The Tribune

Britain’s historic General Election last week turned out to be nothing short of an earthquake that may have changed the political map of the nation for a generation. For the first time, Labour Party supporters in its traditional, working-class heartlands in the North-East and Midlands areas of the country have voted Tory.

The Conservative Party, led by sitting Prime Minister Boris Johnson, routed Labour as the main opposition and secured an 80-seat overall majority. The Scottish Nationalist Party, which now dominates the political landscape north of the border, was the only one of the other opposition parties to make any gains.

This was the largest majority for the Tories since the 1987 election won by former Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher - and the result meant Labour won the lowest number of seats since 1935, with the British people clearly rejecting Left-wing extremism in a highly regulated socialist state.

Mr Johnson, who gained two terms as Mayor of London and seems to excel in winning elections, pulled off a breathtaking victory in pulverising his Labour rival, Jeremy Corbyn, into ignominious submission. The unreliability of the pre-election polls was shown up once more as they had been predicting a small Tory majority or even a hung parliament. Despite all their statistical analysis, it seems they failed to factor in a fundamental element which was becoming increasingly evident; namely, that the mood of the country had changed.

Normal people dealing with real life outside the Westminster parliamentary bubble had become sick and tired of the political class who had failed to resolve the issue of Britain’s departure from the European Union after a majority - albeit a small one - had voted in the 2016 EU referendum to leave. Labour, in particular, was seen to be obstructing the will of the people by ignoring the referendum result which they had committed to honouring at the time of the 2017 election. The party’s call for a second referendum went down like a lead balloon and it paid the price for prevaricating over Brexit, with the people taking sweet revenge.

Although this election was primarily about Brexit - and the catchy phrase about getting Brexit done which, reportedly, Mr Johnson himself coined, resonated with many people - there were, of course, many other issues as well. So the Tory victory appears to have induced a feeling of relief across the country not only because the Brexit logjam of the last three and a half years has been broken, but because the danger of Britain being damaged by a hard-Left government - and bankrupted by its socialist policies - has been lifted. It also seems to have created a sense of stability, direction and certainty, though many will say it all depends on how this Tory victory is consolidated by real and effective action.

The outcome of the election was a personal triumph for the Prime Minister but it was surely also a victory for freedom and democracy. It reflected the basic decency and common sense of British people who were unimpressed by Labour’s extremist policies. It showed there is a huge divide between the radical Left and - apparently - everyone else and that working-class voters, in particular, want a patriotic and competent government. They have rejected state control, nationalisation and a threat to free enterprise together with the danger of leaving NATO and giving up the nation’s nuclear deterrent.

They seem to prefer the Tory economic policies of boosting small businesses, improving productivity, reducing regulation and lowering taxes. Moreover, they were not happy with Mr Corbyn whom, given his background as a terrorist sympathiser, people felt they could not trust with the nation’s security, and some also thought he did not possess the right qualities to operate as the leader of the nation on the world stage.

In his election victory speech, Mr Johnson used his customary colourful language in saying “... this election means that getting Brexit done is now the irrefutable, irresistible and unarguable decision of the British people” – classic Boris Johnson, but words matter and everyone can now be confident the Brexit crisis has been finally resolved because the people have spoken on the issue for the second time. Britain will formally leave the EU by January 31 next year. This means taking back control of the country’s laws, money and borders in the way the majority wanted in the referendum.

What will follow is the hammering out of the terms of a future trading relationship between the UK and the EU with a view to completing a transition period by December, 2020 - and, in tandem, Britain will be able to negotiate new trade agreements with the rest of the world including, most importantly, with the US and countries like Canada, Australia and New Zealand among many others. In trade negotiations with the EU the UK’s hand has been significantly strengthened, and that is none too soon after Britain suffered from being very much the supplicant over the last few years.

With its thumping majority and the possibility of ruling for the next 10 years, the new Conservative government has a chance to set Britain on a bold and radical new path, bringing about a social and economic overhaul. It is now being reported that, apart from Brexit, its priorities will be improvement of the National Health Service and social care, immigration reform, crime, education and new investment in infrastructure, particularly in the North where the Prime Minister has already made a whirlwind tour of what were a so-called impregnable “Red Wall” of formerly safe Labour seats and are now in Tory hands. He was there to thank them for supporting him. In doing so, he stressed the importance of One Nation policies and the need to heal the divisions of the last few years - and he is calling his new government “the people’s government” (perhaps he got the idea from the FNM!)

Be that as it may, amid all the hullabaloo after this extraordinary election, I believe the most important factor in the success of the Conservatives was Mr Johnson himself. Despite his claimed privileged background, he managed to portray himself as a classless figure who was friendly and optimistic and could relate to a wide range of people and make them laugh while convincing them he really cared about their concerns. He also displayed that vital quality for a politician of being able to speak directly to people without any hint of condescension. So, he is receiving all the plaudits while Mr Corbyn is being blamed for the debacle suffered by Labour which is now shell-shocked and divided and will have to regroup by rejecting the hard-Left.

I think deep down Britain remains a patriotic and conservative (with a small “c”) nation whose people overall are honest, pragmatic and tolerant. They do not like to be disregarded, patronised and told what to do by bigots and bullies - either by their own politicians or by unelected bureaucrats in Brussels. As One Nation Tories, the new government will doubtless now seek to unite the country and pursue policies across-the-board that will meet the needs and concerns of as wide a cross section of people as possible.

How the political landscape in Britain has suddenly changed. The Prime Minister has gained great power. But with that comes great responsibility. Let us hope this new power will be exercised wisely and that he and his colleagues will live up to their promise to bring the country together and to spread opportunity to every corner of the land.

From peace icon to pariah

An important international story that does not seem to be receiving much media attention is the current hearing at the International Court of Justice in The Hague in the Netherlands of accusations against the nation of Myanmar about its persecution of its Muslim Rohingya minority. Apart from publicity about the plight of the Rohingya refugees fleeing to neighbouring Bangladesh, the ICJ hearing is particularly significant because the person defending Myanmar against charges of genocide is none other than Aung San Suu Kyi who holds the post of State Counsellor and is the de facto head of government. The supreme irony of this is she is now defending the same military commanders who kept her under house arrest for some 15 years.

Recently, there has been strong and damning evidence of a military-led campaign of ethnic cleansing amounting to genocide against the Rohingya people, including use of brutal violence resulting in the deaths of thousands. This has been confirmed by the United Nations which has labelled it a textbook case of such ethnic cleansing.

At the ICJ hearing last week, Aung San Suu Kyi testified the genocide claims were misleading and she denied Myanmar’s armed forces were guilty of such persecution of the Rohingya ethnic minority. Specifically, she denied the army had killed and raped civilians or torched houses in 2017. She told the court the exodus of hundreds of thousands of refugees to Bangladesh was the unfortunate result of battles with Muslim insurgents. Meanwhile, despite the claims and evidence of atrocities against them, Myanmar has consistently denied violating their human rights and has maintained that any military operations are justified in response to attacks on security posts by Rohingya insurgents. Nonetheless, an investigation established by the UN recommended prosecution of Myanmar’s top military commanders on charges of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity for the crackdown on the Rohingya people.

To many observers, it is not only ironical but also almost inexplicable that Aung San Suu Kyi is trying to defend the indefensible when for so many years she was a figure who stood for democracy and human rights and was given a Nobel Peace Prize in 1991 for championing these under Myanmar’s then-ruling military junta. She became an almost saintly figure revered and adored by the West and the country’s numerous ethnic groups.

The transformation is astonishing. She has changed from being a celebrated human rights campaigner to failing to speak out against violence towards the Rohingya minority and is now actively defending it so that her reputation has been severely tarnished – so much so that Amnesty International, for example, has stripped her of a human rights award. Those seeking an explanation for this change note Aung San Suu Kyi has turned out to be an autocratic leader who, despite her history, has now become too much of an old Burmese nationalist to try to stop persecution of minorities in her country. But perhaps this is not really surprising after all. The sad fact is that it is simply an example among politicians of yet another whose motivation is less about the ideal of democracy and protection of human rights than her own sense of importance and national identity.