Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Jeremy Corbyn was the winner of the general election campaign and Theresa May the loser

The Labour leader's standing was enhanced, while the Prime Minister's was diminished.

To win is to lose and to lose is to win? That may be how Jeremy Corbyn and Theresa May remember the election of 2017.

The story of the contest was of four failures and a success. The failed campaigns: the Greens, Ukip, the Liberal Democrats, and Theresa May's. The success: for Jeremy Corbyn.

The Greens thought - and full disclosure, so did I - that the greater exposure that the short campaign and the debates would give to Caroline Lucas would see them soar in the polls. Instead, that the only message that has got out from that party is the "progressive alliance" means that the only time most people have heard from the Greens is when they've been telling people they'd probably be better off voting for someone else, a remarkable failure given the almost non-existent presence of climate change in either of the big two's manifestos.

As for Ukip, well, what more needs to be said? Like the SDP before them, they went up like the rocket and are now coming down like the stick. They'll take some consolation from the fact that, just as the SDP transformed Labour, they have remodelled the Conservative Party.

Speaking of the SDP - just as in 1987, Labour entered this election worried about being supplanted by another party, in this case the Liberal Democrats. Tim Farron talked to me of his ambition to replace Labour as the main opposition to the Conservative Party.  Even some loyal Corbynites worried that Labour would go the same way as much of the European left. Instead, it is the Liberal Democrats may very well finish up with even fewer seats than they got in 2015. 

As for Theresa May, she launched this campaign hoping for a shattering victory, and she will most likely still receive one, albeit in which the word "shattering" is used in a different context.  As far as her standing with the public is concerned, she started the campaign with the stature of Tony Blair in 1994. She ends it as Tony Blair in 2005 - no longer adored, the subject of considerable resentment, but likely to end up with a big majority thanks to her continuing advantages on leadership and economic competence.

As for Corbyn, as I write in my column in this week's NS, the leader's office entered the election hoping for a repeat of the "brilliant defeat" of 1987, which Labour entered fearing a third-place finish, and Neil Kinnock ended an enhanced figure, with the ability to crack on for another five years.

Whatever happens today, Corbyn has done enough to secure that at least. Considerable pressure is being exerted on aspirant leaders, many of whom have been quietly canvassing support among the parliamentary party, not to launch a leadership bid that would "certainly fail" in the words of one Corbynsceptic. Much of his programme will endure until 2022, even if, as is more likely than not in my view, his personal leadership doesn't.

What BritainThinks' excellent report from their focus groups makes clear is that May's failure is that she is now viewed as a traditional Conservative, with all the strengths and weaknesses that entails. Corbyn's success is that he is now viewed as a traditional Labour leader, with all the strengths and weaknesses that entails. That's not at all where CCHQ wanted to be today.

The problem of course is that when a traditional Conservative party meets a traditional Labour party, you tend to end up with the traditional result.

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman and the PSA's Journalist of the Year. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

People are not prepared to see innovation at any price - we need to take care of our digital health

Correcting the course of technology in Britain does not need to mean taking backwards steps and becoming an anti-innovation zone.

As individuals, we have never been better connected. As a society, we are being driven further apart.

Doteveryone’s People Power and Technology report, released this week, found that half of the 2,500 British people we surveyed said the internet had made life a lot better for people like them - but only 12 per cent saw a very positive impact on society.

These findings won’t be news to most people living in Brexit Britain - or to anyone who’s been involved in a spat on Twitter. The fact that we’re constantly connected to our smartphones has not necessarily improved our communities or our understanding of one other, and the trails of data we’re leaving behind are not turning into closer social bonds.

Many of the positives we experience are for ourselves as individuals.

Lots of consumer tech puts simple self-sufficiency first - one-click to buy, swipe right to date - giving us a feeling of cosy isolation and making one little phone an everywhere. This powerful individualism is a feature of all of the big platforms - and even social networks like Facebook and Twitter, that are meant bring us together, do so in the context of personalised recommendations and algorithmically ordered timelines.

We are all the centre of our own digital worlds. So it is no surprise that when we do look up from our phones, we feel concerned about the impact on society. Our research findings articulate the dilemma we face: do we do the thing that is easiest for us, or the one that is better for society?

For instance, 78 per cent of people see the Internet as helping us to communicate better, but 68 per cent also feel it makes us less likely to speak to each other face-to-face. 69per cent think the internet helps businesses to sell their products and services, while 53 per cent think it forces local shops to compete against larger companies online.

It’s often hard to see the causality in these trade-offs. At what point does my online shopping tip my high street into decline? When do I notice that I’ve joined another WhatsApp group but haven’t said hello to my neighbour?

When given clear choices, the public was clear in its response.  

We asked how they would feel if an online retailer offered free one-day delivery for lower income families, but this resulted in local shops closing down - 69 per cent found this unacceptable. Or if their bank invested more in combating fraud and cyber crime, but closed their local branch - 61 per cent said it was unacceptable. Or if their council made savings by putting services online and cut council tax as a result, but some people would find it hard to access these services - 56 per cent found it unacceptable.

It seems people are not prepared to see innovation at any price - and not at the expense of their local communities. The poorest find these trade offs least acceptable.

Correcting the course of technology in Britain does not need to mean taking backwards steps and becoming an anti-innovation zone.

A clearer regulatory environment would support positive, responsible change that supports our society, not just the ambition of a few corporations.

Some clarity about our relationship with web services would be a good start. 60 per cent of people Doteveryone spoke to believed there should be an independent body they can turn to when things go wrong online; 89 per cent would like terms and conditions to be clearer, and 47% feel they have no choice but to sign up to services, even when they have concerns.

Technology regulation is complicated and fragmentary. Ofcom and the under-resourced Information Commissioner’s Office, provide some answers,but they are not sufficient to regulate the myriad effects of social media, let alone the changes that new technologies like self-driving cars will bring. There needs to be a revolution in government, but at present as consumers and citizens we can’t advocate for that. We need a body that represents us, listens to our concern and gives us a voice.

And the British public also needs to feel empowered, so we can all make better choices - adults and children alike need different kinds of understanding and capability to navigate the digital world. It is not about being able to code: it is about being able to cope.

Public Health England exists to protect and improve the nation’s health and well-being, and reduce health inequalities. Perhaps we need a digital equivalent, to protect and improve our digital health and well-being, and reduce digital inequalities.

As a society, we should not have to continually respond and adapt to the demands of the big corporations: we should also make demands of them - and we need confidence, a voice, and representation to begin to do that.

Rachel Coldicutt is chief executive of Doteveryone.