There's nowt so queer as folk. The narrative presented by the Tories, Tory media, but also by the Stalinoid elements within the Labour movement, is that Labour lost the election because it had abandoned its traditional working-class supporters. As Paul Mason has noted, it misses out the implied adjective here, “white”. The narrative now, as before the election, is reinforced, in the media, by the vox pops, in depressed town centres, with some of these old, white, working class voters, who profess that they have been lifelong Labour voters, but who, this time, voted Tory, because they could not vote for Jeremy Corbyn. Now, if that were true, its odd.
For one thing, in the 1980's, there were many of these same kinds of white, “traditional” working class voters, who voted for Thatcher. They did so whilst Thatcher was decimating the NHS, their schools, social care and so on. They did so whilst Thatcher created the housing crisis we have today, by starting the sell-off of council houses, and preventing councils from building additional council houses. They did so as Thatcher held down wages, via mass unemployment of over 6 million, and introduced the Poll Tax. Many of the places visited, to search out these traditional, white, working class voters, who claim to have been lifelong Labour supporters, are mining communities. At least they were mining communities, before Thatcher provoked the 1984-5 Miners Strike, and, having violently crushed the miners into submission, then proceeded to close down all of the coal mines, just as most of the steel mills and other old industries were closed down. Of course, during all that time, whilst people like Neil Kinnock were attacking the miners, Jeremy Corbyn was supporting them. That is why, in the years that followed, right up to the present, those same miners invited him to the Durham Miners Gala, and so on.
Yet, we are told that the working-class could not possibly vote for Jeremy Corbyn, and the middle-class, metropolitan ideas he represents! They seem to have forgotten that Jeremy Corbyn was Labour Leader in the 2017 General Election, when Labour secured one of its highest ever votes, and gained more seats than in any election since 1945. These lifelong Labour voters seem to be suffering from some kind of short-term memory loss when it comes to their voting behaviour and what they could or could not ever do.
The truth is that Labour did not lose this election, because the majority of the working-class turned against it, because of its opposition to Brexit, or because Jeremy Corbyn is too left-wing, or supports terrorism and other such crap. Labour lost the election, because Boris Johnson was able to effectively consolidate the votes of the Tory base, comprising around 15 million small business people, and their families, as well as drawing in the votes of a section of the backward working-class - that same section that, in the 1980's, voted for Thatcher, that scabbed on the Miners Strike, and so on.
In fact, the Tories have changed the composition of society in a way that does strengthen them. By destroying large swathes of the economy that provided permanent, secure employment, and driving large numbers of those former workers into precarious self-employment, they have both destroyed those intermediate social institutions such as trades unions that the theorists of mass society describe as being vital to prevent a drift towards totalitarianism. By significantly increasing precarity, they encourage an individualist mindset; by increasing the numbers of self-employed, and small businesses, they encourage a small business mindset not just of individualism, but also of hostility to organised labour, of acceptance of Tory values, even though the large majority of those in these positions are worse off than had they had secure, permanent employment, and their small businesses only survive on the basis that the low wages they pay to their workers are supplemented by vast amounts of benefits paid to them by the state.
Labour lost because it failed to corral the working-class Remain vote behind it, in the same way that the Tories secured the Leave vote. It neither argued a consistent and compelling case for Remain, instead arguing an incoherent case of a “Labour Brexit”, which lost it Remain votes to the Liberals, Greens, Plaid and SNP, but could never have any chance of winning over Leave voters, who wanted not some pale version of nationalism, but the fully leaded, utterly reactionary version as promoted by the Faragists, and Johnson. The clearest evidence of that is Scotland, where the SNP's all out rejection of Brexit, and its consistent argument, over the last three years, meant that it swept aside both the pale pink Brexit of Labour, as well as the deep blue Brexit of the Tories. The fact is that whatever the Stalinists might want to claim, Labour in England and Wales lost more votes to the Liberals and Greens, and Plaid, whose supporters had loaned Labour their votes in 2017, as well as losing votes to apathy, as Labour voters simply stayed at home.
Some of those white, voters made it clear in the interviews they gave, stating openly that they did not just want immigration reduced but stopped altogether. They will, of course, be disappointed. One of the features of the modern Tory Party is the emergence within it of the representation of the new British Indian bourgeoisie. One of the reasons they favour Brexit is because it means they see the potential for replacing EU migrants with migrants from the Indian subcontinent. Some of that is bringing in their relations to study in Britain and so on, and some is responding to their connections in India, which, as a rising power, will demand greater immigration of Indian citizens in return for a trade deal. Replacing EU migrants with lower paid Indian migrant workers, is not at all what those white working-class voters thought they were getting, and as they find that they have been screwed by Johnson, so too that is likely to result in a backlash. Rather than healing, it will simply open up another deep sore within society.
The argument is also being presented that the fall in Labour's vote is because of Brexit, as shown by the rise in the vote for Farage's Brexit Party. The figures are frequently presented showing the decline in Labour's share of the vote being more or less equal to the rise in the share of the BP. It is not true. This election the Brexit Party (plus UKIP) secured around 665,000 votes. All of the Brexit Party vote share appears as a gain, because it did not stand in 2017. However, the BP is really just a continuation UKIP under Farage's domination, as CEO. In 2017, UKIP secured 594,000 votes, so the actual increase in their vote amounts to only around 70,000. Put another way, in 2017, UKIP's share of the vote was 1.8% compared to the BP's 2.0% in this election.
In 2017, the Tories secured 13.6 million votes. In 2019, they secured 13.9 million votes, an increase of just 300,000 votes. In 2017, they secured 42.4% of the vote, whereas in 2019 this increased to just 43.6%. Labour clearly did not lose in 2019 because a large part of its vote went to either the Brexit Party or to the Tories. By contrast, in 2017, the Liberals polled 2.3 million votes, whereas in 2019, they polled 3.7 million votes, an increase of around 50%. Labour also lost votes to the SNP in Scotland, where the Tories also lost more than 50% of their seats. In 2019, the Greens secured 835,000 votes, compared to 525,000 in 2017. In other words, an increase of more than 60%. Labour lost, because millions of Remain voters it won in 2017, deserted it in 2019. And that is a direct result of the pro-Brexit stance that Corbyn and those around him adopted.
There is no doubt that a section of the “traditional”, white working-class will have voted for the Tories. But, the idea that this is in some way a new phenomenon, and down to Jeremy Corbyn, or down to Labour's rejection of Brexit, is the fantasy of middle-class pundits who have absolutely no understanding of what the working-class is, or of working class communities. There have always been backward workers who supported the forces of reaction and conservatism. Just watch the film Peterloo and you can see them.
They are the workers who stand on the doorstep jeering, as the advanced workers and their families marched in support of the demands of the “metropolitan elite” of their day, who sought that most fanciful of things the right of everyone to vote in elections! In later decades, the same kinds of people would line up behind the British Brothers League, who demanded that Jews be kept out of Britain, and pushed the Tory government to introduce the first immigration laws to that effect. Some of them, like Stoke MP, John Ward, were organised in labour battalions to fight on the side of the Tsarist White forces of Kolchak, in the Russian Civil War. A couple of decades later, they supported Oswald Mosely and the British Union of Fascists. In the 1960's and 70's, they supported Mosely's heirs in the National Front, and then the British National Party. Indeed, in all these periods, places like Stoke were a breeding ground for these fascists, and their support from amongst the ranks of this traditional “white” working-class. Stoke itself has always had a prominent position in that regard, perhaps not surprising given that Mosely's ancestral home was at Apedale Hall near Stoke, and his wife Cynthia was MP for Stoke. But similar conservative layers of backward workers can be found everywhere.
They are the workers who stand on the doorstep jeering, as the advanced workers and their families marched in support of the demands of the “metropolitan elite” of their day, who sought that most fanciful of things the right of everyone to vote in elections! In later decades, the same kinds of people would line up behind the British Brothers League, who demanded that Jews be kept out of Britain, and pushed the Tory government to introduce the first immigration laws to that effect. Some of them, like Stoke MP, John Ward, were organised in labour battalions to fight on the side of the Tsarist White forces of Kolchak, in the Russian Civil War. A couple of decades later, they supported Oswald Mosely and the British Union of Fascists. In the 1960's and 70's, they supported Mosely's heirs in the National Front, and then the British National Party. Indeed, in all these periods, places like Stoke were a breeding ground for these fascists, and their support from amongst the ranks of this traditional “white” working-class. Stoke itself has always had a prominent position in that regard, perhaps not surprising given that Mosely's ancestral home was at Apedale Hall near Stoke, and his wife Cynthia was MP for Stoke. But similar conservative layers of backward workers can be found everywhere.
If you are isolated and atomised as an individual worker, its easy to look at all this crap put out by the media, and to be depressed and misled. Indeed, besides lazy journalism, and sensationalism in order to boost ratings, this is why they do it. It is precisely the point made by the theorists of mass society. If you consume all of this reactionary propaganda, and you have no filter through which to interpret it, it becomes easier for elites such as that represented by Mosely, Johnson and Farage to manipulate the mass.
I first took an active interest in politics when I was 10. It came naturally given my father's activity as a union militant, who, whilst not actively involved in politics, talked about it and class struggle much of the time, including with my mother's father, who had himself been an AUEW Branch Secretary, as well as local Labour Party Secretary in the 1930's. They didn't agree, my grandfather being generally in the more moderate tradition, and my dad being in the Hughie Scanlon tradition. Some years later, in 1968, when France was rocked by the events of May, and there were demonstrations, it seemed, every week, in Grosvenor Square, Red Lion Square, and elsewhere against the Vietnam War, I was enthused. But, some of my school friends, reflected the attitudes of many older workers at that time, who thought that the students ought to get back to college, get a wash, and preferably get a proper job. I remember, also, at the time, reading the Letters pages of the local newspaper, which echoed these same kinds of sentiments, as well as others attacking striking car workers and so on. It was very depressing. For a time, I was inclined to agree with my older sister, who commented that “the working class is its own worst enemy”, which, however, was also probably just a meme (before anyone had ever heard of memes) that was echoed as some piece of profound knowledge. For a while, I decided that the class struggle would have to go on without me, and that I would spend my time enjoying Northern Soul, and the company of the opposite sex.
It didn't last long. Employed by a large company, I was soon drawn inexorably into trades union activity. Within six months of starting work in a large non-unionised workplace, I had brought 75% of its workers into the union, and become shop steward. It isn't as though there weren't the same reactionary and conservative views to be heard in that workplace - they were there in abundance, but, now, it was possible to put then in a wider context, and to contrast them with the views of other workers who did not share those views. As shop steward, I was able to pull together a group of young workers for lunch-time meetings, prima facie to discuss issues within the workplace, but which was also a means of discussing wider political issues. Indeed, within a few months, I was able to get half a dozen of these young workers to come with me to meet the Labour MP (who was also CLP secretary) to ask to be allowed to set up a Young Socialists – we were turned down.
Here is a problem that faces the Labour Party. On the one hand, many of these same kinds of large workplaces, outside the public sector have disappeared. The potential for trades union organisation, and even more for workplace organisation and activity has disappeared. But, a lot of the involvement of rank and file Labour Party members in other aspects of workers lives has also disappeared. We have a membership of half a million, but a lot of its activity has been passive. Many do not even attend branch or CLP meetings, which is why the old right councillors and MP's are still in place. Corbyn promised to build a mass social movement, but completely failed to do so. Even Michael Foot, after 1980, organised regular mass demonstrations against unemployment. Labour's only large scale activities have been the jamborees organised by Momentum around Labour Conference, and large scale campaigning work during elections themselves. Its not enough. A large part of the reason that people didn't believe the 2019 Manifesto is that, to get support for such policies, you need to argue for them consistently over a long period, and those arguments have to be undertaken on every shop, office and factory floor, in every pub and club, in every Tenants Association, Residents Association, Neighbourhood Watch Group, Sports Club and any other collective venue you can think of. Labour should drop the idea of producing manifestos for elections, and instead draw up a Manifesto of what it believes, and what it will seek to win support for, and it should then argue for that consistently over a number of years. Its offering to voters should not be like a list of Christmas gifts to be handed out, but a credible series of policies that it mobilises the working class around, to fight for itself. Every shop steward quickly learns that lesson the first time they go into complain to management on behalf of their members, only to look round and find no one standing behind them.
The reality of the Tory government over the next few years will mean not healing, but that the inevitable contradiction upon which it exists will result quickly in open conflicts. Labour has to be ready to intervene in every one of those conflicts, and to draw out the lessons, including the lessons that flow back to the very reactionary ideas on which some sections of the working-class voted for Brexit, and for Johnson's Tories.
Forward To Part 2
Forward To Part 2
No comments:
Post a Comment