Party Reaction to The Independent Group

First the Seven, then plus One and, at the time of writing, now joined by the Tory Three. Brexit has made strange times for politics is highlighting the flaws in our current political system. From both Labour and the Conservative sides, the emphasis has always been on “broad church politics”. What does this phrase really mean? It means that each of the larger parties are a coalition of views: a group of sub-spectrums within the larger political continuum. The latter is often described as horseshoe-shaped, as the extreme ends of left and right bend in towards each other. It is clear now that both main UK parties have moved so close to the respective ends of the horseshoe that they are shedding members, and now MPs, who are still in the middle zone. 

I was not at all surprised that it was the Labour members that broke first. Since taking leadership, Corbyn and his private party of loyalists, Momentum, have been moving the Labour Party from being mainly a social democratic party, operating policies of wealth redistribution underneath a capitalist liberal democratic framework, to that of being a democratic socialist party who want to break capitalism. If you doubt me on this, the evidence is on Corbyn’s views on the European Union. Like Tony Benn, Corbyn considers the EU as a capitalist club and, to be fair, he is right. There is no way that he is going to build socialism under EU rules and hence his supporting of Brexit. Hence also the hostility of Momentum to social democrats within their own party. It is also no surprise that as soon as the Eight broke with Labour, there were calls for by-elections from Corbyn, Labour and trade union leaders. This is predictable but what is amazing is the speed at which Labour has announced plans to make public deselection of MPs an easier process. Famed for his lethargy as an opposition leader, Brer Corbyn can certainly move rapidly when the faced with internal opposition.

Labour’s approach is certainly different from the Conservatives who, more wisely, are not seeking to distance themselves from their dissidents. Philip Hammond is certainly holding out the olive branch and there are few calls from the right for by-elections. I am not sure for the reason for this. Perhaps it is part party culture, perhaps it is early days and the figures are not clear enough to base a decision on. 

It can be argued of course that it is the Conservative desire to keep the right wing of British politics within a single part that has led to the whole debacle of Brexit. If they had simply let UKIP mutter in the wilderness, yes, they would have been weakened as a party but at least the country is not suffering as it is now. With about a month to go, there is only chaos in Westminster. I have previously written several Brexit blogs and this is not going to be another one. 

What Brexit has shown though is that both the Conservative and Labour parties are too big. The Conservatives are split along the fault lines of regulated capitalism and the unregulated marketplace. Labour, as previously described, has moved from social democracy to democratic socialism. The extremes of both parties are united in seeing the EU (regulated, capitalist and often social democratic) as the enemy of their respective ambitions. Both have also engaged with popular nationalism in order to gain support for their positions, with the right almost hiding their dreams of unregulated capitalist society behind the flag-waving and yellow jackets.

The independent group (I have seen the acronym TIG being used) are not, as yet, a political party. If they do form into one, a major hurdle with be the first-past-the-post voting system. FPTP is acting like a clamp, holding the two largest parties together. If it is ever unscrewed, Labour and Conservatives will fragment into the smaller parties that they really ought to be. 

What of the Liberal Democrats? Perhaps with some justice they are like the girlfriend in the meme: upset, confused and a bit outraged that TIG (here the girl in the red dress) is getting the attention of the media and public (the boyfriend). The Liberal Democrats have been here in the centre all along, telling whoever will listen that UK politics is broken and, unsurprisingly, being shouted down from right and left. While there is a certain satisfaction in being proved right, I don’t think we should worry for now. Certainly we should work with TIG to gain a People’s Vote. There may well be other areas of cooperation and mutual values. There are also areas where values will not overlap, especially on civil rights. That is as maybe.  The members of TIG will need time to adjust to being outside their respective two-party system. 

For now, let’s wait and see.

Blue - on - Blue Brexit

There are some cheerleaders, such as Jeremy Vine on BBC Radio 2 who is using his show to call the public to get behind Theresa May and her deal. The same deal that on Monday the 10th of December the Prime Minister decided to pull rather than face defeat in the Commons.

That analysis of defeat was accurate when, following the motion of no-confidence in the PM from within her own party, it transpires that 117 of her own MPs failed to back her. This may seem a small number when compared to the 200 that did but, this exact ratio, 200 - 117 was identified, prior to the vote, in Conservative Home as a problematic victory. In order to be safe, they reckoned that 215 MPs would have to back her. The degree of the victory, with over one third of the parliamentary party failing to back her, keeps May in the danger zone and her authority over the party is only partially recognised. 

The no-confidence vote was called by the members of the European Research Group (ERG) on the basis that if May can be deposed, the resulting process of selecting a new leader would run down the clock on Brexit, in turn leading to their desired outcome of a no-deal exit. This has always been the aim of the economic right wing, as it is only the start of the complete deregulation of British society. Certainly this is what billionaire backers like Arron Banks and James Dyson really want out of all of this. With the overarching regulation on health, safety and working hours, the EU stands as a major barrier to their dream of unregulated corporate rule. 

Theresa May has at least been smart enough to realise that no-deal will be a hammer blow to the UK economy. Her deal addressed this by keeping industrial standards tied to the EU, thus simplifying trade. Her own intolerant views on immigration, as displayed while Home Secretary, is also displayed insofar it does away with freedom of movement. Naturally May and her supporters argue that this is what the people of the UK (well, mostly England) voted for but, in reality, it is very much a deal in her own image. Trade, yes. Immigration, no. Deregulation, some. 

The problem is that if May listened to anyone at all, it certainly was not those who still backed Remain. My initial response to the 2016 referendum outcome was that some form of Norway deal, that being keeping in the Single Market, some form of customs union and keeping Freedom of Movement would have been an acceptable compromise, while acknowledging that it is inferior to full membership. It works well enough for countries like Norway and Iceland and, in different ways for Switzerland too. It would have addressed the issue of Ireland’s border and backstop. New deals over agriculture and fishing would have been possible. Of course, the UK would have had to pay membership and keep EU regulation for goods and services, which make it unacceptable to the economic right. Those opposed to immigration would have been unassuaged too and it is this issue that keeps public support for Brexit relatively high. As already mentioned, it is an issue that is close to (what passes for) May’s heart too. 

Remainers were not consulted however and it is only this week, after nearly two and a half years, that Labour is making any real noises in this direction. Rather too little and too late. Theresa May attempted to railroad her deal through, even keeping the cabinet isolated at Chequers in order to get it through at that level before signing with the EU. When it came before Parliament last week, it was clear from the outset that Parliament, having not being consulted previously, has no intention of passing the deal. I don’t see any way this will change, especially when it is clear that there is such a large number of her own MPs not supporting her. 

Last night BBC political editor John Pienaar was talking up the possibly of a People’s Vote - otherwise known as a second referendum. This is the first time it happened: whenever it was previously raised on his show, it was pretty much waived away as a non-starter. Now it is a real possibility. Leavers say that holding a second referendum would be to disrespect the outcome of the 2016 vote. That’s fine: it was a three month debate of terrible standards on both sides. In Scotland we debated independence for two years prior to the 2014 vote which, at the time seemed an absurd length. With the benefit of hindsight though, it was the time required to debate the issues involved. It has taken about the same length of time to make it clear what Brexit actually means. Guardian reporter Carol Cadwalladr has been doing a huge amount of work in uncovering the illicit side of the Leave.EU campaign funding and methods, not that that has made a similarly huge amount of impact with the public. Enough to say that the 2016 result was flawed and possibly illegal. From the beginning I never respected it: it was so short because David Cameron did not expect to lose.

What is clear is that Theresa May’s deal is dead. What is not clear is whether any deal exists that can pass through parliament. This would take a new team to return to Strasburg and reopen negotiations from the beginning. There is no time. The EU has made it clear that the deal made is the only deal available but that depends on the UK’s red lines, or rather those painted by May. She would have to go if any meaningful new negotiations were to come about. 

Naturally the ERG are still hoping to run down the clock and leave the EU without any deal being ratified by parliament. That has always been their aim. It is possible that the EU would agree to extend the March deadline if there is either a general election or a second referendum called. I suspect that if a new government were to negotiate any new deal, Article 50 would have to be halted, resetting the Brexit clock. Only then, if the UK were determined to leave, could a new government start meaningful talks with the EU. How do we know the basis of that mandate though? Only by holding a second referendum. A second vote is a prerequisite ahead of anything else now.  If the country votes to stay, the current government has to fall. If we vote to leave again, then a general election has to be called in order for the parties to put up their competing visions of Brexit. A Remain option would no longer be viable after two Leave results.

Despite whatever the Conservative Party wants, all ways now point to a second referendum.