Skip to main content

Reflections on the 2017 Election

So, the results are in (originally posted June 2017): a huge surge in Labour support—almost 40 per cent of the vote—destroyed the slim Conservative majority and the authority of the Prime Minister. What light can sociology throw on the results?
Sociological debate on British politics over the last 40 years has traced a process of ‘dealignment’ in which class-based voting decayed to be replaced by issue-voting politics and increased volatility in electoral outcomes. Class-based Labour voting had been rooted in the traditional solidarities of ethnically homogeneous working class communities, and a strong occupationally grounded and gendered trade union movement. Social change had swept away many of these communities and the forms of association linked to them. The growing importance of television and other media as means of socialisation and sources of information weakened traditional identities and commitments.

These social changes were the basis for the rise of Thatcherite Conservativism and Blairite New Labour. The results of the 2016 election suggest that these political forces, too, have now had their day. In the wake of the great recession, there has been a global growth of anti-establishment and anti-austerity politics, apparent in elections in Greece, France, and elsewhere, and in the election of Donald Trump. In Britain, this trend marked the election of Jeremy Corbin as Labour leader, the Brexit Referendum, and now the rise of the new old Labour of Corbyn.

Corbyn had faced many of the same media attacks as had Ed Miliband, the big difference being that his own parliamentary party had turned against him and undermined his media image even further. The paradoxical result was that Corbyn’s popularity among workers and the young grew at the same time as his party crumbled underneath him and fed a collapse in the opinion polls. Opportunity came when Theresa May called the General Election in an attempt to secure an increased majority for her Brexit negotiations. This decision by May will go down as being as big a political miscalculation as Cameron’s miscalculation over the Brexit Referendum itself.

It seems clear that a majority of the electors saw Brexit as no longer a major issue. Recognising that it was going to happen, one way or another, they felt that the real issue was the kind of society that we would live in post-Brexit. In the election, former Conservatives who had deserted the party for UKIP returned to the Conservative fold. In former Labour strongholds, UKIP voters began a return to Labour, and the party was also able to capitalise on anti-Brexit feelings in London and the South. Within Scotland, SNP voters abandoned separatist politics and returned to their traditional voting patterns.

Labour had successfully aligned itself with these social and political changes. Its proposals on health, social care, education, employment protection, and public ownership of key public services embodied a vision of a post-Brexit society with greater appeal than a protracted period of crisis-driven austerity. The anti-establishment and anti-austerity views that led to Corbyn’s leadership in the first place formed a growing national mood and desire for change.

Some political commentators are already describing the outcome of the election as a sign of political ‘polarisation’ and argue for a rebuilding of the consensual ‘centre’. There is, however, another way of looking at this. It may be a case of half-full/half-empty, but ‘polarisation’ can also be seen as a renewal of powerful ideological differences that reflect social inequalities and social divisions. The real task, surely, is not to promote centrist policies but to address the inequalities and divisions that are driving politics: this is exactly what Corbyn’s Labour Party proposed.

We seem to be entering a new post-Thatcherite, post-Blair period, an era in which politics is not simply a return to ‘old Labour’ but something very different. We are part of a global trend away from neo-liberalism that will involve many uncertainties but also promises much.

Originally published on the British Sociological Association website.
Originally Posted June 21 2017.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What are ‘British Values’?

Politicians and commentators often talk about the importance of British values and the need for migrants and refugees to respect British values. Such arguments have emerged strongly in debates over terrorism. Claims of this kind often, perhaps typically, mask a more or less deep-rooted prejudice towards outsiders and an assumption of the inherent superiority of Britons. Proponents of these views look back to an imperial past when Britannia ruled not only the waves but also much of the land and when it seemed natural to divide the people of the world into distinct ‘races’. We are rightly sceptical of such arguments, but is any meaning to be found in the argument that a society such as Britain is indeed marked by values that are subscribed to by a majority of its members and that help to define a shared sense of identity? Under what conditions can we talk about any kinds of national values? These ideas are best understood through the arguments that I have developed on social conscio
Post a Comment
Read more

Interaction and Social Structure

Some of the most powerful approaches in sociology are those that analyse the interactions of individuals. These are often seen as in opposition to more abstract views of social structure. I want to argue that this is not the case and that the two approaches are complementary and imply each other. I will develop this argument in this post and will take the argument further in a later post. Interaction is the result of ongoing mutual constructions of the situation and of the attitudes and actions of its participants. Each participant constructs a representation and account and so negotiates a shared understanding that is sufficient to justify their actions as appropriate and so to ensure that the actions of the participants mesh or coordinate. Participants mutually—simultaneously and interdependently, but always imperfectly—legitimate their own actions and shape the actions of others by attempting to define limits to the options open to them. Each participant holds to an understanding
Post a Comment
Read more

Objectivity and Subjectivity

In  Objectivity and Subjectivity in Social Research , which I wrote with Gayle Letherby and Malcolm Williams (Sage Publications, 2013), we set out an account of objectivity and truth in relation to the necesarilly subjective basis of social knowledge. This posting outlines a summary of the key arguments of the book. Why are so many sociologists concerned with objectivity and the pursuit of ‘truth’ when our knowledge and understanding of the social world is so self-evidently subjective and partial? The conventional view in all the sciences has been that it is only by securing objective knowledge that we can be guaranteed that it is true and that we can therefore avoid the claims of our critics that we are biased in our viewpoint and are merely parading ideology in the guise of science. This is an important justification of the search for objectivity, but many critics, especially in the social sciences, have argued that it is unrealistic: objectivity is seen as impossible and truth a
Post a Comment
Read more