Starmer's speech to conference was vacuous when it comes to policy, and where it had any substance it was at best conservative, and at worst reactionary. Its general tone was one of hypocrisy and sickening back-slapping typical of an elite that thinks it has a natural right to its privileged parliamentary positions, and all that flows from it, and that the function of the rests of us is merely as peons, useful only to trudge the streets, so as to get them elected to those positions. But, even in its own terms, it offers no reason for Labour voters to vote Labour, and unless things change will almost certainly see the Tories win another election, with Labour haemorrhaging votes in Scotland, Wales, and in its core strongholds in the cities. That in itself spells the death knell for Starmer's own leadership.
The reality is that Starmer has managed the amazing feat of taking the worst elements of Corbyn's nationalism, in relation to Brexit, that lost us millions of votes in 2019, and combined it with the worst of the failed politics of Blairism that also lost us millions of votes in every election after 1997, resulting in the election of the Tories in 2010. Starmer's cringing back-slapping speech praised the wonderful leadership of Anas Sarwar in Scotland, but the reality is that, despite the horrendous politics of the Tories, and the failures of the SNP, Labour has been decimated in Scotland, a process that began under Blair, and stemmed from the same kinds of neoliberal politics that Starmer is championing again today.
But, at least Blair and Brown were big supporters of the EU, and opponents of Brexit, whereas Starmer typical of his lying opportunist politics has gone from being a Europhile under Corbyn to as big a Brexiter, now, as Johnson! Given the opposition to Brexit by the large majority of Scots, what chance has Labour of improving on its current position of 1 MP, when it is both championing Brexit, and again advocating the neoliberal politics of Blair that created the various crises seen today? If Sarwar, and Scottish Labour is to be the model for Starmer for Labour in general, then it and he is doomed, because in Scotland, labour is not just way behind the SNP, it is way behind the Tories as well!
Without any MP's from Scotland, the chance of Labour winning the next election, is next to zero. But, Labour is also likely to lose votes and seats in Wales too given those same positions, and it doesn't stop there. Labour's core support now resides amongst the young working-class concentrated in the cities, and large metropolitan areas, but who are also becoming a larger proportion of the population of the towns, as their older inhabitants die out. Those voters not only overwhelmingly oppose Brexit, but they also overwhelmingly support the progressive social-democratic policies that were being developed under Corbyn, but which Starmer is now ditching wholesale, despite being elected leader on a platform that committed him to continuing them. There is no reason for these voters to turn out for Labour. Those who are Labour members will have little reason to pound the streets to canvas for polices they do not support, simply for the greater glory of a Leader who lied to them in order to get himself elected.
Its not a matter that these core voters will vote Tory, or even that they will vote for parties who appear more radical such as the Greens, or Liberals, but that they will simply sit on their hands, give them time to other campaigns, and non-parliamentary activities. Some undoubtedly will vote for the Greens and Liberals, just as in Scotland many have given their vote to the SNP, and in Wales to Plaid, some members may even migrate to these other parties. But, it is only necessary that disenchanted members fail to campaign for candidates they do not support, and Labour voters sit at home, for other parties to advance at labour's expense. Whilst labour's vote will fall in those core areas, the Tories will continue to mobilise their core support, and the Liberals and Greens et al, will advance as they opportunistically present a more radical alternative to that being presented by Starmer and his conservative Labour Party.
Starmer's days are numbered, because he, like Kinnock in the 1980's, has pinned his star to the idea that abandoning principle and even moderate social-democracy is justified, if it results in the winning of elections so that the PLP elite can continue to enjoy their pampered lifestyle, and the doors it opens to the boardrooms and sinecures to continue that lifestyle when they retire from parliament. The shift of Starer's conservative Labour Party on to the grounds of Blue Labour, of its cringing appeal to nationalism and patriotism is not going to win over the reactionary voters in the "red wall" seats, but it will lose them seats in Scotland, Wales and in the cities and metropolitan areas, as well as amongst that same young, working-class vote in the towns. Labour will go backwards, and that will be the excuse the right needs to ditch him, and to replace him with one of their own.
That is pretty much a straight repeat of what the Right did when they used Kinnock in the 1980's. It is pretty much the experience that has been seen on every occasion when sections of the Left placed their faith in the idea of Popular Frontist politics and an alliance with the soft-left and centre, with bourgeois and petty-bourgeois liberals. What has happened is almost exactly what I said would happen with Starmer's election. Whether he was really of the Right to begin with, or merely captured by them along the way does not matter, the result is the same. The Right, as they did with Kinnock, used him as a fake left to undermine the real Left, and they backed that up with the pushing through of bureaucratic expulsions, and a restriction on debate. But just as Kinnock was simply a staging post for the Right to put in place Blair, so Starmer is just a staging point for the Right to put in place one of their own. As Starmer continues to fail in his chosen metric of electoral success, so the Right will move against him.
All of this could have been, and was predicted. When Paul Mason talked about the need to support Starmer in order to build an alliance of the Left and centre against the Right, I warned that the history of such alliances was disastrous for the Left. (See my posts "A New Leadership?", on the experiences of the 1980's) Today, Paul comments that the deal he had with Starmer has been broken! What deal? It was clear from the start that Starmer was not going to be part of any such deal, any more than was Kinnock in he 1980's, and those that gullibly listened to their siren calls not to rock the boat, in order to build a superficial unity against the Right were fools to themselves who have learned absolutely nothing from history. The same applies to the use of the same Popular Front strategy being proposed by Paul in his book "How To Fight Fasicsm". Emily Maitliss, actually summed it up perfectly on Newsnight, when she put it to him, when he was complaining that Starmer had reneged on this "deal", by saying "But, isn't this the problem Paul that you repeatedly give your support to Labour leaders, only then to be disappointed in them?"
The decisions of those, like the Bakers Union, who have disaffiliated from Labour is an act of political cowardice. It amounts to them running away from the fight, and leaving others to do it for them, just as they have done in the past, and only deciding to return to the party when others had wages that fight for them. Now is not the time for supporters of the Left to run away from the fight, but to gird our loins all the more for it, and to draw even greater forces into the party for that purpose. In many ways, the prospect of that is greater today than it was in the 1980's. Then, the world economy was entering a period of stagnation and retreat for the working-class; today we are in a period of long wave upswing, and as the global economy comes out of the self-inflicted damage of lock downs, it is growing rapidly, with widespread labour shortages. The global economy is set to grow at the fastest pace in more than 50 years.
That underlying material reality has set the forces of economic nationalism and right-wing populism back in the US, in Norway, and most recently in Germany. It is a mark of Starmer's incompetence that, by contrast, and despite the multiple crises of Brexit, lock downs, food and fuel shortages and so on, he has not made a scratch on the standing of Johnson and the Tories, but then he has acted as Johnson's second lieutenant for the last two years, so why would anyone be surprised at that?
But, conditions are better also, because the membership of the Labour party is also much larger, and better educated than it was in the 1980's. In many ways that Left is also more coherent, based around a clearer international socialist perspective manifest in the huge level of opposition to Brexit, compared to the extent to which economic nationalism played a more dominant role on the Left in the 80's. Most of that Left today, is also outside the various sects and groupuscles, which is both an advantage and a disadvantage. It is n advantage in that it reduces the inveterate sectarianism that afflicted and disabled the Left in the 1980's, but a disadvantage in that to be effective, it is going to have go from being loosely connected networks of individuals, to a disciplined and organised movement. The Right have no ideas, but they do have organisation, and that is what allowed them to regain control, and that has also again been seen in the Conference Hall.
There also appears to be greater opposition to Starmer from within the unions than there was to Kinnock in the 1980's, as they too seem to be aware that he is a stepping stone to the Right, but also that, a return to those right-wing policies of the past will not bring them the Labour government they require. Starmer said yesterday that he puts victory above unity, completely contradicting what he said in his Leadership election bid. But, even a political novice knows that disunited parties do not win elections. Its why the Right and soft-left put so much effort into dividing the party when Corbyn was Leader. Starmer certainly knows that, and so what he really means is that he places defeating the Left above electoral victory, just as in 2017 and 2019, the Right did all they could to divide the Party, and increase the chances of electoral defeat, as the basis of them attacking Corbyn.
But, that cuts both ways. Starmer's days are numbered, because as labour continues to perform bad electorally, the Right will move against him, and now there is no reason for the left to be gulled into supporting him. The calls for the Socialist Campaign Group to launch a leadership bid - they have 36 members and only require 4 more votes, even under the new rules, to do so - are pointless. There is no point electing a Left leader, if the PLP remains dominated by the Right. As i said about what would happen if Long-Bailey had won the leadership, it would simply result in 90% of the PLP undermining her, and going their own way.
The answer is that we need to change the PLP. We need to deselect 90% of current MP's, and replace them with left-wing MP's. Then selecting and electing a Left leader flows naturally from that, and becomes a firm foundation, not a continual sore. That is where the current effort should be focused.
No comments:
Post a Comment