In the days following the Chesham By-Election, in which Labour's vote disappeared, causing it to lose its deposit, Starmerite apologists have been busy trying to explain why the party is now suffering much worse losses, both in "Red Wall" seats, and in "Blue Wall" seats than it did under Corbyn. They don't want to see that the reason they are doing so badly, whatever colour the wall, is actually the same. It is the same reason that Labour did so well in both colour walls in 2017, and then so badly in 2019. The reason is that Labour's adoption of reactionary, nationalist positions is driving its core, young, progressive vote away from it. Its also what makes all talk of a "progressive alliance" nonsensical. What, in fact, we have is an undeclared "reactionary nationalist alliance" between a Blue Labour Party and a true Blue Tory Party, both competing over who can wrap themselves more in the butcher's apron, who can supplicate themselves more at the feet of bigoted voters.
Various Starmerite apologists have come out in the last few days to claim that Labour's vote collapsed in Chesham and Amersham, because it is a seat where Labour has never been competitive, and so the result is explained simply by the fact that Labour voters voted tactically for the Liberals, to defeat the Tories. The problem is that the easily verifiable facts show its bunkum. In 2017, it was labour, not the Liberals that came second in the seat, and they did so scoring 11,374 votes as against the Liberals 7,179 votes. Go back to the 2015, General Election, and Labour was again ahead of the Liberals, scoring 6,712 votes as against the Liberals 4,761.
Now, its true that, in all these elections, Labour was not "competitive" as against the sitting Tory MP, but they were more competitive than the Liberals, indeed approximately 50% more competitive on each occasion, and, as the only party likely to be able to form an alternative government to the Tories, they have that added advantage in a FPTP system, to be the ones to benefit from tactical voting against an incumbent. So, the Starmer apologists simply lie when they say that Labour's vote collapsed because they have never been competitive in the seat, whereas somehow the Liberals were, and so it was all about tactical voting.
Its true that, in 2019, as elsewhere in the country, Labour dropped from second place to third, but that is simply a reflection of the fact that, in 2019, Corbyn's reversion to his old reactionary nationalist, anti-EU position, had driven Labour's core progressive vote away from the party. In the European and local elections, in the Spring of 2019, even 60% of Labour members voted for overtly pro-EU parties rather than Labour, for goodness sake, so why is it difficult to understand that, progressive Labour voters, not to mention those progressive Liberals, Greens and others who had lent Labour their vote in 2017, would quickly abandon it?
And, further proof of that was given in the local elections earlier this year. The Starmerites were quick to claim that the 2019 General Election result was the worst for Labour since 1935 - it wasn't - and have stressed that the party is "under new management", a line that Corbyn would have done well to have advanced to demarcate it from Blairism, but that new management is performing much worse than did the Corbyn management in 2019! It is failing in its own terms electorally, and it is failing politically, in that it has rent the party asunder with its witch hunts against the Left, failed to bring forward any policies new or old, and even in its attempts to follow Kinnock in crushing the Left, has even failed.
It provides no compelling reason for reactionaries to support it rather than the Tories from which it is increasingly indistinguishable, and certainly no reason for any progressive voter to support it. That is why it loses in both Red and Blue Wall seats, and that process is going to continue. In the local elections, progressive voters took the opportunity to vote for parties that superficially appear a progressive alternative to Labour, primarily the Greens, as the Liberals are still tarnished with their coalition with the Tories, and the fact that the delusional Swinson thought that she could dictate to Labour who its Leader should be, and thought she was on her way to becoming Prime Minister. In Chesham, the Greens certainly were not competitive, and so progressive voters rallied around the Liberals, because they see no real difference between Blue Labour and true Blue Tories, especially a Blue Labour Party that has no policies, is rent with division created by its Leader and his supporters, and whose opportunism now means that it continually speaks from both sides of its mouth, solely for any minor electoral advantage it thinks it might obtain.
In that, of course, its no different to the Liberals, whose opportunism and forked tongues are legendary, again seen in the by-election, where it opposed HS2, despite supporting it nationally, where it supports the objections of NIMBY's, whilst claiming to want to enable young people to obtain housing, and so on. In truth, the Liberals and Greens do not offer any progressive alternative to Labour. Liberals and Greens frequently enter into alliances with Tories in local government, and their record in terms of cuts, and labour relations is as bad as the Tories. But, that opportunism also means that, here, and now, they again see electoral advantage in posing as a progressive alternative to Labour.
That is why there is no reason for any of these parties, be it Liberals, Green, Plaid and certainly the SNP to enter any kind of "progressive alliance" with Labour. On the contrary, the clue is in the name. If any of these smaller parties were to join any such "progressive alliance" with Labour, it could only act to provide Left cover for a Labour Party already well advanced in a reactionary direction, whilst tarnishing the brand of these smaller parties as "progressive" alternatives to it. There is every advantage to these smaller parties in giving Labour a wide berth, just as much as the Tories, as both drag each other down in their reactionary embrace. The reality of current politics is that reality of a reactionary alliance between Labour and the Tories, founded upon the pursuit of reactionary nationalism, as they both scramble after the illusion of swing reactionary voters, in northern and midland constituencies. The myth of Blairism was that elections were won by winning the "centre-ground", the myth of Starmerism is that elections can only be won by chasing after a group of ageing reactionary voters, who, in any case are dying out.
If the smaller parties were to propose an alliance with Labour, it would be entirely to their detriment, and to the advantage of a rapidly rightward moving Labour Party, which needs them for Left cover, and for votes. It would not in any sense be a "progressive alliance", but merely an anti-Tory electoral alliance. But, that is to confuse appearance and reality. What point is there in an "anti-Tory Alliance", when its only consequence is to benefit and put in place a reactionary Labour government itself implementing th same kinds of reactionary nationalist agenda as the Tories?
And, the Chesham and Amersham by-election shows why the Starmerites are then desperate for such cover, because, it showed how with FPTP, a suddden shift by voters can take out even large majorities, and put in place what were former minority parties. Labour too was once a minority party, suffering at the hands of the electoral system, after all. And, once you lose that second party advantage, it could be very hard to regain it, especially when your leadership is doing all in its power to destroy the fabric of the party, and to drive away your core support.
No comments:
Post a Comment