The Guardian view on the Peterborough byelection: a populist backlash?
Peterborough is a smallish city in eastern England with a fast-growing population of European migrants attracted by its factories, warehouses and agricultural work. On the edge of the Fens, it sits on top of two faultlines in British politics: those of culture and class. When the city voted to leave the European Union in 2016, it seemed to be reacting against the ethos of the times – against immigration, against diversity, against pluralism. But less than 12 months later, in the general election, Jeremy Corbyn’s leftwing Labour party won in Peterborough. Despite Ukip pulling out to avoid splitting the rightwing vote in 2017, Stewart Jackson, the pro-Brexit Conservative MP, lost his seat.
With recent history as a guide, it might seem that when elections in places like Peterborough are fought on the territory of identity, the battle favours the right; when the contest is about economics, then progressives find the going easier. If that is the case, then both the main parties, so badly bruised by last month’s European polls, have much to fear this week in Peterborough – not least as the byelection only came about because the former Labour MP, Fiona Onasanya, was removed by a recall petition after being jailed for lying about a speeding offence. With Britain’s future relationship with the EU still unresolved, Nigel Farage’s rightwing populist Brexit party looks set to mop up.
Yet the lived experience of voters in Peterborough ought to be fertile ground for progressive politics. The decay caused by the retreat of the state from providing housing and the evershrinking funding for neighbourhoods is the cause of much disquiet. While officially only one in 20 are unemployed in Peterborough, a lot of the work is short term and insecure. Peterborough residents, as our reports show, have seen their pay packets on average shrink by 13% in real terms – a £4,000 loss that few can afford. Little wonder a section of the electorate who feel politically and economically marooned will, if they vote at all, vote to wreck the status quo.
The question is how to re-enfranchise this group of voters with an economic programme rather than one that revolves around cultural identities. Liam Byrne, the Labour MP who wants to be mayor of the West Midlands, suggests Peterborough was susceptible to exiting the EU because it was hit hard by the twin shocks of globalisation and austerity. He thinks the regions must be able to retool their economies with appropriate fiscal powers.
Mr Byrne is right. Peterborough’s most successful period was in the 20 years until 1988, when it was run by a new town corporation with extensive powers to attract inward investment and population, largely from London. It created a strong local private sector which has since withered. A Cambridge University study last year calculated that if Peterborough had maintained the economic momentum that it enjoyed during its two decades as a “new town”, it would have had around 27,000 extra jobs by 2015.
At the heart of the populist backlash is people’s feeling that they are losing ground, not because they have been dealt a poor hand in life, but because the rules were unfair and others – bankers, large companies, foreigners – are taking advantage of a rigged playing field. What may look like a xenophobic reaction might have its roots in economic dislocations. What matters is that politicians offer a narrative and policies that frame success as an economic rather than a cultural phenomenon. That unfortunately seems an unlikely prospect this week.