Saturday, 28 December 2019

Review of Predictions For 2019 - Prediction 3 - The EU Elections See Support For Right-Wing Populism Decline

This prediction was correct. For several years, the advance of right-wing populism and nationalism has been predicted across Europe. There are obvious symbols of that trend, such as the Faragists in Britain, Le Pen in France, Wilders in the Netherlands, Orban in Hungary, and so on. All of these parties can be seen as part of a similar global trend towards right-wing populism and nationalism, as manifest by Trump in the US, Bolsinaro in Brazil, Modi in India, and so on. They all also share a similar ideology to that which emanates from the right-wing kleptocratic government of Putin in Russia, whose fingerprints have been found on a range of interventions in elections in the US and Europe. Indeed, large amounts of funding for the Tories has come from Russians closely associated with Putin. 

But, as predicted, this right-wing populism and nationalism appears to have already past its high water mark. The election of Boris Johnson's right-wing populist, nationalist government might appear to contradict that, but, even here, in terms of the votes cast, around 54% went to anti-Brexit/second referendum parties, as against only 46% for overtly pro-Brexit parties. A look at the UK election map on a geographic basis makes it look as though the Tories have widespread support, but the geographic maps, as opposed to population maps, are deceiving. The large areas of blue on a geographic map reflect the fact that the Tories have control over seats in shire counties, which are large in land area, but more sparsely populated, and now also in some depopulating towns in the North and Midlands, particularly in areas where old manufacturing industries once existed, and where the old workers from those industries are congregated, and dying out. Looked at in terms of population maps, it is, in fact, clear that the support for the Tories is restricted to a narrow segment of the population that tends to be elderly, and in decline. 

The same population maps show support for Labour, in particular, to be concentrated in the areas of higher population density, in the cities, including the cities of the North, where the concentration of the new industries, in services and technology tend to be based, and so where younger, better educated populations exist. In addition, the Tories, as well as Labour and the Liberals, have been all but wiped out in Scotland by the SNP. 

In 2016, the vote in favour of Brexit, was followed by a reaction which saw large numbers of young people take up a more active involvement in politics, particularly in swelling the ranks of the Labour Party. No sooner had the vote in favour of Brexit been carried than a majority turned against that decision, and in every poll since 2016, there has been a majority against Brexit. Farage's Brexit company bragged that it had won the 2019 EU parliament elections, but that was not true. In fact, a majority of seats, as well as a majority of votes went to parties opposing Brexit. A similar thing has happened in the US. Trump was a champion of Brexit prior to his election. His own election similarly brought forward a reaction against it. Large numbers of young people again became politically active, and they have brought forward new more progressive representatives. The US Social Democrats like Bernie Sanders, once seen as a bit of an oddity, are now the ones who determine the agenda for that party. 

By contrast, in France, the Left which had disgraced itself under Hollande's Blairism, and failed to offer a credible or attractive offer in the shape of Hamon or Melonchon, saw itself eclipsed by Macron. That would have been likely to have happened in Britain were it not for the lack of a proportional representation voting system, and the dire political strategy and tactics the Liberals. The French voters had no great affinity with him either, as shown by the large number of abstentions in the election, but enough were prepared to back him in order to defeat Le Pen. The experience of Macron, as with Clinton in the US in 2016, is a warning to the Blair-rights, and other centrists who would respond to Trump and Johnson, by again seeking to return to those failed centrist politics of the 1990's and early 2000's that created the conditions for the rise of Trump and Brexit to begin with. Trump cannot be beaten by a Biden, or if he was, it would only be a precursor to someone worse than Trump taking over at the following election. Similarly, Johnson will not be beaten by a Cooper, Nandy, Starmer, and still less a Phillips. It is their politics that created the conditions that led to the current situation. Their politics was possible in the conditions of the previous thirty years, but it is not possible today. 

The experience of Macron illustrates the point. He defeated Le Pen electorally, but his own social base was weak. The politics on which he was based is the same Blair-right politics that had failed, and opened the door to right-wing populism. After a very short honeymoon following his election, that was demonstrated by the fact that his popularity sank through the floor. He defeated Le Pen, but could not change the economic conditions that created the social base for Le Pen. Le Pen's voters simply channelled their opposition by other routes, in particular, via the rise of the gilettes jaunes. Macron has attempted to resolve the problems of French capitalism in the same way that others of his persuasion have tried, by simply attempting to screw workers even harder. As I wrote several years ago, in relation to Britain, the chances of success for that are slim. This is not the 1980's. Workers wages have already been squeezed in the 1980's, and 1990's. They began to recover in the early 2000's, only to be curtailed with the onset of the financial crisis, and its economic consequences. The ability to reduce wages further is restricted, whilst the conditions of slow but steady rises in employment levels, means that the pressure is actually for wages to rise. 

Macron's attempts to attack workers are almost bound to fail, as the recent strikes against cuts in pensions demonstrate. Any upturn in the EU economy will only act to strengthen the position of workers further. We can only hope that that is what happens, because any economic downturn will instead strengthen the influence of Le Pen. Macron's failure and attempt to simply apply centrist politics and their concomitant attack on workers will have been only an interlude before opening the door to Le Pen. 

But, in general, across Europe, the forces of right-wing populism and nationalism have been pushed back. An immediate effect of the vote for Brexit has been to strengthen support for the EU amongst EU citizens. Polls show that support at record high levels. In the EU parliament elections, in May, pro-EU parties increased their number of MEP's. It is now at the same level it was at in 2004. Its true that Euro-sceptic and far-right parties have advanced, but they have done so at the expense of the Conservatives, and Christian Democrats, who comprise the largest bloc of right-wing populists. Even then the Far-Right and Eurosceptics have only advanced from around 23% of MEP's to around 25%. Meanwhile the biggest advance in May's elections was made by Greens. 

In national elections, right-wing populists where they were in office, as in Britain, Hungary, and Poland have remained in office, but they have made no further advances in other countries. Besides Le Pen's failure, Wilders failed in the Netherlands. In Austria, although the Social Democrats lost 12 of their 52 seats, the far right Freedom Party lost 20 of its 51 seats, whilst the Greens gained 26 seats. 

What is also striking is the extent to which, in Poland and Hungary, which have had some of the best GDP growth in Europe, of between 4-5% p.a. there has been a similar upsurge in opposition, as seen in the US and Britain, in response to the right-wing governments. What is also significant is that in both Poland and Hungary, these right-wing governments have been led to introduce their own measures of Keynesian state intervention. These measures like the Mosely Memorandum, or like the measures of state intervention introduced by Mussolini and Hitler, demonstrate the reality of the domination of modern economies by large-scale oligopolistic capital, and the requirement, therefore, of the state to pursue measures that defend its interests. Ultimately, its what drives even those nationalistic governments such as that of Orban to recognise that those interests can only be pursued within the context of EU membership.

No comments:

Post a Comment