Ian Lavery Is 100% Wrong

Ian Lavery Is 100% Wrong

Its reported that, at a recent Shadow Cabinet meeting, Ian Lavery told Jeremy Corbyn that, if he persisted with the call for another referendum, he would never be Prime Minister. Lavery is 100% wrong. Corbyn may well never become Prime Minister, but his only hope of doing so, is to come out clearly in opposition to Brexit, and to mobilise the advanced sections of the working-class behind such a perspective, drawing in the progressive sections of the middle-class in their wake. If Corbyn persists with his current support for the reactionary, nationalist idea of Brexit, he will guarantee not only that Labour loses the election, but that the advances in the Labour Party made over the last three years are dissipated. 

The idea that Labour's electoral fortune depends on continuing to advance the idea of Brexit is based on a well known fallacy, or more correctly a number of fallacies. It is well known, from all of the research that has been done, that 66% of Labour voters, from the 2015 General Election, voted Remain. The percentage of Labour voters that voted Remain, even in those regions which, overall, voted Leave, is only marginally lower than in those regions that voted, overall Remain. In other words, the vote for Leave, in Leave voting areas, cannot be attributed to Labour voters, in those areas, who might in some sense have been feeling “left behind”, as I set out some time ago. The vote for Leave in those areas came, not from Labour voters, but from elderly Tory voters – those who have been far from left behind, but who have gained from the astronomical rise in property and other asset prices, due to the conservative policies of the last 30 years – and from a number of traditionally apathetic, non-voting layers of society, who are the ones drawn not towards progressive socialist politics, but towards individualistic, and reactionary, even fascistic politics.

If we take the proportions from the 2017 Labour vote, the picture is even more stark. In 2017, Labour was able to raise its vote due to a number of factors. Firstly, Corbyn's new, more radical, social-democratic policies were able to mobilise a cohort of young voters, especially those who felt that they had been screwed by the vote, largely of elderly Tories, for Brexit, which would damage their own future, long after those elderly Tories were six feet under. Secondly, it mobilised a cohort of older, left-wing voters that had become disillusioned, as a result of the conservative politics that had been pursued by Kinnock, Smith, Blair, and Brown, and only marginally reversed by Miliband. It was from amongst these first two cohorts that Labour also saw a large rise in its membership. In addition to them, however, Labour also saw its vote rise in England because, in a series of seats, held by the Tories, Remain voters, swung behind Labour, as the only credible party able to either prevent the Tories pushing through a hard Brexit, or even to win the election, with the potential that it would be pushed, then, to introduce Brexit in name only (BRINO), or even to abandon Brexit altogether.

In those seats, Labour not only pulled in its own vote, including those in the first two cohorts, described above, but also mobilised voters who were really Liberals, Greens, or even Remain supporting Tories. Its notable that, in Scotland, for example, where Remain voters had the ability to vote for the Remain supporting SNP, the vote became even more polarised, with Leave voting Scottish Tories swinging more decisively behind the Tories, whilst Remain voting Scots swung more decisively behind the SNP, pushing Labour into third place. If we take the 2017 General Election, the proportion of Labour voters, who had voted Remain in 2016, rises to over 70%. The idea that Labour could win an election by continuing to back Brexit is therefore, nonsensical, because it would mean giving a kick in the teeth to all those Labour voters, who voted Remain, and continue to back Remain, who lent their votes to the party, as the best way of stopping Brexit. It is they whose votes Labour depends upon to win an election.

Yet, the fallacy continues to be pushed that the vote for Brexit was somehow down to Labour voters, in “left behind” areas voting Leave. In part, this fallacy is based upon the idea that, in some unspecified way, the most deprived in society are the core Labour vote. They are not, and never have been. Those layers of society are usually outside the organised labour movement, in non-unionised industries, often even antagonistic to unions and organised labour, and prone to individualistic ideas. They are usually apathetic, as far as normal political activity is concerned, including voting, other than when they are mobilised by some demagogue, or populist bandwagon, which is why such elements have, in the past, provided the footsoldiers for fascists and Bonapartists that offer them easy solutions, usually based upon the utilisation of some scapegoat as the cause of their problems. By contrast, the real core Labour vote has always come from within the ranks of the more advanced sections of the organised working-class, those that are better educated, more involved in political activity via their trades unions, and so on. As Goldthorpe et al demonstrated, in the “Affluent Worker” studies, in the 1960's, it was amongst such groups as car workers that the greatest support for Labour was to be found. Not for nothing did Marx believe that Socialism would come first in the most developed capitalist society, where not only the forces of production had been most developed, but where, also, the working-class, the subjective agent required to bring Socialism about, was also the most developed, the more educated and cultured, i.e. where it had the tools to become the new ruling class.

The Lexiters, themselves, amongst whom we should probably count Corbyn and Lavery, are prone to the view of Labour's core support coming from the most deprived in society, and of it being those very elements that were the force behind the vote for Brexit. That is because they see things in very crude terms, and it is coloured by the view that the EU is a capitalist club, developed for the interests of capital. In this crude “anti-capitalist” framework, whatever is good for capital must be bad for workers, despite Marx's extensive analysis showing the fallacy of such Sismondian nonsense. And, in this crude view of society and politics, it is Tories that represent the interests of capital, and so, by extension, it must be Tories that back the EU, and workers that oppose it, despite the fact that all the evidence shows the exact opposite.

For the Lexiters, also, who cannot, it must be assumed, be entirely oblivious to the fact that it is Labour voters that voted overwhelmingly for Remain, and Tory voters that voted for Leave, it must also be assumed that, in part, their blindness, to the actual facts, is one they impose upon themselves, simply because to make the claim that Labour will lose votes if it fails to back Brexit, fits in with their own political agenda. Yet, the reality is clearly different.

We have continually been told that if parliament does not implement Brexit, it will provoke a serious political backlash. Everything suggests the opposite. There have been countless points in the last three years, where the hard line Brexiteers have tried to mobilise public opinion in that way. On each occasion they have failed. They have failed, despite the fact that the reactionary sections of the gutter press have attempted to promote the kind of rabble rousing politics typical of a period ahead of the rise of some kind of Bonapartist regime that mobilises mass society. The gutter press in true Bonapartist fashion tried to undermine democracy by labelling judges as “Enemies of the People”, simply for requiring the government to abide by the constitution, and branded any politician that questioned the government's line on Brexit a “Traitor”. Even the Tory mass media, on TV, continued to echo the fallacy that it was “left behind” Labour voters that had pushed through Brexit, backed up by endless vox pops with selected voters to reflect that “reality”.

Yet, no matter how much Farage appeared on TV, and told us that a groundswell of public anger was going to come out on to the streets to show its distaste for the fact that Brexit still hadn't happened, no such protests emerged. In fact, UKIP disappeared up its own backside, effectively morphing into a rebranded EDL. Farage, himself, whose main concern is his own self-promotion, having separated from UKIP, has talked about setting up a new Brexit party, but despite all of the continued over representation the Tory media provides for Farage, it's unlikely to take off, or to have even the limited success that UKIP did a decade ago. UKIP's own success was always overblown. Its best performances came only in low polls, where the fanatics that backed it, represented a larger proportion of the turnout. It consistently failed to get MP's, including Farage himself, on several occasions, elected to parliament.

Nearly a Million angry voters, but they are Remainers Not Leavers!

It's not been an angry mob of Leavers that has turned out onto the streets over the last few years, but angry mobs of Remain voters who feel they have the wind of history at their back. Where Leave means Leave turned out a few thousand EDL'ers, and BNP'ers, the People's Vote campaign turned out three-quarters of a million. In fact, that process, as I predicted at the time, is rather like what has happened in the US, with the election of Trump. Trump's election has promoted the growth of a large, mobilised, more radicalised group of Democrats than has been seen in years. It has taken the form of a large grass roots organisation, and it was that which enabled the Democrats not only to win control of the House of Representatives in last year's elections, but also control over a number of governorships, and state legislatures. 

More significantly, it has seen left wing, even “socialist” candidates selected and elected, like Alexandra Ocasio Cortez. The agenda of Bernie Sanders, from just four years ago, which some declared to be too “socialist”, is today considered, by most Democrats, to be not left-wing enough. Mainstream Democrats today, flock to get their pictures taken with AOC, to post on their Instagram accounts so as to keep the support of their local members. Nearly every mainstream Democrat today, has lined up behind the idea of Medicare for All, which is essentially the implementation of a US NHS system.

And, similar developments are occurring across Europe, as I, again, predicted, two years ago, they would. In Hungary, there is a growing movement to mobilise against the reactionary nationalist regime of Orban. All of the right-wing populist parties from France to Italy, to Austria and Germany have had to drop their ideas of previous years for withdrawing from the EU, or even the Eurozone. Support for the EU project amongst EU citizens is at its highest level in more than 35 years. Contrary to the assertions of the populists, and many media pundits, I expect that to be reflected in the EU elections, and if Britain takes part in those elections, as Brexit is delayed, I expect that the same will be seen here too.  In fact, support for the EU, in Britain is at the highest level for years too.

The Brexiters continually talk about the polls showing support for the idea amongst the public that they should just “get on with it”, but that is simply a reflection of the fact that like Brenda from Bristol, the British public have a very low level of political culture, driven by the fact that for years they were encouraged to see politics as something that is conducted by professional politicians, requiring them to just put themselves out, for a few minutes, every few years, to vote out Tweedle Dum, and vote in Tweedle Dummer. It reflects the fact, that, apart from a few reactionary nationalist fanatics, British voters were never that bothered about the EU, one way or another. It also ranked way down their list of concerns below the NHS, the economy, unemployment, wages and so on. They are just bored with the whole thing, as they find that the rash promises they were given by the Brexiters, in the referendum, turn out to be impossible to achieve. It's like the driver of the car is lost, and going round in circles, and the kids in the back keep asking “are we there yet?”, having never been that bothered about undertaking the journey in the first place.

But, assume that Labour continues its suicidal line of pushing for a “Jobs First Brexit”, and wins an election. What then? Labour's current position is that, on taking office, it would negotiate such a Jobs First Brexit with the EU. But that has all the hallmarks of hubris if not delusion. There is absolutely no basis for believing that a Labour government would be able to negotiate such a “have cake and eat it” Brexit than have been the Tories. The Labour front bench point to the fact that Barnier and others have offered warm words for Labour's proposals for Britain being in a Customs Union, and having a close relation to the single market. But, of course, they do, because it strengthens the hand of the EU in its negotiations with May, and strengthens the idea that if May and the Tories want a Brexit deal they must ditch the ERG and embrace the TIGGERS. But, time and again, the EU has made clear that whilst it is quite happy for Britain to be in the Customs Union and in or close to the single market, in no way will it offer that alongside allowing Britain to have a seat at the table, or be able to negotiate its own separate trade deals. Indeed, it could not do that without destroying the EU itself, which it is not going to do.

So, faced with that reality, a few weeks after Corbyn walked into Downing Street, what would Labour do? Either, it walks away from the talks in the way that the ERG propose, and launches into a catastrophic No Deal Brexit – which is what I suspect Corbyn's Stalinist advisors hope would happen – or else, Britain is forced itself to capitulate. Either it agrees to become a vassal state, bound by the rules of the Customs Union and Single Market, subject to free movement, the jurisdiction of the ECJ, and liable to pay for all of those EU bodies to which it is affiliated, or else it pins its hopes on Norway, and EFTA coming to its rescue, allowing it to enter their club, or it does the rational thing, and realises that all these offer a worse alternative than the current EU membership, and gives up the whole farce.

If a Corbyn government saw Britain crash out, in the catastrophe that follows, it will be Corbyn and Labour that takes the blame, and it would undoubtedly be quickly hounded out of office, not only destroying the hopes of Labour being in government for a long time, but again destroying the forward movement of the Left in the party for a generation. If, having promised to negotiate the illusory Jobs First Brexit, that government then capitulated, it would again be seen to have been duplicitous and incompetent. For Brexiters it would be seen to have betrayed its promise, and for Remainers it would be seen to have simply wasted a golden opportunity to have opposed Brexit from the start.

Lavery is 100% wrong. Brexit is a reactionary nationalist agenda that any decent socialist should oppose on principle. It requires a principled international socialist leadership to mobilise the advanced sections of the working-class against it, and to draw in the rest of society behind them, on that basis. But, even in purely electoral terms, for Labour to back Brexit, and refuse to mobilise against it is purely suicidal.