The party politics of no deal

There was a lot of noise last night about Rebecca Long Bailey's interview on Channel 4 news in which she said that Labour would not support any kind of unity government as a means of preventing no deal Brexit, as this would give Johnson a "get out of jail free card". The most common response has been that it was simply illogical, or suggested a misunderstanding of what a 'unity government' would mean. How could a scenario in which Johnson lost a vote of no confidence and was replaced as Prime Minister be letting him off the hook?

But I don't think this is the most likely explanation. The second part of the sentence was that he could use his get out jail free card to "sail back in, without any problems at all, without a sufficient parliamentary majority". That last part of the sentence admittedly confuses things, but the general sense sounds more like what is being expressed is the fear that Johnson would not have to face the consequences of his actions (i.e bringing the UK to the edge of the no deal cliff). He could then at some later stage "sail back in", though presumably on the back of a general election (and perhaps, if successful, a parliamentary majority). As mentioned, the last part of the sentence doesn't quite gel with this, but you can see why someone wouldn't refer to the prospect of their own party losing an election.

Furthermore, whether or not her remarks were an accidental admission, you can see the strategic rational from the point of view of the Labour leadership of that view. The chaos of a no deal Brexit would, you would hope, make the Conservatives very unpopular. And the alternative scenario, in which Johnson as leader of the Conservative party can go into a general election saying that his plan only failed because he was undermined by remainer MPs, does sound like something that could be an effective strategy for the Conservatives.

This is deeply worrying, because it suggests that the Labour leadership might well come to the conclusion that the best electoral strategy is to make some kind of parliamentary gesture of opposition to no deal, but ultimately fail to take what might be the only viable way of preventing it. Even more worryingly, the Conservative leadership is now dominated by a cult that not only sees no deal favourably, but actually seems to think it will bring political dividends. They point to an opinion poll suggesting a higher vote share for the Conservative party in this eventuality, are primarily focussed on winning back Brexit voters, and like all cults on some level think that what they want must ultimately be popular.

If you assume that British elections are essentially a zero sum game with two players, either Labour or the Conservatives must be miscalculating. But that is perfectly possible. It is quite plausible that the Labour and Conservative leadership for different reasons both think that letting no deal happen (or balking at the measures that would actually prevent it) is the best way of positioning themselves for the next general election. To use an old cliché, I very much hope I am wrong. If not, we are in for a very bumpy ride.