No animals were harmed in the production of this blog post.

Following the disastrous result of last week’s election, here are a few preliminary thoughts on our current situation and on where we go from here.

Those of us with a progressive view of society have some very serious thinking to do. But first, it makes me think that our predicament for the next five years is very much like that of a dog dependent on its master for food, exercise and shelter. (Hence the title Dog Days.) Or, more accurately, in the words of Bruce Springsteen, “a dog that’s been beat too much”. The harsh reality is that any crumbs of comfort, in terms of government actions of which we approve, will be like scraps on the floor for the dog off his master’s table. We hope or beg. Get used to it.

So, Leave It Is

At risk of stating the blisteringly obvious, any hope of the UK remaining a member of the EU is gone. The same is true of the proposal for a People’s Vote: gone in one blow. So we formally leave at the end of next month and potentially crash out at the end of the transition period at the end of 2020. Johnson’s first pronouncement to make illegal any further extension to the transition period is childish, petulant and irresponsible: a harbinger of worse to come? And all this despite the fact the UK would now vote Remain: all recent opinion polls give a clear lead to Remain voters. And in the General Election, 53% of electors voted for parties with either a Remain or People’s Vote policy position. That’s called democracy – to some, anyway.

So the real battle on our hands becomes the nature of the partnership between the “sovereign” UK and the EU27. For “sovereign”, read “totally subservient to Trump and the USA and the weaker party in trade negotiations with the likes of China”. In the kindergarten language we have become inured to, soft Bullshit or hard Bullshit. So the fight is to argue for something least damaging to jobs and the economy: something like Labour was promising to put to a second vote if it gained power. It sounds a tough call, but we must try.

Reasons for Labour’s Worst Result

A letter writer in yesterday’s Guardian repeats a comment made by a coal mining colleague 60 years ago: “The Tories can tell lies much better than Labour can tell the truth”. Sadly, some things don’t change.

Many, many words have already been written and spoken about why Labour lost so heavily. The word “trust” has been repeated time and again. In no particular order of importance, factors include the distorting effect of the referendum aftermath, Labour losing touch with its traditional base in the North of England, the believability of the manifesto pledges, antisemitism and the Party’s handling of this and, of course, the character and background of Corbyn himself. If the party had stuck to its manifesto pledges (about which I got quite excited!) things would have been better. The extra policies that flowed were like throwing sweets from a moving van, in more and more desperation to be liked. It smacked of desperation and lost the Party credibility.

There is a case to answer for each factor: I will save any more detail for another time. One factor not listed above is the effect of the media. The “right-wing press” have been with us since the “Zinoviev letter” forgery and earlier. Grossly unfair that it is, nothing is going to change any time soon. More worrying is the dreadful performance of BBC News – other aspects of the BBC’s coverage have been better (Newsnight in particular: hail Emily Maitlis and Emma Barnett!) Laura Kuenssberg must go! Repeatedly retweeting Tory propaganda and lies without the most basic fact-checking is just one of several sackable offences. Sinisterly, all the BBC’s “errors” seemed to help the Tories. There has been a revolving door between the BBC news departments and Press Office / PR jobs in CCHQ. Deeply troublesome!

The jury is still out on the overall effect of social media, other than to say that the Tories’ posts, tweets and advertisements seemed to be mostly lies and their opponents’ mainly pointing out inconvenient truths. All this implies the need for a new Labour leader with the character to survive in this hostile landscape and build a believable position of trust. Another tough call!

Corbyn and Reflection

I don’t feel strongly about whether Corbyn stays on as leader of the Labour Party during the 3 months it takes to elect a new one. On balance, I would prefer him to go now and appoint a clearly neutral caretaker leader. Unlike Johnson, I believe Corbyn is an honourable, if stubborn, man. The necessary reflection must be carried out diligently, with active involvement of all wings of the party. Listening, including to ex-Labour voters, is a key part. Of more importance, if he were to stay in the interim, Corbyn must shed himself of the “comfort blanket” of his clique of immediate advisers and sycophants. Seamus Milne is an obvious example. Otherwise, any lessons learnt from a review will be tainted with the accusation that the conclusions will be biased by the current leadership.

Tories Old and New

There are many ways to classify the current batch of Tory MPs, new and old. Here are two of them.

Firstly, having got rid of the more sensible (i.e. reasonable) MPs in the last parliament, we can assume that we now either have Tory MPs who are “true believers” of Johnson’s far-right project – swivel-eyed lunatics like Gove, Rees-Mogg, Raab and Patel – and a rancid majority who throw away their principles for power. A dispiriting thought, but almost certainly true.

Secondly, Tory MPS can also be classified as those serving long-standing Tory-voting areas, mainly consisting of the better off and skewed to the home counties and those in former Labour seats in the Midlands and North where the anti-Labour swing was highest. It will be interesting to see how this latter group (a) will relate to their new constituents and (b) how, if at all, this affects Johnson’s policy stance.

The “Real” Johnson

After the 2016 Party conference, I wrote a post about Theresa May, Who May She Be? She was still something of an enigma, having revealed little about herself. Reading this post again, I find that it is about 80% correct but an important omission is any explicit reference to the “hostile environment”, a quintessentially May policy. In fact, it was not until my Hostile Means Nasty post nearly two years later when I first use the phrase. It’s easy to forget how quickly certain ideas pass into common usage.

And so to the man who will be Prime Minister for the next five years, barring unforeseen events: Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson. He still remains something of an enigma, but not because of any low profile. Rather, it’s mainly because of his pathological levels of narcissism. With his habitual lying and his “concern horizon” beginning and ending with himself, we have few clues as to predict how he will act when clearly no longer in campaign mode.

It is said that Johnson’s childhood ambition was to be “World King”. More realistically, as an adult he has aspired to be Prime Minister and his every move in recent years has been to that effect. He has now got what he wanted – and so, it would seem, have 29% of the electorate. (29% is The Tories’ vote share of 43.6% multiplied by the turnout of 67.3%.) Sadly, a third of us don’t seem to care.

So, what can we expect in this week’s Queen’s Speech? (We will know soon enough, but how much of it we believe is another matter.) Even his economic policies are unclear, as the manifesto’s back-of-the-fag-packet calculations (where they exist) give no clue. It all looks unsustainable: apparently higher spending in focus-group friendly areas combined with lower taxes. It doesn’t add up without borrowing at the levels spelled out in detail in the Labour manifesto. (Tory borrowing would be higher than Labour’s manifesto plans if we leave the EU with no deal at the end of 2020.)

“One Nation” or Divisive?

Johnson made some conciliatory noises on Friday about “One-Nation Conservatism”, suggesting a different approach from the pre-election version. But beware: Johnson’s past habitual lying and Tory right wingers’ past form should mean we take all this with a mighty pinch of salt. “Where there is discord, may we bring harmony. Where there is error, may we bring truth. Where there is doubt, may we bring faith. And where there is despair, may we bring hope.”  (M Thatcher, Downing Street 1979, on taking office). She then went on to become the most divisive PM of my lifetime, so far.

If we do get a more conciliatory Johnson now that he doesn’t need to kowtow to the DUP and the ERG, I guess we are expected to be grateful and submissive. Which takes us right back to the dog begging for scraps from the table.

But I do have one question. If Johnson crashes the UK out of the EU next December against the wishes of the majority of us, denies the Scots their vote and drives a wedge between GB and Ireland (in the form of border checks in the Irish Sea), how sustainable is that?

Cunning As a Fox

Finally, back to the Dog Days. Except, of course, we the people of the UK are not dogs. The masthead to my blog clearly shows that I do not have big, brown, pleading, doleful eyes! (Compare photos at the top!) More importantly, I hope, is that we, as people, have some self-respect.

So – changing animals rapidly – what do we need from a new Labour leader? The Guardian yesterday lists seven contenders (six women, one man): Rebecca Long-Bailey, Emily Thornberry, Keir Starmer, Angela Rayner, Jess Phillips, Lisa Nandy and Yvette Cooper. My instant gut reactions are as follows: my head says Keir Starmer, my heart Jess Phillips. But first we need a proper period of reflection, as mentioned earlier. For me, this includes doing proper research on all of the contenders before casting my vote – I might change my mind!

The combined forces of the Opposition Parties fall far short of the Tories’ MP count. But much can be achieved – or resisted – by the political equivalent of guerrilla warfare. This means we need an Opposition leader who can think on their feet, stand up to the bullies and call out the liars. Perhaps someone with the hearing of a bat, the roar of a lion and the cunning of a fox – but not Liam, of course!!

Reflect, listen, learn, organise!!