The
elections for the European parliament showed us the implications of a
basic imbalance in politics today. Brexit is the dominant issue, yet
both of the major parties support one side, the Brexit side. The
Labour leadership tells itself that it is trying to bring the
two sides together. It tells itself, by aiming for a softer Brexit
than May wanted, it is trying to compromise. But as someone once
said, Brexit is Brexit, and those voting in the European elections
agreed.
To
see why Labour’s position will not bring people together, just look
at what happened to the Conservative vote. May was trying to achieve
a very hard Brexit, where we were neither a member of the Single
Market or Customs Union. She failed mainly because the Brexit
extremists in her own party did not support her. European election
voters punished the Conservatives and sided with the Conservative
extremists. They didn’t want compromise.
Suppose
Labour, after winning a future general election, enacted their softer
Brexit. Would voters come together recognising Labour had attempted
to unite both sides? Those voting for the Brexit party of Nigel
Farage certainly would not. That slightly more Labour voters from
2017 voted fot the explicit Remain parties combined than Labour in
the European elections suggests no appetite for compromise on that
side either. Labour would instead suffer the fate of Theresa May and
be hated by Remainers and Brexiters alike.
It
is for that reason that this discussion is purely academic. Not
because Labour would not win an election advocating a softer Brexit:
there is a non-zero probability they would. Instead it is because
Labour would end up being like Theresa May in failing to achieve
their desired Brexit. As I argue here,
the Conservatives would say Labour’s Brexit was a betrayal. Labour
would only stand a chance of getting it through parliament if they
agreed to have a second referendum with Remain on the ballot, and
they would lose that referendum badly because Remainers and Brexiters
would vote against them.
This
dislike of a compromise is not irrational. Brexiters have ending up
with No Deal because anything else fails to get complete independence
from the EU. They are quite right to say that a softer Brexit would
be worse for sovereignty than Remaining, because it amounts to pay,
obey but no say. Equally for most Remainers a soft Brexit is
qualitatively worse than staying in the EU. Look at the way the EU
has supported Ireland in these negotiations, they would say. The
moment you leave the club, you lose the backing of one of the most
powerful political and economic organisations in the world. They are
quite right to point to the many flaws in believing that the 2016
referendum is a mandate for any particular type of Brexit.
Why
therefore are Labour antagonising their 2017 voters and their members
by having a Brexit position that will be very unpopular and
impossible to achieve? The answer normally given is that this is the
only way to win a general election. Anything else risks losing
‘heartland seats’ because Labour voters will vote for a Brexit
party. While this idea might have had some validity in 2017, it has
since become an article of faith rather than an evidence based
argument.
The
basic problem with this argument is that there are many Remain voters
in the constituencies that voted Leave in 2016. Polls throughout 2019
suggest a 3 to 1 ratio: by supporting Brexit Labour are losing three
times as many Remain voters as any Leave voters they would lose by
supporting Remain. The European elections backed part of that finding
up with actual votes, and also suggested Labour are in danger of
losing Leave voters anyway with their current stance. If anything
like that ratio persists, they will lose their traditional heartland
seats because Remain voters will not vote Labour.
The
table below is from the Ashcroft exit poll for the European election.
It compares the percentage of voters who voted for Labour or explicit
Remain parties, and also the Leave/Remain balance, by region. The
most Leave orientated regions are to the left. Overall this sample is
almost certainly biased to Leave voters, because only a tiny number
of young people (18-24) voted, and polls regularly show a small lead
for Remain over Leave.
%
|
EM
|
NE
|
York
|
WM
|
East
|
SE
|
Wales
|
NW
|
SW
|
Lon
|
Scot
|
Leave
|
59
|
55
|
54
|
54
|
54
|
52
|
51
|
50
|
50
|
39
|
37
|
Remain
|
38
|
38
|
43
|
42
|
42
|
45
|
45
|
45
|
46
|
57
|
59
|
Lab
|
11
|
21
|
17
|
17
|
9
|
9
|
12
|
23
|
11
|
17
|
10
|
LD,G+
|
33
|
28
|
35
|
31
|
40
|
40
|
43
|
34
|
43
|
46
|
62
|
Lab L
|
4
|
7
|
6
|
6
|
3
|
3
|
4
|
8
|
4
|
6
|
3
|
The
first point to make is that the outliers here are London and
Scotland. Elsewhere, the Leave vote varies from 59% to 50%, and the
Remain vote from 38% to 46%. The idea that leave voters are
predominantly in the ‘North’ is nonsense. (If anything, the
English divide is East versus West outside London, but it is still a
small tendency rather than a real divide.) A key consequence of this
observation is that areas like the East Midlands and the North East
still contain many Remain voters.
These
voters made their choice on the basis of the current policy stance of
their parties. Nationally about a third of Labour voters in the
European election want some kind of Brexit (Ashcroft does not give a
regional breakdown), and two thirds want to Remain. The final row applies that percentage to the Labour vote in each region to get the
percentage of Labour leavers. These are the maximum number of voters
that Labour could lose from its European election result if it became a Remain party. Compare that to
the total number of Remain voters, nearly all of whom could vote
Labour if it became a Remain party.
The
article of faith that those who justify Labour’s current stance
cling to is that Remain voters will return to Labour in any general
election, while if Labour became a Remain party any Leave voters
would be lost. Examples in the past of protest votes that have all
but disappeared are given to justify that faith. But it is never
explained why Remain voters will come back to Labour even though it
supports Brexit, but Leave voters will not come back in a general
election if Labour supports Remain. In addition Brexit is not like
anything in the past. It has divided the country like no issue before
it. As I showed above, you really need pretty well all Labour
Remainers to return to the fold to get a number smaller than the
number of likely Leave losses.
The
idea that Remain voters, and not the Leave vote, will return en masse
to Labour in a general election relies in part on a universal use of
tactical voting that is simply unrealistic. A good example will be
the forthcoming Peterborough by-electon, which is a classic example of
a Leave marginal that we are told Labour has to keep its current
Brexit policy to win. If the European elections are anything
to go by, Brexit will win. In 2017, when Labour just won, the LibDem
and Green vote was small. Let’s see if Labour voters from 2017 will
unite to keep the Brexit party out.
Some
say it worked in 2017, so why will it not work in the future? Many
things have changed since 2017 (when Labour still lost). The stance
of the EU is now clear, and therefore so is the range of deals the UK
could possibly get. The Remain movement is much stronger. But the
Labour party has also changed. The 2017 election was the era of
Starmer’s 6 tests, which included the ‘exact same benefits’.
Today those tests are gone, and instead we have prolonged
negotiations between the government and Labour over a possible Brexit deal. Too many Remainers who voted for Labour in 2017 feel they can
no longer trust
Corbyn on Brexit.
The
weakness of the argument to keep current policy and ignore the
European elections and the polling evidence
has lead some to resort to nostalgia. The argument goes that the
working class support for Leave is above the national average, and
Labour should be a party of the working class. Labour is becoming
less and less a working class party. Supporting Remain would be to
“abandon much of the working class – and with it any prospect of
a Labour government” according
to Lisa Nandy.
There
are three main holes in this argument. First there are plenty of
working class voters that support Remain. Adopting a Brexit policy,
even if it is milder than Theresa May’s hard Brexit, is in danger
of alienating those voters. Second, Labour stopped
being the party of the working class some time ago. Its heartlands
today are in large cities and university towns, and supporting Brexit
betrays its new heartlands. It betrays the young who overwhelmingly
support Remain and overwhelmingly support Labour.
Third,
the way you get the working class vote back is by promising or
enacting economic measures that help the working class, and not by
offering a weaker form (in their view) of Brexit to socially
conservative working class voters. If Brexit, then why not
immigration? If you think about it, Labour have been trying to
appease exactly the same group of voters who voted Brexit for at
least a decade, and they have failed miserably for one simple reason.
Anyone who wants Brexit enough not to vote Labour is not going to be
convinced by a party that is Remain at heart and which is offering
them a half baked version of what they want. It was true for
immigration under Blair/Brown and Miliband, and it remains true for
Brexit.
I
said there was still a chance that Labour with its current Brexit
policy could win the next election. However the probability that it
could win an election with a new policy that fully supports Remain is
much higher, and certainly over 50%. The Leave voted could be
divided, but the Remain vote if Labour supports Remain much less so.
The key to any change in policy is to recognise that, thanks to the
Brexiters, a ‘middle way’ (Labour’s current policy) is no
longer possible. It will always be opposed by a blocking coalition of
No Deal Brexiters and Remainers. The choice is now No Deal, a hard
Brexit under the Tories or Remain. Of those three Labour have to
support Remain.
What
about a small shift in Labour policy, supporting an unconditional
People’s Vote where Remain is always a choice on the ballot? The
trouble with that policy is it traps Labour with endless questions of
under what circumstances Labour would support Remain. Instead of the
campaigning party Labour should be on Brexit, it becomes in most
voters eyes the party of convoluted explanations. The next Brexit
battle is to stop No Deal, and Labour can only do that effectively if
it stops pretending it can achieve a softer Brexit.
Typo in para 9. You have two Remains. The first should be Leave.
ReplyDelete"The article of faith ... is that Remain voters will return to Labour in any general election, while if Labour became a Remain party any Leave voters would be lost. But it is never explained why Remain voters will come back to Labour even though it supports Brexit, but Leave voters will not come back in a general election if Labour supports Remain."
ReplyDeleteI think the most common reply here is to point to tactical voting: Labour Remain voters may feel that a vote for the Lib Dems or the Greens means throwing their vote away or handing the seat to the Conservatives, so they vote Labour. Labour Leave voters, on the other hand, can vote for the Conservatives over Labour without fearing that they're voting for a minor party and throwing their vote away.
This argument definitely isn't decisive: Labour Remainers might feel that sending a pro-EU message via vote share is more important than depriving the Conservatives of seats, or they might feel now that true Remain parties have a genuine shot at winning the seat (see yesterday's New Statesman article about the "Tinkerbell Effect"). But I think this goes some way to explaining the sentiment you describe.
Interesting post but it has at its heart the view that Brexit is indeed binary in or out. This is not correct. In (remain) is clearly one dimensional but out is not, unless we never trade or engage with the EU 27 again. Whatever any politician may say we cannot expect to have any relationship going forward with the 27 unless we come to an agreement along the lines of the withdrawal agreement that is on the table, as the EU have made clear). Therefore so called "hard brexit" is not possible, some sort of deal must be made. The challenge Hammond has made to Tory leadership candidates has stressed this point. Therefore simply put any future PM must do a deal, and that deal has to be ratified by parliament and if necessary this must be an iterative process until ratification - that is what Brexit means in reality. So in that context Labour's policy is not overly complex but recognises the complex reality of leaving. The problem is, of course, the electorate urged on by assorted chancers and media seem to want the binary choice. So your argument is lets deal with the reality of the electorate and ignore the reality of Brexit and the only way to do that is for all political parties to be either in or out but we did that in 2016 didn't we?
ReplyDeleteSince the US ambassador and Trump have both helpfully demanded "putting the NHS on the table" once Brexit occurs, Labour had better wake up and campaign against Brexit. If Corbyn thinks the EU is a neo-liberal hell, wait until he (and more to the point Brits less able to fend for themselves) discover how the US plans to soak the NHS for profit until it can no longer offer universal care.
ReplyDeleteOne can not argue a person out of a position they did not argue themselves into. Corbyn and his leaders team have been, are and will be fiercely anti EU. If they cared about votes or about winning elections (note this is not the same as power), they would have been trimmed their positions over the years. I am no fan of Corbyn but he and Milne et al are consistent in their enemies. We are back to renegotiation as a Labour position, which is a lie a barefaced deliberate lie, just as much whether said by Boris Johnson or Jeremy Corbyn.
ReplyDeleteIf BREXIT is really such an important issue for you, then you really need to start voting and arguing for Green or Lib Dem. I did not say leave the party (if you are a member). If its not, all you are doing is undermining Corbyn for no real gain (perhaps you are as Len McLuskey described it another hard right Brown Blairite coup plotter).
I think a chaos BREXIT will be death of liberal democracy in the UK. The economic consequences that will be unleashed will lead us to a Hungarian or Polish style authoritarian democracy as a siege mentality kicks in. It will take more time than I have left to live to right the ship. To me the choice is this (even with a Labour Party led by Corbyn) or getting a Lib Dem Green SNP alliance, I will vote and argue for the later.
A tendency towards compromises which please nobody has long been one of Corbyn's faults, most evident in his solution for Trident some years ago. He proposed having it but not using it, thus angering both the people who think it's a waste of money and those who think the threat of using it is essential. I've questioned his competence ever since.
ReplyDeleteI think a Corbyn govt. would be a disaster. So, the current policy of Labour supporting what is more or less May's deal sounds pretty good to me. That'll ensure a LibDem resurgence.
ReplyDeleteIt'll be a real shame if Labour abandons the working class though. That'll almost certainly push the socially conservative working class to the Tories, which will push the Tories to become more like the Republicans.