About a week ago, I got a knock on the door. A man from the Labour party was here to ask if I'd given any thought to who I'd be voting for in the upcoming general election. I said "Green, this time."
The man said, "I see - and had you maybe thought about why you're not giving your vote to Labour?"
"I'm more on the Corbyn side of the party than the Starmer side, politically," I replied.
The man looked about to give a pre-prepared response, and then stopped. He sighed, shook his head, and said: "Me too..."
And this appears to be where the British Left stands, in the run-up to the election. On the one side, those ready to vote for a party who are currently throwing everything they've got at electing just 4 MPs into parliament; and on the other side, disillusioned Corbyn supporters suddenly stating that principles don't matter as much as winning elections. This election is about 'stopping the Tories'; the problem is, even if the Conservative party is thoroughly thrashed to pieces in this election, what, or who, will take their place?
One of the great disgraces during Corbyn's time as the leader of the Labour party was that everyone on the right wing of the party would rather see Boris Johnson win the general election than their own party leader. Some of these politicians even stated as much. Starmer, who was among the most pernicious of the Labour hard-right, is still saying that Labour "deserved to lose" the last election. It was largely the persistent sabotaging efforts of the Labour right that rendered Corbyn's campaign effectively unmanageable from the start.
And now, that very same faction of the Labour party are claiming to be the champions of electability. Starmer's own philosophy is pulled straight from Blair - what's the point in having principles if you're not in power? Supposedly, a middle-ground figure like the knighted Sir Keir Starmer, epitome of the safe status quo, is the only hope for a Labour party that actually wants power, because most people will never vote for radical change.
Then why is "CHANGE" his campaign slogan?
And why are merchants of pseudo-radicalism, like Farage, gaining such popularity? Why did the Brexit vote, positioned as a radical break from business-as-usual politics, pick up such catastrophic speed? From Brexit to Reform, all of Farage's most potent political projects have sold large numbers of people the illusion of being able to upset the powers that be. The upsurge in far-right representation in the European Parliamentary elections, the looming re-election of Donald Trump, the swirling carnage of the increasingly hateful Tory party, all show what happens when 'safe', 'pragmatic' politics that doesn't rock the boat too much is allowed to reign uninterrupted for decades. Discontent burns in the dead, dry wood of neoliberal politics, and fire isn't too considerate about the destruction it causes.
There is clearly a widespread desire for someone to come along and actually change things. Of course there is - the status quo since the 80s has been a non-stop war of the ultra-wealthy against everyone else, with weapons like police brutality against unions, privatisation of council housing, water, and rail, austerity, 'culture wars', deportations and extreme ecological violence being deployed over and over again. 4.3 million children in the UK live in poverty. Food bank usage is at an all-time high. The fact that this can even be an election where 'stopping the Tories' is pretty much the main political agenda of the country is a direct product of the fact that people want the 'way things are' to come to a stop.
In this context, Starmer knows he needs to offer voters the promise of change - but he doesn't want to rock the boat too much. His top pledges are about 'economic stability', increasing the criminalisation of 'antisocial' (read: economically-disenfranchised teenagers') behaviour, getting asylum seekers out of hotels, and increasing border security. The few genuinely left-leaning policies, like the Great British Energy project, are hangovers from Corbyn's manifesto, without any of the actual spending commitments to make them work. His proposal to tax oil companies comes in the form of a one-off 'windfall tax'; hardly a genuine attempt to dismantle an industry which is actively bringing about the end of all human life.
After the guy from the Labour party who knocked on my door admitted that he, too, didn't like Starmer, he still tried to sell me on voting for him. "This election's about stopping the Tories. If you vote Green, the chances are, you're reducing Labour's chances of getting Peter Gibson (our local Tory MP) out." He paused again.
And then, without me saying a word, he started to argue against himself: "but yes, principles do come into it. I understand that. I am disappointed with the way the party's gone, it seems like we've learned nothing from Blair. So, I see... Yes. I see."
'Principles do come into it' - yes, they certainly do. I'd like to ask a question to anyone espousing the 'tactical voting' philosophy: is there a red line? Is there a point at which Keir Starmer could do or say something immoral enough that you would no longer consider voting for him 'tactical'? Surely, there must be: if, for example, Starmer promised to sell the NHS entirely when he became Prime Minister, would a 'tactical' voter still opt to vote for him, in order to 'punish the Tories'?
Perhaps you'll argue that such a thing is too far-fetched to even be considered. But if it would be a clear reason not to vote for Labour 'tactically', what else might override the 'tactical voting' logic? What about Starmer's statement that he wouldn't cancel the licensing of the new Rosebank oil field, which even the International Energy Agency says would push the UK beyond any hope of meeting our barely-functional climate targets?
If you do have a moral red line, beyond which you'll drop the whole 'tactical voting' thing and vote according to your conscience, why didn't Keir Starmer cross it when he said Israel has the right to cut off water and food to Gazan civilians?
We could easily reverse the mantra of New Labour, from "what's the point of principles if you can't get into power?", to "what's the point of power if you haven't got any principles?". If we have to give up on being left-wing altogether in order to push a Labour party to the top of the country, why bother staying invested in Labour at all?
Mark Fisher's concept of 'Capitalist Realism' is the idea that, however much we hate it, capitalism is the only economic system any of us can imagine living under. It's easier to imagine the end of the world, as the quote goes, than the end of capitalism. Well, a lot of the time, left-leaning British people get stuck in the trap of 'Labour party realism'; the notion that, however much we hate it, the Labour party will always be the only hope we have of material power over the actual system of government.
In 2002, Margaret Thatcher was asked to name her greatest achievement. She said "Tony Blair". Perhaps Starmer, a Labour party leader who welcomes Tories with open arms into the party, is the crowning glory of the 14 years of Tory government. Is a massive mandate for his right-wing destruction of the Labour party's socialist values really the best way to 'punish the Tories'? Is it not, in fact, the greatest concession to their political agenda we could make?
If the only way to 'stop the Tories' is by voting in a man who shares all of their political values but does so wearing a red tie instead of a blue one, then I'm not all that interested in stopping the Tories. All Starmer will do is embolden right-wing populists like Farage. People are voting to stop the Tories because if their legacy of neoliberal havoc continues, millions already using food banks across this country will starve, go homeless, and die. The Tory status quo is unsustainable.
Starmer is promising change, in the Labour party's name. When he wins, he'll deliver more of the same policies driving us toward disaster. This will drive disillusionment with mainstream left-wing policy, and unless the Green party makes serious gains over Reform, Starmer's legacy will be to make the hard-right look like the only serious hope of any meaningful change in the way the country is run. They'll be the only ones with major traction talking about politics in a way that convincingly seems like they represent discontent.
Unless the left starts to prioritise principles over power (and realises that, in extreme situations of popular discontent, power can often come from principles) people like Nigel Farage will win the most from Starmer's election.
Comments
Post a Comment