“Politics is the art of the possible” is an intensely annoying quotation. A lot of my irritation comes from the self-satisfied projection of wisdom with which it is invariably delivered. Plus there’s the exquisitely displeasing level of assonance within the phrase. Not none but not enough. It feels like it should either be “politics is the art of the polible” or “possitics is the art of the possible”. Or even “possibilitics”, though that would be a great name for a PR agency, particularly if it was exclusively staffed by people with twitches. A different way of expressing the sentiment would be preferable.
Let’s get on to the sentiment itself. What does it mean? There’s a range of polibilities. “Don’t bother trying to do what you think would be good because it’ll never work out”? “Don’t waste your energy on pipe dreams, focus on achievable goals”? “Embrace compromise”? “Give up”? It’s somewhere in the middle of all that, like politics always is, so it’s almost as if it’s an idea not worth expressing and the various sages would have been no less illuminating if they’d just said: “I’m standing on the ground because of the effect of gravity.”
That would be less dangerous because it wouldn’t give politicians an excuse to go along with whatever disasters are unfolding. After all, the only thing we absolutely know to be possible is what’s happening already. Arguably, the highest art of the possible is to take what’s going on anyway and make yourself in charge of it. That was Theresa May’s approach to leadership. A remainer herself, she cheerfully formed a government to push through the consequences of a decision with which she disagreed.
The subject I’m edging round is of course Brexit. It’s not a fun one. Is that why Keir Starmer doesn’t like talking about it? Because it’s not fun and he doesn’t want not to be fun? I doubt it. Hearing him speak, he seems to have made his peace with that. No, he is trying to stick to the “art of the possible” and accept Brexit, rather than moan at however many of the 52% who voted for it in 2016 happen still to be alive about what mean-spirited dupes they all were.
It is worth bearing in mind, in this regard, where the famous phrase comes from. It wasn’t Theresa May or Peter Mandelson or Stanley Baldwin, Herbert Asquith, Benjamin Disraeli or Lord Castlereagh who coined it. None of those canny operators and compromisers, some mediocre and some brilliant, came up with this great paean to knowing when you’re beaten. Do you know who it was? I didn’t until I Googled it. It was Bismarck.
Yes, Bismarck! Otto von Bismarck, the man who created the German empire out of hundreds of tiny warring states and in the face of all the other powers in Europe thinking that that might be a terrible idea. (And, in the short to medium term at least, it absolutely was a terrible idea.) This is the guy who said sometimes you have to accept second best. That certainly recontextualised it for me.
When a Tory insider uses it to justify support for Liz Truss or keeping Suella Braverman in the cabinet or suppressing public sector pay or whatever other almighty cock-up they’re trying to make their peace with, I’m not sure that’s quite in the spirit of Bismarck. I wonder if the man who single-handedly built a vast new empire in the middle of Europe might have had a broader definition of what was possible?
Nigel Farage did. Credit where credit’s due. The UK’s membership of the EU looked safe as houses under Blair and Brown. But Farage didn’t get sidetracked by what seemed possible and restrict his campaigning to privatising more sections of the NHS or further deregulating the City. He held on to his sour dream and it became possible, it came true. It’s the fact that he’s in favour of proportional representation that gives me a glimmer of hope that one day it could actually happen.
Starmer, as we know, would not introduce proportional representation and neither would he reverse Brexit. He now aligns with Farage about the EU but not about the dysfunction in our electoral system. This art of the possible is too abstract for my taste. He’ll stick with a voting structure under which, now Scotland is making its own arrangements, Labour can barely win and the Tories barely lose – and for what? To spite the Lib Dems? For the marginal chance of a massive first-past-the-post majority without any Scottish seats? I’m not sure even Bismarck would shoot for that. Meanwhile, the UK’s centre-left political consensus is disenfranchised.
Back to Brexit. It is obviously failing – and most noticeably in its key aim of keeping foreigners out. Without EU cooperation, the south coast is apparently overwhelmed. Huge sectors of our economy are short staffed because so many EU citizens have gone home, while tens of thousands of refugees require expensive processing, a task with which nice, grownup countries such as France are now, understandably, unwilling to help. As failures go, it is a peach. Yet the government can only respond with more of the xenophobic rhetoric with which it got us into this mess in the first place.
And Labour doesn’t point this out! Our economy is crashing, not exclusively because of Brexit, but to a large extent. We are doing worse than France, Germany, Italy, the US etc etc. It’s like all the western countries are standing in the rain but everyone except the UK has an umbrella and our government is screaming: “We’re only getting soaked because of the rain!! Because of Putin’s rain!!!”
Brexit is a catastrophe and the opposition’s failure to mention that seems mad. New Labour’s conservative approach to ousting Conservatives was justified by a context of prosperity. The current situation is starkly different. Reversing Brexit would be the most significant geopolitical choice that Britain could make in its own interests. Scotland wants it. London wants it. An Ipsos Mori poll last month reported that 51% of people in the UK think Brexit has damaged the country while only 22% think it’s been good. It is high time the opposition rediscovered its sense of possibility.
