Progress | Centre-left Labour politics

Brexit is Labour’s future

The Labour party must stand with the labour interest – and that means embracing Brexit, writes Jonathan Rutherford

Brexit has exposed the cultural and political divisions within the Labour party and its coalition, and it has confounded it. But Brexit is a profound moment in the history of our country and it offers Labour the opportunity to change and recast itself as a nation builder for the labour interest. By doing so it can transcend its cultural divisions and regain its credibility as an opposition and a government in waiting.

The era of liberal dominance is ending. Liberal market economics is discredited and in retreat. The progressive politics of the New Democrats and New Labour which defined the centre-left for a generation can no longer build a winning coalition. The moral relativism and virtue signaling of the social liberal left has contributed to its political decline. Progressive politics has been dominated by the market and the state: more of one or less of the other. It has had little to say about the cultural inheritance, relationships, and institutions that bind people together in society. The current party leadership is a reaction against the failure of progressive politics but it compounds everything that has gone wrong with it.

Today a liberal progressive culture is concentrated in the globally connected big cities, in parts of the public sector, and amongst the professional classes where the progressive parties retain their strength. Here there is talk of a progressive alliance. But it is a minority interest, not a national one. Outside these class fractions, in the towns and country at large, its moral and political priorities are at odds with what matters in people’s lives. The Brexit vote has defined this class cultural fault line and it threatens to break up Labour’s already fractured electoral coalition.

The Labour party’s historic function has been to redress the balance of power between capital and labour for the common good. But it is no longer the party of the labour interest, and it neither knows any longer what the labour interest is nor what it wants. Radically weakened, it must respond to both its own collapse and to Brexit, the country’s biggest challenge since 1940.

Brexit will define the future of Britain. Theresa May’s government will struggle to achieve her strategic vision of a democratic, self-governing trading nation for the just about managing class. Instead of a Brexit cabinet the Conservatives have three ministers at odds with one another. Instead of a Brexit government they have a single department for Exiting the European Union. The Conservative government cannot rise to this historic moment. Unfortunately for the country, neither can Labour.

Labour failed to read the collapse of the post war welfare settlement. It is failing again to understand Brexit and the end of liberal political dominance. Each time the right has beaten it. More ambitious, more curious, more intellectually confident, better funded and organised, the intellectual right has been attuned to popular sentiments. Creative energy lies with the populist right. The left has been reduced to the enthusiasm of thousands who do not understand the millions.

Britain and Europe

In this end lies the beginning. In 1944, Harold Laski announced, ‘the nation state is over … economically it is the continent that counts’. In 1956, Britain suffered the humiliation of Suez. The empire was breaking up. Britain had lost its role in the world. Its government was humiliated, and its elites feared decline and irrelevance. In 1957, the Treaty of Rome established the European Economic Community committed to ‘ever closer union’. Britain tried to negotiate a free trade agreement, De Gaulle stopped it.

Britain set up its own European Free Trade Association, then abandoned it. The EEC promised a better prospect for its great power status. Macmillan applied to join in 1961. De Gaulle rejected him. Harold Wilson renewed the application. Britain, he explained, is a faded beauty who needs a go-ahead young man with prospects. De Gaulle said no. By 1970, de Gaulle had resigned and Britain was urgent to join. It was to be membership at any price. Terms of entry were tough. Sir Con O’Neill, chief official negotiator, recalls, ‘none of its policies were essential to us; many of them were objectionable’. It was the only remedy for Britain’s decline. We were a reluctant and argumentative member.

In this beginning lies the end. The same elite anxieties about decline and failing economic prowess. The same ambivalence about surrendering national sovereignty in return for global influence. The chronic lack of confidence of the political class revealed once more. The people of England have shown more faith in themselves and their country than their governing class has. For this they have been accused of naivety, ignorance and misjudgment.

Laski was wrong. The nation state, through treaties, partnerships and alliances, remains the best means of managing globalisation in the interests of its population. The country needs a Brexit cabinet and Brexit government to take Britain out of the EU, forge a new relationship with Europe, and lead a new era of economic, political and constitutional reform.

In 1940, Churchill won against appeasement on both the left and right because Clement Attlee and Labour supported his war ministry. The shires and the working class formed a patriotic coalition. Attlee understood that the labour interest and the national interest were indivisible. This insight and Labour’s contribution to the war effort gave it national authority and a reputation for competence that ensured its historic victory in 1945.

In 1945, Labour finished the job of the 1906 Liberal government. The curve of Labour’s support which started in 1900, dips in 1931, rises up to 1951 in a popular class coalition, and then begins the decline we experience today toward a nemesis in 2020. To survive Labour has to reconstitute the labour interest in these new sociological times. It must build a new national coalition and bring together a diverse range of occupations, classes and age groups in the cause of family, work, and country. It must begin the difficult task of creating a sense of national community and renewal in a time of radical uncertainty.

It has three objectives. The first is to reconstitute a British sovereignty and restore control of our borders and lawmaking. It means ending the free movement of labour and bringing immigration under democratic control, a case Tom Kibasi makes well. The second is to improve social integration and inclusion by spreading political and economic power to people where they live and work through the constitutional and political reform of the union and its governance. The Brexit vote was an English vote and so the renovation of self-government in England should be a priority in a more federal UK.

The third objective is to begin reforming and strengthening the structures and institutions of the national economy – corporate governance, banking and investment, vocational education – in the interests of working people. Britain needs a new economic settlement. It means grasping post-Brexit opportunities, for example, negotiating trade deals that incorporate the labour interest, taking on entrenched interests, and enacting redistributive fiscal policies.

Culture and identity 

The shires and what is now an ex-industrial working class have once again united in an English coalition to take Britain out of the EU. Labour is confronted with the challenge of culture and identity. Culture shapes the political. A credible political economy and leadership might be the answer to rebuilding Labour’s coalition and bridging its deep divisions, but to reach people you have to go through culture.

Is culture beyond Labour’s political comprehension? Labour recognises and values minority ethnic identities, but when it hears its mainstream working class vote talk about the loss of culture and identity it changes the subject and talks about economics. It reaches for technocratic instruments to repair a breakdown in the meaning of life. And despite the rise of English identity Labour can hardly bring itself to recognise the English and the emerging polity of England. It has left that to the right wing populism of the United Kingdom Independence party.

The populist right is filling the space Labour has vacated. It understands the importance of patriotism and a common shared culture. It understands that those who feel their inherited culture is under threat will make sacrifices to safeguard it. It does not treat people as victims but invites them to stand up for their country – against the social disruption of immigration and what it argues is the civilisational threat of Islam.

The reaction to the fear of cultural loss has been compounded again and again by the failure of Labour to understand and counter it with an alternative national story. Culture and shared traditions provide people with protection and security. People who voted to leave the EU want to ‘take back control’ because they feel that something has been taken away from them that they will never get back. This sense of ‘something lost’ extends deep into the Remain vote which shares many of the same misgivings about the EU.

These are the moderate majority of mainstream England. They believe in England and in Britain. They are not supporters of Ukip. The party that reflects their own values is Labour, not the Tories. But they do not recognise the party as their own and for the moment they will give May the benefit of the doubt. If she fails, it is not Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour they will turn to, but the populist right. They want change. But they want change for stability and security, not the change Labour thinks they should want.

Cultures absorb new ideas, identities and ethnicities. They are dynamic and elastic. They change and adapt. But if the economy that sustains a culture collapses it can start to decay and fall apart. Globalisation and deindustrialization have threatened such collapses across regions of the country. Factories have been exported, workers have been imported, ways of life have disapeared. When this happens the new threatens to overwhelm what once felt permanent. The identities of the members of the culture become vulnerable to negative reinterpretation by other more powerful cultures. The things that matter to them are rubbished. The dynamic was stark in the aftermath of the Brexit vote.

As the ties that bind people together loosen they are brought into question and they become political. Labour did not confront this cultural problem and now it cannot cope with the political one. The electoral consequences of this failure are broadly understood. But the nature of the challenge is not.

Instead of hedging its bets, lamenting Brexit, and echoing each dire forecast of impending disaster Labour must stand foursquare for the labour interest in the restoration of a self-governing, trading nation. With a credible leadership, a nation building politics that incorporates the cultural and the economic is the only means by which it can bridge the divisions within its coalition and reconnect to the country. It is the only feasible way for Labour to become an effective opposition that can hold the government to account, and once again have the credibility of a government in waiting. It is also its patriotic duty.


Jonathan Rutherford is an academic, and was a member of the independent inquiry into why Labour lost. He also worked on the party’s policy review 2012-14.

Progress is carrying responses to this article. You will be able to read them here.



Progressive centre-ground Labour politics does not come for free.

It takes time, commitment and money to build a fight against the forces of conservatism. If you value the work Progress does, please support us by becoming a member, subscriber or donating.

Our work depends on you.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Jonathan Rutherford


  • Jonathan is right. We can’t be Blairite and Tory-lite. New Labour’s pro-European dinosaurs need to wake up and smell the coffee.

  • I completely agree with Alf – Brexit is a step change for the Labour Party. 1990’s New Labour prescriptions no longer have any validity, pro-EU Blairites are history – we need a new vision for relationships with Europe (and the rest of the world) and a new vision for domestic politics (including English devolution). As far as I can see, only ‘Blue Labour’ offers that at the moment.

  • I never in a million years would have thought that I could agree with anything that Progress puts up – but I wholly agree with this piece.

  • Excellent article. Labour will revive when it reconnects with the socially conservative patriotic tolerant ‘working class’ (the latter needing a modern definition.

    Conversely, if it continues to pursue its pet minority liberal causes, setting groups of people against each other, it will die.

  • If any Brexit deal materialises, it has to be judged on its merits. If the deal is bad for the British people, then how can anyone – let alone progressive Labour – support such a deal?

    No deal has materialised. None will for some time. So to talk now about accepting it or rejecting it is an exercise in futility.

    All anyone can do is to say that the deal that will – or may – emerge, must be good for us.

    That’s what Labour has to campaign for: a good deal or no deal.

  • Didn’t buy into this this. Linking of realities of Brexit vote and consequences with conceptual pints about “labour” not convincing. Assumption that Labour voting Brexit supporters are toeletant and moderate not well supported from where I see it (South Wales). Risks having a red-UKIP party rather than an nternationalist human vales based party.

  • Labour needs to be Labour.

    Not trying to mimic the Tory Party

    Not trying to mimic the Lib Dems

    And certainly not trying to mimic the Greens

    Labour needs to be distinctly Labour – a living wage job for all working for private or public sector, a decent house to live in, a solid pension to look forward to.

    That’s what the people want. Time to deliver it.

  • I knew I’d find ‘Alf and Anon here…. Read all of Anon and Alfs comments here before agreeing with them. Some are shocking…,

    The author should also worry about its ‘pro’ following or should I say, the authors CLP should worry……

    I came here because I agreed with the title of this piece and I thought, ‘finally, a modernised labour viewpoint on Brexit and immigration et al’. I was quickly disappointed.

    I agree, Labour must wise up to the needs of the shires (I started life in Northamptonshire) and it must consider how to develop a modern immigration policy that works for both business and its labour.

    Some people here point out that Labours policy from 1997 won’t work 20 years later. (Oh, no kidding).

    Labour’s policy for 1997 worked brilliantly for 1997 problems. At that time we had serious public service shortages (remember people in hospital hallways?), skills shortage issues in medicine, tech and more, a skills training system starved of funding and stagnant unemployment. Labour jumped in and solved these multi faceted problem with an effective strategy.

    Labour’s popular policy worked because it was modern and based on solving real problems.

    However, post banking crisis the strategy was never redeveloped and we continue to use the same messages of the past. Meanwhile, people have seen their circumstances and communities fundamentally change post 2008 crash.


    The people I grew up with who voted Brexit do not share the views the racists here. However, they are sick of being told that globalisation, free movement and immigration are good for them while being ignored about practical things like housing and booking a doctors appointment.

    Labour needs a new strategy rooted in the facts and evidence of today’s labour voters and not the ideology of the past or the ideology of today’s popular fascism.

  • Truly bonkers!

    1) Labour voters voted about 2 to 1 to Remain, by supporting Leave we betray them
    2) If we side with Leave, we chase 50% of the vote with Tories & UKIP, and leave the other 50% to Lib Dems
    3) There is in no way an over-whelming majority (a 50:50 split) that supports Brexit, so to oppose Brexit is betraying noone
    4) There is no argument made here that Brexit is in any way of benefit to the ‘labour interest’ – it simply puts us at the mercy of USA, China & EU

    I could say more, but what’s the point…

  • I disagree strongly. By voting a virtual blank cheque for a nasty Tory Brexit, Labour will (as with the Iraq war) be on the wrong side of history. There is no disrespect of ‘the will of the people’ in requiring a second referendum. If the people, in the light of fuller knowledge of what Brexit entails, still on balance wish to leave the EU so be it. But proceeding merely on the basis of a referendum informed by lies and speculation will perpetuate divisions.

  • Wishful thinking on the part of somebody looking to revive Old Labour. The typical Brexit voter is elderly, white, socially illiberal and poorly educated. The typical Remain voter is the converse plus economically liberal. There was a small majority for Leave. Demographics (ie death) suggest that small Leave majority will not exist in 2 years time. So do the math – it undermines most of the article’s analysis and prescription for the future of the Labour party

Sign up to our daily roundup email