Meanwhile in Middle England: what the liberal left echo chamber needs to learn post-election

If you're pretty certain, as I and others are, that austerity is not only wrong but an ideological self-serving policy for the rich and powerful then you would have been disappointed with the election result. It's not as if Labour really challenged that during the campaign but under a broken voting system they were the lesser evil to challenge the unsustainable predatory culture that caused the banking catastrophe. A crash that laid the foundations for the cuts that somehow punish anyone but those responsible.

anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk

Now the nation has spoken we have an accurate barometer of the nations' politics. What can those opposing the tory agenda against the vulnerable do to win future battles?

It is important to identify the tory voters who swung it their way. Their shock majority came after poll after poll putting them level with Labour. Concluding that, firstly the polling methodology is questionable. By favouring people who are available and have time to reply - so working people would be under-represented in basic sampling bias. Furthermore respondents are approached incorrectly - being asked about voting intentions straight away produces instinctive responses that warm up questions could curb. Having studied social research methods this seems a incredible blind-spot for organisations who do this for a living.

Yet, this inaccuracy is also party beyond the pollsters control. As tory voters were not picked up it in the polls it is possible there was a 'shy tory' phenomenon. This was used to explain the infamous 1992 shock tory victory. Of course there are always polling in previous elections have been more accurate. This time it more likely that shyness was a factor compared to 2010 when the tories hadn't been in government and were a less toxic brand. The 1992 shy voters had had 13 years of tories to hide.

Other swing tory voters were undecided reflecting the anti-political feeling since MPs expenses and the banking crisis. Undecideds are more likely to be those who engage minimally with media for a small period at the end of a campaign. This could be because they are fed-up, too busy and/or generally consider democracy as something done once every general election. Their political interactions are short and swift and they judge parties on their own terms e.g, running a household finances like the nations - which is a nonsense as I argue here. Their media is likely to be from the most accessible traditional outlets which is largely right wing propaganda. They are exposed to politics as catchy headlines, personalities, catchphrases, gaffes etc. They are vulnerable to right wing propaganda and less likely to read independent counter-establishment blogs (cough) and liberal social media.

Yet for many 2015 swing tories, voting is simply an act of self-improvement - basically in a nation ever more materialistic, voting with your wallet. It is the economy stupid. So while many young rebellious twitter attacks and mocks the conservatives, tory swing voters are seeing their party being favourably reported as guardians of a stable economy. They do not debate politics in the pub like my left leaning peers do. They tend not to share strong opinions on social media. They're more bothered with house prices and child security than cool BuzzFeed articles and likes on Facebook. Many simply vote and their reasons are influenced a combination of traditional media narratives, fear of change and a 'feeling' in their wallet that things are getting better. This all points towards a coup for the tories.

This political identity is well known to me because it is my background as the son of self-made immigrants who adopted the values and aspirations of Middle England. If anything they hold Conservative values more dearly (thick and thin during the Blair years) because their journey to relative security was full of adversity unlike for many of their 'indigenous' Middle England peers.

Meanwhile in Middle England

So many tory swing voters are busy and misinformed or both hence the polling issues. They are from older richer demographics and concerned with money primarily with mortgages and families. They have financial criteria of security that they like to see matched in the nation. These are the ones that swung it for the tories in the southern rural areas. This geographical quirk is important because the swing voters inhabit the region which is the most populous with the most constituencies. Labour only managed to win 11 southern seats outside of their stronghold of London.

Of course these swing voters will choose Labour if the conditions are right. Before Labour's 1997 landslide the tories were in disarray, tired after Thatcher's legacy of social and economic dysfunction. Blair opportunistically rode the wave of misguided optimism as Thatcher's heir with a smile. He was a dog-whistle to these voters who responded to his statesman-like hope, secretly glad his New Labour project had curbed its traditions and moved rightwards away from unionism and nationalisation. John Prescott stood out as the lone high-profile stereotypical northern working class representative.

They are not Blue Labour or Red Tory voters because they are not concerned about fair meritocratic society where anyone can climb-up. They're already on the ladder. Labour will now debate the merits of a New Labour renaissance versus a socialist anti-austerity agenda. But are the Middle England swing voters really listening if the tories continue to appeal.

How can they be convinced that they voted for a short-termist ideological cuts that will do little to improve wages and chronic UK productivity. Will they ask if the hedge fund-backed Conservatives are going to stop the bankers getting away with it again? Is inequality on their radar? Do they realise that it harms the well-off as well as the poor?  These are some of the arguments that need to be made in the next 5 years.

For us who want to real change in the broken system we must ask can all the blogs, memes, tropes and counter-misinformation combat the fact that ultimately a significant section of voters allow themselves to be passively sold the idea of stability, competency and greater wealth under a system that already broke not too long ago.

Please support the JSFU Facebook Page here and friend here

The UK Austerity Myth

All 3 UK mainstream parties (Conservatives, Labour and Liberal Democrats) and pretend protest party UKIP believe in some form of austerity. Since the 2008 global banking crisis which crashed the international economy austerity has become the consensus of most governments and institutions like the IMF.

It is intuitive to sell cuts to a public who are led to believe that running a country is like running a household. In hard times everyone can relate to the tightening of belts. We hear phrases like 'fix the roof while the sun is shining' and 'maxed out the credit card'. The whole extended metaphor is simplistic.

A country can borrow on global markets and print money via central banks. Debt and deficit are part of nations' finances because a global economy accommodates borrowing for investment. Households cannot use these tools and are not responsible for a population through which they can raise funds through taxation - if they dare. Still the austerity salespeople would like us to think this metaphor is valid.

What actually happens under austerity is a crisis of confidence that means banks stop lending, businesses stop employing and consumers stop buying and the whole household demand economy enters quicksand. Job numbers fall and with it income tax take. Is this ever mentioned by media vested interests?

Nobel-winning economist Paul Krugman writes:

So what happens if everyone simultaneously slashes spending in an attempt to pay down debt? The answer is that everyone’s income falls — my income falls because you’re spending less, and your income falls because I’m spending less. And, as our incomes plunge, our debt problem gets worse, not better.

And yet despite the austerity rhetoric the current UK government is actually spending more than in pre-recession days. In 2009 and the start of 2010 the UK was recovering from the the turmoil of the crash under Labour's  economic plan. Then the newly elected coalition started taking an axe to the UK finances leading to stuttering performance until 2013 when they realised what many knew, austerity was incorrect. The legacy is 2 years wasted and then a return to massive borrowing while hypocritically bashing Labour. 

After the 2008 bak bailouts prevented world finance from collapsing. It was necessary but then that is an indication of the broken global system of finance. Quantitative easing is the same socialism for the rich.

The scale of the support currently provided to UK banks has fallen from a peak of £955 billion to £512 billion, but the amount of cash currently borrowed by the Government to support banks has risen by £7 billion since December 2009. It is likely the taxpayer will be providing support for years to come.

So what have the coalition government done they have punished public sector workers, the low paid, and the vulnerable. Further pain would be felt if the Conservatives remain in power after the forthcoming election when they restart their already-failed-once austerity.

Meanwhile there is little sign of a deterrent in the Libor rate scandal (CORRECTION 1 since 2012) or for banks laundering drug money affecting billions.

Please support the JSFU Facebook Page here and friend here