British snap election backfired on May
She wanted a mandate and legitimacy from the British people, but comes out of the elections bruised, discredited and deemed lacking political judgment.
CALLING elections based on public opinion polls is risky. One can only imagine the expression on British Prime Minister Theresa May’s face when she saw the exit polls on Thursday night. Her gamble on snap elections has massively backfired and her Conservative Party has lost its tiny majority, leaving no party in the House of Commons with a majority.
Five weeks ago it looked like she would cruise to a comfortable victory, promising a triple-digit majority, at least according to the polls. But the election results produced a hung Parliament, and May’s political future is hanging by a thread. She had set her sights on emerging from the elections with a strong and stable government, but comes out of it politically debilitated, throwing the UK into a prolonged period of instability.
Weeks away from starting Brexit negotiations — though at this point it may not happen anytime soon — let alone facing growing terrorism threats, the country is more divided now than it has been for a very long time. No party came out of these elections with a mandate from the electorate to pursue its creed. British politics has returned to being mainly a two-party system, but one in which neither managed to gain the trust of the country’s citizens.
No doubt Labour’s Jeremy Corbyn is the more satisfied of the party leaders, increasing — against the odds — Labour’s seats in Parliament. But for now he is no closer to 10 Downing Street than he was on June 8. He fought a much more appealing campaign. For someone who was not that long ago considered a condemned politician, waiting to be overthrown after a heavy defeat in the elections, he is in a much stronger position.
May was put on notice by the electorate. If she does not resign, she is most probably living on borrowed time. Her campaign was stuttering and unconvincing, and it was hardly inspiring even for her most ardent supporters.
She wanted a mandate and legitimacy from the British people, but comes out of the elections bruised, discredited and deemed lacking political judgment — not something to put on your CV before starting one of the most complex negotiations on your country’s future.
These were no ordinary elections. What started as a referendum-plus on who is fit to negotiate Brexit and lead a modern welfare society, was overshadowed by a horrific terrorist attack in Manchester and then in London. Twice the election campaign was suspended. Brits’ verdict on their political system is that no one deserved their full trust and support in dealing with any of these issues.
The elections were the aftershock of the political earthquake caused by the Brexit vote nearly a year ago. May won the contest in her party to lead the UK, but prevailed over a patched-up Cabinet she hardly felt comfortable with, supported by a tiny majority.
Despite her protests that she did not need fresh elections to boost her legitimacy and mandate, it was obvious even to a novice observer of British elections that she would seek it at the first opportunity. The more May said elections were not needed, the less she was believable, resulting in a loss of credibility that contributed to her poor showing at the ballot box.
One could hardly blame her for trying to reap the electoral benefits of a Labour Party that seemed divided and led by someone who is more an activist than a political leader. Still, Corbyn appeals mainly to the young, who are sick and tired of a political establishment that leaves them with little prospect of fulfilling careers or purchasing a property, and constantly pushes them down the black hole of debt. Nearly a decade of austerity, which harmed public services with at best only small increases in disposable income, led to a protest vote.
The poor campaign by May and her party can account for only some of her unexpected miserable showing at the ballot box. It was also a reaction by those who regret voting to leave the EU and fear a hard Brexit. Her haphazard performances throughout the election campaign, her lack of vision and her aloofness from ordinary people are reflected in the election results.
In these elections, as with others in the US and Europe, political parties resorted to hollow rhetoric because they were either short on detailed and costed policies, or were afraid that being frank and open with voters would scare them away.
Facing the toughest negotiations for generations over Brexit, let alone with security and economic challenges to overcome, the UK needed a more decisive verdict from the electorate. Without it, it would not be surprising if the country faces another referendum or election before long.
Yossi Mekelberg is professor of international relations at Regent’s University London, where he is head of the International Relations and Social Sciences Program. He is also an associate fellow of the MENA Program at Chatham House. He is a regular contributor to the international written and electronic media.
Q