How Sustainable Is A 'ConDUP' Alliance?

As talks between the Tories and the DUP continue, journalists have made efforts to highlight the DUP's hard-right social conservatism and support from paramilitary organisations.

The narrative, engulfing a Conservative Party in disarray (hence unable to muster a strong enough counter), is that by cosying up to the DUP they are in effect aligning themselves with, even endorsing, the party's more extreme positions.

But, then again, ministers have made a point of suggesting the Conservatives "have a lot in common with our friends in the DUP" on sofa interviews this weekend, seemingly tone-deaf to the fact the only DUP positions being communicated to the British public are anti-gay rights, anti-abortion, and climate change denial.

Also read: Never Mind Kingmakers - The DUP Will Be Queenslayers For Theresa May

While an alliance does not necessarily equate to an out-and-out ideological alignment, it is inconceivable that any arrangement will be forged without the DUP extracting some capital from the Tories; the DUP are known as "tough negotiators".

Moreover; the Conservatives are desperate. As the Liberal Democrats are no longer a viable option (for either party, and for obvious reasons), the DUP is the only voting bloc Theresa May can conceivably court to get her legislative programme off the ground.

Let's assume, then, they do work out a deal, and the Tories are able to move forward in government. The question still remains over how reliable the DUP will be in terms of day-to-day politics; with conflicting positions on universal benefits, maintaining the pensions triple lock, and others.

To make things more complicated, as the New Statesman's Stephen Bush points out, the Fixed Term Parliaments Act gives the DUP more leverage over the Tories than first thought because a government no longer falls if it loses a budget or Queen's speech vote, only confidence votes, meaning the DUP can extract concessions over the course of the parliament in exchange for its support on a host of minor legislative issues.

My assessment, of course, does not take into account the added complexity of domestic Northern Irish politics, the new clutch of Scottish Tory MPs with loyalties to Ruth Davidson, nor does it take into account the implications for the Good Friday Agreement.

Any arrangement the two parties reach cannot possibly be sustainable in the long-term. Either we will have a lame duck government for the next five years, or the Conservatives will become frustrated enough to agree to calling an early election. My guess would be after the Brexit negotiations.

Is ‘Brand May’ a Show of Confidence, or CCHQ’s Insurance Policy?

In light of Theresa May’s historically high approval ratings, the Tory push for power has taken the form of a conventional US presidential campaign putting the prime minister front-and-centre.

It is so central to the campaign, that where you would normally expect to find ‘Conservative’ or ‘Conservative Party’ on official party branding, you will find instead ‘Theresa May’s Team’ - with party identity relatively obscured.

In the lead up to the local elections, CCHQ bought wraparound adverts with a host of local newspapers to promote not the Conservative Party, but Theresa May, a feature also found on leaflets, and in candidates’ messaging. The Conservative battle bus too is emblazoned with 'Theresa May for Britain'.

The thinking behind this is clear. Not only is Theresa May more popular than her party, but at the start of the campaign she boasted historically high approval ratings - higher than Thatcher or Blair at their peaks - with Jeremy Corbyn languishing far behind.

There are many theories behind her record-breaking popularity, from being a “basic prime minister for basic times” to having the luxury of being directly contrasted with her opponent - somebody widely regarded as being not up to the job.

This tactic isn't in itself unusual, with her predecessor running a similar campaign centred on 'competence over chaos under Ed Miliband'. Yet ‘Brand Dave’ did not replace the Tory identity; the two complemented each other to good effect. But this idea - in its current manifestation - is being pushed to the point of absurdity.

For instance, Theresa May is name-checked 16 times in the conservative party manifesto. By contrast, David Cameron was mentioned six times in 2015, and three times in 2010. In 1997, the Labour manifesto mentioned Tony Blair by name once.

Beyond serving as a handy electoral device, exploiting the unforeseen popularity of ‘Brand May’, perhaps this positioning allows the party to shield ‘Brand Tory’ from May’s most devastating flaws, should they manifest in the coming years.

Her indecisiveness, cautiousness, hypercentralised management style, and an over-reliance on a closely-knit team of special advisers (who carry torrid reputations) are examples of traits not adequately scrutinised; given most of the printing press are considered ‘on side’, and the opposition leader is seen as relatively hapless in the eyes of the public.

***

‘Theresa Maybe’, the Economist’s leader column on ‘Britain’s indecisive premiere’, was a frank assessment of the prime minister’s record six months after she took office, noting “it is hard to name a single signature policy, and easy to cite U-turns.”

This damning list, yet growing, includes backing down from a promise to put workers on company boards, reversing plans to compel firms to list foreign employees, scrapping Budget proposals to raise National Insurance, and changing her widely-berated ‘Dementia Tax’.

Moreover, the entire social care saga has exposed Theresa May’s greatest weaknesses in the unforgiving spotlight of a general election campaign; which leads CCHQ’s almost absurdist decision to make her the sole face of the next five years seem something of a masterstroke.

Moving forwards, the manner in which her flaws have been exposed with such ease may affect the outcome of the Brexit negotiations.

As the FT’s Janan Ganesh has noted: “If Mrs May did not know that old people feel attached to their asset base, she was derelict. If she did and (admirably) resolved to face them down, then her resolve does not amount to much. Colleagues who defended her proposal in public, lobby interests who fought it and any EU negotiators tuning in from the continent will infer the same lesson: this prime minister is strong and stable, until you test her.”

With Britain facing its greatest juncture in modern history the risk of wrecking our future prospects in trade, diplomacy, and prosperity, has never been greater. And, courtesy of leaks, we know preliminary discussions between Theresa May and her European counterparts have been disastrous.

By associating the next government with 'Brand May’, almost exclusively, CCHQ has given the party the breathing space it needs should May’s tenure end in catastrophe, with the foundations set for a clean rebuilding process - but not before first throwing the prime minister under the bus.

What Next for Labour Dissidents? Examining the Nuclear Option

There's no sugarcoating this; Friday morning's results, in the Copeland and Stoke by-elections, were disastrous for Labour. 

I've written in the past about how melodramatic cries of 'disaster' have been overblown, but this feels much different.While the party met its minimum expectation in defeating Paul Nuttall, losing a safe seat to a governing party is, frankly, unforgivable. The reasons for the Copeland defeat are numerous, and complex but, ultimately, the buck must stop with the leadership. 

This may serve as ammunition for a faction of MPs whose raison d'être has been to dethrone Jeremy Corbyn from the day he was elected. But following a coup that was organised with the grace of a drowning rhinoceros, and a messy leadership contest still fresh in the memory, their arsenal is thin.

One thing is certain: Jeremy Corbyn is going nowhere. He has refused to take any blame for the result and, moreover, his fate is in his own hands. Despite not having full control of the party's machinery, his strength is derived from the weakness of his opponents; first in the confused and erratic manner in which they tried to topple him; and second, in their relative unpopularity among party members.

But, besides biding waiting until after 2020, there is a nuclear option, which, if they are desperate enough to invoke, may force Corbyn's hand.

***

In normal times, Jamie Reed and Tristram Hunt, who both resigned their seats in quick succession, would have been replaced without much fuss, and most of Westminster would have had a good night's sleep on Thursday. 

Instead, Labour is a bloodied party, whose internal, irrevocable divisions, exposed by two leadership elections, have been compounded by a messy Article 50 process. The bulk of the press coverage, therefore, centered on the possibility of Labour losing both seats.

Jamie Reed and Tristram Hunt had clearly run out of patience; perhaps realising that instead of lingering in backbench anonymity for the next three-and-a-half years, their talents would be put to better use elsewhere.

The question now is; how many MPs have had a similar epiphany, and, furthermore, are they willing to weaponise this for the 'greater good'?

***

It's clear the anti-Corbyn faction within the PLP have little option but to wait; wait for wipeout in 2020; wait for the third leadership contest in five years; and then wait for the 2025 general election until they can mount a strong challenge against the Conservatives.

Alternatively, by threatening to resign en masse from their seats, Jeremy Corbyn would be forced into making a huge decision; call their bluff and face more than a dozen risky by-elections, or submit.

A wave of by-elections triggered in such a way could be a death sentence; not only for Cobyn, given he would have no choice but step down in the face of yet further evidence of Labour's electoral decline, presuming the current trend continues, but for the party itself; as previously loyal voters decide once and for all they've had enough of a party engulfed in perpetual civil war.

Knowing that doing nothing would almost certainly lead to defeat in 2020, will this anti-Corbyn faction be desperate enough to invoke the nuclear option, and risk it all?

What Happened in Richmond Park Anyway?

The Richmond Park by-election campaign was, by any conventional standards, a mess, yet in the current political climate this couldn't be any more appropriate. 

Zac Goldsmith, who ran a torrid campaign only a few months ago to become the Conservative Mayor of London, resigned his seat in protest at the government's decision to expand London Heathrow, This decision was based on a promise he'd made before 2010; to leave the Conservative Party and stand against them as an independent.

He immediately set out to frame the campaign as a "referendum on Heathrow" which, at first, made perfect sense. But the local Conservative branch, in an extraordinary step, then decided to back Goldsmith, which left CCHQ in limbo - in the end choosing to step aside so as to prevent splitting the "conservative" vote.

After the Liberal Democrats picked their candidate, the Green Party decided to step aside too, so as to avoid splitting the anti-Goldsmith vote. Labour's NEC, despite reservations from senior figures, decided to field a candidate, while UKIP was the third major party to back off, throwing its weight behind Goldsmith.

Not everything, however, was as simple as it looked...

The Green Party, in a pragmatic move, decided to back the Lib Dem candidate Sarah Olney in a "progressive alliance".

But Zac Goldsmith, who has previously gotten along well with Green co-leader Caroline Lucas, allegedly suggested she was backing him, while distancing himself from UKIP - who had mostly definitely endorsed his candidacy.

The local Greens said they were "deeply disappointed" in Goldsmith for making the suggestion on one of his leaflets, and a spokesperson was forced to refute any allusion to Green support for Goldsmith on the Green Party website.

Reports then emerged that the local Greens were also disappointed in Caroline Lucas for backing the "regressive" Lib Dems, with prominent local members writing a letter to the Guardian to express as much, and some figures even urging Green voters to back the Labour candidate instead.

As for Goldsmith, who was being backed by the local Conservatives, and prominent pro-Heathrow expansion Tory MPs such as Jacob Rees-Mogg, towards the end of the campaign wouldn't even rule out re-joining the Conservative Party in the near future.

***

Zac Goldsmith's attempt to frame the by-election as a "referendum on Heathrow" fell apart shortly after it became clear each of his rivals shared his view, and the government, officially backing Heathrow expansion, would decline to field a candidate. 

Tim Farron, who called this the contest "the most important by-election in living memory," when I spoke with him this weekend instead tried to frame it as a(nother) referendum on Brexit - holding several events over the last few weeks including an overwhelmingly pro-EU Brexit Q&A on the final Saturday of campaigning.

The reason for this was obvious: 77% of Zac Goldsmith's constituents voted to remain while Goldsmith, who they have returned twice, has been long-known as a proud Eurosceptic.

***

At the time of writing the winner hadn't been declared - but, for the purposes of this post, it doesn't matter.

This by-election has been messy, disjointed, and it has made a mockery of our electoral system, with three of the five major parties (as I see them), including the party of government, backing away from the fight. 

The cost of running the contest has been touted as lying somewhere between £240,000 and £250,000, depending on which source you've consulted - a big price, in my view, for what was ultimately a pointless distraction - and one that may end up costing Goldsmith his seat.

Why It Matters That Theresa May Is Unelected

What happens when an unknown quantity is thrust into the highest seat of power in the state without so much as a sofa interview?

Ahead of this year's Conservative party conference a large portion of the press and broadcast media dedicated hours dissecting Theresa May - the politician - as well as Theresa May - the woman.

If you're feeling as if journalists this week are being especially superficial then you wouldn't be alone. Many appeared more keen to scrutinise the May family scones recipe than trouble themselves with less important matters such as the deeply troubling shift in the government's immigration rhetoric, or the militarisation of our prison system.

But this especially intense obsession with the superficial, which all of us share at least a little, is grounded in the fact that we know absolutely nothing about our prime minister.

***

The general consensus is that Theresa May used her conference speech to grab the 'centre ground' or even, to an extent, the centre-left of politics. 

Curious, then, that she managed to do this while drawing praise from the French far-right nationalist presidential candidate Marine Le Pen.

Exactement 👏

Theresa May : « Si vous estimez être un citoyen du monde, vous êtes citoyen de nulle part » https://t.co/3bRd4bvBBx

— MLP Présidente 2017ن (@ElyseeMarine) October 5, 2016

In my view, her speech was packed with rhetoric borrowed from the left and the right, lined with a few jokes, and hashed together in order to allow everybody to see into it anything they wanted to.

When a politician makes this sort of speech, packed with rhetoric but lacking any actual policy, it is usually deconstructed and rebuffed by lunchtime. But because we have no point of reference from which to judge her words, it forces us to take them at face value.

She has no record as prime minister. She has no manifesto. She has promised nothing, neither to her party, nor the country. Even her record as Home Secretary is foggy, with many citing the fact she had not been removed from the post as being her greatest achievement - begging the question as to what her other achievements, if any, may have been.

***

You can argue endlessly about whether or not our democracy is fit for purpose. But the process of an election, no matter how flawed, at the very least accomplishes several things.

First, within the context of our pseudo-presidential electoral system, any potential prime minister is measured up. We learn intimate details about them, their family, their home(s), their character, even their love life. And, although of less concern to the press, we learn about their management style and political philosophy - not overnight - but often over the course of several years (as leader of the opposition).

Second, the entire prospective government - party leaders as well as their frontbench teams - are forced to make promises and set targets against which they can be judged when they win power. 

Third, any policy proposed faces meticulous vetting by the media and the public. Generally, a good policy is received well, while a bad policy is thrown out. A good example of this is David Cameron's bizarre 'paid volunteering' scheme cooked up during the 2015 election campaign.

Finally, it forces political parties to shape their policy around what they believe the public wants, and not around whichever untested ideology they hold.

Theresa May's government - which we now know to be completely different from the government elected to power in 2015 in terms of personnel, policy, and philosophy - has not been subject to any of the above. This should worry us.

Why Hasn't The Labour Party Died Already?

Barely a week has passed since the EU referendum and the Labour Party has already been plunged itself another civil war; adding to the government's collapse, and the United Kingdom's very own existential crisis.

The Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn is facing a full-blown coup, triggered following the sacking of the now-former shadow foreign secretary Hilary Ben last Sunday. As coups go, however, this is nothing short of a disaster.

Labour MPs, MEPs, consultants and associates have openly revolted against the leadership, resigning en masse from the shadow cabinet and from other roles, while a no-confidence ballot of MPs rendered a 172-to-40 result against Jeremy Corbyn.

Although the vote was definitive and the subsequent events have caused irreparable damage to Jeremy Corbyn's authority, the MPs who triggered this challenge, it now emerges, did so without a firm candidate to replace him, and without even knowing whether Corbyn may or may not be allowed to stand in a fresh leadership contest.

This detail is absolutely crucial, as he may yet win the support of the wider party membership if allowed to stand again. And what then if, as is extremely likely, he wins? The Parliamentary Labour Party will have failed to appeal to their own party members - for a second time - and they will have failed to put forward a credible alternative to a man so incredibly incompetent. Surely they will be finished.

All this, without the added dynamic of the long-awaited Chilcot Report on the Iraq War which is being published on July 6. What could possibly go wrong?

***

Jeremy Corbyn will not resign. Labour members may back him indefinitely. Those in power - the PLP, MEPs, etc - have abandoned him, and are actively working against him. Corbyn's survival, as many suggest, could well lead to the death of the Labour Party itself as MPs are forced to break away. 

But perhaps this was only a matter of time.

For better or for worse, social democratic parties, or the 'Establishment Left', have been falling across Europe. Yet this pattern is one the British Labour party has somehow avoided. Yes, Labour has not won an election since 2005 - but its support among the public remains far greater than the support of its counterparts across the continent.

The electoral success of Syriza in Greece marked the first major success of such a populist movement. POSAK, the established centre-left party, meanwhile has been sidelined. In the January 2015 legislative election, POSAK finished seventh with 4.7% of the vote share, a monumental collapse following their victory in October 2009 with 43.9%; its fall mirroring Syriza's rise in the intermediate six years.

Spain's June 2016 general election, the second within six months, saw PSOE, the traditional centre-left party win only 22.7% of the vote share - only a shade higher than the 22.0% it scored in December. Its collapse has been facilitated by the rise of Podemos, which received 21.1% in June 2016, and 20.7% in December, the first general election it had ever contested.

The Democratic Party of Italy led by Matteo Renzi occupies a more stable position having narrowly won the February 2013 general election with 29.5% to Silvio Berlusconi's centre-right People of Freedom with 29.1%. But the Five-Star Movement, a non-partisan anti-establishment Eurosceptic party, received 25.5% of the vote, like Podemos, in the first general election it had ever contested. Although the Democratic Party remains popular, polls show its support is falling while the Five Star Movement gains momentum, pointing to a defeat in 2018 for Italy's Establishment Left.

In France, the popularity of president Francois Hollande's Socialist Party is at its lowest it has been in some time (14%), and he is widely-expected to face defeat in 2017. In the first round of the 2015 regional elections, Hollande's party finished third on vote share with 23.12%, behind Nicolas Sarkozy's centre-right Republicans on 26.65%, and Marine Le Pen's far-right National Front on 27.73%.

***

While the fall of the Establishment Left has given way to a host of younger, more energetic insurgency-based movements, as Marine Le Pen's success in France has shown, this shift has ushered in the return of the far-right across Europe.

This New York Times interactive chart shows a recent rise in the support of far-right parties across Europe including Hungary, Denmark, Switzerland, Poland, and Austria.

The Austrian presidential elections in May 2016 saw the fascistic Freedom Party candidate Norbert Hofer narrowly defeated by the former Green Party candidate Alexander Van Der Bellen by only 30,863 votes.

But the election - won by 50.3% to 49.7% - will have to be re-run after the result was overturned on the basis that election rules were broken in a way that could influence the result. The prospect of Europe electing its first fascist leader since the end of World War II is once again a very real one.

While fascism is yet to enter mainstream politics in Britain, barring as an occasional source of comedy, there are a few worrying signs.

Let alone the death of Jo Cox at the hand of an alleged far-right political extremist, since the referendum result there has been a massive rise in the number of hate crimes. Latest police figures reveal the rate has risen five fold in the previous week alone, with 331 incidents reported to the national police records website against the average of 63. But the true figure may be far higher.

***

What would it mean if, as is increasingly likely, the Labour Party splits, or even collapses altogether? Europe shows that it could usher in a more radical movement in the mould of Podemos or Syriza. Or it could happen in conjunction with the rise of the far-right. Or both. Or neither.

If, after the 2015 general election, conventional wisdom suffered a blow, the referendum was its death knell. Where unexpected events, such as the Tory majority, the rise of the SNP, Jeremy Corbyn's Labour success, were frequent pre-Brexit, we may now begin to see wild, uncontrollable, unpredictable events hit us one after another in quick succession.

For instance, we could well see the actual death of the Labour Party. But, for better or for worse, perhaps this was long overdue.

Keep Calm and Carry On?

In the lasts few days our nation has been gripped by an unquenchable madness. Nobody knows what is happening. Pandora's Box has been opened and its contents are being traded away in a fire sale. How has it come to this?

The British public have voted to leave the European Union. This decision, which has already had a disastrous effect on the economy, was made by an older, wealthier generation of voters who haven't got very long left to live, in direct contradiction with the will of their relatively penniless children and grandchildren, who will have to live with these consequences the longest.

The Prime Minister has resigned, while both the Home Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer were not seen for 72 hours after the result was declared. George Osborne finally reared his head on Monday morning to make a reassuring statement before the markets opened, only for the markets to subsequently crash as investors panicked even further.

The pound has fallen to its lowest value against the dollar in 35 years. Approximately $2.08 trillion was wiped from the global markets in one day. Credit agency Moody's downgraded the UK's outlook from "stable" to "negative" while S&P said the UK would likely lose its AAA rating. So far on Monday, at the time of writing, the FTSE 100 has fallen by 2% and FTSE 250 has fallen by 4.5%.

David Cameron, who stepped down after leading a campaign he had hoped to narrowly win, will most likely be replaced with Boris Johnson, the former Mayor of London and the Prime Minister's old Etonian schoolmate, who led an opposition campaign he had hoped to narrowly lose, and who is subsequently trying to run the country from his newspaper column.

Boris Johnson, who won his campaign and signalled Britain's intent to leave the European Union, is having second thoughts over triggering Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, presuming he becomes the next Prime Minister, while those who comprise the EU establishment want us to get out as soon as possible. Number 10 has announced the unit to lead Brexit issues will be led by Oliver Letwin, whose 'Controversies' section is as long as the 'Political Career' section of his Wikipedia page.

On what comes next, those leading the campaign have no Brexit plan, as they were never in a position to fulfil any pledges they made. The ruling Conservative party has no Brexit plan, as they were expecting those in Number 10 to have drafted any contingency. And Number 10 has no Brexit plan, as David Cameron was not expecting to lose what ultimately proved to be his last political gamble after he had won all of his previous ones.

"It sounds like I’m making that up" - @FaisalIslam was told the Leave campaign did not have a post #Brexit plan https://t.co/yAT1IOaG5v

— Sky News (@SkyNews) June 27, 2016

In the first meeting of his cabinet since the result was declared, the Pm told his colleagues "this government will not accept intolerance" in light of a sharp rise in the number of xenophobic and racially-motivated hate crimes across the country.

Meanwhile, a coup has been triggered within the Labour party. Its leader Jeremy Corbyn, who does not hold the confidence of his MPs, may yet retain the confidence of the party membership. While the shadow Foreign Secretary Hilary Ben was sacked over the phone for expressing his lack of confidence in the leader and triggering said coup in the early hours of Sunday morning, the deputy party leader Tom Watson, it emerged, was on a bender in Glastonbury; a detail we have only gleaned from his latest Snapchat story. Corbyn allies accused would-be plotters of planning this ongoing coup on a "Snapchat group".

The new shadow defence secretary Clive Lewis was also at Glastonbury when he was appointed to his new role, and may be late for his first Defence Questions in parliament due to the traffic. His predecessor Maria Eagle resigned in a wave of mass resignations from the shadow cabinet, a walkout which yet continues, not to mention the dozens of MPs and party figures who are resigning from non-cabinet and relatively junior positions. The list of 37 resignations as of 2:00pm BST includes 18 shadow cabinet members, ten shadow ministers, and nine private parliamentary secretaries.

Jeremy Corbyn has refused to step down, and may yet be entitled to continue until a leadership challenge is triggered. But because the party rarely topples its own leaders in such a regicidal fashion, the exact rules as to whether Corbyn may have to regain 35 nominations to appear on the ballot paper are unclear, and may have to be determined by the National Executive Committee, of which Corbyn has a slight majority. There are also rumours that the majority of the PLP will follow a 'Libya model' of sorts and form a second shadow cabinet within the party led by an unofficial leader. One may feel this all needs to be sorted out before Prime Minister's Questions, which will take place on Wednesday morning.

Meanwhile our actual head of state, a woman 25 years past the retirement age, is constitutionally bound to keep shtum in times of political division by merit of a constitution we have yet to write down. She is taking a trip to Northern Ireland on Monday - a nation which may leave the UK along with Scotland in order to continue EU membership, which itself may not be possible.

Given this is only day four of Brexit Britain, what else could possibly go wrong?

***

In other news: International tensions have cooled as it has emerged Israel and Turkey struck a deal to end the six-year rift over the Gaza flotilla killings, while Iraq has taken back control of Fallujah from Islamic State in a massive blow to the terrorist group's ambitions.

EU Referendum: The Brexit Blame Game - Who Will Take The Rap For A Leave Vote?

During Jeremy Corbyn's Sky News Q&A on Monday, arguably among his stronger performances since becoming Labour leader, audience members challenged him on immigration, the refugee crisis, and his 'damascene conversion'.

The most interesting question, however, came from Sky News' political editor Faisal Islam. He asked the Labour leader whether he would "take the blame" for Brexit. The speculative question rather stood out from the substantive issues being discussed, but hinted at a potential post-Brexit media narrative.

Of course, whatever happens on Thursday, it will have been by the will of the British people. Using the term 'fault' or 'blame' implies the people will have made the wrong choice. The fault, if any, will collectively be all of ours. That is how democracy works, after all.

But the 'status quo' option is undoubtedly favoured by whatever it is you may term the 'establishment'. Groups including the government, the majority of business, the majority of economists, the majority of trade unions and even all 20 clubs which make up the Barclay's Premier League are in favour of a Remain victory.

As post-Brexit anger and bitterness brews, agents in the media may then begin the process of apportioning blame as a convenient way of bashing their political opponents.

Bearing that in mind, who will be the likely players in this Brexit Blame Game?

***

Jeremy Corbyn

There lives and breathes a rather large faction of Corbyn catastrophicists who fervently believe everything the Labour leader does, says, or even touches turns into a brown, mucky substance. But, on this, they may have a point.

The man who admitted his enthusiasm in this campaign has only been "seven or seven and a half" out of ten, and that he has "no great love for the European Union" has only made a handful of major set-piece speeches, and has allegedly done little to convince undecided and demotivated Labour supporters to turn out.

Notwithstanding the danger of emulating The Boy Who Cried Wolf, Corbyn's lacklustre role in this campaign will almost certainly attract scorn from many - particularly in the Labour Party - who will feel his heart wasn't in it, and that he didn't do enough.

Alan Johnson

Hopes were high for the Labour grandee and perpetual party leader-in-waiting, who took the reigns of the Labour In for Britain campaign in December. But over the course of the official referendum campaign his presence has been almost non-existent.

When researchers measured the frequency of media appearances during a four week period between May to June, the alleged leader of the Labour campaign was ranked 18th overall, with 14 appearances in what has been a very Conservative-dominated sphere.

But even from all the Labour figures in the top 20, Johnson was ranked 5th. He fell behind Harriet Harman (14th with 17 appearances), Gordon Brown (13th with 18 appearances), Gisela Stuart (11th with 20 appearances), and Jeremy Corbyn (7th with 52 appearances).

Labour Voters

Will Labour voters be motivated to turn out? It is a question many have been asking during this campaign. Generally, Labour voters are fairly united; only split 75/25 in favour of Remain while, for reference, Conservative voters are split 56/44 in favour of Leave.

But, come Friday, the 'lazy Labour' trope may resurface. One theory floating around is that the overwhelming Tory domination in the media, and the failure of the Labour party to make its position clear, will lead to a low Labour turnout, and a Leave victory. 

Young People 

Younger voters have gained a notorious reputation for developing a stubborn political apathy; with only 43% of 18-24 year-olds turning out to vote in the 2015 General Election compared with 78% of those aged 65+.

Meanwhile, data that has emerged during the referendum campaign shows that 18-24 year-olds are overwhelmingly in favour of remaining (69%), and voters aged 65+ are overwhelmingly in favour of leaving (62%). If the turnout by age group mirrors that from last year, which is incredibly likely, withdrawal from the EU could well be pinned on young people's apathy.

The Political Class

The Mayor of London only this week described the tone of the EU debate as "poisonous". In fact, I've written previously about how politicians are failing to cut through with the public and engage in this campaign.

Also read:

• EU Referendum: Neither Side In This Scrappy Debate Is Cutting Through
• EU Referendum: Young Voices Are Being Sidelined In This Campaign

A combination of hysterical economic claims based on dubious models, scaremongering about immigration, and personal in-fighting between party colleagues may lead to a climate that ultimately turns off members of the public and leads to a low turnout.

When asked who they trusted the least, people under the age of 30 answered "politicians" with a net -66 rating, while a recent survey of both Remain and Leave voters showed a general disdain for the opinion of "experts".

It could well be the case that after this referendum, our MPs, who overwhelmingly back Britain's continued membership of the EU by 459 to 150, use their summer break to take a long, hard at themselves in the mirror, and think about what they've done. Unlikely, yes, but stranger things than MPs taking responsibility have happened.

David Cameron 

The Prime Minister may ultimately have to resign in the event of a Brexit, and his opponents within Labour and the Conservative Party will be spoilt for choice if they wish to pin it on his back.

For example, the widely-accepted view is that he bungled his months'-long EU renegotiation, failing to return with the sufficient changes to convince his Eurosceptic back-benchers and undecided voters across the UK to follow his lead in this campaign.

There are smaller factors too, such as the government's voter registration reform which disproportionately disenfranchised young, and overwhelmingly more pro-European voters, as well as his staunch resistance to widening the voting age to 16- and 17-year-olds.

Blame may also arise, of course, from his decision to hold this referendum in the first place.

EU Referendum: David Cameron Has No Choice But To Reject Any Leave Vote

Assuming Britain votes to leave the European Union on June 23, the Prime Minister will be faced with a one of history's most gruelling dilemmas. 

Does he accept the will of the British people and take Britain out of Europe against all his instincts, or will he disregard the democratic mandate put before him, and save his country?

You would be forgiven for assuming the result - whether Remain or Leave - would be legally binding. But it isn't. In some form or another, the government will have to take the final decision as there is nothing in the legislation which says the result must be respected.

David Allen Green has written a good explainer on these legal complexities for the Financial Times. He writes:

What happens next in the event of a vote to leave is therefore a matter of politics not law. It will come down to what is politically expedient and practicable. The UK government could seek to ignore such a vote; to explain it away and characterise it in terms that it has no credibility or binding effect (low turnout may be such an excuse). Or they could say it is now a matter for parliament, and then endeavour to win the parliamentary vote. Or ministers could try to re-negotiate another deal and put that to another referendum. There is, after all, a tradition of EU member states repeating referendums on EU-related matters until voters eventually vote the “right” way.

In summary, the result of the referendum is not obligatory. What matters is whether - and when - the government invokes Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. This referendum is more of a glorified opinion poll than an out-and-out instruction.

***

Which brings us back to David Cameron's dilemma: accept the will of the British people and plunge this country, as he sees it, into economic, social and political chaos, or risk his own reputation and legacy to save it.

Also read:

• Project Fear: Every EU referendum scare story in one place!

Assuming the Prime Minister and his government have been completely honest and straightforward with the public throughout this campaign, we now know that in the event Britain withdraws from the European Union the migrant camps based in Calais will move to Kent, the NHS will be starved of funding, households up and down the country will lose £4300 per year, Europe could be plunged into another World War, Islamic State will receive a morale boost, house prices will face an 18% hit, Britain will face a year-long recession with 500,000 job losses, pensioners could lose up to £32,000, mortgages will rise by nearly £1000 per year, Britain will face a sterling crisis, the Northern Ireland peace process will be thrown into doubt, the pensions 'triple lock' will be scrapped, and the government will be forced to introduce an 'emergency budget' calling for a combination of tax increases and massive spending cuts.

This is not a prospect that should excite any sitting prime minister. In respecting the will of the people, David Cameron will be consciously choosing to enact all of the above. He will have no choice but to refuse the result as to do otherwise would be completely reckless; potentially the single most irresponsible decision made by a prime minister in British history.

That is, of course, assuming he isn't a liar.

Does Thomas Mair Have Legitimate Concerns?

When asked for his name, the 52-year-old suspect in the assassination of Labour MP Jo Cox said "death to traitors, freedom for Britain."

Disclaimer: Criminal proceedings are ongoing, so any scope for commenting on the defendant specifically is narrow. Read David Banks' guide to contempt of court - relevant to Twitter users, journalists and bloggers alike.

The discourse surrounding the horrific sequence of events has seen a public outpouring of grief. But also brewing has been a sinister counter-narrative pushed by a small faction of right-wing pundits entirely preoccupied with the upcoming referendum.

Also read: 

• Media Spotlight - the Assassination of Labour MP Jo Cox

This apologism for right-wing extremism is a bizarre and sad phenomenon. There is a legitimate case for Leave, as there is a legitimate case for Remain. Although it is impossible to detach what has happened from the context and timing of the ongoing campaigns, I (and most others) do not see Jo Cox's death as being directly connected with the EU debate.

***

Nevertheless, tarnished by victimhood, this small group of zealots have been clambering over one another to spin this tragedy to suit their own political agenda.

Spearheaded by Louise Mensch and flanked by the likes of Julia Hartley-Brewer and James Delingpole, and aided by certain tabloid newspapers, this particular band of Brexiteers have continued to deny fiercely the attack had anything to do with right-wing extremism, and have simultaneously tried to tie it with mental health.

Why mental health? It is an effective way of deflecting the scope for a political motive by in-part absolving personal responsibility.

James Delingpole, for example, in his utterly paranoid piece 'Project Grief: Remain's Dirty Politicking Has Hit an All-Time Low', almost preemptively accused the Remain campaign of exploiting the tragedy for political gain.

He wrote: "Are we seriously being expected to believe that this act of violence by a deranged loner represents a statement on the political climate of Britain of which we should all take note?

"Are we supposed to take it as evidence of some kind of "far-right" terror campaign, of which this strange sad bloke with the white baseball cap, the red gardening gloves, the camo jacket and the remote stare is but the first of many agents?

"If you actually believe this then I'd say you're not much less deranged and paranoid than Thomas Mair himself."

What about Hartley-Brewer, who declared Delingpole's article is a 'must-read'? She says that "genuinely, with [her] hand on [her] heart" that any toxicity that may now exist "came from the official Remain campaign," namely for "its scaremongering lies" and for "telling half the country they're ignorant racists".

Louise Mensch, meanwhile, who only one year ago used her column in the Sun to bully and denigrate a student protesting mental health cuts, has now outed herself as a champion in the fight against the chronic lack of mental health provision in local communities.

In her terribly-judged and prematurely-written 'Justice First! Jo Cox's Mentally Ill Killer Should Not Be Discussed in Parliament' Mensch wrote that by speaking against "hate" the Prime Minister and Jeremy Corbyn "both imputed political motives to Thomas Mair, which could prejudice his trial" and slammed West Yorkshire Police for "[leaking] highly prejudicial crap to the Guardian about far-right memorabilia."

As if that wasn't enough, what began on Saturday morning as a crude Twitter-based defence of the "insane" suspect on the grounds that "if insane, nothing else matters" retreated into an angry disdain for anybody who dared mention the court appearance, let alone the suspect's widely-reported ties with far-right groups, as soon as she was alerted to the existing contempt laws that she herself had already vociferously breached.

***

In Saturday's court hearing  it emerged Thomas Mair claimed to be a "political activist" during his arrest, and was alleged to have shouted a variation of "Britain first", "Keep Britain independent", "Britain always comes first", and "This is for Britain" as he launched his attack. But does he have legitimate concerns?

In the hours that followed the murder, while details such as those above yet lingered in the realm of speculation, many out there, including those I've named above, channelled their efforts into deflecting any hint of a political connection. This continued even after the police released a statement confirming the suspect's ties with right-wing extremism was a "priority line of inquiry".

Incidentally, this is the same group of people who insist communities out there have "legitimate concerns" about social cohesion, which is itself perfectly valid, yet flatly refuse to acknowledge the scope for right-wing extremism to have entered the mainstream in the face of all the established facts.

Incidentally, this is the same group of people who insist "it isn't racist to talk about immigration," which is itself perfectly valid, yet retreat into the background, or even double-down, when Nigel Farage takes a sledgehammer to the conversational door we've opened by invoking images reminiscent of fascist propaganda from the 1930s to promote their shared cause.

Your new poster resembles outright Nazi propaganda, @Nigel_Farage. Thanks to @brendanjharkin for pointing it out. pic.twitter.com/Rd89XZSvfD

— Connor Beaton (@zcbeaton) June 16, 2016

My initial reaction to this news was one of shock; the feeling that "this sort of thing doesn't happen in Britain". I was wrong. Britain has changed without us even realising. And it hasn't been overnight.

As the writer and commentator Alex Andreou wrote in his column: "In my twenty-six years in this country, I have never felt more foreign, less welcome, more marginalised, or less safe. I am not alone. Hundreds of migrants I speak to feel this way.

"I spend every minute of every day trying to justify my existence, against a wall of blind hatred. It is that hatred that killed Jo Cox. And we all must look into our conscience and answer the question: "Have I contributed"?"

***

Also in the news: It has emerged that Liberty GB's Jack Buckby will stand in the Butley and Spen by-election following the assassination of Labour's Jo Cox. As we learn that all other parties have declined to contest the seat out of respect for the late MP, this serves on both a symbolic and physical reminder that the fight against fascism and far-right extremism is no longer just the stuff of history books, but a very real, very present danger to us all.