Written by Ashley Walsh
This article was first published in Briefings for Brexit. We re-publish it with their kind permission.
~~~ *** ~~~
Unlike its European sister parties, there are two reasons why Labour isn’t quite on life support: first-past-the-post and its refusal to engage fully in European economic integration.
The Labour Party might well be dying. It has broken its historic covenant with the British working class. Its refusal to respect the outcome of the 2016 referendum has been the lightning rod for a reckoning, years in the making, with traditional Labour voters. Supporters of New Labour and Corbynism are learning the hard way that our working-class voters had somewhere else to go.
In the aftermath of defeat, Labour Party members may be tempted, as often they are, to alight on proportional representation as an institutional solution to the left’s electoral rout. Absent the discredited Liberal Democrats, they may also try to turn the Labour Party into the chief vehicle for the campaign to re-join the EU necessarily on full terms. Both these aims are bound up in the desire to transform the Labour Party into a continental-style social democratic party.
But these would both be historic errors that would send us down the same path of terminal decline that stretches out in front of almost all social democratic parties in western Europe. There are two major reasons why the Labour Party may still have a fighting chance. First, the first-past-the-post electoral system. Second, its refusal to engage fully in European economic integration.
Set aside the observation that the voters don’t want electoral reform. When they rejected AV in the 2011 referendum, were the British people sitting in their living rooms and thinking: “The problem with the alternative vote is that it simply isn’t sufficiently proportional”? The more important observation is that proportional representation is one of the major reasons why European social democracy is on life support.
Across Europe, Christian Democrats and liberals implemented proportional electoral systems to design out majorities for the old, united socialist parties of the early 20th century. In, for instance, Germany and Italy, where several left-wing parties now squabble over an ever-declining vote share, allowing the right to dominate politics, those early Christian Democrats have succeeded perfectly.
Conversely, Labour is a unique creation of our electoral system. Under proportional representation, there would be at least two, if not more, left parties that would almost certainly fight each other for vote shares and, more likely than not, let the Tory Party dominate the centre even more than it does at present. (The political centre is not the same as liberalism, but that’s another story.)
Why is the vote share of most mainstream left parties across Europe declining? Proportional representation is the first of two connected structural flaws within European social democracy. The second is the jurisprudence of the European Union itself.
As data from Chris Hanretty demonstrate, the terminal decline of European social democracy began in earnest during the mid-2000s. This decline resulted from the introduction of the single currency and the expansion of the single market outside the broadly, but still unevenly, convergent economies of western Europe. Since then, a fully integrated international monetary union, fiscal convergence and a deregulated labour market based on equating the freedom of labour with those of capital, goods and services have mitigated against welfare states and social democracy. (Labour is not the same as goods, capital and services, since people have roots, homes, families, nations, attachments, traditions, prejudices and emotions. But that’s another story too.)
Many left-wingers across Europe seem to think of the EU as a gentle Kantian ideal: a series of free states semi-federating to drive themselves towards perpetual peace. In this vision, the treaties and international laws that govern the EU are apolitical, simply the necessary ‘constitutional’ scaffolding, and sit prior to its politics. Here the European Court of Justice becomes a rational institution that rationally adjudicates rational laws between rational states.
This vision is mistaken. All law is founded in jurisprudence, which, in turn, is founded in politics. To understand the history of European economic integration, it is, once again, necessary to turn to the history of European Christian Democracy.
The obvious liberal-capitalist tendencies of the Maastricht and Lisbon Treaties spring from the fountainhead of the historic assumptions of European economic integration. The founding Christian Democratic fathers, especially Jean Monnet, Robert Schuman, Konrad Adenauer, and Alcide De Gasperi, applied a peculiar reduction of human rights discourse into a defence of private property rights that underpinned their economic liberalism.
They fashioned a treaty-based organisation whose jurisprudence reinforced international, market-based capitalism and managerial technocracy. Their vision belonged to the mid-20th century world of European political theology in which Christian statesmen governed morally to mitigate the impact of the free market.
Now the treaties, based on these liberal-capitalist axioms, have put the regulation of monetary, fiscal and labour market policy in the hands of the European Commission and European Court of Justice, undermining democratic legislatures and setting up the weak European Parliament. Even if the European Parliament were stronger, the intentional, structural decline of the European left has left the Parliament broadly sympathetic to existing treaty arrangements.
Socialism relies on democratic control over these tools of the state within powerful, sovereign democratic legislatures – whether national or international. These tools should not be left to managerial technocrats and international courts whose jurisprudence is based on the political assumptions of the right.
Until the European social democratic parties understand the deep cause of their malaise, there is, frankly, no hope for them. They are, in principle, attached to the treaties, mistaking them to lend themselves to the politics of the left through, presumably, their loose commitment to a curious internationalism of free trade between largely white, Christian Europeans in a protectionist customs union that hinders the growth of the developing world.
Another Europe will only be possible with treaty change, starting with Maastricht and Lisbon but, in order to purge the neo-imperial tendencies of EU protectionism, stretching back to Rome. Until then, the Labour Party needs to start listening to the British people, and fast. It must devise a vision of post-Brexit social democracy, renewing faith in its historic covenant with the British working class and using the powers of a sovereign democratic legislature to fashion the conditions that make welfare states and redistributive politics possible.
The first policy shift should be labour market regulation. It was widespread opposition to EU freedom of movement, as opposed to migration per se, and the EU’s undemocratic refusal to revise this foundational pillar that drove the growth of Euroscepticism in the UK since the expansions of the mid-2000s.
Freedom of movement is, by its nature, a deregulated labour market. For example, the exploitation of ‘posted workers’, by which employers temporarily second employees to different EU member-states while remaining under the social security system of their country of origin, shows how employers can abuse inadequate EU labour market rules. The EU’s regulatory framework has created a highly inefficient labour allocation system, creating ‘brain drain’ in the accession states. It has also led to a race to the bottom in pay and conditions in the western European economies where wages, conditions, and welfare provisions tend to be higher.
Labour should renew its Delorsien commitment to the Social Chapter as well as to upholding the rights, including that to remain permanently, of all EU citizens currently in the UK. But it can also set higher labour standards than the single market.
To dream of becoming a continental-style social democratic party under proportional representation is unwittingly to wish the death of the Labour Party. It’s time to wake up and catch up with history.
Dr Ashley Walsh is Lecturer in Early Modern History at Cardiff University and a former Labour councillor.
It seems wrong to comment on my own comment like talking to oneself and wanting others to overhear. But, I reread this essay and felt my comment was setiously lacking.
The reason I went off about Socialism is that the essay appears to be apologetic for the Labour Party. This is also the same party that took this country into the Iraq war, and turned their back on thousands of tortured and raped young girls. The latter could probably, no definately, rank as the worst UK social scandal post WW2.
So to look for the possible saving strategy for such a corrupt and destructive political party must be spoken out against.
Then the question of EU founding philosophy is arguable. To conflate the beginnings of the EU with Chistian thought and practice, as the writer does denies the clear evidence of its fascist beginnings. The corporate and dictatorial theme and disregard for democracy, its protectionism and bullying is all too evident. Classic characteristics of fascism.
A clever person can bend the truth and destract attention but for me here we have a cocktail of the three of the most nastiest and destructive ideologies infecting human society. Socialism , Fascism, and I will let others identify the third.
To my mind this essay confirms the detachment from reality of the intelligentsia.
The intellectual arguments deny the reality of human nature and thus the ordinary person.
Socialism is a slippery slope away from democracy it does not thrive with democracy. We can theorise until the cows come home but the acid tests are there to see, with regards to the outcomes of Socialism.
One wonders whether people get muddled over definition. My concern is whether the writer of this piece is confusing socialism with social responsibility.
Some of the assertions are in my opinion delusionary. For example “Labour should renew its Delorsien commitment to the Social Chapter” is neither practical nor indeed sensible. Also the idea that there is a practical distinction between ‘freedom of movement’ and ‘migration’ is absurd as both create the same damaging effects.
The writer talks of Treaty change. If anyone believes that the EU is going to backtrack on their mission of complete integration, then they have not been listening.
Academic analysis of this sort is just not going to wash with free thinking adults. Socialism is a failure, and the EU will be a failure, and all the conjecture and pontificating in the world will not make one iota of difference to that, or convince those who have seen the corruption that goes with both.
The Labour Party in the UK has deceived the working class and the electorate in general. They have supported multiculturalism and mass immigration, their local management has been a failure across the country. After the recent wave of anti-Semitism they have tried to say all the right things publicly but privately appear two faced. Their voting base is in those ethnic and religious groups they pander to. How does that all fit into the theories laid out in this piece?
No Dr Walsh there is nowhere for the Labour Party to go.
As John Redwood has said – across Europe people are saying to politicians – ‘We Don’t Believe You’.
I’ve been wondering whether the Labour Party is finished, done for, whether there is any room for it in Britain now. I can see odd ‘pockets’ of policy it might adopt – the party of co-operatives – railways, re-open branch lines. Trades unions of course, just openly accept that there is no difference between trade unionism and the Labour party. But somehow none of this adds up to a viable Political Party, an alternative government.
It’s almost as if society has changed too much for there to be anyone left for ‘Labour’ to represent. What does ‘The Working Man’ mean now? Or ‘The Workers’. Even the word Socialist seems to have no relevance. Heaven forbid that we go back to the days before the NHS, Welfare State, free education etc that the post war Labour Government introduced. We must keep all those good things.
Brexit is not the only thing that has happened. Somehow the whole fabric of society seems to have changed.
Welfarism a good thing? Yes, indeed it has comforted and succoured waves and waves of unskilled migrants,driven down wages and furthered the interests of multi-culturalism as well as allowing corporations to externalise social costs onto the state.
Some fair points but wrong in some areas.
The author appears to be confused between Proportional Representation ( PR ) and the Alternative Vote ( AV).
It is true that AV was lost for Parliamentary elections, but that was because a very winnable campaign was run by a bunch of morons.
If the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrats had AV for the Scottish UK seats, they would have most of them as they would have won most of the seats. With First Past the Post, the SNP won most of the seats with only 45% of the vote !
AV is a much fairer system and makes all votes count.
It is actually PR which is unfair because people get voted for because they are on a party list rather than as individuals elected in their own right.
Labour definately have to change tack on the EU, but to say the current electoral system suits them may not be true at all.
I will not try to disguise the fact that I am proud of the people’s decision at this GE. Boris wanted a clear majority in the Commons, and the people gave him what he wanted, and what was required. – Now its up to him to satisfy the voters demands ! ….. As for Corbyn and the Labour Party, they will either change back to their original focus, or go under ! – It’s really up to them !
Following Dr. Ashley Walsh’s reasoning and findings, I have little to disagree with. – However, I am very much for PR as a vote system, rather than the FPTP, which is against Democracy as well as Mathematics ! – If we look at a Parliamentary Seat that has a third of votes to Cons., and the same for Lab., and the same for whoever, we have a problem ! – One Party’s candidate has a handful of extra votes, and so takes his Commons seat for that Party. – This is not Democracy, as two thirds of the constituency voted against that now successful MP !
I do not advocate PR at any cost ! – There are several PR systems, and it would be helpful if a full examination of possibilities were conducted for UK/GB. Australia is a case in point. – The destructive fires that they are suffering, comes down to an inept view, held by the Greens who are a very small minority, yet their vote system gives them a National voice. – Winter housekeeping of the woodland was prevented by Green votes, and now the Aussies have a monumental problem ! – This is not so much a fault of the Greens, as a fault of their PR system of inflating that Party !
AV was and is a poor PR system. – Many voters simply did not understand it ! ….. Unless we are in fear of Full National Democracy, a better way of making every vote count is very much overdue. – Sure, this might require a Coalition Government, but is that something to fear ? – I see it as the way to real Democracy, where the wishes of the people in total is actioned. – There is a very active PR lobby that asks for my support, and I give it my signature, but when I ask them which PR system they are advocating, all I get is silence ! ….. We really must do better !
Mike Maunder you are right again. AV is an appalling version of proportional representation. There are others and yes we do need a thorough investigation of them all. Way back someone in Ukip was recommending, combine two constituencies, voters vote for ONE candidate then the constituency returns TWO MPs – the first TWO past the post. How does that grab you? It seemed to sink without trace. Like your requests to the PR lobby.
PS.
Cameron deliberately stopped Clegg holding a referendum on PR in 2011. As you know, it was AV. Cameron knew damn well that it is the Tory Party, not Labour, that is existentially threatened by PR.
Neither party has a divine right to exist in perpetuity for no good reason.
I thought it was more a case of Cameron deliberately choosing a useless form of Prop Rep so that we would vote against. He got his way then and came a cropper over Brexit!
RIP Labour they are a disgrace to humanity.
Must admit LisaB, that sums up my feelings.
“unwittingly to wish the death of the Labour Party”! In my case it would be intentional; I do hope that it comes to pass.
Jack
Corbyn may deserve a statue in every town and village of England. We would not be leaving the EU in name only the 31st without him at the helm of the Labour Party. The Tories did not win the election it was Corbyn who handed it to them on a plate just like Foot likewise handed Thatcher the keys to No 10 .
Nice tie.
Labour has never listened to the people, they only ever tell us what to do not ask