
There were two such examples from the last couple of days. In her mail out to subscribers, The I's Katy Balls reported on growing disquiet among Labour MPs about the party's strategy. One (anonymous, of course) insider said "If we’re doing Reform-lite policies, we shouldn’t be losing to Reform.” Balls observes that the government might, therefore, need to shore up its left flank with policies that, shock, left wing voters might like.
And then in The Economist we have Duncan Robinson laying into the delusions that have captured the Labour and Conservative Party leaderships. Starmerism and the Tories are beholden to a zombie politics in which their favourite voter is ... dead. This constituency, which haunts the imaginations of Morgan McSweeney, commits the government to the nonsenses of Brexit and the rejection of anything amounting to a sensible accommodation with the EU. He writes, "If, like everyone else in British politics, one is looking for right-leaning, Leave-voting non-graduates with particularly authoritarian views to attend a focus group, then the best place to find them is the morgue."
Long-time readers of this blog might be experiencing dejavu. Labour's right wing turn is unsustainable? You don't say. Right wing authoritarian politics is in long-term decline, and with it the parties dependent on these constituencies? Where have we heard that before? The basic, almost banal position of this corner of the internet is in the first instance the Conservatives, and Reform are subject to the aforementioned declinist pressures. Their base in wider society is ageing and dying, and not getting replaced like-for-like. For the moment, their support turns out disproportionately but any advantage the right holds here is time limited. It's therefore foolish in the extreme for a party like Labour, which still holds leads among working age people despite the collapse of the polling position, to hitch their wagon to a bunch of gee-gees ready for the knackers yard.
So we have an identification of a problem facing bourgeois politics, but what's missing from Balls's and Robinson's account is the explanation. It might seem puzzling that Kemi Badenoch's hapless leadership is abandoning efforts at winning back thw swathe of Tory seats lost to the Liberal Democrats for the sake of a handful of constituencies they conceded to Reform. However, the Tories - not unreasonably - believe Nigel Farage is the existential threat. To stand any chance of winning again, the Conservatives have to monopolise hardcore right wing voters. At least where the thinking of leading Tories are concerned. Only when the base is secure and the interlopers seen off can they think about taking back ground from the Lib Dems. The people Badenoch and friends have to attract might be dead, but their shades continue to animate the right wing media, which is still viewed as the voice of Tory England. Though these institutions are shedding readers to the Grim Reaper daily, their editorials are so much ouija spelling out what the Tories have to do.
And Labour? Being "responsible", the "grown up" thing is to put as much political distance between their management of British capitalism, and the aspirations of the party's base. Fiscal rules, attacks on the disabled, pretending to be Brexit true-believers, the expired, ex-voters of 2019 vintage are convenient ghosts summoned from the spirit realm to haunt the excuses for inaction and cruelty. But the Labour leadership are deeply cynical mediums and lack the credulity of a Derek Acorah. Their conjuring is a fraud to alibi a politics of managing expectations. The promise of doing very little and continuing attacks on the most vulnerable and the scapegoats favoured by the Tories dampens demands on them to do progressive things, while also reassuring the ruling class that Starmerism means safety where the stability of class relations are concerned. This means the last thing the government want is to reject the dead in favour of the living, because securing Labour's future as an election winning machine that can bury the Tories and see off Reform will only happen if they strive to be capital's master, not its handmaiden. And I'm sure you don't need me to tell you how unlikely that is.
Yes, a helpful intervention in that it analyses what to many of us is so enraging. We know there are decent people at most levels in the Labour Party who are equally frustrated. Deeply disappointing, doomed to failure and such harm done.
ReplyDelete«Starmerism and the Tories are beholden to a zombie politics in which their favourite voter is ... dead. This constituency, which haunts the imaginations of Morgan McSweeney, commits the government to the nonsenses of Brexit and the rejection of anything amounting to a sensible accommodation with the EU. He writes, "If, like everyone else in British politics, one is looking for right-leaning, Leave-voting non-graduates with particularly authoritarian views to attend a focus group, then the best place to find them is the morgue."»
ReplyDeleteProbably many New Labourists and many Conservatives or Reform Uker think so but the more lucid ones know very well that the mass base of right-wing politics is "Middle England", not anti-EU cultural warriors or pensioners still alive or already dead. "Middle England" voters *also* have cultural inclinations about which our bloggers seems obsessive but those are rather secondary traits. An observer long ago wrote:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/18th-brumaire/ch03.htm
“The Tories in England long imagined that they were enthusiastic about monarchy, the church, and the beauties of the old English Constitution, until the day of danger wrung from them the confession that they are enthusiastic only about ground rent.”
«The basic, almost banal position of this corner of the internet is in the first instance the Conservatives, and Reform are subject to the aforementioned declinist pressures. Their base in wider society is ageing and dying, and not getting replaced like-for-like.»
But "Middle England" is not an age cohort that is ageing and dying, it is a vested interests category (used to be called "class" IIRC) constantly being replenished by the heirs of "Middle England" parents and grandparents and new entrants; the "petty bourgeoisie" and the rentier middle-class who belong to it are in decline, as property ownership concentrates and middle-class jobs shrink, but very slowly.
«For the moment, their support turns out disproportionately but any advantage the right holds here is time limited.»
Also a large part of the current working class do not have the right to vote as they are immigrants, and nearly all of "Middle England" have the right to vote. Eventually the immigrants or their descendants would get the right to vote, but in the meantime a lot of money can be redistributed upwards and many political careers can flourish in that “time limited” period.
Regardless if all major politicians "somehow" choose to refrain from representing the working class then whether they have the vote or not?
«foolish in the extreme for a party like Labour, which still holds leads among working age people despite the collapse of the polling position»
It may be foolish for Labour, but it may be instead very deliberate for a party like New Labour, as the strategic goal of New Labour may be PASOKification.
Tony Benn, "Diary", 1993: “PR is being advocated with a view to a pact with the Liberals of a kind that Peter Mandelson worked for in Newbury, where he in fact encouraged the Liberal vote. The policy work has been subcontracted. These so called modernisers are really Victorian Liberals, who believe in market forces, don't like the trade unions and are anti-socialist.”
Bliss, if Starmerite Labour have their finger on the pulse of Middle England rentier sentiment, then perhaps you can explain to us why their polling is so bad?
DeleteReform have a putrid ace in the festering hole - the "anything but the status quo" vote. The very same that got Trump elected a second time. All they have to do is to be the only visible anti-status-quo party which looks powerful and connected enough to form a government.
ReplyDeleteMan who hasn't read "Political Parties" by Robert Michels, and therefore has not learned about The Iron Law of Oligarchy, wonders why a political party when elected conforms to the Iron Law of Oligarchy.
ReplyDeleteMany such cases.
Robert Michels in 1911:
ReplyDelete"In England, for instance, the opposition possess the same simple and resistant structure as the party which holds the reins of government; its programme is clearly formulated, directed to purely practical and proximate ends; it is thoroughly disciplined, and is led by one lacking theoretical profundity but endowed with strategic talent; all its energies are devoted to overthrowing the government, to taking the reins of power into its own hands, while in other respects leaving matters exactly as they were; it aims, in a word, at the substitution of one clique of the dominant class for another. Sooner or later the competition between the various cliques of the dominant classes ends in a reconciliation, which is effected with the instinctive aim of retaining dominion over the masses by sharing it among themselves."
You cannot vote your way out of this.
There is a mystery at the heart of this. You suggest SKS and his guru the Demon Barber are fixated on appealing to a particular version of voter. Yet polling suggests that their policies have little popular appeal. So, either this version of voter is concoted and false, or there are few of them. In either case, it's a peculiar way to behave in government. Unless they are simply doing what their funders require, despite it being unpopular. Even so, this self-destructive path is hard to rationalise. Do they imagine they can turn it around before 2029? Or do they not care because neither of them intends to stay in politics? Or do they actually believe that what they are doing is necessary because the laws of economics (which they see as natural laws, like gravity or thermodynamics) demand it?
ReplyDeleteWe saw this self-destructive approach when the LibDems went into coalition with the Tories and imposed Austerity. They seemed to believe that they had to - there was no alternative. They paid a price electorally - but the damage they did outweighed that, yet still some of them seem to have convinced themselves they were right. Weird.
It's as if they channel the public disapproval to strengthen their resolve. "Everybody hates it so we must be doing the right thing". Obviously by everybody they really mean most ordinary people. There was a certain sector that were very happy with the erosion of public services and the boom of private equity and its takeover of essential infrastructure.
«polling suggests that their policies have little popular appeal»
DeleteWhat matters to them is not popular appeal, it is electoral considerations leading to seats. For example: there is no significant party of the (economic) left so New Labour do not need to care about voters who want (economic) left policies, most of them like in 2001 and 2005 will just give up voting or make protest votes.
Phil and Helena no Justice should do something on this together- just a thought- worthwhile.
ReplyDelete