The SNP & the Election

Hail reader!

I will be taking a short break from my usual stream of updates regarding Fallen Love and the Vampire Eirik, in order to talk about something else: politics. As usual, I am writing about a specific issue from a specific viewpoint—Scottish independence as a European citizen, to be precise. You American readers may tune in to my existing backlog of posts if this doesn’t interest you; you can take a look at the search bar to the right or the archive on the left.

With that out of the way, let me start with the first piece of big news: I’ve joined the SNP and resigned my Labour membership. Why? Well, I’ve already written a detailed and succinct explanation in my 2-page resignation letter: you can read it here. The short version is that, although I agree with the Labour Party’s policy and direction in England, I support Independence, and that practically means I have to support the SNP—or the Greens.

I did not choose the Greens because, as outlined in a previous post, I think this country has bigger priorities at the moment.

Right! Onto the other topic for today: the December 2019 General Election. I would like to share a few choice observations that have not, to my mind, been sufficiently emphasised in the discourse.

Oldies Don’t Like the Cold

Everybody knows that people aged 50+, and especially those over 65, are by far the biggest supporters of the Tory party. There would never have been a Tory government for the past 9 years if the vote had been decided by the under–40s.

In light of this fact, it may not have been the best decision for the Conservatives to hold the election in December. Old people don’t like to go out in the cold because it hurts their bones, and they are likely to slip and require a hip replacement on the NHS; this article provides a good explanation of the underlying physiology.

Speaking of the NHS

Precisely because of the above reason (and due to some other reasons as well) the NHS is at its most over-crowded and stressed during the winter months. Though the descriptors “over-crowded” and “stressed” don’t really do justice to the situation: NHS England is usually at “breaking point” or “collapse” during the winter. NHS Scotland is managing a bit better, thankfully.

This does not bode well for Boris Johnson’s Conservative party. A couple of alarming headlines, combined with a few angry parents and doctors asking him tough questions on TV, will shift the conversation away from his Brexit and towards the NHS. This will play right into the hands of Labour, and to a lesser extent the SNP as well.

The Psychology of Winter

The UK does not generally hold elections in winter: the dark nights and freezing temperatures reduce turnout, and make campaigning harder. A winter election brings to mind such evocative, poetic one-liners as “The Winter of Discontent” (which brought down the Labour government and ushered in decades of Tory government under Thatcher). It also cost Stanley Baldwin, a Tory Prime Minister, his majority in the 1923 election.

This is the least well-understood factor of the three I have presented here. The majority of commentators interpret winter elections as benefiting the opposition at the expense of the incumbent Government—people are at their most miserable and least optimistic during the winter, and are more likely to punish the Government of the day. On the other hand, the SNP and Labour campaigns rely on optimism to succeed, not misery.

Any Predictions, Alex?

The only predictable thing about this election is that it will be unpredictable. I certainly don’t know which Party will gain a majority—or which will form the government in a hung Parliament. Even so, I am willing to make three predictions.

Firstly, the Conservative Party will be punished hard in Scotland; it is not inconceivable that they will be down to one seat, or even zero—a complete annihilation not seen since 1997. Three factors play into this: the departure of Ruth Davidson; the massive unpopularity of Tory economic policies in Scotland; and Boris Johnson himself, who goes up like a lead balloon with the Scottish electorate.

Secondly, the Green Party will do pretty well, though it probably won’t gain any new seats. This is on account of the high media profile of environmental issues at the moment (which I find somewhat bizarre given the severity of the constitutional and economic crisis the UK is going to find itself in). Thirdly, and finally, I don’t think the Liberal Democrats are going to do as well its leader, Jo Swinson, hopes.

There are two reasons for this. Firstly, Remainers (and plenty of Brexit voters too) have a strong sense of what is right as being democratic. The Liberal Democrats’ policy—to unilaterally abrogate Brexit without a referendum vote—will be seen as arrogant and disrespectful of democracy. (I would also add that it is fantasy: you can’t just roll back the clock to 2015. Too much damage has been to this country’s social fabric, and too many bridges have been burned with our friends in Europe.) Secondly, I think lots of Remain voters—most notably the young—ultimately care more about housing, the NHS, jobs and education.

The Brexit Landscape

This article on the Brexit negotiations is out of date, but still relevant. It has been republished as part of my October series.

Here I shall present a two-part analysis. The first is about Labour; being a member I am inevitably deeply interested in party politics, and there is no doubt that Brexit has provoked significant upheaval in the party. The most dramatic of these was the fact that 2/3 of Corbyn’s shadow cabinet resigned—and the no-confidence motion, passed by 80% of Labour MPs, is almost as important.

Inevitably, the question is: what next for Labour?

The second part of this analysis will concern the fate of the country. I will of course refer to today’s summit of the EU-27, as well Nicola Sturgeon’s efforts to woo Brussels.

Anyway, to business.

What Next for Corbyn?

The most difficult and pressing question we face right now is of course Jeremy Corbyn. Loved by most of the members; loathed by most of the PLP. This contradiction is at the heart of the problem, and has been since Jeremy has been elected Leader.

But there is another element to this: the referendum. If you recall, most of the party prior to the referendum result was willing to work with Jeremy, and many were accepted into his shadow cabinet. And yet, we are now seeing a mass walkout of the shadow cabinet—not to mention the no-confidence motion. What changed? Could the Brexit really be the reason that Corbyn is facing a coup? Or is it just a handy excuse?

No doubt many Corbyn backers prefer the latter explanation. In all truth, however, they are almost certainly wrong. It is not true that the Parliamentary Labour Party is full of careerists and Blairites. Sure, there are the Simon Danczuks and Liz Kendalls; but these are a minority faction of die-hards. They can mouth off in the rightwing press all they like, but they alone are not enough to account for the revolt Corbyn is facing.

Because let us be clear: this is a revolt on an epic scale. It wasn’t a minority of the PLP that voted for the no-confidence motion; it was 80%. That basically encompasses not only the Blairites, but also what is commonly called the ‘soft-left’ or—more accurately—the mainstream.

The sad fact of the matter is, the only people who have any faith left in Corbyn are his closest friends and backers—McDonnell, Diane Abbott, etc. The others (let’s be honest) only voted against the motion in order to try and preserve the idea of order, however faint it may be.

So what is to be done? It is believed Angela Eagle—the Shadow First Secretary—will mount a leadership challenge. (EDIT: Owen Smith is also receiving support from the PLP.) If they do, will Corbyn make the ballot? The latter is likely; for Corbyn to not be on the ballot would not only be constitutionally problematic, but would deeply undermine the membership.

This is the crux of the problem Labour is facing. The membership are the ones who canvass and campaign; they are the boots on the ground. They give the party backing, money, and energy.

But the PLP is the body with the real power. They sit in Parliament and vote on legislation; they go on TV and defend the party’s policy. Without the membership the party is wearied and weakened. But without parliamentary presence it is not a party in any meaningful sense of the word—and certainly not a party that can lay claim to government.

At the end of the day, it is as simple as that. If Corbyn cannot keep the PLP under control (let alone on his side) then he is not fit to be leader. In its present state of conflict, the Labour party is unlikely to win a majority; and even if it did, it would not be a functional government.

We can rage against the PLP till the cows come home. It doesn’t really matter. The game is up.

We can, naturally, wonder why the PLP has turned outright hostile to Corbyn. Is it because he was not overly enthusiastic in the referendum campaign; because had he been a little firmer with his message, a little more ready to remind our voters of what the EU has done for Europe (promote peace, forge trade links, fight global warming and tax evasion)—then he might have swung the vote to Remain?

Our MPs seem to believe so. Are they justified? Ultimately, I think they are. While many voters wouldn’t have cared for what the Labour Leader had to say either way, there is no doubt that with a 2% margin, Leave’s victory was extremely narrow. If Corbyn had been more determined, he may well have stopped Brexit.

Even if you don’t agree with this, it doesn’t matter. Corbyn has proven himself terminally unfit to lead. He may have the right message; but he is not the man to sell it. He has the charisma of a retired university professor (a rather charitable analogy). He has too much baggage from decades as a CND chair and perpetual rebel. He has no front-bench experience.

Believe me, this is not easy to admit. I gave him my second preference in the leadership election. At the time, I gave him the benefit of the doubt—maybe he would prove a competent leader. Maybe he really would deliver. He had, after all, already confounded the political class when he became frontrunner and then leader.

Alas, it is not meant to be. This is not to be defeatist: the Corbyn effect has always been about his ideas, not about Corbyn himself. The members will continue to believe in those ideas; Momentum will continue to fight for them.

They might not, of course. But if they don’t, then this only makes my point. Corbyn is just a man—and not even such a great politician at that. If nothing remains after he leaves, then there was never a movement. It was always a personality cult.

So my message to Corbyn supporters is this: let Corbyn go. He can’t lead the party and his continued presence as Leader can only lead to heartbreak. Rather, Corbyn supporters should focus their attentions on changing the structure of the Labour party. They should do their best to influence the selection of parliamentary candidates. They should bring policy suggestions through the mechanism in place for that.

And perhaps most of all, they should stay on the lookout for an MP that can make the socialist case. For an MP that fights against poverty, inequality, tax avoidance, and privatisation—but who does this with charisma and pragmatism, not just with passionate principle.

Keir Hardie, after all, was never a successful Commons leader. The man who really got the Labour party somewhere—who turned words into deeds—was Clement Attlee. Corbyn supporters would do well to heed the lessons of history.

Labour and Brexit

Moving onto the second point of order, Labour must address the challenge posed by Brexit. For Brexit puts us into a tricky situation. Two thirds of our voters may have to Remain; but this still means a third voted to Leave. And what of the voters we wish to convince? More than half would have voted Leave.

To add further cause for concern, the Liberal Democrats may have awoken from their slumber. Tim Farron has pledged to undo the referendum result if his party is elected. Do not underestimate this: the petition to undo the referendum result has received 4 million signatures. This is unprecedented for a petition. And as the many memes on social media and the rally held at Trafalgar Square shows, there is actually a substantial number of people in this country who really don’t want Brexit.

Above: there are others like them. Do you think a party that pledges to undo the referendum using parliamentary sovereignty won’t get their support?

This puts Labour in a very awkward situation. If we take a conciliatory approach with regards to the European Union, we will lose the votes of the young and the metropolitan middle class to the Lib Dems. Allow me to be frank: without those votes we don’t stand a chance of getting into government.

If we take a firmly pro-EU stance, we may alienate the voters we wish to gain support from.

My take on this is that we should have a pro-EU policy framed by a conciliatory rhetoric. We will as a party attempt to keep Britain’s access to the common market (regardless of the immigration it will inevitably involve). Why? Because it would be disastrous for Britain’s working people if what remains of our industrial base moves to Europe. Recession would likewise be disastrous—for everyone.

We must however do our utmost to re-assure people when it comes to immigration. I would suggest we take the following line: the immigration we’ve seen in the past couple of years has indeed been high. But it won’t last much longer. Eastern Europe’s economy is growing; and many of the people who would have emigrated have already done so.

To counter the threat of those Liberals, my instinct would be to attack Farron. ‘We’re all sinners, Mr Farron’ sounds catchy. The people who want to remain in the EU most fervently are, after all, the young and the cosmopolitan. They will not approve of Farron’s rather dubious, religiously-motivated stance on gay rights. (I sure as hell don’t: his kind of thinking has caused immense suffering for other gay people like me, and indeed still does.)

‘But Alex!’ you ask: ‘Do you not want to undo the referendum? Surely you of all people would like that!’ Well, yes; I would like it. But I am no idealistic fool. Farron and his band of liars can promise whatever they want. But undoing the referendum can only be done with another referendum; to undo it through Parliament would provoke a constitutional crisis without precedence. It could literally mean riots on the streets.

And a second referendum, well; that’s plausible, but seems unlikely. Firstly, because can we really put it in our manifesto without alienating potential voters? But moreso, because I’m not sure it would matter even if the result came out for Remain. The EU has made clear that it wants the UK to invoke Article 50. Once we do that, the process is irreversible.

It’s strange, I will admit; to be so staunchly pragmatic at my age. But protest doesn’t change anything. Power does.

The Brexit Negotiations

The news regarding the UK’s negotiation with the EU at today’s summit is very boring. This is because it is completely unsurprising. Merkel says the UK will not get access to the common market without granting the four freedoms; Renzi, the Italian President, says being in a family requires taking the bad with the good; François Hollande says the same thing. Donald Tusk says no á la carte single market. In others words: as Remain said all along.

In more interesting news, Nicola Sturgeon’s attempt to woo the EU is a mixed success. Guy Verhofstadt, the former Belgian PM responsible for the Brexit negotiations, thinks it is quite plausible for the EU to cook up a deal with Scotland. Martin Schulz is open to the possibility. But Mariano Rajoy, the Spanish incumbent head of state, is opposed. (Unsurprisingly, what with Catalonia and all.) Tusk also declined to meet Sturgeon—claiming that it would be bad precedent for him to meet Sturgeon, and would provoke an avalanche of visits from other states. He seems to think Scotland’s position will be negotiated along with the UK’s.

So: what do I make of all this?

I think it’s too early to tell. But I do think Sturgeon stands a strong chance of keeping Scotland in the EU—either through some sort of deal with Brussels, or by becoming independent and rejoining (which would take about 5 years or so). This is because the EU leaders are for the most part sympathetic to Scotland; after all, Scotland is not leaving out of its own free will.

As for Rajoy, it’s not even certain he will be Spain’s head of state. (After all, coalition negotiations are still ongoing; Rajoy doesn’t have a majority in parliament.) Even if he’s still around, I think he will capitulate, because a) Scotland’s situation is not that of Catalonia; the latter is not being forced out of the EU and b) because vetoing Scotland would be unpopular in Europe, unpopular in the world stage, and unpopular in Catalonia.

He can also spin it off. Scotland is a unique situation; it can remain in the EU because of the exceptional circumstances regarding its departure.

Anyway, a lot of this is conjecture at this point.

Closing Thoughts

These are uncertain times ahead. The political situation requires further news and further analysis—which I shall be doing over the coming months. At present, Labour has to contend both with a bitter internal divide and a potentially dangerous electoral landscape: the Lib Dems on one side, UKIP and the Leavers on the other.

Anyway, one thing is for certain: I will be writing. I have already begun revising the Ark, with chapter two being mostly re-written. Wish me luck. I shall be releasing numerous progress updates on the Ark. The Magical Realm, after all, is chiefly a writing blog.

Here There Be Politics

Hello readers!

I have, alas, not written a great deal on the Magical Realm as of late. This is, once more, down to the fact that I am in the countryside. Remote Romanian countryside, that is to say. I have had Internet only sporadically—the town hall has Internet, but it’s a fair walk through nearly 40 degree heat.

The infernal heat has also kept me grounded here for an unexpectedly long while. My grandma, you see, does not fancy going back to civilisation; she believes the heat will be even more intolerable in the brick-and-mortar confines of our apartment.

Thus I have not been able to write to you. However, I have taken this opportunity to write about British politics. I will address two topics herewith: the Labour Leadership, and a few more words about the Brexit. In particular, I will answer the following two questions. Is Owen Smith a better candidate than Corbyn? And what of May’s negotiations?

JC Versus Smith

Through the following weeks, Jeremy Corbyn and Owen Smith will engage in hustings. Thursday this week is when the first debate is scheduled. They will then, hopefully, clarify their economic and political positions—I’m talking mainly Smith here—and engage in some healthy debate. They may even argue over a question that I’ve posed to them: you can thank the party’s crowdfunded questions for that.

But before all that, what is my preliminary position? What do I think of Owen Smith? Is he a man to lead party and people—or is he a false flag, a Miliband 2.0?

Well, I can say with a fair degree of confidence that is he probably not a second coming of Ed Miliband. At the very least, his style is very different: where Miliband was timid and shy, almost to the point of unsociableness, Smith is clear, articulate and well-spoken. He does resemble Nye Bevan—a charismatic Welshman with a penchance for socialism. (I am certain Smith will be quite flattered by the comparison; Nye Bevan is his hero.)

As for the concrete details of his policy, there’s not much we can say about that now. The only policy he’s so far advocated is a £200B public investment scheme. Ordinarily this wouldn’t classify him as a socialist in particular, but in the current austerity-dominated political climate—well, it’s more radical than what Miliband proposed, in any case.

I would however be surprised if he doesn’t advocate other socialist policies: nationalisation, increased tax on high incomes and capital gains, clamping down on tax evasion, and the defence of the welfare state. These are all quite mainstream positions—and perfectly reasonable for a leader of the Labour party to support.

I do expect him to go against some of Corbyn’s more extreme, unpopular, or simply irrelevant policies. He’ll keep Trident (he’s said as much), he’ll keep us in NATO, he’ll keep the monarchy, and he won’t compare the Israeli state to Hitler.

That alone will be enough to avoid a good part of the bad press Corbyn’s received. This is not say he won’t get any bad press: Murdoch and Dacre will surely find something with which to smear him. However, at least he’ll avoid the mudslinging from the likes of the Guardian, the Observer, New Statesman, and possibly the Times.

And finally, Smith should be able to do a much better job on the PMQs. This time, Labour will be ready for Cruella Theresa May.

So my message here is pretty clear: I think Smith is a better candidate than Corbyn. This is not to say that Smith will necessarily become the Prime Minister. The battle Labour will have to fight will not be easy—the Brexit electoral landscape, as I’ve said previously, is a difficult one.

This is especially true since Smith—like any serious modern day Labour politician—is a Europhile. I am confident he can take on Farron for the Remain voters; but what of the Leavers? He will have to convince at least some of them to vote Labour in order to win the next General Election.

But for all this, I’m actually pretty confident in Owen Smith. He seems both competent and personable—a plausible contender for PM-in-waiting. And honestly, considering the leadership contenders past—Burnham, Cooper, Kendall—I am confident in saying that he’s probably Labour’s best bet.

May and Brexit

I have to say that May’s Brexit strategy does amuse me, even if it is entirely predictable. Firstly, the appointed BoJo as Foreign Secretary, and Liam the Fox as International Trade Secretary. As an act of internal politics, it is shrewd: she can keep her party united, and the Brexiteer’s (all but inevitable) failure she can blame on them.

But as an act of national and international politics, it is not a good move. Boris has already been called a liar by the French foreign minister; he is not popular across the Channel. And the Fox is both arrogant and delusional: a poor negotiator of the nation’s future.

Then there’s May herself. She, as Home Secretary, was very keen on deportation—she lost multiple court battles over it; and has already stated that she wants net migration in the tens of thousands. The leaders of Europe have made it quite clear that there will be no access to the single market without freedom of movement. So what does May do? On the one hand, she’s not stupid—she knows it is in Britain’s interest to keep its access to the single market. On the other hand, she hates immigration and has strong political pressure to reduce it.

Honestly, I don’t think the future will be pretty.

Parting Words

Well; these are my political musings for the time being. I hope they have been reasonably interesting. And rest assured, also, that I am continuing work on my work-in-progress novel, the Ark. I am halfway through revising part two; I am soon to have completed most of the revision work! Once I’ve done that, I will likely make some more changes following the advice of my beta-readers.

And after that, it’s full steam ahead to write the third and final part—Hope. Then it will be time to look for agents, and go through the slow, difficult but hopefully rewarding process of being published. Wish me luck!

Exams, Elections, and Poetry

Hail readers!

You may be wondering where I have been and what I have been doing these past several days. It would be a fair question; I have not updated the Magical Realm in a fair while. As for the answer?

Blame it on a few things. Firstly, this will be my last update bar one before my A2 exams begin. Yes, it’s that time of the year. Yes, I have been revising. And yes, I am reasonably confident. But no, I hate exams.

Anyway, that’s the first reason. The second reason is that I’ve been writing on the topic of the EU referendum; I have a near 5000 word essay completed, and will likely be adding more to it before I publish it. I actually finished the essay a few days ago, but declined to publish it because the media was in furore over Livingstone’s Hitler comments and, later, on the local elections. Thus I decided it was best to postpone its publication.

Now that media attention is slowly returning to Europe, expect to see the essay pop up soon. Perhaps once my exams begin, since I won’t have time to do any blogging at all then.

There is also a third reason: I have been working on the Ark with my editor. I have written a synopsis (since numerous agents ask for one) and the editor has gotten back to me with comments on it. Then I did a couple of edits, and sent it back to her. Such is the process of editing.

As for the Ark itself, my editor claims—optimistically, knowing her recent track record—that she’ll read and assess the manuscript by May 16th. I’ll see how that goes.

Oh, and there is yet another thing. I have applied to two Dutch universities, and one—Amsterdam—has offered to do an informal interview with me on (who would have thought?) May 16th. Thankfully, it is via Skype and only about 20 minutes long. In any case: wish me luck!

But That’s Not All

Those of you who follow me would know that I am a keen political blogger (being a member of the Labour party and having written numerous pieces on Socialism and Social Democracy). Therefore, it would be strange of me not to give my analysis on the local elections, mayoral results, and the election to the Scottish parliament & Welsh assembly.

Firstly, on the local elections. The media, predictably, was in furore. Numerous pieces were published claiming that Corbyn was to be shown up for the disaster he is; one supposedly well-known academic even claimed that Labour was to lose 150 seats in the south of England. Numerous other apocalyptic predictions were rife.

It turned out that Labour retained pretty much all of its seats.

With that prediction shattered (a prediction which the media conveniently forgot about) another prediction was to be shattered. Labour was predicted to lose badly in the Bristol mayoral election. The Labour candidate won.

In other mayoral news, Sadiq Khan is now mayor of London. This is great for several reasons. One, it means London has a Labour mayor; a boost for Corbyn. Two, London has a moderate Muslim mayor (I’m not terribly fond of Islam in general, but Khan is a good role model for disenfranchised Muslims to look at). Three, that buffoon is no longer mayor. And four, the Tory candidate’s dog-whistle racism didn’t get him anywhere.

Nevertheless, there is some bad news and some disappointing news. The bad news is Scotland: Labour has done atrociously there, down to 19% of the vote—lower even than what it got in the GE. This is obviously very disturbing, and doubly disturbing considering that Corbyn is now at the helm of the Labour party (and therefore matches the leftwing policies of the SNP).

The answer to why Scottish Labour did badly is not one that I know. Not one many people know, I should think. There are a few plausible reasons. Firstly, the leader of Scottish Labour—Kezia Dugdale—is, from what I have heard, not the best example of political leadership the world has seen.

Secondly, there may be a case of credibility at play; the Scots may not be very impressed by how not only the English establishment, but even Corbyn’s own party, has treated Corbyn. The Scots who voted SNP this election may be thinking: why vote Corbyn when you can get Corbyn policies via the SNP—a party that doesn’t conspire to undermine its own leader by cavorting with the parties’ enemies in the rightwing press.

Thirdly, there’s the independence question, and potentially even the EU debacle. The majority of Scots (55%) voted against independence, but the SNP has 47% of the vote. So potentially more Scots have gone over to the Independence side. Why? Well, the EU referendum could be one reason.

I however am skeptical of this. I doubt the elections to the Scottish parliament were determined entirely by Independence politics seeing as to how only a referendum will actually make Scotland independent.

The Tory party also saw a modest increase in the vote up in Scotland (from less than 20% to 25% of the vote) which is potentially a result of either the Scottish Tory’s leader—which I frankly doubt, seeing her lack of political success in numerous elections before 2016—or more likely the Tories were voted for as an anti-Independence vote.

As for Wales, Labour kept its position as the largest party but lost some votes.

Strategy Going Forward

The first thing Labour has to worry about is Scotland. If Labour does not do well in Scotland come 2020, Labour will almost certainly not have enough seats to form a majority. It could go into coalition with the SNP, but that poses some problems (the SNP would be an anti-union party governing the United Kingdom!) There’s also the element of the rightwing press spreading FUD about the SNP controlling Labour behind the scenes, but I’m not entirely sure as to how effective this will be.

If Labour wants to be a firm Unionist party, it could pick up votes from the Scots who voted against independence (presumably the majority). Unfortunately, the anti-independence vote is split towards the Tories, Lib Dems, etc. So this may not be enough.

Alternately, Labour could take a more non-committal position. It could say ‘We’re not so sure of this independence thing, but ultimately it’s for the Scottish people to decide and only a referendum will decide the matter.’ So potentially Labour could pick up both pro and against voters.

But then, why will the Scots vote Labour instead of SNP? There’s not much difference in policy at all between us and them. Then again: Labour was the natural governing party of Scotland for decades. Perhaps if some of our MPs chose to shut up and stop attacking Corbyn for a while, the Scots may take us in higher esteem.

In any case, it’s clear that throwing mud at the SNP won’t work. They’ve run a competent administration implementing Corbyn-like policy. Throwing mud hasn’t worked in these two elections; and it won’t work with Corbyn at the helm, since it will reek of a) hypocrisy and b) general bad manners.

The Million-Dollar Question: What About Corbyn?

The media’s apocalyptic predictions did not come to pass. This should surprise no one with a brain. However, the local election results—in contrast with the mayoralties—don’t show a dramatic victory for Corbyn.

Partly this is because Labour did fairly well in the previous election, and because Labour is already the most successful local party by quite a margin (nearly two thirds of councillors and councils are Labour). This makes it difficult for Corbyn to really improve upon Labour’s position.

Also, analysis by the BBC would suggest that if people voted in the GE in the same way the voted in these elections, Labour would be ahead of the Tories (on 31% versus 29% for the Tories). However, these two elections are rarely voted on in the same way and by the same people, so it’s a bit of a moot point.

The one thing that is disturbing is that the Tories should, really, have gotten a thrashing. They’re in chaos over Europe; forced academisation is not popular with the electorate; and Osborne has already had to U-turn on working tax credit. Plus, Cameron and Osborne have been embroiled in the Panama debacle.

So, is this Corbyn’s fault? Maybe, maybe not. It’s a bit too early to tell, really. And the EU referendum could change a lot of things. My take on it? Let’s wait and see. Give Corbyn a chance before replacing him. But if Corbyn doesn’t do well—find someone more personable.

Conclusions

I have written a great deal on matters personal and political. Since I need to focus on my exams, you can understand why. Aside from the EU essay I will be releasing soon, this will be my last post until June.

I will leave you with a final little treat. A poem. It is based on plans for a future book, so do take a look. ;)

The Hinterlands