I don't 'love the EU' as some of yesterday's marchers chant but neither do I think it was a 'march of the Blairites' as some have claimed.
The reasons why people were marching for a People's Vote on the Brexit negotiations outcome were complex and sometimes contradictory as one would expect in a march of 700,000 people. Freedom to travel and work in the EU, the security of EU citizens in the UK; safeguarding of trade union, health and safety, food and environmental standards; fear of the economic consequences of leaving the EU; concern that a 'Little Britain' would be an insular state potentially prey to the extreme right, all played a part.
The march was significant for its youth as well as the fact that it was largely made up of many individuals and families rather than blocks of politcial parties and tarde unionists. I have never been on a march with so few red flags!
Whatever one thinks of the marchers' motives a march of so many, mainly young, people is genuinely significant in the current Brexit turmoil.
2 comments:
I wasn't there, but from the photos and even video above - 'Youth' isn't the first descriptor which comes to mind of the people in attendance. The more significant description appears to be that they are "mainly" white, "mainly" posh, “mainly” intelligentsia..
Mike Shaughnessy, also of Green Left, London region chose to focus on 'youth' in his observations and I wonder what this is about and why.
I understand that the whole 'generation divide' is a lens based upon statistics from the same pollsters who were found wrong after the Brexit vote. The other lens highlighted by pollsters, which is unspoken by ‘Green Left’, perhaps notably avoided, is the social class divide of Brexit. How the rich, privileged and affluent (many of those in attendance at the ‘peoples’ march) were more likely to vote remain than ordinary or working class people. With the people from the top socio-demographics almost unanimously voting remain in comparison to the largest rump of people from lower social demographics voting to leave.
But it appears easier to focus on of 'youth' as opposed to class struggle. Perhaps this means that 'Green Left' does not have to address the fact that they've had their head turned from the class struggle by the bourgeoisie and intelligentsia.
'How the rich, privileged and affluent (many of those in attendance at the ‘peoples’ march) were more likely to vote remain than ordinary or working class people. With the people from the top socio-demographics almost unanimously voting remain in comparison to the largest rump of people from lower social demographics voting to leave'
Even if this generalisation were not questionable (which it is), what is it meant to prove? If you wanted to correlate the incidence of smoking and obesity with a social group whose interests you were claiming to promote, would you try to persuade us that such a correlation demonstrated the wisdom and even nobility of being overweight and addicted to nicotine?
I recommend a reading of Joe Kennedy's Authentocrats to help dispel this ouvrierist nonsense.
Post a Comment