P Kharel

Within hours after crying a “close call” in the election outcome by psephologists, the same lot came with another chorus announcing “a big win” for Johnson’s party. These are the hazards of psephology and exit polls. British Prime Minister Boris Johnson has pulled it off, leading as he did the Conservative Party to clear majority in the 650-seat House of Commons in Thursday’s general elections, the first such December battle of the ballot in nearly 100 years.
Almost all opinion polls had given the Conservatives the most seats in the third election in five years. The final election results gave the Tories a comfortable lead over the main opposition Labour Party, in their biggest mandate obtained since Margaret Thatcher’s third consecutive victory in 1987. The Conservatives have 60 seats-plus more than the Labour’s strength.
In a firm “no” to its recipe, Labour suffered its worst defeat in a century. “A disappointing night,” was how its leader Jeremy Corbyn’s reaction to his party’s latest performance, though he retained his seat with a resounding victory. Labour’s reeled under its worst performance in 80 years. Although he indicated that he would not step down any time soon, he hinted that he would head the party in the next general election. He called for a period of reflection on what went wrong.
Vexing issue
Clearly, Corbyn misjudged the mood of the voting masses. Four defeats in a row leave no doubt that voters firmly rejected his prescription; he was out of tune with the public. Conservatives made marked inroads into the Labour territory. The SNP, too, won 48 seats, echoing the mood of Scottish voters most of whom want to remain in the EU. Voices for a referendum on whether Scotland should seek independence might be louder in the days ahead.
Brexit has divided the British people so deep that analysts wonder how deep and for how long the polarisiation might be. On election eve, Johnson said: “This election is our chance to end the gridlock but the result is on a knife-edge.” And sure it was.
Johnson’s immediate and stupendous task is to steer Britain out of the EU. Brexit has become an agonising issue that has become a big burden on the people. Three elections have been affected as a result. To keep his promise, Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron called for a national referendum in June 2016. Subsequent voter verdict went for quitting the organisation with a margin of 52 per cent against 48 per cent for retaining the membership. Cameron resigned, paving way for Theresa May to preside over London’s 10 Downing Street, the premier’s quarters.
Four weeks before the election date, Johnson disclosed that he had extracted a personal pledge from every Conservative Party candidate to back the Brexit deal. He asked all 635 of his candidates to sign up to back his Withdrawal Agreement in the House of Commons.
A month prior to last Thursday’s election, all major opinion polls gave the Conservatives majority seats. Two weeks before the election, however, the Conservative lead in the opinion polls had shrunk by several percentage points. The debate among analysts was whether Johnson would pull off another success. After all, earlier in the year, many had dismissed the idea of Johnson ever making it to 10 Downing Street.
Johnson then secured a new Brexit deal from the EU—an extension of the deadline—in October after two years of demoralising stalemate. That was not long after Theresa May resigned in tears after repeatedly failing to get her proposal through parliament. And now, Johnson has led the Conservatives to their biggest win since Margaret Thatcher led the party for the third consecutive victory in 1987.
Last week’s snap polls proved to be a telling test, during whose campaign the Conservative leader vowed to take Britain out of the 28-member EU by January-end. Johnson, in an open letter last fortnight, described the snap polls as “historic” and a choice to “move forwards” after Brexit. Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn described the impending election as a “chance to vote for hope” and he had “the most ambitious plan to transform our country in decades”.
Brexiters cannot be taken for granted. That is why voices for a new referendum on Brexit did not find much support. Effigy of the House Speaker John Bercow went up in flames in early November, to mark the failure of the attempt to blow up parliament in the 17th century November 5, 1605. “Our message to Mr. Bercow is that you cannot keep disrupting parliament and this is one situation you cannot argue yourself out of,” said Bill Cummings, the Edenbridge Bonfire Society Chairman. Brexiters saw Bercow as the “scourge” of Brexit.
The symbolic value of the occasion could not be overlooked when it came to the anger of Brexiters who did not want to be taken for granted. They had given their decision in a referendum and they now want their desire fulfilled by quitting the EU without any more deadlock. Johnson, as was the case with his predecessor, could not deliver Brexit, thanks to differences within his own party as well as some in the Labour Party. He did not deny his desire to quit the EU membership without any deal, if things to came a complete stalemate.

Brexit getting done
Some two dozen MPs quit their parties in the two years of the last parliament elected in 2017, disappointed as they were with their leaders. Some of them distanced themselves from either of the main two parties to create their own independent group for change. Charges that Labour leader was reluctant or slow in addressing growing anti-Semitism in his party are also believed to have contributed to making deep dent in Labour’s support base.
Loudly and clearly, the quicker the speed in delivering a Brexit deal becomes, the better the chances for the government and parliament to focus on other national issues. Should Johnson achieve Brexit within the next six weeks, i.e., January 31, he would have marked a niche for his prime ministerial career that he had looked for since many years. Once the Brexit is done, he will be expected to address the country’s less than rosy economic picture and louder voices against increased inequality between the very rich and the very poor.

(Former chief editor of The Rising Nepal, P. Kharel has been writing for this daily since 1973)