“Labour’s victory could potentially influence the Chagos Archipelago dispute, but the outcome remains uncertain”

‘The Labour government will need to navigate diplomatic relations with both Mauritius and the US, as well as domestic political considerations’

Interview: Dr Sean Carey, Senior Research Fellow, University of Manchester

* ‘Rishi Sunak’s main problem was that the Conservative Party brand was damaged beyond repair. He didn’t really stand a chance of winning the election’

* ‘Stability is dependent on robust institutions… once those institutions start to crack or fray, then the nation is in trouble’

In this week’s interview, we delve into the recent UK elections with Dr Sean Carey, a senior research fellow at the University of Manchester’s School of Social Sciences. Dr Carey, who has contributed articles on Mauritius to a range of esteemed publications including African Arguments, African Business, New African, and The Guardian, provides a nuanced examination of the factors influencing the election outcomes. He scrutinizes whether the results were predominantly shaped by shortcomings within the Conservative Party or by Labour’s strategic positioning. Beyond dissecting these party dynamics, Dr Carey offers profound insights into how socio-economic factors have influenced voter decisions and the implications this holds not only for the UK but also for other countries, including Mauritius. His analysis extends to the evolving landscape of international relations, highlighting how electoral shifts in one nation can resonate globally.

Mauritius Times: What do the results of the last elections in the UK reveal: Was it primarily Labour’s success or the Conservatives’ shortcomings or failings that shaped the outcome?

Dr Sean Carey: The Conservatives’ shortcomings were the main driver of the general election result. After 14 years of Conservative rule, voters were acutely aware of the problems: difficulties accessing NHS services, high mortgage rates for homeowners, unaffordable housing for young people, river and sea pollution, and widespread potholes. The list of complaints against the government was extensive.

Even so, Keir Starmer and the Labour Party remained an enigma for large parts of the electorate. Many complained that they didn’t know what the leader and his party stood for. Still, Starmer came across as the upright, professional lawyerly person he is. So, he did engender a level of trust even though his offering to the electorate remained somewhat opaque. Andrew Marr, former BBC political editor, editor of The Independent, and now a radio show host, summed up Starmer by saying that he’s the sort of guy who would make a good neighbour, but he’s not much of a storyteller. 

The Liberal Democrats, led by Ed Davey, also ran an intriguing campaign, and were rewarded with 72 MPs, the highest number of Liberal or LibDem MPs for over a century. Some commentators criticised Davey for his stunts – paddle boarding and bungee jumping. Yet it worked in getting the attention of the voters, especially Conservative voters who would never vote for the Labour Party. In addition, his campaigning for carers also struck a chord.

* Contexts are also crucial in shaping electoral outcomes. Would you say that the key factors – whether political or socio-economic – contributing to Labour’s victory, marking their return to power after 14 years in opposition, specific to the UK, or do they have relevance to other countries as well?

That’s an excellent question. I’m always reminded of the late philosopher and social anthropologist Ernest Gellner’s claim that the duty of democratic governments is to create affluence, that is, to deliver economic growth. With his tongue firmly planted in his cheek, Gellner called economic growth the “universal bribery fund” – in other words, it bought off dissent so long as the proceeds were distributed reasonably fairly.

In fact, Gellner raised the question in the 1990s about what would happen if economic growth stalled or went into reverse in the modern era. He died before he could get the answer, but those of us who are still around know that the banking crisis or Great Recession of 2007-08 produced exactly those circumstances that Gellner speculated about. And we are still living with the consequences. The rise of the far-right in many European countries is directly connected to those recessionary years and the aftermath of low economic growth.

In the UK’s case, Labour’s victory can be seen as a response to economic stagnation and perceived mismanagement under Conservative rule. This pattern of voters turning to opposition parties during economic downturns is indeed relevant to many other countries, as seen in recent elections across Europe and beyond. Labour’s challenges now will be to deliver economic growth and fair distribution, which Gellner identified as crucial for maintaining democratic stability.

* How was Rishi Sunak’s leadership of the Conservative Party perceived? Was he seen as inexperienced, suitable for the role of Chancellor but not for the top leadership position?

I believe Rishi Sunak’s main problem was that the Conservative Party brand was damaged beyond repair by the time he achieved the post of Prime Minister. His predecessor Liz Truss’s brief tenure and attempt at restructuring the economy in line with her free-market principles managed to destabilise everything so profoundly that he didn’t really stand a chance of winning the election. Interest rates had rocketed, and everyone who had or wanted a mortgage suffered enormously. Also, while Sunak is conscientious, he’s also a bit of a nerd. That’s probably a good quality for a chancellor of the exchequer who needs to do a lot of number crunching, but not if you’re Prime Minister, which calls for a different set of talents.

* It seems that public sentiment was indeed unfavourable towards what Stephen Coleman, Professor of Political Communication at the University of Leeds, referred to as the “wreckage of the UK’s social infrastructure.” Furthermore, dissatisfaction with the government’s management of the country, especially during the Covid-19 pandemic, and the repercussions of the Partygate scandal all played significant roles in shaping voter attitudes. What are your thoughts on these factors?

Indeed, those factors you mention played crucial roles in shaping voter attitudes. The perceived decay of social infrastructure, mismanagement during the Covid-19 pandemic, and the Partygate scandal all contributed significantly to public dissatisfaction with the Conservative government.

I recall the late economist and commentator JK Galbraith commenting about what he called Mrs Thatcher’s economic experiment, saying that if you wanted to do such an experiment, Britain was probably the place to do it because of its inherent stability. So even if the experiment went wrong – which I would argue it did because the Thatcher government destroyed so much of the manufacturing sector – the country would remain relatively stable. But, of course, that stability was and is dependent on robust institutions – the NHS, the education system, law and order, parliamentary democracy, infrastructure and so on. But once those institutions start to crack or fray, then the nation is in trouble.

Many British politicians use the term “broken” to describe what has happened. For example, Wes Streeting, the new health secretary, described the NHS as “broken” when campaigning. Of course, it’s a metaphor – there are large parts of the NHS that function very efficiently – but it’s a very effective metaphor if you’re an opposition politician because you’re blaming the government for everything that’s gone wrong. And in a democracy, allocating blame and making it stick is part of the game.

You ask about Partygate. Constitutional historian Peter Hennessy described the way British politics works as being dependent on the “good chaps” theory of government. That is, while politicians go about their business strategically, trying to win the game they are playing, the ambiguities of the British constitution – the absence of clear legal rules, in other words – means that by convention people abide by the implicit or tacit rules, otherwise, chaos ensues. They are, after all, good chaps. But that all changed when Boris Johnson was elected as prime minister. Using Hennessy’s definition, Johnson was definitely not a good chap. He was someone who not only bent the rules but also enjoyed bending the rules. By doing so, he derived an enormous amount of psychic satisfaction while simultaneously expressing political power.

So, many voters who did abide by the rules imposed by Johnson’s government because of the Covid-19 pandemic and, for example, couldn’t even say a final farewell to their loved ones dying of the virus, made up their minds about Johnson at that point in time. And when it came to putting X on the ballot paper last week, they didn’t forget what had happened.

It wasn’t just Partygate, of course. The aftermath of the Brexit vote and Johnson’s decision to go after a hard Brexit also influenced last week’s vote. The country was deeply divided at the time of the Brexit referendum, with those supporting EU exit achieving only a narrow majority. Since then, many people who voted for Brexit have changed their minds, largely because the universal bribery fund – to use Gellner’s term – is no longer as full. This is partly due to reduced inward investment, which has caused economic growth to falter. In fact, the British economy has been flatlining for years.

This economic stagnation became a source of grievance, particularly for those in more affluent areas of the country – notably London and most of the south-east – who had enjoyed a comfortable, cosmopolitan lifestyle and outlook. These voters, in particular, were resistant to being governed by what they perceived as small-minded British nationalists, as represented by those on the right of the Conservative Party who were anxious not to be outflanked by Nigel Farage’s Reform UK.

Moreover, people began to question the tangible benefits of Brexit. Many asked where the promised post-Brexit trade deals were. While the UK did secure agreements with a small number of nations, nothing of real economic significance materialised. The much touted ‘Global Britain’ seemed more aspirational than real. Perhaps most disappointingly for Brexit supporters, the prospect of a free trade deal with the United States – often presented as a major benefit of leaving the EU – did not happen. The Biden administration made it clear early on that it wasn’t interested in pursuing such a deal with UK.

* However, the electoral system played a significant role in the outcome last week. The Labour Party secured 63% of the seats with only 34% of the national vote, similar to how the MSM won 63% of seats in 2019 with just 37% of the votes. This disparity raises questions about fairness, doesn’t it?

Yes, this disparity certainly raises questions about fairness in the electoral system.

I remember being somewhat startled by a lecture given by my politics professor at Newcastle University, Hugh Berrington, who argued against proportional representation. He claimed that in a democracy, it was better to have a strong government than a weak one, asserting that coalitions invariably lead to weak governments due to constant compromise. He believed it was preferable for a strong government to enact policies decisively – and if they didn’t work out, the government could be rejected at the next election. This view surprised me, as I had assumed that all experts in the British constitution would favour proportional representation.

Unsurprisingly, parties like the Liberal Democrats and now Reform UK advocate for a change to proportional representation to increase their parliamentary representation. When questioned this week about whether such a system would lead to an increase in far-right representatives, Ed Davey stated that, as a democrat, he believed democracy often meant tolerating people you disagree with politically. This is a compelling argument, even if it puts me at odds with Hugh Berrington’s view. It’s worth noting that a small number of Labour Party MPs have consistently argued for proportional representation on the grounds of fairness.

While Mauritius, like the UK, is known for its functioning democracy, it faces similar questions about electoral fairness. Despite differences in political dynamics – including factors like class, ethnicity and the rural-urban split – Mauritius also grapples with representational issues. Coalitions are commonplace in Mauritius because none of the three main parties – the MSM, the MMM, and the Labour Party – typically win an outright majority. What’s common to both nations, however, is the peaceful transfer of power at election time because there are enough “good chaps”, as Peter Hennessy might say.

Nevertheless, political parties benefiting from the First-Past-The-Post system are often reluctant to surrender their advantage. So, this tension between fairness and political pragmatism is a challenge faced by both the UK and Mauritius, highlighting the ongoing debate in established democracies. While it’s not my place as a non-Mauritian to prescribe electoral arrangements, these issues of fairness and representation are crucial for any democracy to continually address and evaluate.

* Considering the outcomes produced by the FPTP system in the recent elections, do you foresee a broad consensus among British political parties to transition towards a more equitable electoral system? Or do you believe that achieving change in such matters remains inherently challenging?

As I just said, it’s obviously not in the interests of political parties who benefit from the First-Past-The-Post system to change it. In 2011, because of the coalition deal between the Conservatives led by David Cameron and the Liberal Democrats led by Nick Clegg, there was a referendum on the Westminster First-Past-The-Post electoral system (FPTP) but the voters decisively decided to reject the Alternative Vote (AV).

Referendums in the UK are very infrequent, not least because of the assumption that parliamentary democracy is paramount. In fact, many people, including the then-chancellor George Osborn, advised Cameron not to have a referendum on Brexit in 2016, partly on the basis that the citizens might favour leaving the EU, which Osborn firmly opposed, and partly that these sorts of issues should be debated and decided in parliament.

* On the other hand, there is also the phenomenon relating to the rise of the far-right with varying levels of electoral support in Europe – a complex phenomenon driven by economic grievances, immigration concerns, security fears, dissatisfaction with mainstream politics, cultural anxieties, and historical contexts. While many of these factors are present in the UK as well, the country has nevertheless experienced a political shift towards the left. What’s your perspective on this?

I think this shift to the left in the UK reflects the structure of the current political system. People are voting against the incumbent, and they have a limited number of choices about where to go. There’s also the fact that since the Second World War, Labour had a good track record of building and maintaining key institutions like the NHS and education system, which resonates with many voters’ everyday concerns.

Interestingly, Keir Starmer, who came to politics relatively late in life, started off more to the left (serving in Jeremy Corbyn’s shadow cabinet) and then tracked towards the centre. It does seem that elections in the UK are won on the centre ground – whether that’s slightly to the left or slightly to the right. Which makes it interesting that most of the leading contenders to succeed Rishi Sunak, including Suella Braverman, Priti Patel and Robert Jenrick, are pitching to the right in order not to be outflanked by Reform UK. Nevertheless, the voters who will elect the next leader are Conservative Party members, not the electorate as a whole.

* What are the immediate and long-term implications of these election results for the UK’s economy, society, and international standing?

The immediate implications of these election results are likely to be a period of economic uncertainty as the new Labour government grapples with the country’s dire financial situation.

Several commentators, including Paul Johnson of the influential Institute of Fiscal Studies (IFS), have warned that the country’s economic outlook is challenging. During the election campaign, Johnson pointed out that neither Conservatives nor Labour were being fully transparent about the sources of funding for public services. In the short term, the economy will be a primary focus. New chancellor Rachel Reeves is pinning her hopes on economic growth as the alternative – increased taxation when rates are already at historically high levels. She might get lucky – there are already signs that the economy is growing, and her reputation as a “proper economist” could instill confidence in the business community, at least initially.

However, if growth fails to materialise, the government may face difficult choices that could impact social programmes and potentially fuel political discontent.

* With Labour’s victory, how might UK-EU relations evolve, particularly in terms of trade, immigration, and diplomatic engagements?

With Labour’s victory, UK-EU relations are likely to evolve towards a more cooperative stance, albeit without dramatic changes to the current Brexit arrangement. While serving in Jeremy Corbyn’s cabinet, Keir Starmer was vehemently in favour of re-joining the EU. However, he has adjusted his strategy to align with the political reality of the 2016 referendum.

In terms of trade, we can expect efforts to smooth out the rough edges of the Brexit deal, potentially seeking to reduce friction in current arrangements without rejoining the customs union or single market. On immigration, Labour might pursue a balanced approach, addressing labour shortages while trying to maintain control over borders. Diplomatically, it’s certain that Labour will strike a more constructive tone in engagements with the EU.

However, Starmer’s desire to serve two terms may make him reluctant to change direction too drastically. The real test will come if economic growth alters and funding for essential services becomes scarce. While around 90 per cent of British economists view Brexit negatively, and Starmer likely agrees, he is politically constrained in addressing this. Yet, changing economic circumstances could alter his political calculations, potentially leading to closer alignment with the EU if it becomes economically necessary.

* Given Labour’s historical stance on the Chagos Archipelago issue, how might the election results influence UK-Mauritius relations and the ongoing dispute?

The Labour victory could potentially influence UK-Mauritian relations and the Chagos Archipelago dispute, but the outcome remains uncertain. The dispute originates from the UK’s decision to separate the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius prior to granting independence in 1968, a move that has been contested ever since. Labour’s historical stance on the issue has been mixed. While some Labour politicians, like Robin Cook, favoured swift resolution and the return of the exiled Chagossians, others, such as Jack Straw and David Miliband, took actions to block the right of return. Recent international rulings have largely supported Mauritius’s position, including the 2019 International Court of Justice advisory opinion and the 2021 International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea judgement, both of which called for the UK to end its administration of the archipelago.

The approach of the new foreign secretary, David Lammy, will be crucial. Former British High Commissioner to Mauritius David Snoxell, in a recent letter to The Guardian, cited a speech Lammy delivered in July 2023 at the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law. During this address, Lammy demanded ‘a new settlement that brings the UK into compliance with international law, redresses the historical injustices done to the Chagossians… and meets strategic security concerns’. This points to a possible change in direction towards a more accommodating position.

While both Starmer and Lammy may be considered ‘good chaps’ in terms of respecting democratic norms, as per Peter Hennessy’s definition, this alone may not be sufficient to resolve the complex Chagos issue. The Labour government will need to navigate diplomatic relations with both Mauritius and the US, as well as domestic political considerations, in addressing this longstanding dispute. Accordingly, using all available avenues, Mauritius should intensify its diplomatic pressure on the recently elected Labour administration including bilateral negotiations, international forums, and engagement with civil society and the media.

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 12 July 2024