Brexit, the left behind and the let down: the political abstraction of ‘the economy’ and the UK’s EU referendum

Original Article
  • 154 Downloads

Abstract

UK voters’ decision to overturn the country’s European Union membership has left most parliamentarians looking rather distant from the constituents they represent. The politicians staked much on assuming that people could be persuaded not to sabotage their economic self-interest, but that message conspicuously failed to resonate. When politicians spoke in abstract terms about the needs of ‘the economy’, significant numbers understood this to mean labour market conditions that had personally served them badly. It was commonplace in the immediate aftermath of the referendum to refer to these people as the ‘left behind’. However, they might more usefully be described as the ‘let down’ and, as the 2017 general election results show, they are still a significant if somewhat unpredictable voting constituency. Since the restructuring of the UK economy in line with global competitiveness norms these people have been required to earn their rights as citizens through demonstrating their work readiness. Yet hard work on its own is now no longer sufficient for so many people to receive the rewards promised under the terms of the new social contract. They have been largely abandoned to their fate by the politicians as labour market segmentation has led to a significant expansion of the in-work poor. This constituency voted in large numbers against continued EU membership. This suggests that the referendum result can be seen at least in part as a revolt against the way in which the abstraction of ‘the economy’ has informed UK politics in recent decades. The much lower profile given to this abstraction at the 2017 general election compared to its immediate predecessors indicates that, eighteen months later, on this issue at least we remain in the political rupture caused by the EU referendum result.

Keywords

EU referendum Left behind Let down Globalisation New social contract Credibility 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This article was written with financial assistance from an Economic and Social Research Council Professorial Fellowship. The Fellowship—Grant Number ES/K0 10697/1—supports the project, ‘Rethinking the Market’ (www.warwick.ac.uk/rethinkingthemarket). I gratefully acknowledge the ESRC’s ongoing support of my research.

References

  1. Bauman, Z. 2005. Work, consumerism and the new poor, 2nd ed. Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bauman, Z. 2011. Interview: Zygmunt Bauman on the UK riots. http://www.social-europe.eu/2011/08/interview-zygmunt-bauman-on-the-riots/.
  3. Bell, T. 2016. The referendum, living standards and inequality. http://www.resolutionfoundation.org/media/blog/the-referendum-living-standards-and-inequality/.
  4. Berry, C. 2011. Globalisation and ideology in Britain: Neoliberalism, free trade and the global economy. Manchester: Manchester University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blair, T. 1996. Speech in Southwark Cathedral. London.Google Scholar
  6. Briggs, D. 2012. Introduction. In The English riots of 2011: A summer of discontent, ed. D. Briggs. Hook: Waterside Press.Google Scholar
  7. Clarke, S. 2016. Why did we vote to leave? What an analysis of place can tell us about Brexit. http://www.resolutionfoundation.org/media/blog/why-did-we-vote-to-leave-what-an-analysis-of-place-can-tell-us-about-brexit/.
  8. Corlett, A. 2016. Examining an elephant: Globalisation and the lower middle class of the rich world. Resolution Foundation Report, September 2016.Google Scholar
  9. Cooper, Lord. 2016. Interview with BBC. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36865791.
  10. Curtice, J. 2017. Interview with BBC. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40211261.
  11. Driver, S. 2008. New Labour and social policy. In Ten years of New Labour, ed. M. Beech, and S. Lee. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  12. Elson, D., and N. Çagatay. 2000. The social content of macroeconomic policies. World Development 28 (7): 1347–1364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Finch, D. 2016. Hanging on: The stresses and strains of Britain’s ‘just managing’ families. Resolution Foundation Briefing.Google Scholar
  14. Finlayson, A. 2003. Making sense of New Labour. London: Lawrence and Wishart.Google Scholar
  15. Forder, J. 2000. The theory of credibility: Confusions, limitations and dangers. International Papers in Political Economy 7 (2): 1–40.Google Scholar
  16. Gallie, D. 2013. Economic crisis, the quality of work, and social integration: Issues and context. In Economic crisis, the quality of work, and social integration: The European experience, ed. D. Gallie. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ganesh, J. 2012. George Osborne: the austerity chancellor. London: Biteback.Google Scholar
  18. Levitas, R. 2005. The inclusive society? Social exclusion and New Labour, 2nd ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  19. McKay, A., J. Campbell, E. Thomson, and S. Ross. 2013. Economic recession and recovery in the UK: What’s gender got to do with it? Feminist Economics 19 (3): 108–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Montgomerie, J., and D. Tepe-Belfrage. 2016. A feminist moral economy of uneven reform in austerity Britain. Globalizations 13 (6): 890–905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Morgan, J. 2017. Brexit: Be careful what you wish for? Globalizations 14 (1): 118–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Neville, S. 2016. UK areas with stagnant wages are most anti-EU. Financial Times, 23 June.Google Scholar
  23. Nunn, A. 2016. The production and reproduction of inequality in the UK in times of austerity. British Politics 11 (4): 469–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nye, R. 2016. What Brexit means for British politics. In 48:52Healing a divided nation, ed. Legatum Institute/Centre for Social Justice. London: Legatum Institute.Google Scholar
  25. O’Hara, M. 2015. Austerity Bites: A journey to the sharp end of cuts in the UK. Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
  26. Osborne, G. 2015a. Policy lecture delivered to the Royal Economic Society. http://press.conservatives.com/post/108155619680/george-osborne-res-lecture.
  27. Osborne, G. 2015b. Spending review and Autumn statement speech to the House of Commons. https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/chancellor-george-osbornes-spending-review-and-autumn-statement-2015-speech.
  28. Osborne, G. 2016. Budget speech to the House of Commons. https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/budget-2016-george-osbornes-speech.
  29. Sanders, D., H. Ward, D. Marsh, and T. Fletcher. 1987. Government popularity and the Falklands war: A reassessment. British Journal of Political Science 17 (3): 281–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Skinner, G. 2016. Understanding Brexit. In 48:52Healing a divided nation, ed. Legatum Institute/Centre for Social Justice. London: Legatum Institute.Google Scholar
  31. Toynbee, P., and D. Walker. 2015. Cameron’s Coup: How the Tories took Britain to the brink. London: Faber and Faber.Google Scholar
  32. Watson, M. 2009. ‘Habitation vs. improvement’ and a Polanyian perspective on bank bail-outs. Politics 29 (3): 183–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Watson, M. 2013. New Labour’s ‘paradox of responsibility’ and the unravelling of its macroeconomic policy. British Journal of Politics and International Relations 15 (1): 6–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Woll, C. 2014. The power of inaction: Bank bailouts in comparison. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Worth, O. 2016. Reviving Hayek’s dream. Globalizations 14 (1): 104–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wright, D., and R. Case. 2016. Leave voters felt ignored and left behind as post-Brexit poll reveals extent of economic division across UK. www.jrf.org.uk/press/leave-voters-felt-ignored-and-left-behind-brexit-poll.

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Politics and International StudiesUniversity of WarwickCoventryEngland, UK

Personalised recommendations