The first thing worth remembering is the Tories are in long-term decline. There are three interrelated aspects to this. First, the class structure of all advanced capitalist societies are undergoing a profound change in which immaterial labour is the increasingly dominant characteristic of work. i.e. Whether you are a low paid worker putting in the miles at an Amazon warehouse, a shop assistant in a high street Next outlet, an IT worker, a teacher, a social worker, or a manager your labour is qualitatively the same: the production of knowledge, services, care, data, and relationships. To use the clumsy body/mind division, we've moved from the kind of work where you are a body to one in which you are a brain. It's the kind of work that mobilises your social and intellectual competencies, one where you employed because of the type of person you are. In one sense this is nothing new. This has characterised the hidden and dismissed domestic labour women have undertaken and are still largely responsible for, but what is novel is its generalisation to the workforce at large. This has a number of implications for the balance of power re: capital vs labour and the types and transformation of alienation, but one key consequence is a shift in values away from conservatism to tolerance and social liberalism. And so those political scientists who witter about class voting being replaced by values voting have got it wrong: values voting is symptomatic of class voting or, rather, class cohort voting. The younger you are, the more likely you are to be engaged in immaterial labour of some description, and therefore the more likely social liberalism is your cultural default. The Conservatives on the other hand rely on either retirees, sections of the managerial middle class, the petit bourgeoisie, and older workers who are much less likely to be engaged with immaterial labour. The problem the Tories have then is their base is shrinking and the new class of workers, or the socialised worker, are rising.
However, it's more than a question of simple non-congruence between the Tory party and socialised workers. After all, there has always been tensions and lack of fit between workers generally and Conservatism, but nevertheless significant minorities of workers have traditionally been anti-Labour and voted Tory. I know, it's where I'm from. No, what harms Tory chances is the fact their voter coalition, which is heavily dependent on petty property ownership, measure their wealth in terms of property prices and, for a small but important layer, derive income from renting out property. The Tories are not about to build houses anywhere near to the level of demand when their chances of getting into office are dependent on keeping these people sweet at the expense of other people who are never going to vote Tory anyway. And so young workers are locked out of property ownership, which has some quite serious long-term consequences for the Tories. We often talk about how people are supposed to become more conservative as they grow older, but this is not some essentialised characteristic gushing from the wellspring of wisdom. It is a concrete social process inseparable from property acquisition. If your conservative party is dependent on property ownership but is putting up barriers to its acquisition, you are not reproducing your voters. And this is without talking about the consequences of a decade of cuts, the pitiful rights at work, and all the rest building up a head of anger and bitterness that will ensure millions of people, regardless of how wealthy they become, are never going to support the Tories under any circumstances.
In this sense, the Tories are trapped because their constituency is in decline. And matters are not helped by by the split in finance capital, traditionally a core Tory constituent but one whose EU markets-facing arm has given up and is now pouring money into the Liberal Democrats or, until a couple of days ago, the People's Vote campaign. It's doubtful any Tory would write about their predicament in these terms but they know they have serious problems. Plenty of Tories have expended speechifying and ink on how to reach out to the young, which is sublimated code speak for arresting their long-term decline. Some of it involves addressing the property problem, and other suggestions range from the idiotic, the comical, and the bizarre. Boris Johnson feels this crisis in his bones too. Unlike any other Tory leader of my life time, his embrace of new technologies, redolent of Harold Wilson's white heat of technology, is more than just show and cosying up to the frontier of capital: he hopes to project a forward facing image linking his dynamism to that of the green industries, the digital industries, and the space industries. However, this is a problem to be faced in time. And so there is only one route to another five years in government: putting Theresa May's voter coalition back together.
As we saw in 2017, May was able to scrape up a coalition of voters with the characteristics described above on the basis of delivering a hard Brexit (yes, leave/remain is symptomatic of the values divide by class component and cohort as well) and, to a lesser extent, talking up the spine tingling shivers Jeremy Corbyn sent down their collective spines. Johnson's strategy is about doing the same, except with unseemly haste. Appearing desperate to get Brexit sorted so the Tories can get on with the domestic agenda, a sound bite I'm already tired of hearing sundry MPs emit, is about getting these people on board as well as scooping up those suffering with Brexit fatigue. And let's face it, who isn't? Though the irony is should Johnson win and get his deal through, we'll here no end of it when we get down to the brass tacks of the trade deal and the campaigns for re-entering the EU. Yet while the opposition is ostensibly divided between Labour and the LibDems, this should be enough. It is, if you like, a 40% strategy. Contrary to Blairist dogma, elections aren't always won on the centre ground.
Of course, there are two vulnerabilities here. By putting all his eggs in the Brexit basket, Johnson can potentially conjure up a good vote that will get him over the line provided the Brexit Party doesn't spoil his party. And what do you know, there are indications that nice Mr Farage is happy to oblige. The second big difficulty is as much as Johnson wants this election to be about Brexit, May found to her cost how other issues can rudely intrude. And they can so again. For all the trumpeting of turning on the spending taps, Johnson's domestic agenda is weak sauce. When your top line is recruiting back the 20,000 coppers you spent the previous decade sacking, you know there isn't much in the tank. Indeed, as widely reported a fracking lobbyist has been hired to write the party's manifesto, which is sure to be seized upon by the other parties. True, Johnson might say he wants Brexit done but he's got to show his voters what his domestic agenda will look like, and his timidity makes him vulnerable. More plod, more crack downs on crime tickle the traditional Tory fancy, but the Australian being boring strategy might not work when your opponent is seeking to inspire.
And so the Tories are set to mono-maniacally bang on about Brexit, and throw the usual smears Labour's way. As such it's a numbers strategy, of turning out Leave voters and not bothering trying to win anyone else over. It's classic Johnson: the perceived easiest route to something. And it could well work if Labour prove unable to squeeze the LibDems. Our job is to make sure it fails, and fails miserably.
"Whether you are a low paid worker putting in the miles at an Amazon warehouse, a shop assistant in a high street Next outlet, an IT worker, a teacher, a social worker, or a manager your labour is qualitatively the same: the production of knowledge, services, care, data, and relationships."
ReplyDeleteThis conflates different categories. The labour of the worker in the Amazon warehouse is not labour producing an immaterial product. The transmission of products once they have been produced to where they are consumed, whether it be the worker in the warehouse, the worker on a train or lorry, or the labour of a worker in a shop is all labour involved in material production and distribution - the obvious manifestation being that the end consumer obtains this material product when they buy it.
The labour of the worker in the warehouse, or on the train or lorry is itself productive labour, for the reason Marx describes, i.e. the change of location to where a commodity needs to be to be consumed is a use value, as much as the production of the use value to be consumed. It is productive, therefore, both of new value, and of surplus value. I would include in that the labour of those involved in advertising the problem, by which use value whether perceived or real is added to the product.
The labour of the shop worker involved solely in the sphere of distribution is not productive of new value or surplus value, but is necessary labour required for the realisation of that value and surplus value. But, it is not immaterial labour. It is involved in the circuit of capital that results in a material use value, having been produced, then being sold, and its value realised.
The labour of the teacher, however, is immaterial labour. It is not involved in the production of a material product, but of an immaterial product, a labour service, which is a use value that does not manifest itself in any tangible object. It is consumed coterminously with its production. But, the labour of the teacher, unlike the labour of he shop worker is productive both of new value, and of surplus value, i.e. it is productive labour in the Marxian sense.
The labour of the scientist who schleps away for hours developing some new chemical formula is also material labour, assuming they do not produce this formula with the intention of leaving it in their head. As soon as they set down this formula, it becomes a physical commodity, which they can sell to other commodities to use in the production of some chemical etc. To the extent the formula is produced specifically to be used in the production of some chemical it is labour involved in the production of this material product, just as much as the labour of the worker who produces the test tubes used in the production of that chemical.
"The Tories are not about to build houses anywhere near to the level of demand when their chances of getting into office are dependent on keeping these people sweet at the expense of other people who are never going to vote Tory anyway. And so young workers are locked out of property ownership, which has some quite serious long-term consequences for the Tories."
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't be too sure about that. For some time now, there has been a majority that have considered high and rising house prices to be a negative rather than a positive. Private Buy To let landlords are a minority and so an easy target for populists. Hence Osborn abolished a large part of the tax relief on mortgage payments that landlords obtained, and introduced higher stamp duty on second homes etc. Its already made many buy to let properties unprofitable according to a number of studies, which is resulting in BTL landlords selling up, which is one reason that property prices in London, in particular have been falling quite sharply.
Putting £9 billion of Housing benefit directly into the pockets of private landlords is an absurdity that even the Tories can see, when that money could go to simply build social housing. Those going into the social housing do not represent a reduction in demand for houses for sale, because they are currently, never going to be in a position to buy. The more astute ideologues of the ruling class are actually looking for a gradual real terms fall in house prices, as wages rise faster than house prices, thereby avoiding a crash, whilst increasing affordability and the potential for future home ownership. Building more Council houses is one means of facilitating that. It also fits with the kind of economic nationalism that a Bonapartist Johnson regime would be likely to pursue, similar to the statist programmes introduced in the past by others of that ilk, for example Hitler and autobahns.
"Unlike any other Tory leader of my life time, his embrace of new technologies, redolent of Harold Wilson's white heat of technology, is more than just show and cosying up to the frontier of capital: he hopes to project a forward facing image linking his dynamism to that of the green industries, the digital industries, and the space industries. However, this is a problem to be faced in time. And so there is only one route to another five years in government: putting Theresa May's voter coalition back together."
ReplyDeleteOr, like Louis Bonaparte, Mussolini, Stalin (in some senses), the Austrian clerical-fascists, Hitler having used those forces to get into power, he crushes them via a Bonapartist regime. I doubt, for ther reasons you say about Johnson, that he really buys into the Austrian School/Libertarian nonsense of Rees-Mogg, which is a reflection of the interests of all those petit-bourgeois/small capitalists that make up the base of the Tory Party.
Johnson recognises that the future of British capitalism resides not with those remnants of the 19th century, but with large scale capital. For that reason, he probably does not believe in Brexit either, because that large scale capital depends on being inside the EU. hence hi two Telegraph articles. Coming down on the side of Brexit was a political gambit designed for his bid for Tory leader - so too was May's of coming down for Remain, whilst disappearing during all of the referendum campaign.
If Johnson wins a working majority, expect him, at some point, having ditched the DUP to now ditch the ERG, and to begin to implement a Bonapartist programme of Keynesian intervention not a million miles from Corbyn's agenda, and also to negotiate a closer alignment with the EU, in preparation for staying in, or rejoining in the not too distant future.
"It's classic Johnson: the perceived easiest route to something. And it could well work if Labour prove unable to squeeze the LibDems. Our job is to make sure it fails, and fails miserably."
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, there is no indication that is going to happen from the leadership's position. The Liberals can point to the 30 reactionary Labour MP's that backed Johnson's brexit, who still have not had the whip withdrawn or been deselected, as evidence that Labour is a brexit party along with the Tories. They can point to Corbyn's continued statement that Labour will if elected negotiate a Drexit deal.
I heard Andy McDonald say yesterday that Labour is offering voters a choice in another referendum. But, voters don't want such a choice, they want parties to give a clear lead on where they stand. As a Remain supporter I don't want a choice between Leave and remain, I want to be able to confidently vote for a party that is committed to remain, and revoking Article 50 forthwith. the only thing a party offering a choice between Leave and remain says to me is that that Party is itself confused and dithering, and failing to give a principled lead. It says it can't be trusted to prevent brexit, so I would be disinclined to vote for it. I would vote for a Party offering a clear unambiguous to scrap brexit, and the only ones doing that are the Liberals.
Similarly, if I were a leave supporter I would not want a choice I would want a party to give a clear commitment to implement brexit forthwith. I would not trust a party that was ambiguous about that, because it could result in further delay, or even No Brexit. So, i would not vote for such a party. I would vote for a party with a clear and unambiguous policy of leaving, and the only one with a chance of winning an election is then the Tories.
So, labour's centrist, triangulating position is doomed to disaster. How much of a disaster depends on whether Remain supporting Tory and labour MP's desert to the Liberals, which now looks pretty unliklely. It also depends how succesful the Liberal are in teaming up with Greens, Plaid and SNP, also not very likely given the sectarianism and deluded nature of Swinson. So, the likely result is Liberals take seats from Tories in Tory-Liberal marginals, SNP take seats from Tories and Labour in Scotland across the board, whilst if only 15-20% of Labour's overwhelmingly Remain supporting voters switch to the Liberals, in Tory-Labour marginals, it will be enough for the Tories to win those seats, in places like Stoke, where, as in Stoke, they also have reactionary nationalist Labour MP's who back brexit.
There are likely to be more wins for the tories in these areas, for that reason than there will be Tory losses to Liberals/SNP. Hence Johnson's statement that he's prepared to lose places like Guildford. The Workington Man concept is bollocks. As you say, it only identifies what those of us who grew up in working class araes already knew, which is that there are, and always have been plenty of deluded working-class Tories, particularly amongst its less well educated ranks.
I don't really understand any of this sociology stuff; but if Labour were to lose, and if David Miliband were to be coronated as our new leader, it would really spoil my Christmas. Big time. I know that much.
ReplyDeleteThe essence of conservatism is gradual change. The Tories are permanently in decline, permanently seeing their core vote get older and disappear, and permanently reinventing themselves to attract new voters.
ReplyDeleteThe cross-over age for Labour to Tory has moved from 47 in 2007 to under 40 now, I believe. Labour are so convinced the tide is with them they are desperately trying to give 16 year olds and EU citizens the vote.
After 2017 I am not in the business of making predictions, but whereas oppositionalism might be an acceptable role for Labour, it isn't for the Tories. This should be, in contrast to their last effort, a co-ordinated, targeted, straightforward campaign. It will not be about Brexit, but about what we can do when we have delivered Brexit.
Dipper, YouGov puts the crossover age at 47 in 2017, having expected it to be 34 based on their previous data. Just wondering where your figure came from?
ReplyDelete