15 June 2017

Post-GE2017 Analysis (No Corbyn, You Didn’t Win!)

Over the next couple of posts, I’ll be providing some post-UK general election analysis, first with this article, and then with a video. If I don’t cover something here, the chances are it’s because I don’t want to repeat myself. That said, let’s start with Comrade Corbyn, the man who thinks he actually won the election by winning 262 seats in parliament. Now there are a few problems with this. I know that Commies aren’t the best at maths, and they think this sort of objective reality shouldn’t get in the way of a communist utopia, kind of like economics proving that socialism doesn’t work. But I’m afraid maths is something very real, and you can’t get around this by acting as though a monkey throwing turds in chess is a valid way to win.

Allow me to explain this to Comrade Corbyn; while it’s all well and good that you increased your majority by 32 from the pathetic low of Miliband’s 230, you need 326 to get a majority in parliament. Not only this, but despite Theresa May leading the worst campaign for her party in living memory, the Tories still got 318 seats. Yes I know that this was 13 seats less than Cameron’s majority, but it was still more than you. Do you now see why you have as much regard for reality as that turd flinging monkey, Comrade Corbyn?

Now onto Corbyn’s increase in the vote share, where he merely got 0.1% more than Theresa May. As you’d expect, the Left relied on their usual tactic of claiming they won by getting a larger share of the vote, irrespective of whether this led to more seats. This epitomises how rules are merely there to be manipulated in our modern society, especially when it comes to the Left – if you can twist or break the rules to win, that’s all that matters because the end justifies the means. But here’s another dose of reality for Comrade Corbyn and his acolytes; in UK politics we have a first past the post system, which actually works rather well if you want MPs that represent constituents. So in no way is Corbyn’s 0.1% majority a win.

At this point, Corbynistas will say that their great leader did better than expected. Bear in mind that the left of politics (particularly the far-Left) generally united behind Corbyn in this election, whereas in 2015 this was fragmented between parties like the Greens, and other smaller outfits. In 2017, however, the Left were united behind Corbyn because he was ‘loony lefty’ enough to appeal to them. One example of this is how the Communist Party of Great Britain (yes, this party really is a party) didn’t stand candidates in this election, backing Comrade Corbyn instead. Likewise, Green voters also bolstered Labour, another example of the far-Left rallying behind Comrade Corbyn. Then there are the non-aggression pacts formed across left-wing parties, as part of a progressive alliance to defeat Theresa May.

Corbyn supposedly exceeding expectation also fails to consider Theresa May’s horrendous campaign and manifesto, which was tantamount to personal sabotage. This alienated her core support, but I won’t say much more in this regard because I risk repeating points in my upcoming video. I will remind people of what I highlighted in my 2017 UK General Election Analysis video, though; Theresa May is the most left-wing Tory Prime Minister for 40 years. Not since Edward Heath has there been another Tory PM as left-wing as her. To make matters worse, the release of the Tory manifesto led to a slump in the polls, as we can see here:

Polls show that the Tories began to slump, right after their manifesto launch.

Even with a terrible manifesto, not to mention the rest of the campaign, where Theresa May was so arrogant that she refused to get involved in any TV debates, Comrade Corbyn still couldn’t secure more votes that May, let alone a majority in parliament, and this election shows that Theresa May alienated her core support, which had a terrible effect on the result. Despite this, Corbyn has no possibility of a coalition or confidence and supply arrangement, because support from the DUP would be untenable for the left of politics, meaning that May has too many seats for him to challenge. 

So rather than exceeding expectations, the evidence indicates that we’ve reached peak-Corbyn, and that this is the best electoral challenge the far-Left can muster (unless the Tories sabotage an election so blatantly that even a political illiterate would notice). This is especially apparent when we bear in mind that Corbyn promised the earth in this election, with policies that would undoubtedly bankrupt the UK, but enticed foolish and naïve voters that don’t understand budgets and economics.

With Corbyn’s delusional victory out of the way, there are a couple other things I’d like to address. First is the idea that a lot of people voting UKIP in 2015 voted Labour this time around. This isn’t true. The Tories ended up benefiting the most from the collapse of the UKIP vote. Some suggested that UKIP has become a gateway to the Tories, and voting data confirms this, as the following chart demonstrates:

It’s important to correct the misconception that UKIP has any significant appeal to left-wing voters because this has been very damaging to UKIP’s electoral success. Like the Tories, as UKIP moves left, this party has alienated its core supporters, and therefore performed worse. Besides, even in 2015, only 10% of UKIP voters came from Labour, and 28% came from the Tories. So the myth of the left-wing Ukipper really does need to be put to bed once and for all, if the party is going to recover from its decline.

Finally, there’s the Remoaners trying to spin this election as proof that the public don’t want a hard Brexit. This begs the question; was the entire Tory campaign deliberately lacklustre, so failure to perform as expected could be spun in favour of those wanting to remain in the EU? If they had made Brexit the cornerstone of their campaign and manifesto, they would have certainly performed far better. It’s important to point out that in the run up to the election, Corbyn promised to quit the EU and end free movement of people. So if Theresa May performing worse than expected means the public doesn’t want a hard Brexit, does Corbyn performing better mean that they do? Alas, Corbyn spent the whole campaign making promises that he would break, just like the rest of the establishment. No doubt this is just another example of that – no wonder people have such little trust in politicians.

And before we jump to any conclusions about how Brexit should proceed after the election, along with considering the political spin and manipulation I’ve outlined here, the appetite for Brexit is as strong as ever, which will no doubt be validated by other polls in the coming months, just as YouGov confirmed prior to the election. A single Reuters poll of economists (not the public itself) doesn’t prove anything, especially when YouGov admits that polls are being manipulated to give the impression that leaving the EU is not what the public wants.

It’s very apparent that this election was a front to push an anti-Brexit agenda, through conjecture about the shortcomings of a highly suspicious Tory campaign. I’ve never trusted Theresa May to deliver on a full and proper Brexit, and I certainly don’t trust the other parties to deliver this, either. Maybe UKIP could have done this in the past, but since their lurch to the left, they’ve all but destroyed themselves politically. No doubt I’ll have to revisit Brexit many times in the future, not least on my next video. Until we actually leave the EU, nothing is certain, and unless we’re prepared to take to the streets, there’s every chance that this will forever be denied.


  1. Just a comment about FPTP being a good system to elect people who represent constituencies...

    ...It isn't. The biggest problems with FPTP are that it does nothing to counter Gerrymandering and you often end up with parties holding 60% of the seats, while only winning 35% of the vote. Often parties take seats by winning a quarter of the votes in individual constituencies due to the vote being split among three of four parties. FPTP encourages a two-party system, which is pretty bad for politics in general and reinforces the establishment.

    That system is horrendous when it comes to actually representing what voters want. A Mixed-Member Proportional, where half the MP's are elected via FPTP and the other is voted in via proportional representation is far more efficient at achieving this objective. It also makes Gerrymandering far less efficient for the ruling party as the impact of the constituency maps they draw are lessened.

    1. I'm not saying FPTP is perfect. But it's much easier to allocate constituents to representatives. A mixed system is one alternative, like in Wales. But it's too easy for opportunists to get elected on the shortlist. So this also has its pros and cons.

    2. What are your opinions on the Alternative Vote System (or Instant-Runoff Voting) used in Australia then?

    3. I don't know about that system. What is it?

    4. To put is simply, you've still got the constituency based form of Parliamentary Representation that the UK has but your able to Vote for more than one Candidate in your Constituency (ordering them from your most to least favourite) and votes are transferred accordingly to the winning candidates.
      It's a bit difficult to explain it properly without using more than one sentence though. I'd definitely recommend looking it up if I were you. CGP Grey did a good video on it as well that I remember. Here's a link for it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE
      (I would definitely recommend doing your own research though)

    5. Oh right. I've seen that system under a different name. It's basically called the D'Hondt method in Wales. There are various methods, but any time you have a short list it's too open to manipulation by people that can sneak their way into office just by politicking within their party.

    6. I'm pretty sure the D'Hondt method is a very different system entirely, the Alternative Vote doesn't include a Shortlist of any form to my recollection.

    7. Oh ok. On closer inspection, the Australian system does seem like an improvement on what we already have in the UK.