by Robert Wragg
2016 has borne witness to perhaps the biggest rise in anti-establishment anger in a generation, but it hasn’t come from the usual suspects. No longer is it the radical left protesting the political elite, but rather it is regular working class voters, and they’re looking to the right. Culminating in the British public’s vote to leave the European Union, and the election of Donald Trump in the USA, liberal left parties are struggling to gather enough support from the electorate. The same is true on both sides of the pond, as in many others countries. So why is this happening?
In both the EU referendum and US presidential election, socially democratic and liberal parties failed to recognise that they had lost the support of the working-class voters, or where they did accept this, proclaimed those people to be simply ‘wrong’ in their growing dissatisfaction with liberal ideas, framing them as racists or bigots with neither the numbers nor the power to influence the vote. Proponents of liberalism refused to engage with them. Instead, they continued to provide more of the same moral superiority and neo-liberal economic, socially liberal package, with an ‘end of history’ style arrogance. In doing so they appealed only to those whose vote they had already won, their ideas bouncing around the echo chamber that is social media, reinforcing their feelings of righteousness.
Alienation of working class voters from the establishment in the UK, and alienation of white non-college educated individuals from the establishment in the USA – the story is the same; a political elite pushing a hegemonic ideology of social liberalism with such hubris that it either doesn’t notice, or chooses to ignore, the fact that huge swathes of the population simply no longer agree with the dominant position, largely because it hasn’t offered them anything. It is no surprise that the same individuals look elsewhere for opportunities to hit back at the establishment.
No-one considered the possibility that those with socially conservative views might have been talking from a meaningful position. Equally, no-one considered why those of a lower socio-economic position are less inclined towards liberal values than many middle class, college and university educated liberals, and as such, no one sought to understand the roots of their positions, they simply deemed them ‘wrong’ and moved on without them. And so, the protest voter is born, and it grows rapidly.
There are great parallels between the Democrats in the States and the Labour Party in the UK. Both failed to take serious notice of the protesters, both failed to acknowledge the atmosphere of anti-establishmentarianism. The Democrats fielded the living epitome of establishment politics in the form of Hilary Clinton, expecting that her experience alone would be enough to guarantee her the presidency against someone who, in contrast, had next to no political experience. But they fielded the establishment against a man who had tapped into a movement of anger and dissatisfaction across the country, a movement that was demanding an outsider. This was essentially a suicide note. Of course, many other obstacles stood in Hillary’s way, most notably her gender, as well as a possible ‘whitelash’ against the Obama presidency. Certainly, gender and racial biases are stronger in the States than the UK. However, it would be naïve to assume that this can explain the motives of all Trump voters, and to do so would be to continue a cycle which has contributed to the construction of this protest movement in the first place.
While the Labour Party, with the election of Jeremy Corbyn, has tapped in to the concerns of one section of the dissatisfied electorate – the hard left and the youth, it has ignored dissatisfactions elsewhere. The focus remains on policies to appeal to their current electoral targets – middle class liberals, the university educated, ethnic minorities, LGBTQ people. While Labour should be commended for building such a wide umbrella, unfortunately, however, it is not quite wide enough. The same people neglected by the Government see no solace in the Labour Party. While Labour rightfully promotes equality of race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, this isn’t enough for those in working class areas who have taken the brunt of neoliberal economic policies. Nothing Is offered to those faced with discrimination purely because of their socioeconomic background. And let’s not forget that this discrimination exists. People from poorer backgrounds have been hit the most by government cuts. OFSTED scores are lower in low-income areas. There is still a huge lack of people from working class backgrounds attending top-UK universities. Jobs in working class areas are often remedial. Where is the promotion of equality for them, they ask? And so, they protest against the government, and they protest against the opposition. When both come together and patronisingly push Brexit down their throats, they push right back.
And while many commentators will brand these people as racists, even white supremacists, it would be much better to take a step back from this position of privilege and look at the causes of their dissatisfaction. It is unlikely that huge swathes of the UK are fundamentally racist. Much more likely is that immigration is a scapegoat. Immigrants are treated better than British people in their communities, it is believed. However rather than taking a hard line against immigration, the proper policy response would be to improve the treatment of the least-fortunate. Perhaps this would remove the fear and anger which has characterised recent public votes and instead promote tolerance, allowing left liberal parties to again capture their once-core voter.
Rather than keeping attacking and branding those who sought solace in Trump, Farage, or Brexit, look at the reasons why they did so. If centre left parties ever wish to defend their societies from the recent international lurch to the right they must widen their umbrellas and promise to tackle the concerns of those they once represented.
Robert Wragg is founder of an international volunteering programme, a charity trustee, and writes about international and domestic social policy issues.
Tags: Brexit, Hillary Clinton, Robert Wragg, social media, Trump, working class
I hope Hilary Benn is deselected by Leeds Central CLP. Another Tory-lite Labour government would be a nightmare.
In the book “Revolt on the Right”, the roots of this working class dissatisfaction were traced back over the last 50 years. I recommend people take the time to read that book as it covers trends in Europe as well as the UK. After all don’t forget that the National Front in France rose to prominence in the 80’s, Austria is poised to elect a far-right President, etc. In many ways, both the UK and the US are late to the game of populist politics compared to other countries.
Frankly I do not see the current state of affairs as something that suddenly emerged overnight, it is something that has been building for a while. I trace my personal realisation of this back to 1993 when the BNP won their very first council seat only a few miles away from where I was living. Like many I was shocked by that but I was even more shocked when I realised that the main parties had no interest in understanding why it had happened. When the BNP were defeated the following year, the crowing was endless but I just thought to myself, it hasn’t gone away and the crowing will just make it worse.
If you want to find out more about How & Why Britain voted Leave, see my 4-part YouTube series which is a statistical analysis of what happened. Part 1 can be found here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cvf6boWfCXA&feature=youtu.be
Wise article….a rarity.
Robert is absolutely correct . The Left needs to really analyse how it got to this position. David Milliband said in 2010 Labour stopped analysing straight after the 97 election which I think is a bit harsh but what’s undoubtedly true is that they felt that the Blairite compromise with the Thatcherite economic model was the only game in town end of story . I don’t blame them as this view was shaped by 18 years of opposition and 4 election defeats. And to an extent it worked but nothing lasts forever and there were no new ideas by 2015 just an uninspiring collection of phrases which nobody could disagree with like “fairness” . This was coming from slick suited and booted managerialists that just had no answers .However, Whilst it’s refreshing to hear some if not a lot of what Corbyn says they know they are clutching at straws as to the evidence that his ideas are appealing enough to win an election . Frankly I’m not sure many on the Corbyn left are really too bothered about thinking about actually getting back into power again nationally as being the advocate for the downtrodden can give you a massive sense of purpose in your life whilst blaming the cause of that situation on Capitalism .
Me thinks class analysis here is too simplistic but I do not dismiss that Anglo Saxon countries have highest inequality in OECD. Really, the massive drop in Labour’s polling is down to very poor leadership who cannot convince voters what a Labour Britain looks like. Both Miliband and Corbyn lack the charisma needed to lead and enthuse – worlking class voters reject them as do middle England. Politics is less tribal and no where is this more evident than Essex, South East marginals and East Midlands.
The rampant media put these people in everyone’s front room and in a post modern media saturated age you have to look compelling and smart. Who wins ? Blair, Sturgeon, Cameron, Trudeau, May …they have appeal and reach the middle ground. Their background is irrelevant. We are Meritocratic now putting Boris, Farage and Trump in power. Trudeau in Canada took his party from 3rd to 1st.
In the U.K. like US A nasty right wing media hyping up negativity has to be confronted with media smart people who can combat that. Corbyn can not as he hides from the media behind doors as TV showed millions last week. . Labour are heading for a massive punishment from 2015 ex-voters for choosing a leader they have told us they do not want. He has the lowest rating in history.
Labour has become dysfunctional at the very moment of Brexit and potential economic collapse. May will win a massive majority as they block Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbot from running UK defense, UK economy and U.K. Government. Historians will ask how did it come to past. Our only hope is a progressive alliance or independent Centre left group allied with other progressive U.K. Parties. Labour has reached the cliff edge.
Me thinks class analysis here is too simplistic but I do not dismiss that Anglo Saxon countries have highest inequality in OECD. Really, the massive drop in Labour’s polling is down to very poor leadership who cannot convince voters what a Labour Britain looks like. Both Miliband and Corbyn lack the charisma needed to lead and enthuse – worlking class voters reject them as do middle England. Politics is less tribal and no where is this more evident than Essex, South East marginals and East Midlands.
The rampant media put these people in everyone’s front room and in a post modern media saturated age you have to look compelling and smart. Who wins ? Blair, Sturgeon, Cameron, Trudeau, May …they have appeal and reach the middle ground. Their background is irrelevant. We are Meritocratic now putting Boris, Farage and Trump in power. Trudeau in Canada took his party from 3rd to 1st.
In the U.K. like US A nasty right wing media hyping up negativity has to be confronted with media smart people who can combat that. Corbyn can not as he hides from the media behind doors as TV showed millions last week. . Labour are heading for a massive punishment from 2015 ex-voters for choosing a leader they have told us they do not want. He has the lowest rating in history.
Labour has become dysfunctional at the very moment of Brexit and potential economic collapse. May will win a massive majority as they block Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbot from running UK defense, UK economy and U.K. Government. Historians will ask how did it come to past. Our only hope is a progressive alliance or independent Centre left group allied with other progressive U.K. Parties. Labour has reached the cliff edge.
The American Democratic Party has been defeated in the person of the most economically neoliberal and internationally neoconservative nominee imaginable. From the victory of Donald Trump, to the Durham Teaching Assistants’ dispute, the lesson needs to be learned. The workers are not the easily ignored and routinely betrayed base, with the liberal bourgeoisie as the swing voters to whom tribute must be paid. The reality is the other way round. The EU referendum ought already to have placed that beyond doubt.
There is a need to move, as a matter of the utmost urgency, away from the excessive focus on identity issues, and towards the recognition that those existed only within the overarching and undergirding context of the struggle against economic inequality and in favour of international peace, including co-operation with Russia, not a new Cold War.
It is worth noting that working-class white areas that voted for Barack Obama did not vote for Hillary Clinton, that African-American turnout went down while the Republican share of that vote did not, and that Trump took 30 per cent of the Hispanic vote. Black Lives Matter meant remembering Libya, while Latino Lives Matter meant remembering Honduras.
The defeat of the Clintons by a purported opponent of neoliberal economic policy and of neoconservative foreign policy, although time will tell, has secured the position of Jeremy Corbyn, who is undoubtedly such an opponent. It is also a challenge to Theresa May, to make good her rhetoric about One Nation, about a country that works for everyone, and about being a voice for working people.
David Lindsay, 2017 council candidate and 2020 parliamentary candidate, Lanchester, County Durham; @davidaslindsay
George Galloway, former Member of Parliament for Glasgow Hillhead (1987-1997), Glasgow Kelvin (1997-2005), Bethnal Green and Bow (2005-2010), Bradford West (2012-2015); @georgegalloway
Neil Clark, journalist and broadcaster; @NeilClark66
Ronan Dodds, writer, broadcaster and activist, Newcastle upon Tyne; @RonanDodds
James Draper, writer, broadcaster and activist, Lanchester, County Durham
John Mooney, writer, broadcaster and activist, Lurgan, County Armagh; @FitzjamesHorse
Mietek Padowicz, writer, broadcaster and activist, Newcastle upon Tyne; @scurvytoon
Aren Pym, writer, broadcaster and activist, West Cornforth, County Durham; @arenthelefty
Adam Young, writer, broadcaster and activist, Burnopfield, County Durham; @JustALocalSerf
‘The focus remains on policies to appeal to their current electoral targets – middle class liberals, the university educated, ethnic minorities, LGBTQ people. While Labour should be commended for building such a wide umbrella, unfortunately, however, it is not quite wide enough. The same people neglected by the Government see no solace in the Labour Party. While Labour rightfully promotes equality of race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, this isn’t enough for those in working class areas who have taken the brunt of neoliberal economic policies. Nothing Is offered to those faced with discrimination purely because of their socioeconomic background.’ (NOT a Corbyn fan, before anyone starts.)
Corbyn’s Labour has hardly been marked by culture war issues at the expense of economic ones! His most well-known views (with the exception of opposing a war that most working class British people opposed) are his socialism, and the main fear people have of him (and of Ed before him) is that he’ll ‘spend all the money’. Sure, Labour has drifted away from some of it’s base on immigration, but that doesn’t mean that it’s focused on identity politics in the way the US democrats arguably have. None of the Corbyn-McDonnell axis’ well known policy are on those lines, they’re things like ending austerity and re-nationalizing the railways!
I’ll also note that in fact, anti-racism does offer something to working class people because non-white people are disproportionately working class. ‘Working class’ isn’t a code word for ‘white people with a particular set of cultural norms (that aren’t even shared by many young working class whites)’
Coprbyn has actually reintroduced issues of class and socio-economic inequality – but there is a limit to how much we can or indeed, should move towards embracing an essentially racist agenda.
Hits the nail on the head, Mr Wragg. Yes indeed.
I have a generally positive opinion of this article, but there are a few thoughts that I’d like to contribute to the overall discussion. Robert argues that people should stop attacking those who “sought solace in Trump, Farage, or Brexit”, and I agree; in fact, I think people who voted to leave the EU should stop attacking those who voted to remain, as well. Nevertheless, I think that Robert’s argument in and of itself deserves deeper scrutiny, since it contains two implicit assumptions: firstly that Trump, Farage and Brexit are in some sense a package deal, and that it’s impossible to be in favour of leaving the EU whilst detesting everything that Trump and Farage stand for, and secondly that anyone who voted to leave the EU necessarily did so as a reaction to the problems going on in the world and their own lives, rather than for carefully considered reasons.
Those assumptions are two of the things that the centre left has to question if they want to understand what has been going wrong for them over the past year. It’s true, as Robert says, that we all need to understand that (thankfully) not everyone who voted for Trump in the US, or Brexit in the UK, is a racist or a bigot – if they were, we’d have a very serious problem (even more serious than we currently do). But equally, not all of the remaining people who voted for these things did so as a reaction to having a poor quality of life.
As far as Brexit is concerned, the reality is that there were good arguments both for and against staying in the EU, most of which were never aired in the dispiriting referendum we had last year. I think some people have seen the bad arguments for leaving the EU and latched onto the idea that all leave voters must necessarily hold those views and be dangerous idiots. (The same goes the other way round – I think some leave voters assume that anyone who voted remain must be nuts.) More plausibly, as with most arguments, there were some extremist idiots on both sides, but with many more moderates in the middle who disagreed on what is fundamentally a reasonable question of policy. The world isn’t going to end now that we’re leaving the EU any more than it would have done if we stayed in – there will be differences on which reasonable people can disagree, but it’s not the apocalypse.
Fundamentally, the question of whether or not we should stay in or leave the EU is not a new one – it hasn’t suddenly arisen in the past few years. It’s rooted in both geopolitics and history. Historically, UK geopolitics has been dictated by the Channel – as a result of the protection with which it provides us from a land invasion, we have always been much more able and willing to stand back from events on the continent than continental countries, except when someone threatens to gain hegemony over the whole of Europe. It’s commonly asserted that the British tend to favour the underdog; it’s less commonly asserted that at least as far as European politics goes, this is driven more by a geopolitical desire to preserve the status quo than any romantic notions of fair play. (Essentially the argument made in Yes Minister that the UK’s strategy over the past four hundred years has been to preserve the balance of power in Europe is true, and perceptive.) Regardless, the key point is that with the Channel to protect it, the UK has at various times chosen to favour an internationalist outlook over one purely focused on the continent.
Many countries go through policy cycles of this kind. China, for example, has gone through phases when it has been more or less open to the rest of the world, as has the US. In modern times, the UK has generally favoured openness, but there is a real question as to the extent to which we should focus purely on openness to Europe, and the extent to which we should focus on openness to the world as a whole. In academia, for example, our membership of the EU makes it easy for us to hire top European researchers to join our groups, but it is currently much harder to hire researchers from non-EU countries such as India. There’s a reasonable argument that that’s not a good thing – whilst our membership of the EU doesn’t itself restrict us from hiring researchers from around the world, a significant proportion of our current funding comes from the European Research Council, who in a very real sense (and understandably) prioritise funding for EU researchers over non-EU ones. Questioning whether that’s a good thing isn’t unreasonable, and it’s self-evidently not racist, unless you consider that asking whether we can stop discriminating against non-Europeans is racist (which seems like a difficult argument to make).
If we can at least agree on the idea that staying in or leaving the EU is a valid question of policy, it becomes easier to discuss the important questions that arise as a result. For example, some people might reasonably question the extent to which our current fortunes in the world allow us to favour an internationalist approach, or wonder whether it’s going to fail miserably and cost us a lot of money (it’s not impossible). Others might reasonably be concerned about whether leaving the EU might trigger a wholesale shift in other policies that they care about. These are perfectly valid worries that can’t and shouldn’t be rebutted simply with bluster and optimism. They’re much more likely to be addressed properly if the moderate people on both sides of the debate can get along – or as Treebeard might have put it, “we have decided that you are not orcs”. There are of course people with extreme views (on both sides), and we don’t want them to win. The best way to prevent that is to stop arguing with each other and get back to arguing with them.