Boris Johnson’s disastrous time in office has spluttered to an ignominious conclusion. Many of those now deploring his record sided with Johnson when it really mattered because they wanted to block a left-wing government that could transform British society.
by Daniel Finn
Part 5 - The Liberal Arts
The Financial Times had a real dilemma on its hands in the 2019 election. On the one hand, the paper’s editorial board firmly believed that Britain should either stay in the European Union or negotiate a close trading relationship with the EU if that proved to be impossible. A victory for Boris Johnson would take both options off the table, while a Labour-led government would hold a second referendum on EU membership, with a soft-Brexit deal as the alternative on the ballot paper. For self-styled Remainers, the choice should have been an easy one.
On the other hand, Labour under Corbyn and John McDonnell had drawn up an ambitious program of social democratic reforms that would transform the British economic model if put into effect, in a way that the FT found deeply unattractive. The paper’s leader on the general election thus had to tread a delicate path. It began by appearing to wish a plague on both houses:
On the other hand, Labour under Corbyn and John McDonnell had drawn up an ambitious program of social democratic reforms that would transform the British economic model if put into effect, in a way that the FT found deeply unattractive. The paper’s leader on the general election thus had to tread a delicate path. It began by appearing to wish a plague on both houses:
The Conservatives and Labour, colonized by populists, have abandoned the centre. Both have purged voices of moderation. Both offer illusory remedies that hark back to a half-imagined past — Boris Johnson’s nationalist Tories to the days of warm beer and empire; Jeremy Corbyn’s hard-left Labour to the state control of the 1970s.
However, the FT went on to explain that the party “most distant” from its values was the one led by Corbyn: “Its socialist blueprint would replace a thriving market economy with a statist model. Labour aims to reverse, not revise, the Thatcherite revolution of the 1980s.” If Labour stood furthest away from the FT’s values, the Conservatives must logically have been a few crucial steps closer:
We recognize that many in the business community and beyond will inevitably conclude they must vote Conservative, however reluctantly, as the only way to keep Mr Corbyn from power. While a hung parliament might, in theory, allow Brexit to be rethought, this too would risk ceding dangerous influence to the Labour leader.
Anyone “in the business community and beyond” who was still wavering about their choice will have picked up the message loud and clear: you can swallow your reservations about Johnson or Brexit with a clear conscience and vote Tory to keep out the Left and preserve “the Thatcherite revolution of the 1980s.”
The FT’s prognosis for a Johnson premiership — “little in his past suggests he is capable of pivoting from opportunist to statesman” — was a considerable understatement. By the following June, the paper was reporting on Britain’s COVID-19 disaster, with the country facing “one of the worst death rates and biggest economic disasters of any major economy.” But the Thatcherite revolution still seems to be in good shape, so it’s not all bad news.
The FT’s prognosis for a Johnson premiership — “little in his past suggests he is capable of pivoting from opportunist to statesman” — was a considerable understatement. By the following June, the paper was reporting on Britain’s COVID-19 disaster, with the country facing “one of the worst death rates and biggest economic disasters of any major economy.” But the Thatcherite revolution still seems to be in good shape, so it’s not all bad news.
Comments
Post a Comment