******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ********************
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*****************************************************************
NY Times Op-Ed, Feb. 1, 2020
Brexit Has Arrived. But Boris Johnson’s Reign Is Just Beginning.
By Richard Seymour
(Mr. Seymour writes about British politics.)
Prime Minister Boris Johnson and his “People’s Government” — it scarcely
calls itself Conservative at this point — has fulfilled the promise on
which it was elected in December and “got Brexit done.”
There are difficulties ahead. Mr. Johnson has promised impossible and
contradictory things on Brexit: Maximum regulatory freedom where it
suits his government, maximum frictionless trade where it suits the
British economy. The European Union is unlikely to give him what he
wants in the months of negotiations to come.
But by fulfilling his pledge, Mr. Johnson has won enormous good will
from nationalist voters across England and Wales. Outside the European
Union, he will also have more scope to change the British government’s
role in the economy. This gives him a unique opportunity do what his
predecessors could not: build a lasting popular base for the
Conservative Party. Mr. Johnson can now take advantage of his big
majority to overhaul British capitalism, incentivizing long-term
Conservative voters while permanently annexing chunks of the Labour
Party’s historic base.
Already, the dimensions of Mr. Johnson’s plans are becoming clear. He
has no intention of running the country as any Conservative leader since
Margaret Thatcher would have: He is not out to roll back the state.
Instead, he is out to secure the support of working-class voters who
handed over to the Tories dozens of seats formerly held by Labour. His
premiership, set free by Brexit, could reshape Britain’s electoral map
for decades.
During the election, Mr. Johnson campaigned as an almost single-issue
nationalist, the phrase “get Brexit done” falling robotically from his
lips between every other stammer. Beyond that, much of what he said was
conventionally Tory: He promised harsher restrictions on immigration,
meaning an end to free movement from the European Union and the
expansion of the “hostile environment” for migrants. Domestic
repression, the manifesto promised, would also tighten, with a bigger
penal system and a greater emphasis on “counter-extremism,” which, as
Home Secretary Priti Patel has indicated, will target parts of the left.
Mr. Johnson has also hinted at constitutional reforms, which would
strengthen the executive and weaken judicial challenges. He promises an
attack on liberal norms and legality in the name of national invigoration.
Tellingly, he distanced himself from the last government. He would end
austerity, raise spending on the National Health Service, guarantee
pensions, raise the minimum wage and borrow £100 billion to invest in
infrastructure. Many of these promises were grossly exaggerated, but
they served to underline the point that a Johnson administration would
be different. And since the election, the government has acted to carry
out its commitments, passing legislation to guarantee N.H.S. spending
increases and proposing moderate improvements to workers’ and renters’
rights. It has also promised that most of the infrastructure spending
will be invested in England’s deprived northern regions — and this week
backed up the promise by nationalizing the north’s major rail service.
If this sounds like an incursion into Labour territory, it is. Many of
the policies are directly taken from Labour’s plans. The push for a
larger state resonates with a politically ambiguous popular memory of
the postwar era — a certain nostalgia for the era of big, dynamic
industries owned by the British government inflects both a version of
the left-wing politics of the Labour Party leader, Jeremy Corbyn, and a
version of Brexit sentiment. Mr. Johnson knows that many of the votes
contributing to a Conservative majority were “lent” by voters who wanted
Brexit done. A more interventionist state is a way to shore up a
lasting, broad coalition.
This pragmatic raid on enemy turf was first conceived under Mr.
Johnson’s predecessor, Theresa May. More thoughtful Tories knew they had
to change. The British state and economy had become dysfunctional:
gaping regional inequalities, a housing market inaccessible to younger
workers, weak labor productivity, sluggish investment and very little to
export. Mrs. May’s advisers understood that the Conservatives had to
break with the formula of austerity and financialization somehow.
But while she used the rhetoric of working-class uplift, she was unable
to back it up with policy. Her chancellor, Philip Hammond, a traditional
ally of the banks, was determined to keep austerity going. If nothing
else, he could see no other way to create a fiscal surplus big enough to
soften the impact of Brexit. Mr. Johnson, by contrast, is just enough of
an opportunist to see that delivering Brexit, in however self-injuring
and punitive a form, gives him both the political power and the
regulatory latitude to do things differently.
Editors’ Picks
‘Taylor Swift: Miss Americana’ Review: A Star, Scathingly Alone
Brad Pitt and the Beauty Trap
Michael Strahan on Kelly Ripa, Colin Kaepernick and How to Fix the Giants
Continue reading the main story
ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story
There is a risk, though, of succumbing to Mr. Johnson’s own mythmaking.
As much as he needs working-class conservatives, they have always
existed. And the core Tory voter remains the affluent middle class.
What’s more, when it comes to public spending, he’s limited in what he
can do by his commitment to freezing most taxes. In an economy that is
already weak and likely to be weaker after Brexit, he has little room
for serious investment.
And Mr. Johnson will face conflicting demands from within his own party.
The chancellor, Sajid Javid, has demanded 5 percent cuts from most
government departments, making plain that the spending spigots are not
about to freely flow. And the prime minister is surrounded by allies
who, far from wanting a more interventionist state, want to cut taxes
and slash regulations in the interests of a more globally competitive
economy.
During the election, Mr. Johnson was able to glide over the glaring
contradictions in what he said with a bustling con man’s charm, but in
office he has to navigate them. With a big majority, he can no longer
play the outsider. However, the lesson of nationalist leaders globally
is that, in this jittery era, they don’t have to deliver booming success
to keep power. From Viktor Orban in Hungary to Narendra Modi in India,
these leaders have expanded their base by delivering a personalized,
charismatic form of rule in which they are militant defenders of the
nation against all comers — be they foreigners, “traitors,” liberals, or
leftists.
Mr. Johnson is not a nationalist by conviction. He is the epitome of the
“reckless opportunists” that, as the sociologist Aeron Davis says, run
Britain. His voting record in Parliament shows him to be slightly more
liberal than his party. But his performance over the last few months —
during which he agitated against Parliament, accused opponents of
“collaboration” with Europe, and saber-rattled against the courts and
media — showed him to be adept at using the far right’s template.
Whenever the contradictions in his government threaten to unravel, he is
likely to return to these tactics.
Indeed, Brexit fits in with that method perfectly. After today, Mr.
Johnson will be able to continually remind voters that he was able to
overcome the hostility of the liberal elite and accomplish his goal. And
as negotiations proceed, he can gin up hostility against his supposed
enemies whenever he doesn’t get his way.
Whenever any politician claims to speak for “the people,” someone always
pays the price. Migrants are first on the list for Mr. Johnson. But they
will not be the last.
Richard Seymour (@leninology) is an editor at Salvage magazine and the
author, most recently, of “The Twittering Machine.”
_________________________________________________________
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at:
https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com