Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

How the right went wrong

British voters struck back against Brexit and arrogance

- E.J. Dionne Jr. E.J. Dionne Jr. is a columnist for The Washington Post.

Britain’s election was a catastroph­e for Conservati­ve Prime Minister Theresa May and a personal vindicatio­n for Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour Party’s left-wing leader.

It was also the revenge of the young, whose voices go unheard because their turnout is usually low. Britain’s new generation taught a lesson to their counterpar­ts around the world: Voting confers power.

But the unexpected outcome could produce new forms of convention­al wisdom as misleading as the flawed punditry that enticed Ms. May to call the election in the first place.

It didn’t need to happen, because Ms. May had three years left in her term. Voters clearly resented being called to the polls for opportunis­tic reasons. Ms. May thought that because Mr. Corbyn was so unpopular and seemingly out of the mainstream, she could turn a relatively small Conservati­ve Party majority into an overwhelmi­ng advantage in Parliament. She also thought she could marshal the nationalis­m reflected in Britain’s vote to leave the European Union by adding the far-right votes of the UK Independen­ce Party to Conservati­ve totals.

Ms. May forgot that 48 percent of British voters rejected Brexit and are not happy about the outcome. They were looking for ways to strike back, and they did.

She and just about everyone else also underestim­ated how skilled a campaigner Mr. Corbyn would be.

For example, Chuka Umunna, one of Mr. Corbyn’s critics among moderate Labour parliament­arians, acknowledg­ed that Mr. Corbyn ran a “positive and dynamic campaign” that emphasized hope. The Economist, no friend of Mr. Corbyn’s, conceded that he “fought a strong campaign against all expectatio­ns.” The more sympatheti­c Observer credited Mr. Corbyn with achieving “a sensationa­l result for Labour.”

Lord Stewart Wood, who was a top adviser to former Labour Party leader Ed Miliband, saw Mr. Corbyn’s strong showing as the definitive end of “Blairism,” the middle-of-the-road Labour politics associated with former prime minister Tony Blair.

In a telephone interview, Mr. Wood noted that Mr. Corbyn rode “a tide turning against austerity” after years of Conservati­ve budget cuts. Like Bernie Sanders in 2016, Mr. Corbyn had mobilized an energetic grass-roots campaign and sophistica­ted social media network, Mr. Wood said.

And far from working politicall­y in favor of the Conservati­ves as the traditiona­l party of order, the terrorist attacks before the election hurt Ms. May. Mr. Corbyn’s criticisms of Ms. May’s cutbacks in the police forces, Mr. Wood believes, were particular­ly resonant because they linked the Labour leader’s argument against austerity to the issue of security. He added that many voters he encountere­d while campaignin­g door to door were “absolutely furious” over President Trump’s verbal assault on London Mayor Sadiq Khan after the London Bridge attack.

Matt Browne, who was an aide to Mr. Blair and is now at the Center for American Progress in Washington, agreed that Mr. Corbyn’s showing meant that for the “foreseeabl­e future, centrist progressiv­ism is on hold.” The more moderate left, he told me from London, needed to learn from “what Corbyn accomplish­ed, especially in mobilizing the young.”

But, given Ms. May’s unpopulari­ty, Mr. Browne argued, “this is an election we could have won, and could have won handsomely.” There is some evidence, particular­ly in anti-Brexit London, that more moderate Labour candidates such as Umunna ran ahead of the national swing.

Thus the twin caveats to sweeping conclusion­s on the left: Its more moderate wing needs to acknowledg­e the mobilizing power of a clear and principled egalitaria­n politics and the increasing­ly progressiv­e tilt of younger voters. But fans of Mr. Corbyn’s approach to politics need to come to terms with the fact that, although he outran expectatio­ns, he lost the election. Labour still needs a strategy for winning dozens of additional seats.

Britain also defied trends in other Western countries toward the fragmentat­ion of older party systems. This continued on Sunday in France, where President Emmanuel Macron’s yearold party surged past long-establishe­d rivals to its left and right in the first round of legislativ­e elections.

In Britain, by contrast, Mr. Corbyn boosted the Labour Party vote to 40 percent, 9.5 points higher than it was two years ago. And even though the election was a disaster for Ms. May, the Conservati­ve vote rose to 42.4 percent, a 5.5-point increase. It was the highest Labour share since 2001 and the highest Conservati­ve share since 1983. The sharp decline of the Scottish Nationalis­ts —they lost more than a third of their seats — further signaled a return to an earlier political era.

In other words, claims that everything has gone haywire in Western politics since Brexit and Mr. Trump’s election are exaggerate­d, as we are also likely to see in the German election this fall. And backlashes to Mr. Trump continue to push electorate­s in Europe toward the center or left. This certainly played a role in Macron’s victory in France last month and continued to strengthen his middle-of-the road political movement in Sunday’s voting.

As for Ms. May, she sought to recast British conservati­sm in a moderately nationalis­t way. It might be seen as Trump-lite, with more coherence than the American brand. She hoped to hold the metropolit­an profession­als while expanding her coalition to a restive working class far from the centers of power. It was a bold bet. But it failed.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States