Prime Minister Boris Johnson and his Conservative Party decisively won the United Kingdom’s December 12 election. The Tories not only increased their parliamentary contingent but gained an outright majority of seats. This was a major victory for the cause of national sovereignty and showed that many Britons do not wish to lose control over the UK’s borders and immigration policy.
The Conservatives won 43.6 percent of the vote, up from 42.4 in 2017, but increased their seats from 317 to 365 (in a 650-member parliament). The Labour Party, led by radical leftist Jeremy Corbyn, lost 8 percentage points – gaining 32 percent of the vote, down from 40 percent two years ago – and suffered a major loss of 60 parliamentary seats (from 262 to 202).
For the Tories, this is the greatest victory since the days of Margret Thatcher during the 1980s. The Labour Party, in turn, has not held fewer seats in the House of Commons since 1935.
Commentators have provided several reasons for the Conservative win. These include accusations of anti-Semitism levied at Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, as well as his pronounced economic and social radicalism. Brexit and immigration – both of which are indisputably related to national sovereignty – also undoubtedly played a role.
Prime Minister Johnson told his supporters: “I will put an end to all that nonsense, and we will get Brexit done on time by the January 31 [2020] – no ifs, no buts, no maybes, (…). Leaving the European Union as one United Kingdom, taking back control of our laws, borders, money, our trade, immigration system, delivering on the democratic mandate of the people.”
Johnson also support a merit-based points system for immigration and threatened to send migrants attempting to cross the English Channel illegally into the UK on boats back to continental Europe.
One article points out just how interconnected the issues of Brexit and immigration are in the UK: “Johnson owes his success, in part, to traditionally Labour-voting working class constituencies in northern England that backed the Conservatives because of the party’s promise to deliver Brexit. During the 2016 referendum, many of the communities voted to leave the EU because of concerns that immigrants were taking their jobs.”
Corbyn and his Labour Party, on the other hand, were running on a pro-mass-immigration, pro-open-borders platform, in addition to a “neutral” stance on Brexit and a second referendum (proposing to retain “freedom of movement” even if Brexit occurs).
If Americans following British and European politics get the impression that they have seen this scenario play out somewhere before – and much closer to home – they are probably right. Much like in the United States three years ago, British voters sent a clear message to a political establishment that condescendingly wishes to circumvent the democratic will of the people whenever it goes against said establishment’s globalist, pro-mass-immigration, and pro-open-borders proclivities. It also shows that being bold, clear, and decisive on issues of national sovereignty and immigration – rather than wishy-washy and equivocal – can be a winning political strategy.
