Tuesday 29 June 2021

Why the Establishment Fears Keir

Things aren't looking good for Labour in the Batley and Spen by-election, and only one bit of journalism of late has gone against the depressing grain. If Labour wins, there will be a sense of narrowly dodging a bullet. If the party loses one can expect a storm of obituary notices for Keir Starmer, an unwelcome downpour his misleadership and its backers are entirely responsible for.

Readers might recall this place was among the first to note the jitters among establishment politics concerning the Labour leader. In January it was a lack of opposition and oomph that was causing concern, and because Keir hasn't so much ploughed a furrow but left a faint impression on the soil those questions have only grown louder and louder, supported by poor polling and poor election results. But now there are another set of concerns, a small but significant ripple worrying about the hapless fate of the Starmerist project and what it means for politics. This includes some Tories.

For example, in recent days Paul Goodman of Conservative Home has filed his anxieties about the Batley and Spen by-election, asking the question whether it would be better if Labour were to win than his own party. What's the deal? His fear, it seems, is a political insurgency based on "communalism". For example, George Galloway appealing to Muslim voters in the constituency on the basis of ... the ongoing occupation of Palestine. Goodman worries a Labour Party in its Starmerist decrepitude would respond in a like manner, and as far as he's concerned it has. Trying to pretend the Galloway challenge doesn't exist, Labour are putting out a leaflet (pictured) picturing Boris Johnson with Indian Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, and taking him to task for staying quiet about Kashmir as well as his notorious Islamophobia. For Goodman, this is Labour's attempt at communalist politics, which could incentivise the Tories to do the same in seats with large Indian and Indian-descended voters. Naturally, the Tories' frequent forays into the politics of racism escape our scribe's notice, let alone raise the same tone of concern.

Goodman's fretting is symptomatic of a wider mood. The by-election is advertising the Labour leadership's inability to dampen down what, from an establishment point of view, is entirely inconvenient: mass opposition to their foreign policy and the engendering of a politics that cannot be accommodated by any of the parties. And it's not just Palestine, Kashmir, and Islamophobia either. And if it's not succeeding on these issues, the party might be losing its hold on its voter's imaginations in other ways. For more times than I can count, Keir Starmer has signalled to the UK's power brokers that his business is business-as-usual. Labour in office means to tinker with a few things and pay lip service to fairness (though this has proven a bit much so far), but while a policy here and there will make life better we're not about to see transformative change. There is nothing in Starmerism, if it amounts to anything, that challenges the wage relation, the balance of power in the workplace, the saddling of millions with debt, and landlordism. His political economy is not much different from the Tories' political economy. The same people win, the same interests triumph, and the same folks bear the brunt as they do now. How ironic that the more Keir makes Labour establishment-friendly, the less use they will have for it.

The problem is, historically, Labour has to greater or lesser degrees articulated discontent while defanging it, and integrating it into a programme that speaks to a wide enough electoral coalition to win office or at least be in a position to pressure and temper the Tories. It funnels unease and refusal away from the political centres of power to be harmlessly dissipated at the ballot box, or grumbling electoral abstentionism. At least harmless from the ruling class's point of view. But it's becoming increasingly clear to them that Keir Starmer's Labour Party is incapable of doing this. The rightwingers who raised a toast to Jeremy Corbyn's suspension and cheer every time they assume control of a speedily emptying constituency party are presiding over Labour's ongoing destruction of the party, a demolition job sure to leave its electoral coalition as so much rubble. It's not difficult to see why. The Jeremy Corbyn years was in the process of forming up a a new core vote based on the rising cohort of working people. Socially liberal and at the sharp end of Tory policy before, during, and no doubt after the pandemic, a competent leader, or at least one affecting to be serious about winning elections would want to build on this core vote. But instead the leadership and their supporters have done their damnedest to drive them away. Starmerfication is Pasokification with English characteristics.

What Corbynism accomplished was build a coalition that spoke to this rising generation and, crucially, pointed it in a constitutionalist direction. Thanks to the efforts of the Labour right millions of people have had a brute education in how this goes nowhere. But it doesn't dissipate. It's taking to the streets, finding expression in other parties, and is going to be spending the next few years manifesting in ways utterly dysfunctional to if not corrosive of the establishment set up. A lot of this might have been pacified had Keir stuck to his Corbyn-lite pledges, but we're probably now beyond that point.

It's this that worries the Tories and other establishment figures who look to the longue durée. A changing permutation of the Conservative Party cannot keep a lid on the tensions and conflicts endemic to British capitalism indefinitely, and the legitimacy of the system requires a place for discontent to go. Keir Starmer is not providing that. Indeed, he seems hell bent on ensuring Labour never becomes an outlet for it. By constituting Labour as a more of a blockage than a facilitator, they will flow into projects, movements, and unforeseen challenges that raise the political temperature. In other words, it's not good for the health of the system nor the maintenance of class power if the Tories keep having things all their own way, especially as they face some uncertainty of their own. The left want rid of Keir to help build the political confidence and consciousness of out class, but increasingly and for their own self-preservation, the establishment does too.

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

1) Keir Starmer's resignation can't come soon enough. The only question is if the Labour-left have anyone who might concievably win a challenge for leadership of the party.

2) Geogrge Galloway's continued career in politics is nothing more than a "morbid symptom" of the weakness of the British left. This politically-idiosyncratic and self-promoting clown should have been put out to pasture long ago. He's had his moments, but they're ever fewer and further between. Personally, I've long thought that it would have been a lot better if Respect had managed to get Salma Yaquoob elected to parliament rather than Galloway.

Graham said...

The Labour party has nothing to say about the UK so it talks about Kashmir.

It has lost its working class base by taking it for granted and it is now taking the muslim vote fro grsnted.

Complete political and moral bankruptcy.

Anonymous said...

Lacking any real knowledge of the situation, I still find your argument unconvincing. I don't think the Tories play 13-dimensional chess. I think that they are pleased that Starmer won because he got rid of Corbyn, yet apprehensive that he might somehow cobble together a more successful coalition than Corbyn could. Hence they have a split position on the leadership of Labour and this surely accounts for differing perspectives. More to the point, any support for Starmer from the Tories will help split Labour, and any opposition to Starmer from the Tories will help unify the Tory base, so almost anything they do or say at the moment can be spun as good for them.

Blissex said...

«It's taking to the streets, finding expression in other parties, and is going to be spending the next few years manifesting in ways utterly dysfunctional to if not corrosive of the establishment set up. A lot of this might have been pacified had Keir stuck to his Corbyn-lite pledges»

As usual I admire our blogger for his optimism, here that many in the english elites care very much about what they see a few "trots" agitating here and there. Most of the english elites know well that they managed to keep the servant classes down for 900 years using two simple tricks that they learned on the Internet (the ancient version called "Literae Humaniores"):

* Compromise or simply squash the would-be leaders of "hoi polloi".
* Accept that every now and then "hoi polloi" will "let off steam" by rioting,

Many of those “establisment figures who look to the longue durée” know that after WW1 and WW2 they had to appease with "socialdemocracy" the veterans (very reluctantly and partially after WW1, more generously after WW2), but after 75 years of "Pax Americana" they agree with the notorious Jason Cowley (a sterling mandelsonian) editorializing on the "New Statesman" in 2014, attacking Ed Miliband for his extremist leftism:

Miliband has a deterministic, quasi-Marxist analysis of our present ills. [...] And he might have to accept before long – or the electorate will force him to – that Europe’s social-democratic moment, if it ever existed, is fading into the past.

The difficulty for the left is the same as always, since Richard II reminded us that “Villeins ye are, and villeins ye shall remain”, how to organize in the face of ruthlessly clever and brutal extractive elites:

the rebellion’s leaders, who included Wat Tyler, did not want to remove King Richard II of England (r. 1377-1399 CE) but they did want massive social changes which included a removal of the poll tax, an end to the cap on labour wages, redistribution of the Church’s wealth and the total abolition of serfdom. The revolt, which lasted only four weeks, was put down by Richard, first by negotiation and then through ruthless persecution of the ringleaders
The principal causes of the Peasants’ Revolt were:
* a new poll tax imposed on all peasants irrespective of wealth (the third such tax since 1377 CE).
* the limit by law on wages after labour costs had risen dramatically following the Black Death plague.
* unscrupulous landlords trying to turn free labourers back into serfs (aka villeins) to save money on wages.
* a general feeling of exploitation by local authorities during a time of economic decline.
»

Poll tax, "labour market reform"/"breaking the wages-prices spiral", landlordism, ... the servant classes have seen it all before in various degrees.

Blissex said...

«The Labour party has nothing to say about the UK»

that is the usual myth that fails to recognize the bold leadership and decisive political positions by Keir Starmer and almost wholly endorsed by his (New) New Labour MPs:

* “Labour wants to get Brexit done” including the vote to fully endorse the "hard brexit" designed by the tory ERG, strongly rejecting the previous Corbyn compromise of EFTA/EEA ytyle association with the EU.

* The vote for the right of government ministers to grant immunity from criminal law to government agents committing crimes under government orders.

* The full endorsement of property interests and NIMBYs as in “Labour will attempt to heap pressure on Boris Johnson over his planning reforms [...] by giving communities greater oversight of planning applications.”.

Blissex said...

«I don't think the Tories play 13-dimensional chess. I think that they are pleased that Starmer won because he got rid of Corbyn, yet apprehensive that he might somehow cobble together a more successful coalition than Corbyn could.»

This seems to me an ever more "optimistic" notion than our blogger's, because it seems based on the fantasy that all there is to Conservative Party politics is electoralism.
But the tories and the whigs, the two right wings of the elites, do include many “establishment figures who look to the longue durée”. Their point of view has been well summarized here:

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/owen-jones-working-class-toryism-dying-and-it-s-taking-party-it-7851880.html
«When I was at university, a one-time very senior Tory figure put it succinctly at an off-the-record gathering: the Conservative Party, he explained, was a "coalition of privileged interests. Its main purpose is to defend that privilege. And the way it wins elections is by giving just enough to just enough other people".»

Part of that “wins elections is by giving just enough to just enough other people“ is the concept of "conservative social-democracy", where the servant classes are pacified with less (the "Poor Laws" reforms of 1834 and 2010) or a little more (the Speenhamland system), and when there they feel they have to appease mobs of trained veterans, a bigger slice (Butskellism).

Those “establishment figures” seem to look at much to give “just enough to just enough other people” under the guises of the Conservative, Liberal, New Labour parties as a trade-off about the frequency of riots and the expense of putting them down. That is applying to England the same attitude that the East India Company had to their indian subjects, or more historically, applying in India the same attitude they had applied in England for 800 years.

That I think is the background for understanding the arguments in this post.

Robert said...

[i] Personally, I've long thought that it would have been a lot better if Respect had managed to get Salma Yaquoob elected to parliament rather than Galloway[/i]

Absolutely. Galloway is a demagogue with a dubious moral compass. Salma on the other hand would have made an excellent MP

SimonB said...

I always take an interest in Blissex’ analysis and on this occasion he’s quite right.

Unknown said...

I suppose at some point it does become embarassing for a few of the more thoughtful Tories - that their seemingly permanent grip on power isn't a good look as far as democratic bona fides are concerned. There at least needs to be the appearance of pluralism (one ideology multi party state). If the 'system' can't even manage these niceties then as mentioned in this discussion, there is always the threat that frustrations could spill out into more unsavory manifestations.

Jim Denham said...

Are you soft on the Red-Brown antisemitic misogynist Galloway, Phil?

"George Galloway appealing to Muslim voters in the constituency on the basis of ... the ongoing occupation of Palestine" ... err ... no! On the basis that Leadbeater is a lesbian and has a Jewish partner.

You really need to get wise to what the Red-Brown movement is up to.

Phil said...

Jim, you know the answer to that. You really are the most boring provocateur. A left equivalent of Darren Grimes and Laurence Fox, minus the profile.

BCFG said...

I hope Labour win Batley for no other reason than to prevent the devils own choice, i.e. Andy Burnham from becoming Labour leader. But the omens (pardon the pun) all point to this inevitable conclusion. Just look out for unusual objects in the heavens, it all portends to one thing! It was clever of the devil to create a back up should David Milliband not work out! Total respect.

Jim Denham is of course part of the Red-Brown movement given his views on Israel and imperialism in general pretty much equate to that of the right and the far right. All those Israeli flags at EDL marches for example. The pro imperialism of every right wing commentator. In fact I would simply say Denham is part of the brown movement.

I would certainly dispute the idea that Denham is a left equivalent of Laurence Fox because I refuse to accept Denham is a part of the left wing.

Galloway is certainly not Anti Semitic, as for being a misogynist, I suspect its another Denham ad hominem attack, so fashionable in the twitter age.

"the Conservative Party cannot keep a lid on the tensions and conflicts endemic to British capitalism indefinitely"

Why do I get the feeling leftists have been saying this indefinitely!
Incidentally I think we should stop using capitalism and instead talk of an exchange system.

For me the only genuine leftist movement is one that aims to dismantle the exchange system. In other words there are no actual genuine leftist movements in the world today, save a few spiritual communists in the environmental movement.

This means as things stand the left cant lose because they don't exists but the downside is the right always win!

Jim Denham said...

Phil: do you seriously think "Jim, you know the answer to that. You really are the most boring provocateur. A left equivalent of Darren Grimes and Laurence Fox, minus the profile" is an answer?

And, unlike you it seems, I really couldn't give a fuck about "profile".

Phil said...

Yes, because you are a boring provocateur. Your contributions here consist of recycling AWL talking points no one cares about. It's tedious, and a warning to younger comrades reading that decades in sectarian politics rots the brain.