LyrArc Article Gist
Erlanger and Castle look at the reasons given for the resounding defeat of the Labor party in 2016 British elections. Mr. Blair's view is that Labor as a traditional left wing party going against a right wing party produces a traditional result, reflects the Thatcher years when Britain was looking for a new way forward after the previous Labor governments and state involvement in the economy. More forces were at work in this election, say experts. Peter Mandelson of the Labor party and Bloomberg Editor-in-Chief Micklethwait, say other forces are at work, with Scottish nationalism depriving Labor of a core constituency it had relied on, with 40 seats in the 2010 elections going down to 1 in 2015 general election. English nationalism meant the only gains for Labor in England came from Liberal Democrats not from Conservatives. Cameron appealed to Englsih voters that a Labor left oriented government in alliance with the Scottish National Party, which is more to the left than Labor, would be bad for England. Other commentators have suggested that liberal economics of the type espoused by Blair and Gordon Brown had failed to reduce inequality or improve living standards of working class people, led Britain into the 2008-2009 financial crisis, and lost credibility. Globalization, the decline of heavy industry in Scotland, and other changes in the global economy have also changed the playing field. The Conservatives showed flexibility in relaxing deficit rules after 2012, and were intent on protecting the National Health Service, giving their campaign theme about putting Britain on the right path to economic recovery more credibility. Other issues such as immigration also played out against Labor, hurting labor more than the Conservatives, with the defeat of Labor's Ed Balls in Leeds attributed to the increased votes going to the UK Independence Party from working class and centrist voters. In the end Labor received only 30.1% of the popular vote.