other issues that need
to be discussed during an election campaign.
A second lesson is that the nature of politics has changed.
The two party system that has characterised British politics for centuries is
currently in a state of flux. It is difficult to imagine governments being able
to secure the huge majorities which have characterised the recent past (of
course, that may prove to be wrong at the next election). The current system of
adversarial politics may have to change to accommodate a wider polarity of
views.
This year has been one of the most fractious political years
of modern times in the UK and over the next six weeks it is going to become
more messy and unpleasant still. And even then, as I have repeatedly pointed
out, this will not resolve the Brexit problems which will continue to fester
for a long time to come. A December election is a bad idea for many reasons but
for those of you with an interest in historical precedent, there were three
elections held in December between 1910 and 1923 (the last time it happened). On
each occasion the sitting prime minister lost. Food for thought!
No comments:
Post a Comment