Left wing vs right wing politics in the UK explained

I'd like to explain the nature of left wing vs right wing politics in the UK for my Singaporean readers given that the concepts of left vs right wing aren't that clear in Singapore - in Singapore, the battles lines are drawn up simply according to whether you are pro-PAP or anti-PAP. Whereas in the UK, it is more a mindset about whether you identify with the left wing or the right wing when it comes to exercising your political right to vote. In my last piece about the situation in Germany, I did lay a lot of blame at the door of the left wing when it came to the badly mismanaged situation with the refugees there. Some of the comments left by my readers revealed that they didn't really understand how left vs right wing politics works. So in this piece, I'll explain this in a nutshell and spread some understanding.

A basic introduction to left vs right wing

Okay to begin with, do you know if you are left wing or right wing? It is never that simple - I find myself identifying with both the left and the right on different issues, so I usually claim that I am in the middle. If you are not sure what left wing/right wing politics imply, then I suggest you follow this link for a bit of reading (though I am sure the vast majority of my readers understand it well enough). In fact, there are online tests you can take to find out just where on the political spectrum your views lie, It breaks down your political views on two main issues: economic ones and social ones. So in my case, on the economic scale, I am very right wing indeed; but on the social scale, I am quite left wing - so that makes it pretty difficult for me to describe myself as classically right or left wing. If you are not sure whether you are left or right wing, why not take such a test and find out a bit more about yourself?

In spite of the complexity of choosing a side, most voters in the UK manage to somehow simplify the process and self-identify with either the left or the right at elections because you usually can only vote for one candidate, thus you ultimately forced to make a choice. How each person ultimately makes that choice is usually a compromise: for example, most people usually just default to the one issue that matters most to them and ignore everything else. So for example, if you have a parent in ill-health, then you may vote for the party with the best policy on healthcare even though you may disagree with them on everything else from their stance on the environment to immigration to education. Another way voters choose is to simply default to the cult of personality: they may vote for a candidate simply because they either like the candidate or the party leader. These are the voters who probably don't spend too much time contemplating each party's policies in great detail and they simply treat an election like a big reality TV contest whereby they get to pick whom they like best. This may go some way to explain why Labour did so badly at the last elections, because their former leader Ed Milliband was so geeky and awkward with the media - even if he may have had good policies, many voters decided against voting Labour because he lacked charm, wasn't photogenic and handsome enough. Ouch. Poor Ed Milliband. It is harsh but true - welcome to the very unforgiving nature of politics.

Most British voters also tend to vote like their parents - that's not always the case, but it is often the case. Think about it: parents tend to impose their political views on their children, some children may grow up to disagree with their parents in spite of this, but many do end up voting for the same party as their parents. Traditionally, the working class would tend to support left wing parties like Labour whilst the more affluent middle class would support the Conservatives (aka the Tories, the main right wing party). There has also been a recent trend for affluent, city-dwelling, liberal, younger people to be quite left wing. So it is really quite hard to predict which party your British friends will vote for: if you were to allow me to sit down with someone and ask them a few questions, I would usually be able to figure it out pretty quickly even if I don't ask them point-blank whom they had voted for in the last election. This boils down to the way people tend to make that ultimate choice based on that one issue which is most important to them.

Now here's the thing about British voters who become unhappy with the party they support: they would usually vote for another party but still from the same side of the political divide and rarely ever from the other side of the divide. Let's look at the case study of Scotland in last year's general election: Scotland is generally quite left wing, Labour has always done pretty well in Scotland. What happened when Scottish Labour supporters got incredibly fed up with Labour? They voted instead for the SNP, another left wing party (instead of say the Tories, the main right wing party). As much as these ex-Labour voters wanted to send a message to the Labour party, they are still very left wing at heart and thus would never vote for a right wing party. British voters rarely ever cross the left wing-right wing political divide: in fact, this concept of the 'protest vote' to punish Labour propelled the Liberal Democrats into a coalition government with the Tories in 2010, with their then leader Nick Clegg holding the post of Deputy Prime Minister from 2010 to 2015.

Mhairi Black of the SNP - one of the youngest MPs ever.

This is bad news for Labour and very good news for the Tories - there are far more parties occupying the center to left end of the political spectrum and even the Tories, whom most consider right wing, prefer to call themselves center-right (as if they are almost ashamed of being right wing). So Labour has many other British parties to compete with on the left: the SNP, the Liberal Democrats, Plaid Cymru, Social Democrats, the Greens, Respect whilst the Tories really only have one true opponent on the right: UKIP. I will talk more about the phenomena of UKIP later but you can see why Labour has an uphill struggle with far more opponents to lose votes to than the Tories. Past Labour triumphs at the general elections have depended on their very good results in Scotland and given the way the SNP has effectively taken control of virtually all of Scotland, Labour has no hope of ever getting into power again until the SNP well and truly screws up. I'm talking about a scandal on an epic scale that well and truly discredits the SNP for a generation - but guess what? The SNP are doing pretty well for now and that's very, very bad news for Labour. They simply cannot win a general election without Scotland - it is a statistical impossibility, do the maths. In short, Labour is doomed for a generation at least. My left wing friends are in denial and will disagree with me, but the statistics are pretty clear.

Wait a minute, I hear you say: it wasn't that long ago that Labour was in government, many of us remember the Blair-Brown era, so why can't they do it again? It is true that Labour did win three consecutive elections under Blair (1997, 2001, 2005) despite being highly unpopular following the way he was extremely close to George W Bush over the war on terror. Blair did have one quality that Ed Milliband sorely lacked: Blair had charm, he was able to convince people to do things his way (even if, in hindsight, it was a bad decision). That was how he became one of the UK's youngest PMs (he was first elected in 43), the longest serving prime minister and the only Labour PM to win three consecutive elections. Blair's vision of "new Labour" moved Labour to occupy the center ground, away from the kind of extreme left politics which made Labour untouchable and unelectable during the Thatcher-Major era. Corbyn however, has moved Labour firmly to the left again - the opposite of what Blair did. The economy boomed under Blair, so as long as the British people had food on the table and plenty of money in the bank, they were happy enough to ignore Blair's other mistakes. So unless Labour can find another charismatic young leader to reinvent themselves, there is no way they can make an impact under Corbyn: do the maths. You need to appeal to enough voters to win an election and you do that from the center, not the extreme left. That was the formula that Tony Blair used to secure his three victories.

What ideas will appeal to the British electorate?

The Tories simply have way too many safe seats in England to prevent Labour winning enough seats to form a majority government - allow me to explain what a 'safe seat' is. We're talking about an area that always votes for a party without fail, regardless of circumstances.  I live in a Tory safe seat - the Cities of London and Westminster. That means that the Tory candidate will always win by a pretty large majority - my MP Mark Field won by a margin of 30% over his nearest rival at the 2010 elections. That was an even bigger margin than in 2005 and 2001, when he won by a 22.2% margin. This was despite the fact that his first marriage ended with a divorce in 2006 after he had an affair during the period 2004-5. Ironically, the affair and divorce didn't affect Mark Field's popularity at all and sure enough, he celebrated yet another victory in 2015. I had a look at the records for my constituency and we've only had Tory MPs, we have never ever elected a non-Tory MP in this constituency.

But let me talk about UKIP now - they have been around since 1991, but nobody took them even half seriously till about 2004 when they started getting quite good results in the European elections. It was around that time when the main political parties started viewing them as a serious threat and they have been growing in strength ever since. They are a right wing party with a simple anti-EU, anti-immigration message. Personally, I don't trust them as I think they do not offer real solutions: even if you get the UK out of the EU and slam the door shut on migrants, then what? You still need comprehensive policies on everything else from education to housing to the environment to the economy to be an effective party in politics - yet they seem to go on and on about just the EU and migrants. They use the EU and migrants as a scapegoat for all the ills of society, but they don't have any real solutions beyond blaming migrants.

UKIP doesn't really offer any real solutions to complex problems.

Yet they have become very popular - why? Like I explained earlier, many voters make their decision on just one issue: so those who are concerned about the influx of migrant workers from poorer EU countries will gladly support UKIP (and ignore all other issues), whilst those who want to shut the door on migrants altogether will also support UKIP for UKIP has taken the toughest stance against immigration compared to all the other mainstream parties. Using this simple strategy, by taking the strongest stance on the issue of the EU and immigration, UKIP has succeeded in doing something that is rarely ever seen in politics (not just in the UK, but in any country): they are a right wing party that has effectively persuaded a lot of single-issue voters who used to vote for Labour to switch sides and cross from the left to the right. Such is the rising appeal of anti-immigration parties across Europe these days - there are those on the left who feel that immigration is getting out of hand, but if their party leaders won't listen to them, then it may just push them to the point where they will support a party like UKIP.

So why is UKIP's phenomenal success such a significant game changer then? Let's start with the way it affects the split of vote between Labour and Tories: both parties have reason to be worried about UKIP as both parties have lost supporters to UKIP. But how do they react? Quite differently. Labour cannot afford to be seen to be anti-immigration like UKIP (Corbyn is all for welcoming a lot more Syrian refugees), doing so may piss off their traditional left wing supporters who have always had a very liberal attitude on the issue of migration; if they push too hard on the issue, they risk losing even more voters to other left wing parties. Thus they can only go on the offensive and attack UKIP for their shameful, racist and xenophobic attitude on the issue and hope that the message resonates with enough British voters. The Tories on the other hand, are worried that their supporters will desert them for UKIP if they are not seen to be right wing enough on the issue of immigration: thus their response? The Tories are trying to out-UKIP UKIP on the issue of immigration, in an effort to persuade their right wing supporters that the Tories have got immigration under control and that there is just no need to take a gamble with UKIP just to fix the problem of uncontrolled immigration.

Politics: the ultimate popularity contest

There is much talk about the Tories being the nasty party - nobody likes to be labeled "nasty", yet in this context, it does serve the Tories well to be labeled nasty and they are probably silently thanking their left wing opponents for calling them nasty. There is a segment of the electorate that the Tories will never ever convince: those are the people who will always vote for a left wing party and would rather just not vote than to ever vote Tory. It is nearly impossible to try to get them to cross over and vote for the other side, so the Tories don't even bother trying to woo them at all for it is a lost cause. What they focus on instead, is the segment of the voters who do vote right wing and may choose UKIP instead of Tory because the Tories aren't nasty enough for their liking. So in that context, it doesn't serve the Tories at all to appear to be nice - they need to appear to be pretty nasty in order to safeguard their seats in government. Such is the complex nature of politics - being nice doesn't help you win, but being nasty does.

What does this tell you about British society then? It goes to show that some British people are indeed very concerned about controlling immigration. Most British voters do not understand the complex nature of the relationship between the EU and the government, about how the EU impacts on the laws that are used in the UK. What they can see, however, are the immediate impacts of immigration: the high streets in many cities have changed with the emergence of shops and business opened by these migrants and catering specifically to the migrant communities. Migrants have been employed in various businesses, so British workers have had to adjust to a multi-ethnic, multi-lingual international work environment. The migrants have arrived in huge numbers under the last Labour government and  have made their presence felt. Now I must state that I don't think this is a bad thing - just an inevitable part of the UK being an attractive place to live, hence attracting all these migrants; but many working class Labour voters have been threatened by this change and thus pander to the rhetoric of "these Eastern European migrants stealing their jobs".

The British have mixed feelings about migrants.

Statistically, that means two things: that Tories are guaranteed a victory at the next election either by winning outright, or forming a coalition with UKIP. Both scenarios will see the Tories lurching to the right (something that Theresa May has already demonstrated with her clamp down on migrants settling in the UK) and of course, that will mean one thing: the Tory government will be committing political suicide if they let in more Syrian migrants in light of the serious problems experienced in countries like Germany and Sweden. The Tories' self-interest will trump any kind of compassion for the refugees, thus the UK has taken in barely 1000 refugees as a token gesture last year as opposed to Germany's figure of 1,1 million. Remember what I said about being nasty in British politics? These Tories actually do want to be perceived as the nasty party particularly on the issue of refugees, for it will keep them in power. So yes, the UK's stance on refugees will be determined by what will keep the Tories in power for the next few elections, rather than a willingness of British society to accommodate the refugees and thus this issue will be determined by a small number of voters who may defect from the Tories to UKIP - and this small group people really hate refugees. Is this fair? Probably not. But is this democracy? Ironically, yes, that is how our democracy works - go figure.

Where does this leave me as a British voter then? Well, little has changed. I am actually going to be moving from a Tory safe seat to a Labour safe seat, so my vote is hardly going to make any difference when I move. As explained before, my social attitudes are left wing, but my economic attitudes are right wing: I have always defaulted though to just one or two issues when I vote and thus have given my votes to the Liberal Democrats over the years (and yes, I was thrilled when Nick Clegg became DPM back in 2010). However, I realize they are a spent force in British politics now but I will probably go on voting for them. If the Tories want to win my vote, they will have to show me that they have the economy under control whilst being very liberal on social issues like gay rights. Cameron championed gay marriage and introduced it, that is why I do like him as a PM, but I am less convinced about the Tories' track record on the economy. However, do I think that Labour would do a better job on the economy? No, I don't, certainly not under Corbyn. As an immigrant, I would never support UKIP and I suppose it is a bit selfish of me to think that I got into the UK way before UKIP was ever taken seriously. I am relieved that the UK isn't following Germany and Sweden's open door policy when it comes to accepting refugees, but the door should still be left open for the highly skilled migrants.

So that's it from me on this issue. I hope I have done this complex issue justice - I can write a lot more of course, but I will open it up now for questions from my readers and let's have a discussion about it please. Many thanks for reading.