Error occured during this request! Please try again later.
Opinions
Britain's Prime Minister Boris Johnson steps out of 10 Downing Street in central London, August 6, 2019. Photo: Tolga Akmen / AFP
The surprise victories of Brexit and Donald Trump in 2016 by narrow margins were initially seen as temporary aberrations pending a return to more normal politics. But Britain’s continuing Brexit crisis has caused the resignation of two Conservative prime ministers in just three years and could potentially end the dominance of one or both major parties.
The old norms would probably have meant defeat in such circumstances for the Conservatives and success for Labour, led since 2015 by Jeremy Corbyn. The election of the veteran hard-left leader was itself an aberration among social democratic parties.
Initially, Labour bucked the trend of decline for such parties elsewhere in Europe and did unexpectedly well in the 2017 election, but now lags behind the Conservatives whose new and energetic leader is seeking to set the pace on domestic issues and make Brexit happen. Boris Johnson’s party is hungry not to be eclipsed or weakened by the hardline Brexit Party of Nigel Farage.
Why is Labour doing badly? I suggest that a toxic ABC of antisemitism, Brexit, and Corbyn himself led many members and voters to back other parties in the European election, where Labour’s vote was slashed to 14 percent, with just 9 percent for the Conservatives, although both have bounced back in opinion polls from these historic lows. But defections can be infectious.
The antisemitism issue was catapulted into mainstream debate by a recent BBC documentary that showed complaints of racism have soared. Furthermore, the official Equality and Human Rights Commission has launched an inquiry into these allegations. No one knows when the Commission will report but a negative judgement would be unprecedented and cut through to many more voters. Labour’s war of words is also brutal on this and many high-profile members have resigned.
Antisemitism has long festered on parts of the left. In the 19th century the German social democrat, August Bebel, described it as the socialism of fools. It acquired new force after the formation of Israel in 1948. Isaac Deutscher, the Polish Marxist and biographer of Stalin and Trotsky, argued that the formation of Israel was like a man jumping out of a burning house and landing on top of another man – neither being at fault: Jews escaping from genocide and Palestinians in the land that became Israel.
Israel was initially seen as plucky, not least on the left, until its occupation of the West Bank and Gaza in 1967. This began to shift anti-Israel agitation from the margins of the labour movement where Corbyn was a leading proponent of Palestinian rights. Palestinians have legitimate grievances, but many supporters seek to delegitimise or abolish Israel rather than a two-state solution.
Incidentally, there is a parallel with Kurds who were forcibly incorporated into a largely Arab Iraq and endured genocide. Kurds criticise an Arab politics that finds it conceptually difficult to accept binational pluralism and tends to centralised regimes. Kurds criticise the Arabisation of Kirkuk but I have never seen this translated into racism. Indeed, I have seen great generosity by the Kurds to Sunni Arabs who were forced to flee to Kurdistan. The basis of the bid for Kurdistani statehood in 2017 was to create better relations with the Arabs. Others could learn much from Kurdistan’s empathy for others.
Another link to the Middle East and a major attraction for many to Corbyn was his consistent opposition to invading Iraq as part of an anti-war movement that has influenced foreign policy on the left and more widely. Cursing Tony Blair has become an article of faith and also obstructed interventions in Syria.
Opposition to the invasion of Iraq became a Mesopotamian talisman in Labour ranks where there is little effort to understand that the dangers of the Saddam regime following the Anfal genocide and the rape of Kuwait had to be resolved or how the invasion has changed Iraq, and certainly Kurdistan, for the better. Labour adopted a policy in 2004, which I helped write, that those who differed on the invasion should unite to help Iraq but it has been largely unheeded.
The whiff of antisemitism and a record of strident anti-imperialism plus, for instance, an initially sceptical stance on Russia using chemical weapons on British soil or past dalliances with Irish republicanism makes some voters nervous that Labour is a soft touch on national security.
As for Brexit, Corbyn is said to share some responsibility for the triumph of pro-leavers because his lack of enthusiasm for the remain campaign meant many Labour voters didn’t know the party opposed Brexit. He now seems unable to satisfy party members who want to stop Brexit or those who see the necessity of leaving with a negotiated deal. Corbyn is under pressure to change and his days seem numbered, although few know how he could be replaced unless he goes voluntarily.
However, Labour is not out of contention and it is not plain sailing ahead for Boris Johnson, who has a majority of just one in parliament and seems set to implement Brexit, “do or die,” and even without a deal, which has been dubbed a scorched earth strategy.
Only Corbyn can table a motion of no-confidence in the government and seems set to do so. If successful, MPs have a fortnight to back a new Prime Minister and a new government or an election has to be called.
Labour is 60-odd seats short of a parliamentary majority. The Scottish National Party (SNP) could be tempted if Labour agrees a second referendum on independence – suggested by Corbyn’s shadow chancellor who seems to have concluded that Labour cannot make headway in Scotland. But Labour and the SNP together would still not make a majority.
There seems to be some tailwind in cross-party conversations for a “letter-writing government” under a new PM whose only job would be to write to the EU asking for a further delay to Brexit to allow the election of a new government or a fresh referendum, presumably between staying or departure without an initial deal. MPs who reject Johnson or Corbyn risk being deselected but may decide it is worth the price of stopping or in some cases not stopping a no-deal Brexit. There is no guarantee that any new public vote would do more than delay Brexit.
But Johnson can get Brexit even if he loses the confidence of MPs because he can choose the election date to suit his purposes. As the law stands, Brexit occurs on 31 October and MPs will find it difficult to change the date given the government’s procedural powers over parliament.
We could leave before an election in early November and maybe before any chaos afflicts UK trade in what the Guardian columnist Jonathan Freedland says, in any case, could be a slow puncture rather than an explosion. Labour’s current weakness is another temptation for Johnson to seek a mandate before Labour elects a new leader who could renew the party.
None of this has happened before and will be kick started when the Commons returns from its summer recess on 3 September. The next stage of the battle over Brexit will determine what the new norms mean.
The old norms would probably have meant defeat in such circumstances for the Conservatives and success for Labour, led since 2015 by Jeremy Corbyn. The election of the veteran hard-left leader was itself an aberration among social democratic parties.
Initially, Labour bucked the trend of decline for such parties elsewhere in Europe and did unexpectedly well in the 2017 election, but now lags behind the Conservatives whose new and energetic leader is seeking to set the pace on domestic issues and make Brexit happen. Boris Johnson’s party is hungry not to be eclipsed or weakened by the hardline Brexit Party of Nigel Farage.
Why is Labour doing badly? I suggest that a toxic ABC of antisemitism, Brexit, and Corbyn himself led many members and voters to back other parties in the European election, where Labour’s vote was slashed to 14 percent, with just 9 percent for the Conservatives, although both have bounced back in opinion polls from these historic lows. But defections can be infectious.
The antisemitism issue was catapulted into mainstream debate by a recent BBC documentary that showed complaints of racism have soared. Furthermore, the official Equality and Human Rights Commission has launched an inquiry into these allegations. No one knows when the Commission will report but a negative judgement would be unprecedented and cut through to many more voters. Labour’s war of words is also brutal on this and many high-profile members have resigned.
Antisemitism has long festered on parts of the left. In the 19th century the German social democrat, August Bebel, described it as the socialism of fools. It acquired new force after the formation of Israel in 1948. Isaac Deutscher, the Polish Marxist and biographer of Stalin and Trotsky, argued that the formation of Israel was like a man jumping out of a burning house and landing on top of another man – neither being at fault: Jews escaping from genocide and Palestinians in the land that became Israel.
Israel was initially seen as plucky, not least on the left, until its occupation of the West Bank and Gaza in 1967. This began to shift anti-Israel agitation from the margins of the labour movement where Corbyn was a leading proponent of Palestinian rights. Palestinians have legitimate grievances, but many supporters seek to delegitimise or abolish Israel rather than a two-state solution.
Incidentally, there is a parallel with Kurds who were forcibly incorporated into a largely Arab Iraq and endured genocide. Kurds criticise an Arab politics that finds it conceptually difficult to accept binational pluralism and tends to centralised regimes. Kurds criticise the Arabisation of Kirkuk but I have never seen this translated into racism. Indeed, I have seen great generosity by the Kurds to Sunni Arabs who were forced to flee to Kurdistan. The basis of the bid for Kurdistani statehood in 2017 was to create better relations with the Arabs. Others could learn much from Kurdistan’s empathy for others.
Another link to the Middle East and a major attraction for many to Corbyn was his consistent opposition to invading Iraq as part of an anti-war movement that has influenced foreign policy on the left and more widely. Cursing Tony Blair has become an article of faith and also obstructed interventions in Syria.
Opposition to the invasion of Iraq became a Mesopotamian talisman in Labour ranks where there is little effort to understand that the dangers of the Saddam regime following the Anfal genocide and the rape of Kuwait had to be resolved or how the invasion has changed Iraq, and certainly Kurdistan, for the better. Labour adopted a policy in 2004, which I helped write, that those who differed on the invasion should unite to help Iraq but it has been largely unheeded.
The whiff of antisemitism and a record of strident anti-imperialism plus, for instance, an initially sceptical stance on Russia using chemical weapons on British soil or past dalliances with Irish republicanism makes some voters nervous that Labour is a soft touch on national security.
As for Brexit, Corbyn is said to share some responsibility for the triumph of pro-leavers because his lack of enthusiasm for the remain campaign meant many Labour voters didn’t know the party opposed Brexit. He now seems unable to satisfy party members who want to stop Brexit or those who see the necessity of leaving with a negotiated deal. Corbyn is under pressure to change and his days seem numbered, although few know how he could be replaced unless he goes voluntarily.
However, Labour is not out of contention and it is not plain sailing ahead for Boris Johnson, who has a majority of just one in parliament and seems set to implement Brexit, “do or die,” and even without a deal, which has been dubbed a scorched earth strategy.
Only Corbyn can table a motion of no-confidence in the government and seems set to do so. If successful, MPs have a fortnight to back a new Prime Minister and a new government or an election has to be called.
Labour is 60-odd seats short of a parliamentary majority. The Scottish National Party (SNP) could be tempted if Labour agrees a second referendum on independence – suggested by Corbyn’s shadow chancellor who seems to have concluded that Labour cannot make headway in Scotland. But Labour and the SNP together would still not make a majority.
There seems to be some tailwind in cross-party conversations for a “letter-writing government” under a new PM whose only job would be to write to the EU asking for a further delay to Brexit to allow the election of a new government or a fresh referendum, presumably between staying or departure without an initial deal. MPs who reject Johnson or Corbyn risk being deselected but may decide it is worth the price of stopping or in some cases not stopping a no-deal Brexit. There is no guarantee that any new public vote would do more than delay Brexit.
But Johnson can get Brexit even if he loses the confidence of MPs because he can choose the election date to suit his purposes. As the law stands, Brexit occurs on 31 October and MPs will find it difficult to change the date given the government’s procedural powers over parliament.
We could leave before an election in early November and maybe before any chaos afflicts UK trade in what the Guardian columnist Jonathan Freedland says, in any case, could be a slow puncture rather than an explosion. Labour’s current weakness is another temptation for Johnson to seek a mandate before Labour elects a new leader who could renew the party.
None of this has happened before and will be kick started when the Commons returns from its summer recess on 3 September. The next stage of the battle over Brexit will determine what the new norms mean.
 |
Gary Kent is the Secretary of the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) and a Fellow of Soran University. He writes this column for Rudaw in a personal capacity. The address for the all-party group is appgkurdistan@gmail.com.
|
Comments
Rudaw moderates all comments submitted on our website. We welcome comments which are relevant to the article and encourage further discussion about the issues that matter to you. We also welcome constructive criticism about Rudaw.
To be approved for publication, however, your comments must meet our community guidelines.
We will not tolerate the following: profanity, threats, personal attacks, vulgarity, abuse (such as sexism, racism, homophobia or xenophobia), or commercial or personal promotion.
Comments that do not meet our guidelines will be rejected. Comments are not edited – they are either approved or rejected.
Post a comment