Reassessing Corbynism: success, contradictions and a difficult path ahead
The election result also clearly demonstrates that Corbynism has not destroyed the party’s parliamentary presence. Labour has made some promising gains, particularly in England, and as Paul Mason notes, seem to have somehow picked up votes both from the liberal and green metropolitan left, and a decent sized portion of the former UKIP vote. This was undoubtedly a remarkable and wholly unexpected achievement, one which few in the top echelons of either party thought possible up until the moment of the exit poll. But while Labour are rightly still celebrating a welcome electoral step forward, not to mention capitalising on the total collapse of Theresa May’s authority as Prime Minister, unpicking the reasons why Corbyn was able to bring this unlikely electoral coalition together reveals that many of the criticisms levelled at the Corbyn project continue to hold. Indeed, in some ways this election has merely postponed a true reckoning with the contradictions and regressive tendencies that run through the Corbynist worldview. In particular, Corbyn’s success postpones once again the moment of reckoning at which the left finally recognises that the acceptance of Brexit and the end of free movement constitutes a fundamental, generational defeat, one for which gains in the House of Commons, however welcome, are scant recompense. With this in mind, then, this article is not yet another mea culpa. It is rather an attempt to take stock of what has changed and what has not, in the form of some first thoughts on how this election result – and in particular Corbyn’s Green-UKIP alliance – was possible.
This was the first post-deficit election
Direct comparisons with previous elections (whether on seats or vote share) are misleading. Each election takes place in an entirely different context, which shapes what can and cannot be said within the campaign, and what is regarded (rightly or wrongly) as ‘credible’. Much of the day to day grind of politics consists of the battle to shape that context (as can be seen with the struggle over the ‘hard’ or ‘soft’ interpretation of the referendum result, a battle which until Thursday night at least, May seemed to have comprehensively won). The 2015 election was dominated by discussion of the deficit and debt. The endless repetitions of how the Tories were still ‘clearing up Labour’s mess’ trapped Ed Miliband in political-economic territory from which he could never win – every word from his mouth was framed by the context of how Labour’s supposed overspending had led to the crash and the ‘deficit’. This frame has, incredibly, now virtually disappeared. Labour were careful to cost their manifesto nonetheless – demonstrating that the difference between their position and Miliband’s cannot be explained by mere hard left ‘will power’ – and the Tories failure to bother doing the same, lazily assuming the line from 2015 still held sway, left any attacks they made on Labour’s spending plans seem hollow and hypocritical. But it was the combination of austerity finally starting to bite the lower middle classes in a way it hadn’t in 2015 (school cuts and the NHS winter crisis cut through in a huge way) and Brexit that really wiped the economic slate clean. The Leave promises of an extra £350m a week for the NHS, regardless of their veracity, put public spending for services back on the ‘credible’ electoral playing field in a way that we have not seen since 2005. Add in May’s own desire to boost infrastructure spending, and Corbyn and McDonnell had the space to make spending commitments that were just not available to Miliband. They made the most of it.
The left’s instinctive trust in Corbyn allows him to successfully triangulate
The idea that Corbyn is a truly authentic man who has stuck to his principles through thick and thin is prevalent even amongst his fiercest critics. It is also his greatest weapon when it comes to keeping the left (and the youth vote) onside while in reality triangulating as ably – if not more so – as any Blairite. Labour’s policy on immigration in this election was well to the right of the 2015 manifesto. Miliband was pilloried by the left for proposing ‘controls on immigration’, which slogans on mugs aside, amounted to a two year ban on EU migrants receiving benefits. Corbyn’s manifesto went even further than May herself by pledging to end free movement of people from the EU come what may in the Brexit negotiations. While the effect of this was to almost entirely drain the ‘immigration debate’ from the election in a way unimaginable even six months ago, this was only due to the total capitulation of both Corbyn and the broader left on the issue. The immigration policy in Labour’s 2017 manifesto was more extreme in concrete terms than what most of the Leave side were proposing in the referendum - in essence assuring full withdrawal from the single market, whatever the consequences - and yet Corbyn’s supporters on the left accepted it because they refuse to believe that Corbyn himself, as a man of principle, can really mean it. While every word Miliband (or indeed virtually anyone else who is not Corbyn) is treated with suspicion, despite the pro-single market arguments of the contemporary Blair being inherently far less punitive on immigration than Corbyn’s position, Corbyn is given the benefit of the doubt every time, even when the policy is written down in black and white. This is triangulation of the highest order, enabling Labour to appeal to hardline anti-migrant UKIP voters while also keeping the trust of the ‘cosmopolitan’ urban left. It is doubtful any other Labour leader would have been capable of achieving this. Yet the faith in Corbyn’s supposedly unshakeable core beliefs is such that his party’s policies on immigration barely register amongst people who would be incandescent with rage if another Labour leader even vaguely gestured towards them.
http://speri.dept.shef.ac.uk/2017/06/13/reassessing-corbynism-success-contradictions-and-a-difficult-path-ahead/
= new reply since forum marked as read
I'm a bit suspicious of the author's motivations on that, since the myth that the Leave victory was Corbyn's fault(it was actually solely the fault of the horrible campaign the pro-Remain forces ran, and Corbyn himself had little say in how that campaign was run) was the most damaging accusation the anti-Corbynites made. At the same time that the anti-Corbs kept screaming that the man was "unelectable", they insisted that he somehow had the magical ability to stop Brexit by personal force of will. Seems to me that THAT is a bit of a "contradiction".
I think some means should be arranged(perhaps under "devo max"
for Scotland to stay within the EU, but it's hard to see how trying, at this late date, to reverse Brexit for the whole of the UK can achieve anything other than to bringing UKIP back from near-death...and god help anyone trying to organize antiracist, anti-xenophobia movements if THAT happens.
The EU is a deeply mixed bag...good on the social liberal aspects, reactionary on the economic constraints it imposes. If an Eu member country obeys the internal spending constraints the EU mandates-constraints the EU never had any right to impose on any member nation-it is impossible for that country to have any economic policies other than Thatcherism. Those constraints make it impossible for a Labour(or social democratic on the European mainland)governments to do anything pro-worker or pro-full employment. Those parties can't even stop making the kinds of benefit cuts only right-wing governments use to make.
And even if none of that were the case(if you believe social democracy and a full-employment economic system is possible under perpetual spending constraints, I'd love to hear why) how could Labour look anything but antidemocratic and, frankly, pathetic in trying to reverse Brexit now? In what areas of the UK could making a last-ditch all-out fight to stop Brexit gain the party any votes? It looks as though this is a demand that Jeremy commit electoral suicide and give Nigel Farage a chance for a comeback.
As I've said, if I lived in the UK, I'd have campaigned for Remain...I wish Remain had prevailed...at that TIME, that was the progressive position to take...but what's the point in trying to restart, at this late date not only a losing battle, but a LOST battle? I simply can't see how doing so can lead to anything but large Labour losses at the next election and a restored Tory majority by default....an outcome, btw, that would make Scottish independence impossible, as far as I can see.
The only possible way it could work would be if the PLP and the right-wing majority on the Labour NEC were to accept Corbyn taking a "Remain and Defy" position...that is, fighting to stay within the EU AND announcing that a Labour government would defy EU spending constraints-in other words, making it clear that Corbyn's Labour would never be forced to be the next SYRIZA.
Short of that, I don't see how Jeremy or any other possible Labour leader could manage to relaunch the fight to stop Brexit.
(a) Oh, for heaven's sake. There's nothing "apparent" about it. It's documented, and if you actually bothered to read the earlier thread about it, you'd know that and we wouldn't have to go over old ground yet again.
(b) My feelings about Corbyn are coloured by concerns that include those raised in this article, which we've barely touched upon because of your vapid squid-cloud obfuscation in response to my initial question about where Labour were going to find the money to fund their promised social programmes if Brexit goes ahead. You have no answers. If Labour has no answers when it comes to the crunch, then the whole thing's going to turn nasty for them and us all very quickly. (And quit projecting what you "think" are my feelings - I've worn out my fingers explaining what they are, so there's no need to guess.)
That's the point you seem unable to grasp. The fact Corbyn visits Scotland and supports Dugdale, who's bitterly opposed many of the positive moves in the Labour manifesto when the SNP has actually enacted them as the Scottish government is just another example of the contradictions in their current stances. One minute it's "out of the single market and the customs union" and no freedom of movement, the next it's "access" to the single market and still no freedom of movement. As T_i_B pointed out, they're only getting away with it at the moment because people and the media are so distracted by how spectacularly awful the Tories are. That distraction won't last forever (well, the Tories are likely to continue to be awful, but boredom with that will set in and attention will turn to "the government in waiting" .
You've spent the entire thread detailing how you think the EU is irredeemably neoliberal and antithetical to workers' rights etc. and how nothing will ever happen to reform it, yet you seem happy to see the UK give up any opportunity to have the ability to vote to change it while submitting to EU laws and rules. If you can't see the illogicality of that, then there's no point in continuing.