Jeremy Corbyn has thrown down the gauntlet to Boris Johnson and the Tories, by demanding a general election. But he is also, in effect, challenging the Lib-Dems and his own parliamentary right wing, neither whom are happy about the idea of Corbyn leading even an interim minority government.
To say that the Tories are in crisis is now almost a commonplace. The real wonder is that they have kept together so long as a more or less united party, having suffered only a few defections to the Lib-Dems. But it is no trivial matter to ditch the party in which you have built a political career over decades and it is probably only that sort of inertia that is now holding the party together.
Whether or not this fragile unity can last beyond the end of October is another matter. We should not underestimate the scale of the political and constitutional crisis which we are witnessing today. It is a turning point of historic proportions. As one Financial Times columnist put it, “Britain is living through the most profound crisis it has faced in modern history, [but] the Conservative Party’s answer is to put a second rate huckster in 10 Downing Street.” (Philip Stephens, Financial Times, July 27). The succession of this “second-rate huckster” has changed nothing; the Tories are irrevocably split over the trajectory of his government towards a no-deal Brexit on October 31st.
No-deal Brexit scenario makes sobering reading
The most recent leak of official government estimates of the likely effects of a no-deal departure from the EU make sobering reading. “Fuel and medicine shortages. Months of chaos at ports. A return to a hard border with Ireland. Clashes between British and EU fishing boats…” (Financial Times editorial, August 19, 2019). Whether or not the consequences take hours, days or weeks to manifest, there is little doubt that the effects will be economically damaging to the British economy.
The Labour Party in parliament is absolutely right to oppose a no-deal Brexit. Left Horizons has argued, and still maintains, that the UK’s membership of EU is not the fundamental crisis facing the working class – that is austerity and the relentless drive to the bottom in living standards and the public services upon which workers depend. But if British capitalism is pushing living standards down, then a British capitalism crippled by a hard-Brexit will make conditions for workers even worse and no socialist can argue in favour of such an outcome. It will not be the rich and powerful who will suffer from this: the likes of Jacob Rees-Mogg have their millions stashed offshore, including, ironically, in the EU. No, it will be ordinary workers who bear the burden, in lost jobs and higher prices.
Parliamentary games will come to a head
The parliamentary games look like they are coming to a head in the next month or so. There are so many possible outcomes from the complex and shifting parliamentary arithmetic that it is virtually impossible to predict precisely how things will turn out. It is possible that the summer recess will be cancelled and parliament recalled early. It is possible that the usual suspension of the House for party political conferences in September will also be cancelled. It is possible that Johnson will lose a vote of no-confidence. It is possible a general election will be called. There are these and many other possibilities; but that is all they are: possibilities.
We need to be clear about one thing, however. We are not in the business of promoting or supporting dangerous political illusions. The EU has never been an institution established for the benefit of workers. It is a trading arrangement that sponsors and promotes the interests of big business. But after British capitalism has had forty years to integrate its supply lines and markets into those of other European states, the idea that leaving the EU is some kind of panacea is an illusion, like the illusion that “if only” the referendum result could be reversed, then all would be well. It wouldn’t be.
A Tory Brexit is aimed at undermining workers’ conditions
Even under Theresa May, the Tories’ idea of a good Brexit deal was one that undermined the wages, conditions and livelihoods of British workers, not to mention food, health and safety and environmental standards, and not to mention the precariousness of EU nationals currently living and working in the UK. Under Johnson, that whole scenario has taken a turn for the worse. “Boris Johnson’s government”, Corbyn said in his speech yesterday, “wants to use no-deal to create a tax-haven for the super rich on the shores of Europe and sign a sweet-heart trade deal with Donald Trump: not so much a no-deal Brexit as a Trump-deal Brexit.”
But the key issue for us is not whether or not British capitalism has membership of the EU, the single market or the customs union. It is wrong to suggest, as some lefts do, that the struggle for socialism is somehow better facilitated in one situation compared to the other. The key issue is how long we can tolerate the continued existence of British capitalism under any scenario, and linked to that is the fight inside the Labour Party for the development of a socialist programme that truly challenges the capitalist system.
Corbyn has offered, in a letter to other party leaders, to lead a minority government, just long enough to postpone Brexit, call a new general election and organise a second referendum. That offer has already been rejected by the overwhelming majority of Tories, including the anti-Johnson dissidents, which is hardly surprising, given that a fear of a Corbyn-led government is the only unifying force within that party at the moment.
Jo Swinson, the new Lib-Dem leader, has also turned down the idea of a Labour minority government. She loyally voted with the Tories through the entire the 2010-15 coalition period when the George Osborne/Vince Cable axis was putting the austerity policy into over-drive. Jo “austerity” Swinson is one of those MPs whose dislike of Brexit is only surpassed by her dislike of Jeremy Corbyn and what he represents.
The Chuka Umunnas who haven’t left the Labour Party yet
One of the great unknowns in the current parliamentary number-crunching is how Labour’s right wing will jump. There are large numbers of Labour MPs who are ‘Labour’ in name only and who, if given a choice, would rather see the Tories in office than a radical Labour Party in government. Chuka Umunna, erstwhile ‘Labour’ MP and now a Liberal-Democrat officially (as opposed to unofficially, as he was for years) is dead against Corbyn getting into Downing Street. That pretty much goes for all of the other ‘Chuka Umunnas’ in the Parliamentary Labour Party who haven’t left yet. Some right-wing MPs are threatening to vote for a Brexit deal – any deal – to avoid both a no-deal Brexit and a general election. Yet others are calling for a ‘national unity’ government, not led by the Leader of the Opposition as parliamentary precedent dictates, but an anti-Corbyn Labour back-bencher, like Yvette Cooper or Hilary Benn. The Labour leadership should vigorously opposed both of these options being touted by ‘Labour’ MPs.
We have raised in articles and documents in the past few years that a split in the parliamentary Labour Party is inherent in the current situation, where one wing of the party is responsive mainly to the pressure of the capitalist media and the other wing responds to the pressure of the working class. In 1931 such a split resulted in the collapse of the then Labour (minority) government and the installation of a so-called ‘national’ government. Such a split is inherent in the political situation today, but it would be a mistake to imagine that history should repeat itself in exactly the same manner and whether it happens before, during or after a general election remains to be seen.
For the Many not the Few – reflects workers’ aspirations
For the moment, socialists in the Labour Party should support the leadership’s demand for a general election. Labour’s 2017 election manifesto – For the Many, not the Few – has to be the cornerstone of its campaign. The policy of a Labour administration, even a short-lived minority one, has to hinge on ending austerity, not Brexit or another referendum. It is the issue of austerity and policies in the interests of working class people that must dominate Labour’s agenda.
The reason for the reluctance of Tories and Lib-Dems to support a minority Labour administration is not because of Corbyn himself, but what he represents. He articulates the interests of working class people in much of what he says. “After years of elite-driven austerity and neglect,” he said yesterday, “we will recharge our politics with a massive injection of democracy, kicking out the big-money interests and putting the people in the driving seat.”
It is the fear of Labour’s programme and a radicalised party that is keeping the Tories and Lib-Dems awake at night, not a genial old guy with a beard. Labour’s 2017 election manifesto was the most radical since 1945 and although it didn’t challenge the fundamental basis of capitalist society, in an era of capitalist crisis and a climate emergency, it increases the possibilities of such a challenge in the not-to-distant future. That is the ‘danger’ of Corbyn and Corbynism to the British capitalist class and the political Establishment. But that is precisely why the Labour leadership has to challenge them head-on.
From where we stand today, it is impossible to predict what the likely result of the parliamentary arithmetic will be in the next few weeks. There may well be enough MPs in the House of Commons to block a no-deal Brexit, using some parliamentary device or another. There may even be enough to defeat Boris Johnson in a vote of no-confidence. But no-one can say with any certainty what comes next.
Jeremy Corbyn might be daring the Tories to call an election, but after the Fixed Term Parliament Act, it now needs only 217 MPs to block the dissolution of parliament and a so prevent general election from taking place. Will there be enough, therefore, to call an election? Or will the ‘easiest’ option for Tory dissidents, Lib-Dems and Labour’s right wing be some kind of cobbled-together ‘Remainer’ administration that splits the two main parties? We will see.
August 20, 2019
