28 Days Later…DUPed into an uncertain future
Almost a month has now passed since the UK General Election, and the interim weeks have seen confusion, disappointment, anger and chaos. An early General Election that was supposed to solidify Theresa May’s place in Government and give her a strong mandate for the future Brexit negotiations, did exactly the opposite. Instead of winning voters’ hearts and minds, her weak campaign failed to appeal to the young and led the country into uncertainty as she tried to pull together a piecemeal confidence and supply arrangement with the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) in Northern Ireland. The new kingmakers are a party whose policies are entirely questionable: denial of climate change, against same sex marriage, and anti-abortion to name a few. Adding to this confusion, the tragedy of Grenfell tower came amidst the beginning of Brexit negotiations, and did little to show the strength and stability of May’s Government. Instead, it did more to highlight the Government’s prior failings, the housing crisis stemming from years of austerity and protecting rich interests over the poor, and importantly her lack of conviction in a crisis and empathy for those affected.
The Northern Irish conservative DUP were a relatively unheard-of party until the day after the election and few could have predicted that they would become the kingmakers. As such, they have convinced May to find her ‘magic money tree’ to fund a £1bn deal towards infrastructure and healthcare in Northern Ireland. While Conservatives in Scotland have likened this to City Deals – targeted funding allocated to specific regions to promote economic growth, area development and investment – it is an unfair comparison as this additional funding targets areas of calculated need, whilst no specification or terms of this new money for Northern Ireland have been made. In addition, Sinn Féin, Norther Ireland’s republican party, have rightly noted their concerns that this deal risks threatening the Northern Irish peace process by violating the terms of the Good Friday Agreement, built on an acceptance that Westminster must be neutral in Northern Ireland. Presently, the Northern Irish executive has collapsed (the DUP and Sinn Féin have failed to reach a power-sharing arrangement since the executive collapsed in January over a controversial renewable heating scheme), and the British and Irish Governments’ role should be to chair negotiations between Sinn Féin and DUP as neutral parties. However, May’s government can no longer claim such neutrality, thus undermining the entire process and increasing the likelihood of new elections if an agreement is not reached. There is a lot of anger in Northern Ireland right now, and it begs the question if such a confidence and supply deal is worth risking the entire peace process when the future of May’s government is as fragile as it is. Some have even predicted that the initial funding will not secure DUP allegiance for long, and they may demand more in the coming months, so that Westminster could face paying for such a deal for a long time.
Whilst May’s leadership hangs in the balance, Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party itself faces renewed problems in its internal ranks, and a recent Shadow Cabinet reshuffle has been a setback in the resurgence of pride that many felt for the party following Corbyn’s undeniably impressive campaign performance. The Party remains split on key issues on Europe, and remaining Blairites and centre-left members still see Corbyn’s socialist agenda as a risk to the Party’s future – not to mention his persona, which upsets some while empowering and inspiring many more, creating a clear split in the Party’s supporters. Corbyn still insists that he will soon form the next UK Government and that May’s time in her seat is tenuous at best. If May resigns in the next few months, we are left with the same dilemma: we would have an unelected leader at a time where decisive leadership is needed to initiate Brexit negotiations on behalf of the country. Failing to receive a majority in this election throws doubt on the Conservatives’ entire operation and it shows we cannot carry on with business as usual. It would be sensible to at least consider options of a second referendum on the terms of Brexit once negotiations have taken place.
On a different note, it would be unfair not to mention the other parties involved in the recent election, as they have shown that the UK is no longer a two-party state, suggesting that the current electoral system is not fit for purpose. The fact that many felt they needed to vote tactically (perhaps even more so than usual) in this election to keep a certain party out shows people are not voting along traditional lines any more. In fact, a majority of voters opted for parties on the left or left of centre, for a liberal and socialist agenda that is anti-austerity, but ended up with the polar opposite, which looks set to make life even more difficult for the many not the few.
In Scotland, it’s important to reflect on the Scottish National Party’s (SNP) performance in some respect. While many see the Conservatives relative rise as a failure from the SNP, the result was undeniably partly to do with a split in the vote with many young people in Scotland finally seeing a person they could get behind in Corbyn, despite a poor performance from Scottish Labour over recent months. However, in some areas, the Conservative rise also had to do with fears of a second independence referendum, which was announced timely by Nicola Sturgeon just two months before the General Election was announced by May. Ruth Davidson, leader of the Scottish Conservatives, had the perfect opportunity to run her campaign on a singular message: no to IndyRef2. They barely needed to touch on their own manifesto policies to win certain voters. Indeed, Davidson has done an impressive job in recent years in distancing herself from her Westminster colleagues, while stating somewhat convincingly that she would stand up for Scotland. However, part of this is clearly a façade given the recent deal with the DUP, in which additional funding to Northern Ireland has not been delivered in equal measure to other devolved administrations, using the Barnett Formula – a system that dictates the level of public spending in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, with funding or cuts allocated proportionally to the population. Scottish Secretary of State David Mundell himself stated that a reciprocal arrangement for Scotland should follow if a deal was to be made. He said he would not back a deal that “deliberately sought to subvert the Barnett rules”. While there have been calls for his resignation since such a deal has actually been made, there has been no movement as yet. In fact, he has since said that the deal with the DUP is “transparent”. Davidson, who remained relatively quiet initially following the election, has now, rather than comment on the details of the funding itself, criticised the DUP for their views on same-sex marriage, perhaps again in an attempt to distance herself from her Westminster colleagues. Nevertheless, no additional funding has been promised for Scotland or Wales, so the idea that Davidson, and her MPs, have any influence at all in Westminster is simply posturing.
So what does the future hold for Britain? Months or years of uncertainty as the Government tries to pretend that they have the upper hand in the Brexit negotiations? Another election to add to our growing record of elections and referenda held in a decade? When will Theresa May resign? Some posit it will come this summer. Will Corbyn maintain his position within the Labour Party, even if internal struggle has not stopped him until now? What will recent results mean for devolved administrations?
No doubt future politicians and historians will look back on 2016 and 2017, and wonder how things went so terribly wrong. How could such reckless decision making be allowed to lead to this crisis in confidence in British political society? In some years’ time, when future political leaders are potentially dealing with renegotiating our re-entrance into the EU (if they allow it), they will wonder, how their former generational colleagues and electorate made such a blunder. We will look back on these years as a stain in our political history, and hopefully it will serve as a lesson on the danger of single cause decision-making and propaganda driven campaigning. Perhaps that is an overly optimistic hope.
From all of this, the main conclusions I have come to in the past turbulent year, are that a closed off country is not a strong one and one that insists it must stand on its own, does not make itself look stable nor admirable. In a globalised world, we do need strong and stable leadership, but one that will take us in the right direction of global diplomacy, that will celebrate multiculturalism and promote multilateral ties, and one that will stand up for the rights of everyone, whether within their own country or not. Instead, Britain has been dragged backwards towards an increasingly uncertain and isolated future, risking severing ties with allies while forgetting our own history and global responsibilities. I myself am genuinely worried by what the next few years might hold for Britain, and what impact such events might have for the global society as a whole.
Photo Credits: Flickr User, Garry Knight, Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons
