How to explain what's just happened?
Any article written today that claims to fully understand the UK general election of June 2017 is overpromising.
The facts: The Conservatives, in government for the past seven years, remain the largest party. They can't form a government without help from another party, most likely the DUP, in Northern Ireland. Labour, meanwhile, written off as no hopers in many polls and predictions, actually gained seats. In a remarkable underdog story, Jeremy Corbyn not only survived as Labour leader, he led the party to a better result than almost any independent observer thought possible.
We are in rapidly changing times. The currents that have run together to form this river of results are many and varied.
The consequences of the 2008 financial crash loom large, as does the situation in Scotland. Brexit is a constant source of political energy – those enthusiastically promoting it and those bent on preventing it.
Both main parties are still in the shadow of towering former leaders. For the Conservatives Margaret Thatcher looms large, while the spectre of Tony Blair hangs around Labour's every move – whether building on his legacy or merrily jettisoning it.
Caveats notwithstanding, here are a few thoughts on why Labour did better than expected and why the Conservatives have wobbled so badly.
Firstly, the leaders. For many years now we have been travelling towards a more presidential system where the image and profile of the party leader is all-important. Theresa May was seen as a safe pair of hands, but the campaign revealed her to be anything but.
Brittle and awkward under questioning, she declined to take part in a proper leaders debate and met as few members of the public as possible. In the age of social media it isn't possible to keep secret the way in which a campaign is stage-managed. Eventually an image emerged of May as trying to avoid ordinary people. When she did answer questions the arid soundbites she constantly regurgitated became a laughing stock. In a campaign the Conservatives made all about her, she flunked.
Jeremy Corbyn, on the other hand, exceeded expectations. Having made a series of gaffes early on in his leadership and having survived a challenge, he seemed to come alive during the campaign itself. Warm and easy with ordinary people, he relished getting out of Westminster and campaigning – speaking in front of crowds with placards is his stock in trade. If Corbyn's rallies had the fervour of a big tent revival meeting, May's calculated events seemed more like preaching to the choir in a drafty, half-empty church.
Secondly, we can't ignore the ongoing impact of Conservative policies. The British public was tired of Labour by 2010 and seemed to go along with the Tory line that we had 'run out of money' and needed to 'tighten our belts'. For seven years the consequences of this became clear.
Too often there were stories of those at the top doing very nicely, while those at the bottom were given short shrift. During the campaign itself, the news that food bank use was at a record high was quickly followed up by the news that there were a record number of billionaires in the UK.
British people are for the most part still culturally Christian. Somewhere within that there is a decency which can't stomach such inequality. Many are inherently conservative but also sense that Corbyn was merely speaking sense when implying that the system was rigged in favour of those who already have power and privilege.
A third reason for the partial Labour revival is hope. As the famous Proverb has it: 'Where there is no vision, the people perish.' Theresa May's campaign was anaemic at best. At worst it was petty, cynical and lacking in vision. Whether you agree with Corbyn's brand of politics or not, there was at least a vision of the future to vote for that didn't simply boil down to 'we're not as bad as the other guys'.
After years of claustrophobic austerity and talk of there being 'no other choice', a plurality of the electorate has rejected that Conservative mantra. Whether Corbyn's solutions are the right ones or not, he at least offered some vision. People have voted for it in numbers far exceeding what was expected. We will still most likely have a Conservative-led government. Will the British people accept that – and its consequences – now it's clear a majority of them did not vote for it and now that the Prime Minister has been so damaged? We live in interesting times.
Follow Andy Walton on Twitter @waltonandy
