Labour Could Destroy The Tories By Opposing Brexit

The Tories are fighting like rats in a sack. They look more divided than at almost any time in their entire history. Far from being an example of strong and stable leadership, they are a total shambles, that is not even a coalition of chaos, as a coalition implies, at least, some attempt to work together, rather than each member of the government looking to knife every other in the back, at every opportunity. The cause of the chaos and division is Brexit, and it has been exacerbated by the fact that , over the last few months, Labour itself shifted position towards one of remaining in the single market and customs union. Labour has an historic opportunity to destroy the Tories, as a political force, once and for good. It only has to come out openly to oppose Brexit to do so.

The underlying problem for the Tories is the same one it has faced for the last century. It is a function of what the Tory Party is. On the one hand, the Tory Party, historically, is the party of the landed and financial oligarchy. In the 19th century, it was the representative of those classes, as against the Liberals, who represented the industrial bourgeoisie, and for a time, the industrial working-class, in alliance with them. It was the Tories that pushed through the legislation such as the Factory Acts and so on, as an act of spite against the industrial bourgeoisie, having lost out to them with the Repeal of the Corn Laws, which represented the end of the power of the landed oligarchy, and the financial oligarchy that was closely connected to them.

It was the Tories too, that pushed through the electoral reform that gave male workers the vote, and which set the conditions, thereby, for the destruction of the Liberal Party itself, as it created the basis for a social-democratic party based upon the working-class, in the form of the Labour Party. Having destroyed the Liberal Party, the Tories then absorbed part of its role. Not only did the Tory Party absorb the role of representing the interests of the remnants of private industrial capital that was being increasingly marginalised by the rise of large-scale socialised capital, but it also took on the mantle of being the representative of “business” itself, by being the natural home for all of those representatives of the shareholders, placed in charge of that socialised capital, and whose actual function was to further the interests not of business, but of those shareholders. In other words, an extension of the Tory Party's existing role as representative of the financial oligarchy.

The Tory party represents these different, and sometimes conflicting class interests. The interests of the landed oligarchy and financial oligarchy are often tied, because both represent rentier capital. The landed oligarchy derives its revenue from the renting out land, and the financial oligarchy derives its revenue from renting out its money-capital. Both derive the capital value of their assets, which in turn provides them with their wealth and social power, from the capitalised value of those assets which rises and falls inversely to the rate of interest. It is what lies behind the attempts over the last thirty years to keep those financial asset prices and property prices high even at the expense of the real economy.

But, that section of the Tory party that derives its revenues from interest on its money-capital, i.e. from the shares and bonds it owns (and that section is not at all necessarily separated from the huge land and property owners) is also intelligent enough to know that ultimately, that interest and those rents depend upon capital producing increasing amounts of profits, and in the modern world that depends upon Britain being a part of the EU. The other element of the Tory party, however, those remnants of small private capital, the small business owners, and those within the ranks of the middle class whose world view does not extend beyond the same horizons, has a totally different perspective. There are around 5 million small businesses in Britain. The reality is that the majority of these are simply self-employed people, often whose incomes are less than if they were able to obtain permanent paid employment. Often those involved have become self-employed, precisely because they could not obtain secure permanent employment. 

For a large part of these people, the EU is at best an irrelevance, and at worst a threat. As small businesses the majority have no direct dealings with Europe, and they are easily persuaded that all of the regulations of the EU that impose basic minimum conditions for their workers, or imply some element of bureaucracy and so on, represent an unnecessary burden upon them. At worst, they risk being undercut by more efficient European businesses, or by EU skilled workers, such as plumbers, who come to Britain and establish businesses in competition with them.

In terms of economic significance, these small private capitalists do not weigh as heavily as the landed and financial oligarchy, but in terms of party membership, and of the Tory party's voter base they weigh significantly more heavily. At the end of the day, the Tory Party is an electoral party, it seeks to get into government, and so to do so, it has to first base itself upon the the interests and requirements of its core membership and voter base. That is why Cameron had to assuage that section by agreeing to call the referendum, though he thought that the Liberals would save him from having to call it. But, it is also what now rips the Tory party into two.

The sections of the Tory party tied inextricably to the dominant section of the ruling class, the landed and financial oligarchy, knows full well that Brexit will be a disaster, but that other subordinate section of the ruling class, the small private capitalists, has the upper hand within the party, because of its greater numeric weight. Even the majority of Tory MP's oppose Brexit, because whatever they might say to their ordinary party members, when they meet with the members of that financial and landed oligarchy they can deal in reality, and the knowledge of just how bad Brexit will be. They know that the question of hard or soft Brexit is a delusion, because the truth is that there is either hard Brexit or no Brexit. They know that if things continue to progress towards Brexit over the next year, that banks will begin moving out of Britain, that foreign manufacturers will stop investing, and that production will start to be located elsewhere, that the Pound will fall in value, that the current stagflation will intensify, causing interest rates to rise, and the capitalised prices of property, and financial assets to drop sharply. 

At the present time, the representatives of the dominant section of the ruling class within the Tory Party can continue to hope that a soft Brexit might be possible, or that, as now, Theresa May has proposed, there can be a transitional period, which they hope can be indefinitely extended, so that Brexit never happens. It is against such a potential that Bojo and the ultra-nationalists are standing out, representing the potential for a coup d'etat within the Tory Party, basing themselves upon those same forces of the small capitalists, the reactionary petit-bourgeois and lumpen elements of society that such Bonapartists have always relied upon in the past, as I described a few years ago. That is not at all in the interests of the dominant section of the ruling class, but who, at the same time find themselves impotent with now no longer the conservative social-democrats such as Blair, or the Liberals to rely on to provide voice to their concerns. Or at least, those voices are still chirping, but no one is listening to them.

Labour could destroy the Tories once and for all by coming out openly to oppose Brexit. But, the opposition to Brexit should not at all be the kind of opposition that Blair or Cable and co. wish to present, of an uncritical support for the existing EU. Nor should it be one that concedes to the reactionary nationalist demands of those who want to remain in the EU on the basis of some moves to restrain the right of workers to free movement. Quite the opposite. Labour should argue against Brexit, and begin to make the case strongly for the need to unite workers across Europe for a radical programme that opposes austerity, and promotes workers rights. 

The programme that Labour put forward at the election proved hugely popular. But, the reality is that, as Syriza found in Greece, even a radical social-democratic programme, that opposes austerity, and seeks to introduce large-scale investment to rebuild and restructure capital, and society, is not possible on a national basis. It requires a coordinated programme by social-democrats across Europe. It requires that the current conservative ideology that dominates the EU itself to be overturned, so that, for example, alongside the single currency goes a single fiscal regime that channels investment to those parts of the EU where it is required to rebuild infrastructure, and that acts to encourage real productive investment in those areas of the EU economy that lack international competitiveness. It requires EU wide tax regulation to ensure that the owners of fictitious capital are not able to move their funds around to avoid paying taxes; it requires that the EU's Draft Fifth Company Law Directive, on Co-Determination be revived and strengthened, so as to ensure that company boards are elected by their workers and managers, and so on.

The reality is that, unlike the Tories, Labour is actually incredibly united on the basic principles around which such a policy could be developed. On the one hand, there are a few reactionary nationalists like John Mann and Kate Hoey, who support Brexit, and want to impose harsher immigration controls, and there are those national socialists that are hangovers from the influence of the Communist Party, who unfortunately have some sway in the back rooms, and on the other side there are those Blair-right MP's, who want to stay in the EU at any cost. But, in terms of the party's 600,000 members such elements are a tiny minority. Even within the PLP its likely that there are a majority who would support continued EU membership alongside a more radical social democratic agenda for it.

Certainly, amongst Labour's mass membership the large majority, around 80%, favour remaining in the EU. The only thing still leaving Labour committed to Brexit is a misguided democratic primitivism that leaves them thinking they must take ownership of the referendum result, even though they disagree with it, and recognise that it would be reactionary and disastrous for British workers. Its not even clear that if another referendum were to be held now that the same result would ensue. Many of those old bigots that pushed it through have died in the intervening period, whilst many of the 16 and 17 year olds who are most affected, but who were denied a vote, will now have been enfranchised. Certainly in two years time, and if Labour were to give the vote to 16 and 17 year olds, and to those EU citizens living in Britain, the small majority of the last referendum would be likely overturned.

As it was only 37% of that manipulated electorate voted for Brexit. Recent surveys back up what I have said about the extent of bigotry within Britain, and its role in the referendum. 26 per cent of people described themselves as “very” or “a little” prejudiced towards people of other races, in a recent survey. In fact, given that is people admitting to being racist, the number who actually are, but didn't admit to it, is undoubtedly greater. It comes as no surprise. As I said previously, at the time of the referendum, around 30% of the population are bigots, and it should be no part of Labour's agenda to appease such bigotry. Rather its necessary to confront it head on.

For the hard core bigots who undoubtedly either support the Tories or other nationalists, or who do not vote, it is unlikely that Labour is going to win them over. Simply trying to appease them with talk about “fair” immigration policies only legitimises their bigotry and will lead them to demand more. But, at the same time, all past experience in general elections shows that for the majority even of those that hold bigoted views it is not an obstacle to them voting Labour, provided that Labour actually provides them with a set of other policies that address their more immediate concerns for jobs, better pay, the NHS, housing and so on.

Labour could hoover up all of the remain voters currently clinging on desperately out of hope to the Liberals, Greens, Plaid etc., but it can also win over large numbers of other voters by putting forward a radical programme that deal with all of these other problems. The analysis done by John Curtice and the BES illustrated that point. It showed that even in those areas that voted most heavily for Leave, only a minority of Labour voters voted Leave. It makes no sense for Labour to adopt a policy that accepts Brexit, which will not win over most of those Leave voters, but which in the process risks losing the much larger number of Labour remain voters, plus all of those other potential Remain voters still attached to the Liberals et al, plus even some of those still hoping against hope that the Tories might deliver a soft Brexit. 

Labour by adopting a position of opposing Brexit could destroy the Tories once and for all, because it would almost certainly cause the Tories to split into its two component parts. It would lead probably to the pro-EU wing of the Tories linking up with the Liberals, and with the backing of business organisations such as the CBI, thereby more clearly defining them as a party of that section of the ruling class, leaving the rump of the Tory Party to coalesce with UKIP, and other ultra nationalists as the party of reaction, and of the backward looking small business class.

But, it would also mean that Labour as the biggest party in Europe could rightfully take its position in the vanguard of the European working-class, by providing leadership for other radical social-democratic forces in Europe, such as Syriza and Podemos, and the Left Bloc in Portugal, of the forces around Hamon in France, and so on. It would create the potential for rejuvenating the Second International as a truly European Party of labour, offering the potential for restructuring the European labour movement to face the challenges of the coming period, and to provide the kinds of solutions required for those problems.