The General Election And The Future

The General Election And The Future

The general election result left me with feelings of sadness, frustration and anger which I have to try to set aside in writing this. I felt sadness at the result, frustration that the right-wing bias in UK media had not been overcome by independent and other sources and anger that the UK is, in my view, mortgaging its future and, most specifically, that of its young people. Those are my feelings. But a new government regime inevtiably poses a number of questions and here are my thoughts on some of them. I shall also attempt a Nostradamus act; it’s close to the time of year for one of those.

Will the UK stay as currently consitituted? The Scottish Parliament wants independence but has been denied a referendum on the subject. How will the Scots react to that? I don’t forsee violence , although that may result, and wonder what passive resistance can achieve. Neither of the political axes in northern Ireland likes Johnson’s current proposal for a solution to the border problem, Stormont now has a Sinn Fein majority and amalgamation withe rest of Ireland (which would solve the border problem) is an option. Johnson can prohibit that but, if he does, the outcome is certain to be violent. English nationalism helped win Johnson the election but other nations have their nationalists too. I wouldn’t like to guess the outcome but there will certainly be tension and conflict there.

Brexit on the 31st of January will present the UK with numerous administrative challenges. The EU has said, several times, that a trade agreement between it and the UK cannot be completed in the 11 months currently prescribed, No 10 disagrees. Will Johnson blame any failure on the EU and go for the no-deal Brexit that he has formerly seemed to want? It seems quite probable.

There will be some 50+ further trade agreements needed to replace those the UK now has through the EU and a further 700+ treaties to be renegotiated. Trade agreements trypically take 3-10 years to be completed and in many cases the UK will necessarily be negotiating not with individual countries but with established trade blocks. Most smaller countries ally themselves with others to provide combined financial mucle in trade negotiations and the UK has chosen not to do this. It outmuscles most individual countries but possibly not most trade blocks. And trade blocks require agreement by all in the block, not just individual countries, which partly partly expalins the time involved. This situation will not be resolved speedily, whatever Johnson claims, and the interim is anybody’s guess. Johnson has trumpeted a trade agreement with the USA but it would have to increase trade between the two countries fivefold to replace the trade we currently do with the EU (and to whose advantage, who has the most financial muscle?)..

Britain has depended for centuries on the effectiveness of its trade, still does, and does 40% of it with the EU. WTO trade rules will be applied if Trump doesn’t succeed in destroying the WTO before then, as he is trying to do. The WTO rules have been much discussed. What has escaped attention is WTO’s rôle as a negotiation arbiter to avoid trade wars so we may well see more of those. In a trade war, the country or trade block with the most financial muscle invariably wins.

Immigration was an issue at the heart of Brexit and the general election result. The UK needs some degree of immigration; that is an undisputed fact. The idea of selecting just those immigrants that are needed is seductive but illusory. It presupposes a queue of desirable immigrants waiting to enter the UK for which there is no evidence. Xenophobia and racism also played some rôle in Brexit and race-related crimes have escalated in the UK since the referendum. Potential immigrants who wish to leave their countries may therefore find The UK a less desirable option (than the EU, for instance) and leave the UK with serious manpower deficiencies. I think we will see these in healthcare and possibly science-related activities but I can’t guess in what other sectors.

The NHS was a major issue in the election and Johnson has said he will make it a priority. That means he will give it his attention but little else I think that private health insurance schemes are sure to play a larger rôle and wonder at the cost and coverage of these. I forsee a health system much closer to that in the USA 5 (where the mean standard of healthcare is much lower; the USA is ranked 20th by the World Health Organisation) than health systems in the EU.

The wealth gap between the richest and poorest in the UK is wide and has been getting wider for years. There is no evidence from Johnson’s political past and stated opiniuons that he considers this a priority, rather the reverse, and its continued existence implies political instability. The UK has experienced zero growth in productivity over the last 10 years (OECD figures) and a large cheap labour force discourages investment in machinery and modern means to boost productivity. The signs are all for a free market economy in which, ironically, nothing is free. That means, among other things, only very basic.public services, which are a means to share wealth. The same is true of the EU development fund, used to ameliorate conditions in deprived areas of Europe, including those in the UK. I cannot see those initiatives being replaced in anything like the same amount. That would run counter to a free trade economy. A free trade economy typically relies on cheap labour and the life expectancy of people is increasing. Cheap labour has no hope of saving enough money to cover the expenses of retirement and old age and I forsee an increased number of destitute old people in the UK, unable through no fault of their own, to provide for their old age. (as there are in the USA).

Finally, I worry about the possibility of independent assessments and the rôle of the media. Johnson has not exactly welcomed open debate and scrutiny up to now (even discounting hiding in a fridge) and No 10’s attack on the BBC TV and radio stations and Channel 4 looks ominous to me. The proposed curtailment of courts’ scrutiny of government actions upsets the long British tradition of the roles for government and the judiciary and would make the government less accountable.. Will, for instance, we be allowed to know the basis for government statistics? Will the detail of trade agreements be published? The predominant right-wing press won’t be interested in any of this but independent journalists and commentators will be and so should every democratically minded citizen. If government accountability lmeans anything it depends crucially on the information made available. I fear that the possibility for independent assessments and critique is being curtailed and and may be more so and that is a serious threat to any democracy.

Johnson, with his majority, has a great deal of power. How will he use it? For the good of the country as a whole, as Corbyn claimed to want to do, or primarily for the already rich and powerful? I’ve made my own guesses on that but you have to make your own.

A final couple of questions. Even such a prominent Brexit camapaigner as Ress-Mogg has estimated that the benefits of Brexit will take at least 20 years, and possibly 50, to become apparent. If British people wake up in five years’ time and find that EU citizens are experiencing a much greater quality of life than those in the UK, what happens then? What measures would be needed to keep UK citizens happy?