In reality, the demands for protection of national economic interest, was always an attempt to protect the economic interests of the petty-bourgeoisie. Large scale, socialised capital does not require all of those exemptions from the Working-Time Directive, and so on, which is why European capital could easily accommodate such regulations. As Marx and Engels described, all of these concessions to civilised behaviour, in fact, benefited large-scale capital, at the expense of small capital, and facilitated its further, more rapid concentration. The opposition, in Britain, stemmed from the increasing dominance of the Tories by the petty-bourgeoisie, and a search by New Labour, for “the centre ground”, in competition with the Tories, for it.
During the 1990's and 2000's, the Tories continued to be racked by this contradiction. After 1997, the reactionary, petty-bourgeois wing asserted control, electing one Eurosceptic Leader after another, each failing to be able to mobilise the support of the ruling-class, or of the middle-class required to form an electoral coalition, with the petty-bourgeoisie, large enough to win a majority in parliament. Even when Blair destroyed New Labour's position, by his disastrous alliance with US imperialism in the Iraq War, the Tories were unable to take advantage. Eventually, they had to move away from those positions, and, in 2005, elected Cameron as Leader, who modelled himself on Blair.
Even, then, had Brown gone for an election in 2007, after replacing Blair, and so before the 2008 global financial crash, its likely that Labour would have won. Indeed, despite the 2008 crash, and the ability of the Tories to lie, incredibly, about the culpability of Labour for it, they were unable to win a majority, in 2010, needing to form a coalition with the very pro-EU, Liberal-Democrats. Cameron's election, as Leader, did not, however, represent a decisive defeat of the petty-bourgeois wing of the party, and the coalition with the Liberals only intensified the contradictions, which the rise of UKIP, as an external whip on the Tories, illustrated. To accommodate the reactionary, nationalist, petty-bourgeoisie, Cameron was forced to adopt a superficial, Eurosceptic stance, for example, pulling out of the EPP, and, instead aligning with the various far-right, loons and fruit cases, in the European Parliament, and, of course, promising to hold an EU referendum.
But, as I wrote, at the time of that referendum, the fact that Cameron had been forced to continually attack the EU, to appease the reactionary, petty-bourgeois, Tory base, meant that, when he called that referendum, he had to do so on the basis of the facade of some “renegotiation” of membership, to promote British “national” interest. No such renegotiation was possible, just as, today, there is no possibility of “renegotiation” of the Brexit agreement, whatever Sunak or Starmer might claim. Having spent years attacking the EU, Cameron was in no position to, then, spearhead the campaign for a Remain vote in 2016, and, as Prime Minister, the main burden of that task rested on him.
Cameron, in his first assent, coincided, contradictorily, with the rising wave of petty-bourgeois nationalism towards its peak, combining with the need of the Tory Party to form an electoral coalition to win a majority, which that nationalist agenda had denied it. Cameron's fall, coincided with the peaking of that reactionary wave, and its breaking on the rocks of reality. In the years that followed, that reality has imposed itself. A Brexit in name only, in which Britain has to abide by EU Single Market and Customs regulations, most visible in relation to the Northern Ireland Protocol. Its only exception is in relation to free movement, which itself has damaged not only British workers, but the British economy, most visibly following lockdowns. Both the Tories and Labour, as they have continued to tail an illusory pro-Brexit public opinion, particularly in the so called “Red Wall” seats, now, continue to use the language of British exceptionalism, and peddle the delusion of some “renegotiation” of its relations with the EU, even though, none is possible.
Cameron's second coming, coincides with this failure of nationalism. In bringing him back, Sunak seems to have decided that, given the realities, the Tories have little chance of holding on to those red wall seats. Labour will not win them, so much as the Tories losing them. Meanwhile, as the Budget showed, they have their eyes on the next, but one election, following another failure by Starmer's nationalistic Blue Labour.
But, the Tories also want to avoid a complete meltdown of their votes and seats. If they continue to push the kind of policies that led to the crash of the Truss government in 2022, not only could they lose those red wall seats, but also, a large chunk of the Blue Wall seats, where the pro-EU, Liberals have been winning big, by sucking up all of the middle-class Tory voters, as well as picking up the tactical votes of Labour voters. The Tories could have ended up in third place, posing an existential threat for them, in future elections, in a first past the post system. Better to trap Blue Labour in a continued commitment to a failing and reactionary Brexit, for which, as with the GFC, the Tories can then blame Labour, and to leave itself free to return to its old, big business friendly, pro-EU stance, in a 2028 General Election.
The Tories seem to be going for a core vote strategy, but one diametrically opposed to that pursued over the last 20 years. That is, they are seeking to secure their position in those core, Blue Wall seats, based upon retaining the votes of the progressive middle-class. Its not just the return of Cameron, but the removal of Braverman et al. It spells the failure and coming end of Brexitism, and reactionary, petty-bourgeois nationalism, and good riddance too.
No comments:
Post a Comment