Following hot on the heels of, um, Gavin Shuker's call for a new party, Kate Maltby the sometime Tory is demanding Labour MPs jump ship. "We're not far off a general election", she wails, "and time is running out to stop Jeremy Corbyn and Boris Johnson!" She does at least acknowledge one aspect of political reality: the Labour leader has the confidence of the party membership and is not going anywhere this side of Brexit. She says MPs spending time shoring themselves up against the possibility of deselection are "wasting their time" (easy to say when you're not a Labour MP wanting to carry on being a Labour MP) because the time for a new centrist party, or a strengthened Liberal Democrats, is now.
Maltby goes on to say how "wonderful" it is to see Heidi Allen and Luciana Berger "liberated" from their parties. Yes, it's nice to be responsible for the sum total of sod all without any expectations or accountability to the members, the activists, and the party who put you there. But, suddenly remembering Change UK actually launched and justly failed, this adventure was "premature". The "social democrats" failed to turn up to the party. Now, however, the time is right. If Labour people leave the party and set up shop independently or prefer shacking up with the LibDems, then some Tories will follow their lead. And ... and ... and ...? Well, that's it.
As a media "personality" I imagine Maltby got more than the standard £75 for this drivel, but for what? This article says nothing, and doesn't even try making a case. Why should rebellious Labour MPs pitch their tent in another camp? What has changed since the formation of Change UK to necessitate this outburst? Well, we have seen some developments. The previous tenant at Number 10 has moved on and Boris Johnson is the Prime Minister. But apart from this, the situation is broadly the same despite earnest efforts to present the contrary. The parliamentary arithmetic has shifted against Johnson and the no deal fanatics thanks to the Brecon by-election, and that has only added to the majority against exiting minus an arrangement with the EU. The polling since his assumption of office have mostly moved in his favour, but the overall flow is away from the four-party politics sundry pundits were getting excited about a few short weeks ago and back toward the big two. And so early August is looking looking like mid-February: two-party politics, a Brexit impasse, and no deal weighing on Westminster brains like a nightmare. And just as there was neither rhyme nor reason for cack-handedly launching a centrist party then, there's no reason for one now.
Finding bourgeois politics commentators who understand politics is expecting too much these days, and so Maltby isn't a one off. She's by no means the worst this mildew-reeking stable has to offer either. Her strata, the polite society of establishment media has seen their world implode. Thanks to social media, they are abused (challenged) for writing guff, and their status as opinion formers is shot. They make bank selling words to The Graun and reviewing papers for the BBC (commentators commenting on comment), but they're nothing special. Seeing their political analogues easily brushed aside by a left wing membership in Labour, and their remainer soulmates on the Tory benches routed by a party on a suicide run, it's all a rude reminder that their world is on its way out. They don't understand and certainly don't like what the fates have ushered in in its place, even more so because it doesn't afford them the same privileged role as entitled opinion formers. And in their consequent state of anomie they have nothing left but bad faith, like Dan Hodges, the same article regurgitated time and again, as per Nick Cohen, and piss and wind, such as Kate Maltby and co. The mine for centrist bellyaching and clueless takes might be profitable for now, but it's by no means inexhaustible. So enjoy, if that's the right word, this sub-genre of political writing while it lasts. It's not long for this world.
9 comments:
"She does at least acknowledge one aspect of political reality: the Labour leader has the confidence of the party membership and is not going anywhere this side of Brexit."
True, but the confidence of members has eroded seriously. And, with both Tory and Labour MP's facing deselection there is a strong incentive for them to join the Liberals to for a National Government coalition. That is likely to be what happens after a No Confidence vote, especially if BJ says he will not call an election after losing it. It gives 14 days for MP's to put forward such an alternative National Government from existing MP's.
That such a centrist vehicle can provide no long-term solution is besides the point. It can provide an electoral short term solution, if Corbyn and Labour continue to fail in that regard. It would simply mean that the Liberals/Blair-rights. social-democratic Tories cobble together the kind of alliance seen in previous earlier periods of the 20th century, in similar conditions, which squeezes out Labour.
It would simply be a repetition of the experience of Macron in France. It is doomed to fail in the longer-term, but that doesn't change the fact that it destroys the Labour project, and the Left's project within it. And, when it fails, it simply opens the door once more for more reactionary forces to fill the void. As is the potential in France now with the yellow jackets.
"The polling since his assumption of office have mostly moved in his favour, but the overall flow is away from the four-party politics sundry pundits were getting excited about a few short weeks ago and back toward the big two. And so early August is looking looking like mid-February: two-party politics, a Brexit impasse, and no deal weighing on Westminster brains like a nightmare. And just as there was neither rhyme nor reason for cack-handedly launching a centrist party then, there's no reason for one now."
But, the question now is, which Big Two. Brecon indicated that as things settle into the usual bifurcation the other pole to the Tories is going to be whoever presents the most credible, most clear and militant anti-Brexit position, and that still isn't Labour under Corbyn.
The fact of a return to two-party politics whilst Brexit continues to dominate and whilst Labour continues to sit on the fence simply means the Liberals become the other pole of attraction to the Tories, not Labour. That already has a momentum of its own, and is likely to just draw more Labour and Tory MP's towards the Liberals, and to strengthen an anti-Brexit alliance that Labour's current vague positioning will have no chance of withstanding.
«they have nothing left but bad faith, like Dan Hodges, the same article regurgitated time and again, as per Nick Cohen, and piss and wind, such as Kate Maltby and co. The mine for centrist bellyaching and clueless takes»
These assessment seem to me me fairly generous and that's kind of you :-).
What astonishes me overall of the intellectual and even worse political poverty of the "centrists" is that there is an issue with dealing with "Sierra man" voters and it was discussed long ago by G Radice in his "Southern discomfort" pamphlet about the embourgeisiement of a section of the Labour voter base, and since then the "centrists" have produced nothing even approaching that level of insight (and I guess most of them don't even know about that pamphlet). But then the left seems to have chosen to a large extent instead to ignore the "Sierra man" issue.
«the other pole to the Tories is going to be whoever presents the most credible»
That's what obssessive "Remainiacs" and "Beleavers" think, but brexit is both as to economic impact and to electoral impact pretty small in elections that matter, where it is material interests that matter.
This was clearly demonstrated in june 2017 where most voters aligned on whether they gained or lost from the property and finance boom. Brexit will swing a few to several percent points of GDP in total, the property and finance boom redistributes upwards several more percent points of GDP *every year*.
Most people who vote Conservative do so not because of Brexit, but because the property and finance boom redistributes to them fantastic sums, and most people who vote Labour because the property and finance boom redistributes from them those sums. The biggest problem that the latter have is making rent at the end of the month if tenants or if owner-occupiers being stuck in a small house because the price gap to a larger house has become unaffordable, or owning a property in a left-behind area where it has actually fallen in real price. Wages, pensions, Ts&Cs rank second, and I doubt that Brexit ranks even third (whether or not it should) in their worries.
"That's what obssessive "Remainiacs" and "Beleavers" think, but brexit is both as to economic impact and to electoral impact pretty small in elections that matter, where it is material interests that matter."
That used to be true, but is no longer as both many opinion surveys and actual elections have shown. The majority of voters who now identify as either a Remainer or Leaver far outweighs those that identify themselves as Labour or Tory.
Its a similar situation as existed in Northern Ireland, where the Economists of the Militant Tendency continually bemoaned that the Protestant and Catholic workers would not set aside their sectarian communal divisions and concentrate on purely "material" economic issues, and join together in their trades unions, or more ridiculously in joint trades unions defence squads to oppose the paramilitaries (who they failed to recognise were from the working class communities themselves).
Brexit is the defining issue, and for good reason, because upon it also hangs a whole series of "material" interests.
«many opinion surveys and actual elections have shown. The majority of voters who now identify as either a Remainer or Leaver far outweighs those that identify themselves as Labour or Tory.»
Identifying or voting in elections that don't matter is not such a strong indicator; the same polls were giving much the same results before june 2017. I'll quote here the noxious G Norquist from the USA about the Republican voting base there:
http://web01.prospect.org/article/world-according-grover
“Pat Buchanan came into this coalition and said, “You know what? I have polled everybody in the room and 70 percent think there are too many immigrants; 70 percent are skeptics on free trade with China. I will run for President as a Republican; I will get 70 percent of the vote.” He didn't ask the second question … do you vote on that subject?”
Eventually yes they voted on those subjects and elected D Trump, but it took a long time and in large part because he was the only candidate (other than B Sanders of course) addressing the interests of many of those voters, not just their opinions. We'll see at the next general elections...
I have just been informed by FB that this article goes against their Community Sandards - anyone know why?
A take that's too hot for Facebook?
I suspect it will have something to do with sharing the article across multiple groups, or someone has put a complaint in. It happens.
"Identifying or voting in elections that don't matter is not such a strong indicator; the same polls were giving much the same results before june 2017. I'll quote here the noxious G Norquist from the USA about the Republican voting base there:"
Except its also supported by extensive polling and surveys too. In fact the surveys show not only that Leave and remain are much stronger identifiers than Labour or Tory, but that the identification is becoming stronger, particularly amongst Remainers. They see the potential for disaster more clearly, and are becoming more determined to prevent it.
The 2017 vote, for Labour actually was based on Large numbers of young voters who reacted to the Leave vote, by seeing the need to do what they could to stop it, or at least ameliorate it. Its also why Labour picked up lots of Liberal and Green votes, and in pplaces like Canterbury and Kensington and Chelsea, even Remain Tory voters, as the party with best chance of preventing a hard Tory Brexit.
Labour has squandered that support in the intervening period. Unless Labour comes out with a very hard and believable Stop Brexit position, its unlikely to be able to repeat the 2017 situation. On the contrary, the same momentum is currently behind the Liberals as being able to fulfil that role.
As for Trump, the same as for Brexit. The actual analysis shows that Trump was elected on the back of higher income voters, just as Brexit was pushed through by elderly, better-off Tory voters in Britain. The other similarity is that Brexit actually only won 37% support in the referendum, and Trump also did not win a majority of votes in the presidential Election. Clinton won 4 million more votes. Trump was elected because of the peculiarities of the Electoral College.
Trump did not address the interests of US workers any more than Brexit addresses the needs of UK workers. Both are far right projects.
Post a Comment