It's Peter Mandleson's 'Southern Strategy' all over again.
The most convincing (short) explanation I've ever heard for British voting patterns came from James Hawes 'The Shortest History of England'. He concluded that British voters have traditionally voted on national or regional lines, defined by cultural difference. The Liberal Party extended the franchise in the hope that people would vote against the Tories on class lines, but instead the south of England consistently voted Tory; and has done ever since. By contrast, the Liberals - and later the Labour Party - depended on the north of England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland. Irish independence weakened the Liberal vote just before Labour took their place; making it very difficult for Labour to win so long as people voted along the usual cultural lines.
The Southern Strategy was meant to defeat this problem. It required a Labour leader who was somehow 'northern' enough to keep the party base on side, but sufficiently 'southern' enough to appeal to southern Tory voters; or at least not scare them back into the Tory camp. The leader chosen was Tony Blair, and the strategy initially worked; but it pushed the Labour Party and base's tolerance to the limit. Devolution and levelling up were Blair and Brown's attempts to appease them.
Boris Johnson basically did the same thing but in reverse; appeal to Labour votes by promising them levelling up (which had collapsed under austerity), only to ruin himself later. Starmer seems to be trying the same thing again; endlessly appeasing the Tory south while praying the Labour base stays with him.
I suspect the ultimate result will be the same. Starmer will win, but be left with a resentful party and voter base who must be somehow appeased; plus the utter disaster the Tories have left him. Starmerism will be Blairism without the good times.
The most convincing (short) explanation I've ever heard for British voting patterns came from James Hawes 'The Shortest History of England'. He concluded that British voters have traditionally voted on national or regional lines, defined by cultural difference. The Liberal Party extended the franchise in the hope that people would vote against the Tories on class lines, but instead the south of England consistently voted Tory; and has done ever since. By contrast, the Liberals - and later the Labour Party - depended on the north of England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland. Irish independence weakened the Liberal vote just before Labour took their place; making it very difficult for Labour to win so long as people voted along the usual cultural lines.
The Southern Strategy was meant to defeat this problem. It required a Labour leader who was somehow 'northern' enough to keep the party base on side, but sufficiently 'southern' enough to appeal to southern Tory voters; or at least not scare them back into the Tory camp. The leader chosen was Tony Blair, and the strategy initially worked; but it pushed the Labour Party and base's tolerance to the limit. Devolution and levelling up were Blair and Brown's attempts to appease them.
Boris Johnson basically did the same thing but in reverse; appeal to Labour votes by promising them levelling up (which had collapsed under austerity), only to ruin himself later. Starmer seems to be trying the same thing again; endlessly appeasing the Tory south while praying the Labour base stays with him.
I suspect the ultimate result will be the same. Starmer will win, but be left with a resentful party and voter base who must be somehow appeased; plus the utter disaster the Tories have left him. Starmerism will be Blairism without the good times.
Statistics: Posted by Juubi Karakuchi — 2024-02-08 07:47am