The 1995 BBC documentary series The Wilderness Years makes for an interesting viewing now. Originally, it was made to show Labour’s walk from the chaos of the 1980s to the neat, primly-presented New Labour image of the 1990s, made for power. It’s all there: Labour’s fall from grace, defeated by Thatcher in 1979; the bitter fight between Benn and Healey in the 80s; the Kinnock years; the brief interlude of John Smith’s leadership; the rise of New Labour (and a particular funny denial by Gordon Brown that, no, he had never felt pushed aside in the 1994 contest). Many of the people now at the heart of the party, not least Jeremy Corbyn, are presented as yesterday’s men; an old hard left who had lost the battle for the soul of Labour. On screen, then wunderkind Tony Blair declares that the party’s devastating defeat in 1983 was because “we had allowed a small group of people to determine the agenda of the party, who hadn’t the faintest notion of what was going on in the world out there, and had constructed a whole set of policies that had absolutely nothing to do with the needs of real people.”
There’s a bitter irony in all of this, of course. Now, Tony Blair is an all-round persona non grata, mostly seen talking up the possibility of halting the Brexit process completely—a view that many consider out of touch and unviable. Corbyn’s Labour, on the other hand, which seemed to be heading for electoral defeat in June (depending on which poll you chose to believe) has come out stronger than seemed possible on the back of an outspokenly leftist program—managing, in the process, to gain votes from both Leave and Remain voters. (The Liberal Democrats, meanwhile, the self-styled party of the 48 per cent, did not fare very well.)
That the men of the party’s “Wilderness Years” managed such a surprisingly good result is to some degree thanks to Labour’s vague positioning on this issue. What is Labour’s current view of Brexit? Well, it doesn’t quite know either—something about eating a cake and having it too. It wants it to be a “jobs first Brexit”. It wants to have the exact same benefits as being in Single Market, but without freedom of movement. Does it contradict itself? Very well; Labour’s Brexit position is large and contains multitudes.
Centrists kick up a fuss about Corbyn being ideologically against Brexit, declaring him an Eurosceptic who, like his mentor Tony Benn, has always seen the EU as a tool for spreading neoliberalism. Some accuse him of never having really fought for Remain during the referendum. It is true that Corbyn’s record is one of voting against the EU, and that his “seven out of ten” commitment to Remain—to use his words from the campaign—seemed to only make the case for the institution as a lesser evil.
Yet Corbyn’s positioning is also pragmatic. While counterfactuals are ungraspable, it’s very unlikely that Owen Smith’s “full remain” rhetoric would have allowed Labour to capitalise on the demise of Ukip. With its undefined proposals, Labour was able to get some voters back, while remaining a pleasing option to those who felt alienated by Theresa May’s “crush the saboteurs” rhetoric. Not going through with Brexit is not a viable position for Labour now. If your heart is with overturning the referendum, get a transplant.
Of course, Labour’s approach has some problems. Electorally, Labour is in probably as comfortable a spot as possible. While the government unfolds the chaos of its plans, the opposition is free to set tests that can’t be met and offer alternatives that are simply impossible.
The problem is, of course, that Brexit is going to cause a lot of pain to a lot of people regardless of whether Labour or the Tories are going through with it. Most importantly, it will be the poorest who bear the brunt, just as they endured the most suffering for austerity. The reality is that Brexit is not a niche issue that will only affect windmill owners or people with EU flags on their Twitter handles; it will affect all of the country, and many of the issues highlighted by Labour’s magnificently effective manifesto pledges will be complicated by it.
Even if the economic argument doesn’t tamper the more optimistic minds at Labour, the party would do well to remember that much of the rhetoric around Leave hinted at sentiments no progressive party should try to appeal to. Brexit was not defined just by promises to spend more on the NHS; it was also shaped by a poster of non-white men in a line with the words BREAKING POINT over it. It was not constructed by Bennite opposition to European neoliberalism but by threats that Turkey would be the next to join the Union, with its citizens coming to take British jobs and change British culture; it was pushed by those who could barely conceal their giddiness at the chance to slash regulations and workers rights, and by those who proudly called their strategy Empire 2.0. When Nigel Farage and co talked about “the elites”, he didn’t just mean champagne-drinking politicians, but average people who, for whatever reason, didn’t quite get Britishness like he did.
"Deciding where to draw the line when it comes to power versus principle is an old challenge for Labour"So if Corbyn’s latest statements about “wholesale” immigration feel uncomfortable to the membership, that’s good. For all its need to triangulate, Corbyn’s Labour shouldn’t be comfortable with an idea that isn’t simply materially damaging, but socially as well; an idea that unleashed hate crimes and hostility, and which cannot be embraced if Labour wishes, truly, to build a Britain for the many and not the few.
Deciding where to draw the line when it comes to power versus principle is an old challenge for Labour. The struggles of the Wilderness Years have not gone away. Contrary to mythology, most members accept Labour’s function is to get elected and provide an alternative to the strictness of Tory rule. This was as true of Blair when Corbyn criticized him as it is of Corbyn now, as he attempts to deal with one of the most complex political issues in decades. Inevitably, Labour’s approach to Brexit will mean some vagueness, however much that hurts hardcore Remainers’ feelings.
Beyond pragmatism, however, there’s reality; and no matter how much we will it otherwise, being concerned about Brexit doesn’t just mean being concerned with out of touch elites in big cities, but also with the very people who voted for it: working class people who have endured years of government, many of them Labour voters. If the party forgets the impact of Brexit on the country, the responsibility for that pain will hang on them too.
