Skip to main content

Will Farage's election deal with Johnson backfire?

Farage's deal with Boris, standing down to give the Tories a clear run in those seats they won in 2016, looks like a winning edge for Johnson, but it may backfire. 

Looking across the polls there does appear to have been a shift in support for Labour. Whether it is significant and consistent remains to be seen. If campaigns do anything, then it is not surprising Labour has picked up.

 The Tories have had a bad week. Johnson, far from meeting ‘real’ people and being seen out and about, has been cocooned with infants in schools or walking around aimlessly in hospital corridors – which didn’t do too well for him when confronted with patients and doctors angry about what the Tories have done to the NHS. 

Corbyn, on the other hand, has had a good start. As in 2017, the more the Tory press portray him as a bogeyman, the more voters see the contrast with the man out on the stumps. He seems to have an edge with empathy, which for all his populism Boris Johnson appears to lack.

Little wonder then that Boris and Farage have become bedfellows, with the Brexit Party standing down in Tory held seats.  What they know from the polls if it continues to tighten through the campaign, as it did in 2016, is that Boris won't get a majority.  A hung parliament would not guarantee Johnson the keys to number 10, and certainly not with Brexit.  

The big question is what the Brexit Party will do in those seats Labour gained last time.  Would a Brexit candidate harm Labour, or is it already factored in? 

The Tories haven't panicked, but nerves will be frayed if they cannot make decent headway from Labour.  If the gap closes, alarm bells will ring.  The move by Farage may end up galvanising support for Labour.  Those voters who have been reluctant to support Corbyn may now do so if the alternative is a Tory government beholden to Farage/Trump.  

Perhaps it will take the Farage/Johnson tactics to bring home the reality of a Boris Johnson majority.  It will be the most right-wing Tory government in decades, and the NHS will undoubtedly be at risk.  

Voters may now realise that the stakes are high.  Jo Swinson's ludicrous position of not allowing Corbyn to be Prime Minister would be foolish if it means the worst possible scenario of a hard Brexit followed by trade deals that trash the environment and the NHS.  

Fiddling around with tactical voting is not going to work.  The choice is there to be made.  Put Corbyn in number 10.   

Historically, the Tories don't do well in campaigns where they panic.   This election is for the Tories to lose, but they may just do that. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

The unethical language of 'welfare dependency'

It is unethical to stigmatise people without foundation. Creating a stereotype, a generalised brand, in order to  demonize a group regardless of the individual and without regard for the potential harm it may do is unfair and prejudicial. It is one reason, and a major one, why racism is unethical; it fails to give a fair consideration of interest to a group of people simply because they are branded in this way. They are not worthy of equal consideration because they are different.  It seeks also to influence the attitudes of others to those stereotyped. If I said 'the Irish are lazy'; you would rightly respond that this is a ridiculous and unfounded stereotype. It brands all Irish on the basis of a prejudice. It is harmful certainly; but it is worse if I intend it to be harmful. If I intend to influence the attitude of others. And so it is with 'the unemployed'. All I need do is substitute 'work-shy' and use it in an injudicious way; to imply that it applies to

The Thin End account of COVID Lockdown