In the last few weeks, Labour's standing in the polls has recovered slightly. But, it is appallingly low, given the situation. It is only slightly recovered from the fact that, in the local elections, and European Parliament elections, in May, Labour's vote share collapsed to barely above single digits, with Labour coming fourth and fifth in many instances. On the back of this collapse of Labour's vote, resulting from its continued adherence to what many of its voters saw as a pro-Brexit stance, dressed up as “constructive ambiguity”, and which flowed from the continued pro-Brexit stance of Corbyn and his Stalinist advisors, it appeared that even Corbyn had had to face reality, and to adopt the anti-Brexit stance of the vast majority of Labour members, and Labour voters. After all, even 60% of Labour Party members, disgusted by Labour's stance, voted Liberal or Green in those elections. It appeared that Corbyn had changed tack, emphasising that Labour would now back another referendum, and would back Remain in that referendum. That was enough for some of Labour's vote to come back, but no sooner than that happened, but Corbyn again changed tack, now emphasising that a Labour government would negotiate its own Brexit deal, which it would put to voters in a referendum.
The inevitable consequence must be that the disillusioned Labour voters and members that came back to Labour, when it appeared that it was going to back an anti-Brexit stance, will now desert it again. This time, it may be harder to get them back again, unless a clearer, unambiguous anti-Brexit stance is adopted, which must start now not from calls for another referendum, but from a clear and unambiguous commitment to simply revoke Article 50. The problem for Labour is that it looks like the Liberals, at their conference this week, will beat them to it. Labour could still overcome that problem if it commits to immediately revoking Article 50, and scraps all talk about negotiating its own Brexit deal, or a referendum, because, at least for now, the peculiarities of the electoral system means that Labour would be more likely to win a majority, or at least get more seats than the Liberals in an election. But, herein also lies the problem for Labour.
In the current situation, where everything revolves around Brexit, whichever opposition party appears to have the best chance of winning votes is likely to obtain the benefits of the first past the post, winner takes all system. As with the local and European Parliament elections, a bandwagon effect unfolds, where Remain voters simply vote tactically for whichever party looks most likely to win in their seat. In many seats for Westminster, that currently means Labour, but with Corbyn now again emphasising his intention of negotiating a Labour Brexit, if he is elected, we are likely to see a flood of support away from Labour again, and towards the Liberals, particularly as the Liberals firm up their own anti-Brexit stance to one advocating a straightforward revocation of Article 50. If this results in the anti-Brexit/anti-Tory vote being split, it would mean that, in many constituencies, including many Labour held seats, the Tories could come through the middle to win. If the Tories win any General Election on that basis, it will be disastrous for Labour, and for the Left within Labour. Corbyn personally, and those that support him will be held personally responsible for that disaster.
In the past week, we have seen the ludicrous nature of Labour's position. The position put forward by Corbyn and his supporters is ludicrous and bizarre, but the position put forward by the Blair-rights such as Tom Watson and Owen Smith, is just as ludicrous, and even more dangerous. The Corbynite position has come around to supporting another referendum at precisely the time when such a referendum is the last thing that Labour should want. Labour's principled position should be to oppose Brexit as reactionary. So, why would you then want to hold a referendum that might result in voters demanding Brexit, and then, following a General Election, demanding that you implement that reactionary policy?
The Corbynite position is slightly more rational, than the Blair-right position, because it says first hold a General Election, then allow a Labour Government to negotiate a “Jobs First Brexit”, then allow voters a referendum on whether to choose this Jobs First Brexit or Remain. On this basis, if voters opted for Brexit, at least Labour would only be committed to implementing its own version rather than a Tory hard Brexit. But, on inspection, its obvious that this is totally irrational. Firstly, if a General Election comes first, before a referendum, what is the point of a referendum at all? It would simply be a matter of Labour fighting the election on an anti-Brexit platform, committed to revoking Article 50, if elected. Secondly, the “Jobs First Brexit” that Labour promises is not achievable. It is based on Labour being able to negotiate to be in the Customs Union and Single Market, and all the associated regulatory bodies, and to have a seat at the table in these institutions, whilst simultaneously being free to negotiate its own trade deals with third countries, and so on. That is impossible. It would give Britain advantages over EU member states were the EU to agree, and no organisation is going to agree to non-members being given privileges over members. Labour would have the dilemma that either this “Jobs First Brexit” amounted to remaining, for all intents and purposes, inside the EU, but with no vote in its political institutions, which is a nonsensical position for anyone to seek to promote, or else it would have to accept, as the Tories have done, that the alternative is a No Deal Brexit.
So, in practice, Labour would have two options that it could put to voters in a referendum, which is No Deal or Remain. The ludicrous nature of Labour's position was illustrated last week, when Emily Thornberry said that Labour would negotiate this Brexit deal, but would then campaign against its own deal, and in favour of Remain, in the subsequent referendum! But, thirdly, if Labour were to want to put alternatives to voters in a referendum, its inevitable that Brexiteers would demand that a No Deal option was included. Around 55% of Leave voters support a No Deal Brexit, but its likely that a large number of other Leave voters would demand that it be included as an option. It would be hard to deny the validity of having an option supported by such a large constituency on the ballot in any such referendum. That then means that, a majority in that referendum could vote for Brexit, and indeed for a No Deal Brexit. And, that, of course, illustrates why this option is ludicrous, because it means that, in any such referendum, an elected Labour government, having made clear its opposition to Brexit, as a reactionary measure that is against the interests of workers, would, nevertheless, be bound to have to implement that reactionary policy, or else to resign, and call a General Election, fought out on the basis of its right to reject the conclusion of the referendum it had just called and lost!
The position advocated by the Blair-rights, Watson, Smith et al is equally ludicrous, but also dangerous. At least if a Labour government calls a referendum, it would have some control over the process, and the options on the ballot. It would have the levers of government to use to favour its desired option. But, if a referendum is held before a General Election that implies that the Tories are still in government. If parliament gets its way, and Johnson asks for an extension of Article 50, and is then forced into a referendum, its clear that he will use all of the levers of government, and all the extensive network of ultra-nationalism provided by Trump, Putin, Netanyahu, Bannon et al, plus all of the right-wing Tory media, and their social media reserve forces to ensure that a No Deal result is obtained.
Any subsequent election would then be fought under the worst possible conditions for Labour to win. Worse, if Labour did then win, it would be in the invidious position of then having to implement that No Deal Brexit referendum result. But, likewise, if Johnson stands down, and Corbyn takes over, why then go for a referendum rather than a General Election, a General Election in which Labour could simply commit to revoking Article 50.
The current impasse is due to a simple fact. The referendum produced a result for which there is no parliamentary majority for its implementation. Whilst, the Tories are busy turning themselves into a party that is capable of implementing the referendum decision, Labour has not done likewise, or alternatively, turned itself into a party committed to opposing the referendum decision. That role has been taken up by the Liberals. Labour cannot turn itself into a party committed to implementing Brexit, because a) the Tories have occupied that space, and b) its own members and voters overwhelmingly oppose such a stance. But, Labour has failed to adopt the only other rational response, in electoral terms, which is to become the most militant anti-Brexit party, because its leadership is captured by Corbyn and his supporters (including TU bureaucrats like McCluskey) who are themselves dominated by an economic nationalist ideology, and because right-wing nationalist Labour MP's, particularly in Leave voting constituencies, have promoted the Left Behind Myth that claims that Brexit was the consequence of left-behind sections of the working-class voting Leave. The consequence is that Labour is left haemorrhaging votes to the Liberals.
The worst thing that could happen, here, is for the Tories to win. To prevent that Labour should not, as, for example Paul Mason has advocated, enter a Popular Front with the Liberals, Greens et al. What is really required is for Labour to shift its stance away from the current, reactionary pro-Brexit position. I have argued for months that Labour members needed to demand an emergency recall conference to debate Brexit, and to confirm our position ready for any General Election. That position should reject the current position, and reject calls for another referendum. The Party should simply commit to revoking Article 50, as soon as it is elected, and should commit to taking Britain back into the EU, if the Tories take us out. With party conference coming up in just over a week's time, we have the opportunity to establish that as a firm policy.
But, we have seen over the last few years that the party leadership has a great deal of leverage over the party, and over conference, especially in conjunction with union bureaucrats like McCluskey, who are themselves able to ignore the wishes of the majority of their members, because of the lack of democracy in the trades unions. It will be a hard battle to ensure that the party is committed to a militant anti-Brexit stance. In that case, rank and file Labour and trades union members have a number of other alternatives they must undertake.
Firstly, as I argued back in 2016, prior to the referendum, we needed a Socialist Campaign for Europe, organised along similar lines to the Socialist Campaign for Labour Victory in 1979. It should militantly oppose Brexit, whilst rejecting the conservative social-democratic (neoliberal) arguments for remaining in the EU. Our case for Europe is a socialist one, based upon dismantling borders, and preventing them being re-established, of recognising that socialism arises by going beyond the most mature forms of capitalism, not by going backwards from them, and that in order to do that it is necessary to build upon the potential for forging a united European Working-class, able to engage in a political struggle for an extension of political democracy, and for the introduction of industrial democracy, for continent wide planning and regulation of economic activity, for a levelling up of rights and benefits for workers and so on. But, in the context of a General Election, this Socialist Campaign for Europe should be combined with a Socialist Campaign for a Labour Victory.
The General Election will be inseparable from the question of Brexit and Europe. A Socialist Campaign for a Labour Victory should emphasise that even a radical Labour programme can only be achieved within the context of remaining in the EU. It should emphasise that the real answers to workers problems comes from such a radical programme to end austerity, and to undertake large-scale infrastructure investment, and for a rational restructuring of industry across the EU, including the introduction of industrial democracy and workers control in all large enterprises, together with increased planning and regulation so as to promote economic growth and employment. Indeed, such a socialist campaign should break out of the old national political boundaries, and draw in socialists and progressive social-democrats from across the EU, as part of the process of formulating an EU wide political programme of progressive social democratic reform.
As with the SCLV in 1979, whatever Labour says in its official programme, we should seek to commit local CLP's, branches, District Parties, trades union branches, trades councils etc. to supporting the platform of the SCLV. We should get local Labour candidates to stand on its programme, and to use its literature in their election campaigns. On this basis, as in 2017, we can, with large-scale mobilisation, win over all of those new radicalised elements of the youth that were initially attracted to Corbynism, plus those that had been disillusioned by Blairism. By creating a large-scale social movement both to stop Brexit, and to promote a radical socialist alternative we can also draw in behind us those Liberals, Greens and others that oppose Brexit.
There is no need for Labour to subordinate its politics to form a Popular Front with Liberals; a large scale, progressive mobilisation by Labour can simply drag those other elements behind it. But, when it comes to actual voting, it will undoubtedly be the case that in some seats, there will be Labour MP's, candidates, and even party members that cannot be won over to the case for opposing Brexit. We should treat them essentially in the same way as Tories, because on this decisive issue they are in the same class camp. It doesn't mean that activity in these seats cannot still be undertaken, but it would mean that the resources would be better utilised in those seats where there are candidates and parties backing the SCLV, or even just Labour MP's taking a militant anti-Brexit stance. The main task will be to get the largest anti-Brexit vote, and the largest number of MP's elected that oppose Brexit. The second priority will be to get the largest number of anti-Brexit MP's elected on a socialist programme.
By focusing our resources in those seats where there are anti-Brexit Labour candidates we create the best conditions for Remain voters to swing behind those Labour candidates, and away from Liberals, Greens or others. We give them a positive reason to back Labour, as having the best chance of stopping Brexit. At the same time, by not prioritising seats with pro-Brexit Labour candidates, we do nothing to discourage voters from supporting alternative anti-Brexit candidates, and so not splitting the anti-Brexit vote, as a means of keeping out the Tories. It may mean that Labour MP's in those seats lose to Liberals, SNP, Plaid or Greens, but better that than that the vote is split and a Tory wins the seat. It will be a powerful means of encouraging all Labour candidates to adopt a militant anti-Brexit stance.
But, it is also necessary to build a movement in the constituencies and the trades unions behind a socialist campaign, and to ensure that as many Labour MP's fighting under its banner are elected for another reason. Many now distrust Corbyn and feel that whilst he is now saying that Labour would argue for Remain as opposed to a Labour Brexit deal, he would renege on that when it comes to it. Its one reason we should commit the party to revoking Article 50 rather than calling for another referendum. The history of Corbyn's leadership over the last four years has been one of continual appeasement of the right and backsliding. We need quickly to organise widespread trigger ballots, to put in place militant new, progressive candidates, of the kind that will be dynamic proponents of such a socialist campaign. It is from this new milieu that the cadre of new Labour politicians, able to provide the replacements for Corbyn and his Shadow Cabinet can be drawn. But, the actions of McCluskey, Cash, Ward and other union bureaucrats shows that we need to extend democracy not just in the Labour Party, but in the trades unions too. The movement that began in 2015, that led to the election of Corbyn, now needs to move to the next stage, beyond the limitations of Corbyn and Corbynism itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment