I was sharing thoughts with a quite well known journalist yesterday (it does not matter who). They asked me what is going to happen to Labour now. They were familiar with my history with that party and made it the premise of the discussion that Jeremy Corbyn will win the leadership election this summer, with which idea I do not necessarily agree, entirely, as yet. Assuming they were right though I offered an opinion as I am rarely short of one.
I suggested that a number of consequences would follow.
First, I said there would be no general election. There would be no incentive for Theresa May to call one when there was no effective opposition. There was no chance Labour would cooperate to deliver an election given the shambolic state they are in. No one else can agree to it. So, we face four more years of this parliament.
Second, I could not see almost any of those who have resigned from the shadow ministerial team going back to work for Jeremy Corbyn. In that case, as at present, there would remain more than forty vacancies in that team. Labour could not provide an opposition as a result.
Third, in this situation the SNP might try to embarrass Labour and put forward a shadow ministerial team, maybe bringing in Plaid Cymru, the SDLP and Greens, to become the official opposition. If they could suggest a bigger shadow ministerial team was available they might have a claim to do so.
The threat that this might happen would force the hand of the 170 or so Labour MPs who very clearly will not be supporting their party leader, but who have now, by default, already selected their own group leader in Owen Smith. I believe they will be forced to act and have little to lose from doing so. There are three obvious reasons for that.
First, every one of them faces the risk of deselection by their constituency parties. Even if they hung on as the candidate the chance of Labour winning more than 100 seats in 2020 after four more years of shambolic opposition looks optimistic to me.
Second, facing four years of frustration and impotence they will be forced into action.
Third, their duty will overcome all other considerations: there isn't an option available in UK politics for the largest group of opposition MPs to sit on their hands and say they will not oppose anyone but their own front bench: it is their duty to the electorate to oppose and that they will have to do.
With their backs against the wall I expect this group to form an opposition first, and a party second. On this basis Labour will fracture this Autumn, because it would have to: democracy would demand it of these MPs if they think they cannot serve under Corbyn.
There is of course no guarantee that this split will in any way guarantee a new party success: I really cannot see an SDP phenomenon happening again, but that may be a good thing. Political euphoria (like political cults) collapses. But that said, if such a party is to succeed at all it has to be radical. Unless it is it will simply provide an agreeable pastime to these, by then former Labour MPs, before political retirement will forcibly beckon, come what may.
What in that case does radical mean? It can only be an embrace of a radical approach to Brexit and the opportunities it provides or the whole thing will be a waste of time. My discussant agreed. As they put it, the left has to overcome its paradoxical position. There are free economic freedoms. They are of capital, goods and labour.
The left is happy about restricting the movement of capital whether through measures to beat tax abuse, by the adoption of financial transaction taxes, and much else.
It is also happy to prevent the free movement of goods, to protect Port Talbot for example.
And in reality we have always restricted the free movement of labour: we do not have an open border policy except with the EU, and yet suggesting changing this offends the left considerably, although not the population at large. On this most apparent of the 'freedoms' the left has to now make up its mind because this will dictate the future of Brexit.
Demand free movement and there is no chance of restricting capital and trade, and we will be left like Norway working in a fundamentally neoliberal system where we have no say and so chance of changing things. Accept limitations on movement and leave the single market and controls can be imposed on capital and trade as well when required, as the left would reasonably expect.
It's a pretty fundamental choice to make, and an essential one. Forming a new party of the left that does not accept the reality of Brexit and give it a left wing stance (which happens to be consistent with current policy with the world excepting the EU) would be a waste of time. Do so and there is an electoral offering which can be the foundation for a radical economic policy.
None of this is going to happen yet: there is a Labour Party election to deal with first. But failing to think about the implications of that election would be a big mistake. And the time to do that is before the event, much as this seems to have gone out of fashion in the UK. This is why I make these suggestions now.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
If Smith wins there will be division and discord, but the PLP will largely hold together and will be able to become an effective opposition under a competent leader.
If Corbyn wins there will be division and discord, with the prospect of anything like a united, effective PLP some way off and the party being led at Westminster in name only.
If my party cannot perform the function of an able, credible opposition, I don’t expect the electorate will think for one moment that they are worth installing in Government.
We are in a very precarious position. Our reputation and standing with the public is at a low and we teeter on the edge of a dramatic, possibly terminal, collapse. The stakes are very high indeed.
Neither leadership option will bring instant harmony; much hard work, bridge building and sensible compromise will be required to bring the party together.
Owen Smith is the man best equipped for the task and will get my vote.
“hard work, bridge building and sensible compromise”
A refreshing thought. Unfashionable among the elected but something that the electorate is fairly entitled to expect from their representatives (regardless of the leadership outcome).
Competence is required to
And that issue has been reoslved
Nothing has been resolved.
Because you’re not listening
Or observing reality
And when you do you will be disillusioned as I had to be before moving on
Reputation at an all time low – terminal collapse! How so?
The public look dubiously at Labour as a party recently led by a war criminal and stuffed with careerist schmoozers prepared to sell out anyone to advance themselves from politics to “business”.
Seeing Labour might finaly be done with these frauds has led to a massive surge in membership, support and interest in the party. It now has the biggest membership by far of any UK party – so terminal decline I think not.
The press, a central pillar of the neo-liberal establishment, repeat that Labour is un-electable under Corbyn,and some like you are naiive enough to lap it up. What terrifies the establishment is that a party which promised a mixed economy and nationalisation of the natural monopolies would achieve a landslide.
I admire your optimism
And I agree that the public are fed up with the politics of an elite – with which Labour has been far too associated in the past and of which I have been a ready critic, and still will be
But to presume that the public have bought into Corbyn or a post-capitalist agenda (which no one can explain) is a massive leap from that, or the increase in membership (some of which is undoubtedly opposed to Corbyn)
I do think people want accountability
They do want justice
They clearly want a better sharing of the cake
And that needs vastly better policies – which I am apparently able to write
I also think those policies are deliverable but first I see no sign, as I have explained, that team Ciorbyn are willing or able to deliver them and no confidence on the part of the public that he can or will do so
Of course I could be wrong but to suggest I rely on the MSM to form my opinion is a little odd when I was more than anyone else bar Jeremy himself probably responsible for delivering his message last summer
What I do know is that Jeremy et al are hopeless managers at almost any level. I genuinely wish it was otherwise . I am deeply disappointed by what has happened
But I remain committed to the ideas and do want a government committed to a mixed economy and much more than nationalisation of the natural monopolies
That is why IO will tell you that you’re making a mistake backing Corbyn because he will never deliver it
But Steve, you say ‘IF my party cannot perform the function of an able, credible opposition’ it wasn’t a credible opposition during the last 6 years and against a Government that was incompetent and illiterate-they still couldn’t do it and most of the M.P’s are the same!
The notion that it has suddenly become incapable of opposition is just not true, though the present situation makes it technically more difficult to even appear to be able.
Simon
That is not true: like it or not Ed Miliband ran an opposition
I criticised a lot of what he did – but also helped when appropriate
And he did and could recruit a full team of shadow ministers
JC cannot get near a team of half the size required
Please wake up
Or like others stop wasting my time
I want real opposition in this country – not a kindergarten variety, at best – and I’m not now sure JC could even do that
Have you even seen how pathetic his launch statement for re-election is? It’s worse than student politics standard
Richard
There was the STRUCTURE of an opposition, Richard but no substance, it was form without content-many of our citizens went through hell while Labour stood there as empty vessels.
You could argue it is worse now because there is some substance but inchoate and No structure.
But is there a point in having merely a lip-service opposition that is a mere simulacrum. I would say no.
The ‘advantage’ of having no opposition is that we can then CLEARLY see that it is a one party state which it was anyway but now the veil is lifted -that COULD be creative.
If you think the last labour Party was an opposition in anything more than a structural sense then, Richard, I’d advise you to take a cold shower and maybe remember that unlike yourself people out here WERE affected by the hellish policies of the Tories and by God did we not notice that Labour had been NO opposition to them.
Wait till you are threatened with eviction/benefits arbitrarily stopped/bedroom tax imposed/humiliating and threatening sanctions hovering over your head/made to feel like you are surplus population
I had my life turned inside out during 2013-14 by the Tory policies and I watched (and campaigned) and waited for Labour to expose and say something that offered challenge-THEY DIDN’T and you want more of that as long as it is a ‘structural opposition’? Don’t talk utter crud man!
You are making the mistake of reading what I said as an endorsement of Corbyn -why? I was simply pointing out that the failure to be an opposition is a historical reality.
I don’t take lightly what you said in response which I find grossly insensitive and deliberately pugnacious.
‘And he did and could recruit a full team of shadow ministers’-what did that amount to? They were useless-whilst being torn apart by the Tory policies and personally campaigning against them I watched while they offered at best utter milksops and talked about it on this blog with you often agreeing.
Richard, I wont accept the command to wake up from someone who is secure not likely to be hit by any implications of the Tories’ policies or have their assets remotely janggled by the earthquake that hit the vulnerable.
Please have a little humility in the face of what you were fortunate NOT to experience and try to extend your imagination to what it might have felt like to be at the receiving end of this while (in the words of a regular blogger on this site at the time) Labour ‘slept at the wheel.’
if you want to at me with your imperious tone that’s up to you but please have some respect and regard for what people might have actually gone through while Labour dozed and dithered and please do not deliberately misread my posts as pro-Corbyn when that was NOT the point of them.
perhaps you ought to wake up to the fact that Labour let millions down the most egregious and shoddy manner during those years.
I’m disappointed in you sir! You could at least try to understand where I was coming from on this before doing you ‘don’t waste my time routine on me. My points are completely valid as far as I’m concerned. During that terrible period, I spoke to so many who deserted Labour for UKIP due their utter ineffectiveness. People that were angry and had gone through hardship without any sense that the Party that should be helping them did-they were angry and rightly so. it’s unfortunate that that anger was susceptible to manipulation from the right. I’ve seen people left with nothing/having to leave their homes with lives in utter chaos/old people becoming homeless/families torn apart while a bunch of feckless farts in Westminster sis the Overton Window Shuffle.
And you tell me to wake up! Wake up!! What! I think my wake up happened!
Politely, stop being so patronising
To put it as delicately as I can I find it pretty annoying to be told I don’t understand, can’t care as a result and therefore don’t count
As I recently pointed out to you off here, many of your assumptions about me were profoundly wrong
And you’re repeating that error now
I do not deny some of good frtune, but candidly, I have very little time for being told things that you cannot know about
Owen Smith isn’t equipped to run a peanut stand, let alone the Labour Party, and certainly not the Country. Corbyn is the only show in town, and will win, probably by a larger majority than previously. The mass membership – entirely ignored by the MP obsessed article above, will ensure that opponents of Corbyn in the PLP are removed. Labour will head towards a mass membership over a million strong, and if that force is properly mobilised, will romp to a victory in 2020. I also think Corbyn needs to include the SNP, Plaid & Greens in his shadow cabinet if the Blairite rump continue to refuse to serve. Most of the SNP cohort are far more able than the sociopathic narcissists who make up the irrelevant remnants of the PLP.
With the greatest of respect, if you think tat comment is anyway useful to your cause you are very clearly deeply mistaken
Not least because you clearly have no clue about what the SNP thinks about Labour
My view is this. If Corbyn wins and the 170 or so Labour MPs refuse to work with him thereafter, then who exactly are they representing, other than themselves and the PLP as a grouping?
They can certainly claim to represent the voters who elected them to parliament but, let’s not forget, it was the work in canvassing and so forth by their local Labour party members which will have helped to win the seat in the first place. If they don’t represent their CLP members, they surely don’t have a mandate to work with?
The only way forward I can see would then be to resign as MP and then stand in the subsequent by-election, looking for a new mandate from their electorate. David Davis did so on a point of principle back in 2008 (I think?), so it is certainly not without precedent. Any other choice seems untenable to me.
Fundamentally, my view is that these MPs would need to re-engage with Corbyn and his supporters, assuming he wins the leadership election, even if it means another defeat in 2020 (which I would have to say is almost certain in any case, due to the boundary changes). Who knows, if they stop endlessly briefing, leaking and plotting against Corbyn, he might do a bit better with their help rather than their attacks.
As far as I can tell, anything other actions will mean the end of the Labour party as a whole and it will be at the hands of the PLP.
Like most, I had never heard of Owen Smith before his recent leap into the limelight. However, I have to admit I find that I’m prejudiced against him simply because I’ve discovered he’s a former PR man – not just because we’ve seen what PR men do when in power, but because the fundamental basis of the job tends to be misrepresenting reality for a set purpose. I’m also rather less than impressed on how many personal digs he seems to have made at Corbyn already this week in his various interviews and the media reporting looks set to reach new heights of disingenuousness, which is saying something when you consider what we’ve had to endure already.
Incidentally, regarding the recent reports of Corbyn & Co’s inability to operate their political process effectively, I recall reading an article earlier this year which claimed that Corbyn and his supporters were pretty much left to their own devices after winning the leadership back in 2015 – the established New Labour era party machinery didn’t even attempt to assist them. Unfortunately, I can’t recall when or where I read this report so I can’t reproduce it but it seems pretty obvious that this must be the case. The immediate refusal of most of the other leadership candidates to work in his shadow cabinet was a very telling indication of how they were thinking from the very start.
The Corbyn grouping may, indeed, prove to be incapable of running an effective political machine, but it certainly can’t have helped that slings and arrows have been coming as much or possibly more from their own side as the expected opposition. Tweets from a Sky journalist the other month (swiftly deleted) named Conor McGinn, one of the Labour whips as the source of the damaging leaks which were coming out of the party – he’s now begun to claim Corbyn bullied him in the past and Smith is immediately on Sky News criticising again.
Unfortunately, I have to say I simply don’t believe much of what is being claimed in the media these days.
Your logic is hard to follow
Those MPS were selected by their CLPs at the time
They were not selected by the CLPs now. How can they be responsible to CLP memberships that were not in the party pre 2015?
And do you really think the duty of an MP to party is great than to their constituency or even their conscience? I do not
But we clearly differ
“Those MPS were selected by their CLPs at the time”
If only.
There were regular occurrences of candidates parachuted into constituencies by Labour HQ when Tony Blair was leader (one of them being Angela Eagle); the reason being that candidates had to be “on message” with the New Labour project at the time – and many leftwing candidates proposed by their local constituency parties were undemocratically rejected.
This is why the PLP is still largely populated by the same “on message” MPs – the only exceptions being those old socialists like Skinner and Corbyn who happened to survive in their constituencies unscathed, or left-of centre MPs who entered Parliament during the post-Blair Miliband years.
These candidates were elected in accordance with the rules of the time
I’m sorry – but to say otherwise is absurd
So they do represent their CLPs as they were
Well, if they do split away with a new PLP-led Labour-ish party, I do hope they seek a new mandate from the voters. After all, they will no longer be representing the same party for which they were elected!
Unfortunately, I think the outcome will be disastrous for left-wing politics in this country regardless of the result and its aftermath.
I still feel very much that Corbyn is more sinned against than sinning the unspeakable lack of balance and dishonesty by the media as reported by the LSE study the other day (which was barely mentioned in the press, oddly enough), just goes to prove this point.
I fear that there is no way out of this mess now, especially as the plotters and Smith have now clearly declared war on Corbyn personally. This is going to do nothing but entrench divisions even further.
Maybe it will
But I can’t see reconciliation is possible
And threatening reselection is the guarantee of that
But Richard, what about the anonymous senior labour MP’s who claim they will continue to seek insurrection no matter whether Corbyn wins the leadership election? Is this the act of those democratically seeking a new leader or hell bent on avoiding any challenge from a grassroots movement which poses the ultimate threat to the cosy Westminster establishment? If they won’t give up I see no issue with reselections for the sake of future stability in just the same way blair did which could be argued what really caused the divisions within the PLP
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-leadership-election-jeremy-corbyn-s-critics-will-wage-war-of-attrition-to-force-him-out-a7149086.html
You mean like Jeremy sought insurrection for decades?
That’s called politics
If you do not believe in dissent think about what politics you are advocating, please
Do you really want to go there?
Richard you misunderstand me again as I want more dissent, more political parties, more economic and political democracy. Not the phony politics of a two party and quite falsely adversarial system which merely reinforces the status quo and existing social/economic order by never challenging established financial interests.
I could not read that into what you said
Apologies if that is what you meant
I do not understand why we have this obsession with deselection. American congressfolk are open to primary every two tears. We should have the same at each election. It would keep MP’s honest to their electorates.
It’s how it’s used
Right now it is being used as intimidation
And please don’t deny it, because to do so would be a lie
Richard, I’m no Corbynite, in fact I fully agree with your critique that he is incapable of management, but I don’t see why MP’s that don’t represent the wishes of the people who stump for them should not be open to some kind of democratic challenge. Too many get cushy jobs for life, on both sides of the house.
Of course they’re accountable
And of course they can be rejected
But at a general election
It was not the Labour Party that elected them, it was their constituents. Those constituents will eventually decide what happens but since this MPs can say they are still committed to what they were elected to do I cannot see why anyone should expect them to resign
No it doesn’t. This lie just keeps getting repeated.
Those people elected an MP.
It is the members of the Labour party that decide whether they can continue to call themselves *Labour MPs*.
And we will find out at the next election when they are deselected whether people want the individual, or a Labour MP.
The people left behind like Simon can’t afford the people who refuse to oppose welfare cuts in opposition because it ‘sends the wrong message’. They need people who will stand for them in parliament. They don’t want the ‘vote as you wish as long as we do the nominating’ nonsense.
Has anybody else emerged that could be expected to do better than Corbyn? I don’t think so.
The second thing is that so far Corbyn has been a ‘winner’, as he has generated enthusiasm from supporters, and the party’s electoral fortunes have been a bit boosted under him:
* 2/3 of both Labour and SNP voters followed their leaders and voted “Remain” even if “Leave” was obviously far more popular in England.
* By-elections and local elections have gone fairly well overall for Labour in the past several months.
In four years we will know
I have never argued otherwise
My speculation is on what happens between now and then
Have you actually read it?
I completely agree with you about PR, but I actually view this as a plus in Owen Smith’s case, because it means he will rely on his own PR skills rather than deferring to the advice of unaccountable PR “experts” behind the scenes, as so many politicians do.
“If Corbyn wins and the 170 or so Labour MPs refuse to work with him thereafter, then who exactly are they representing, other than themselves and the PLP as a grouping?”
Well, yes Mariner, that seems to be the question that remains unanswered and the blindingly obvious point that is entirely lost on the PLP and the PLP alone.
The perception that is becoming harder to escape is that there are many among the PLP who heve never accepted the outcome of the Collins review, and have always held the result of the leadership election in contempt. Stories like this reinforce that perception:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-leadership-election-jeremy-corbyn-s-critics-will-wage-war-of-attrition-to-force-him-out-a7149086.html
These folk seem to think that they are an end unto themselves, or perhaps, being immune to irony, they are representing Rupert Murdoch and the Sun’s ‘Saving Labour’ campaign.
Your “view.. that these MPs would need to re-engage with Corbyn and his supporters, assuming he wins the leadership election” sounds eminently reasonable if not inevitable and both sides would need to make genuine concessions to find a workable accord.
You and I are not alone in failing to see what is so hard about that. The idea that they “cannot” work with him is a voluntary and arbitrary at best, petulant and hysterical at worst. Corbyn is not Trump, nor any other form of tyrant, nor is he the subject outrageous scandal,or any scandal.
So what’s the big problem? Have politicians lost the ability to bargain? Have they been watching UFC? God knows how they would cope with forming a coalition. Generally it would appear that the doom, gloom and disaster is all contrived and self generated.
If Corbyn wins it will be partly down to the fact that he isn’t outraged or hysterical. If the Tories win it may be due to the way that they handle their internal disputes – much better.
Oh come on, that’s blatant contempt for parliamentary democracy
The electorate voted these MPs in without knowing JC would be leader
They did not vote for a JC manifesto
And these members never signed up to one
But you are saying that because a tiny minority (and Labour party members are a tiny minority) have decided that they want a change of direction people elected by 9.3 million must go?
I’m sorry, but down that route is the path to a politics of oppression I’d really rather we did not comtemplate
The electorate haven’t signed up to an Owen Smith agenda either. But if Smith wins he would deserve the respect that comes with the leadership vote.
Unless I am wrong you seem to be saying that the PLP is entitled to disregard the outcome of a leadership vote unless that same leader has faced a general election. That’s a new rule. Im’ not sure that the Collins review had that one in mind.
As for the members elected by 9.3 million people. They are are not independents. They were elected as a result of their pre-selection by the Labour party. For the most part elected by Labour voters who normally vote labour regardless of the member that’s been selected. Many in safe seats. So they owe their position in large part to the party – and its members.
And by the way, I never said that they “should go”. Merely that they should find the discipline and basic political skill to bargain with the leadership (collectively if need be)to resolve any genuine problems. There is much in this ‘crisis’ that appears to be confected.
I think the PLP is entitled to ignore a leadership election if it wishes
It is glaringly obvious that is true: they are individual MPs not mandated by anyone
I did make clear that they would have to form a new party if they wanted to do so
There is no requirement at all to stand for re-election
Your claims are wrong
I don’t follow.
I didn’t say that the MPs would have to stand for re-election.
And I am disappointed to see you say that “the PLP is entitled to ignore a leadership election if it wishes”.
If that means forming a new party then that would give new and additional meaning to the notion of self-defeat.
If the membership choose for whatever reason someone who is incompetent, even if he were to propose superficially sound policy, I would sincerely hope a majority those elected to be of sound judgement would reject that person’s leadership, whatever the party, and always to ensure that the appropriate roles of democracy can be delivered
Right now Corbyn cannot deliver opposition because he has less than half the MPs needed to do so
Why not be realistic? That is not opposition and in that case someone else has to do it
Do you want Angus Robertson to do it instead as he has better claim right now?
And if you can’t emrace this reality please stop wasting my time, because you will be
Embrace this reality if you will.
The entitlement of MPs is not arbitrary, unlimited or above question. They are not a law unto themselves, not even the independents. The bit that you’re not getting is that is not only the leader that is under fire in this instance but the members as well and that will continue to be the case – new leader or not.
An historic precedent of sorts.
As for your time – don’t reply if you do not wish and if you do – I won’t. I’m done, but clearly, I am not alone.
And let’s be clear – like others of your persuasion you have persuaded yourself of things that are hopelessly untrue
And that’s a very dangerous basis for politics
I will continue to promote the same ideas as ever
But I will not subscribe to a cult
Or to a leadership that cannot deliver because it is incapable of doing so
‘They face you with closure and say it’s in the name of economy.I say look behind it. Look at the mentality behind it which is so suspect.
It is a siege mentality. We see ministers winding up the drawbridge on the open society and threatening a rerun, dare I say it, of the Middle Ages.
I say this, too, that I believe that there are new forces in our society. New forces, new loyalties, new ideas not yet articulated which may yet come to our rescue. Some of them will come from the Labour Party. Some of them will come from other associations perhaps not yet formed…..’
Michael Meacher
Edge of Darkness
1985ish.
In the future the answer may be to create a new left wing party or a coalition of left wing parties but, as the piece points out, at the moment the political system is stuck with Labour. So, isn’t the task now to create a non-party political movement, formed around a very broadly left wing response to Brexit as outlined in the piece; a movement that could gain support from members of existing left wing parties but also from leave voters who may have Labour backgrounds and quite radical beliefs but are completely disconnected from existing ‘progressive’ politics and give them an alternative to UKIP and the right. One of the purposes of such a movement would be to inspire and shape the approach of the existing parties and any new parties in the next few years.
The success of left-wing politics lies not in the names and organisations of political parties but in the underlying strength of the civil society that supports them. The Labour party grew out of the Labour movement and its strength waxed and waned with the strength of the Labour movement, the Green party at least initially, grew out of the environmental movement and was small because the environmental movement was small. It is significant that the most successful new left wing party in Europe (Podemos) grew out of a genuine mass movement (the Indignatos) rather than out of the ruins of a pre-existing social democratic party. So, left wing politics needs strong societies to succeed.
Progressive parties often claim to be both a political party but also a social movement in and of itself. ‘We are not just a party we are a growing movement’ is something that I have heard, Labour, Green Party and Lib Dem politicians all say with a straight face. It makes sense for parties to present themselves in this light. Left wing politics will only succeed if a large number of people join and become active. It has to be a mass movement or it will fail. So, in order to attract support, left-wing parties try to present themselves as authentic ‘movements’, speaking to people’s desires for self-expression, community, democracy, solidarity and action around a set of common ideals.
However, as the Labour party’s problem’s show, it is ultimately not possible to be both a social movement and an effective political party. Parties must, to some extent, be hierarchical, disciplined, command and control organisations because they exist for the purpose of creating a legislative agenda, working in Parliament to implement it and for winning elections. To be a party member is to be a foot soldier; delivering leaflets so that at the next election Mr or Mrs Y can be elected. These actions are necessary, but the doubtful joys of being a party member will never be sufficient to draw people away from privatised, atomised lives back into social and political engagement. Something bigger is needed.
So, isn’t the answer to use the opportunity of Brexit and the problems of Labour to build such a movement?
Or build a party?
Maybe both
Sorry Richard,
i suspect that yours was a rhetorical question but since i think I have a good answer, i will answer it. Why not both? In the future, perhaps. But why not both right now? I think that we have to consider how best to use our limited resources and for the following reasons i do not think that another party is the way to go:
1. For all we know the Labour Party may, with a little bloodletting, stay broadly united and re-find its feet as a progressive party. I am not a Labour supporter but the party still has great strengths locally and regionally. It is powerful electoral machine that one would hesitate to go up against.
2. We have to avoid the perennial left wing problem of disunity. There are already three mainstream parties chasing the progressive vote (Labour, Lib Dems, Greens), the nats in Scotland and Wales and a number of small leftwing parties that do not pick up many votes but absorb a lot of activist energy. There is also the Woman’s Equality Party that I suspect takes more votes from the center left than the right. Do we want another party with all the time and effort involved to establish it, the prospect of going into elections fighting those with whom our disagreements are limited, having to offer the voters the messiness of coalition when the Tories offer the clarity of one party rule? Not if it can be avoided by changing the existing parties.
3. Right now left wing parties such as the Greens are doing well by taking votes off labour in middle class, leftwing, professional areas. No doubt a new party would do the same. But it is more difficult to re-engage with old-Labour voters in the Leave part of the country. Good policies will not be enough. We need to find a new language to speak to people, perhaps a new way of doing politics. Difficult to make these deep changes whilst living and breathing the electoral cycle. It is interesting that before they were a party Podemos were a movement and a TV show: they worked out how to do politics before they started doing it.
4. Creating a movement rather than a party allows people in existing political parties to meet together and begin to work together. So, you can start to lay the ground work for a new politics. It can (to change the metaphor) provide a springboard for the creation of a political party if that is ultimately what is needed.
I am not sure if this convinces you. The temptation to start a new party is powerful. However, I do think that we need to first lay the groundwork for long term success.
I have already taken part in such discussions at a number of levels
But movements will achieve nothing without electoral pacts and Labour does not allow them
By itself that might consign it to history as the rest all cooperate
They’ll need to: I have said so, often, and the presence of the smaller parties will be a powerful influence to counter the rump of neoliberalism in those that might leave Labour, I hope
Daniel,
The simple key to the simple key to resolving the issues that you have raised is preferential voting.
It exists in other Westminster democracies and without it the 2 party system remains hopelessly rigid.
As much as I would like to see the PLP transform itself into a radical party of the left, I think you must be dreaming if you think that this will happen with the current composition. A large number of those in the PLP that oppose Jeremy Corbyn, do so because they fundamentally oppose radical policies of the left.They voted for the war in IRAQ, they voted for Trident, they accept austerity and neo-liberalism. Whether this is because of their beliefs or because they feel that they want to show the electorate that they are ‘moderate’, who knows? But I can’t see MP’s, who have always chosen to stand on the safe ‘centre ground’, suddenly abandon it to adopt policies such as restrictions on the movement of capital and goods. As these policies would almost certainly be presented by the press as the ideas of the ‘looney left’.
I agree, there will be problems
But I am an observer, not an active participant
And I am suggesting what will happen
I think to succeed it will have to be radical
It may well not succeed
That does not mean it will not happen
I am interested to know why you seem to suggest restricting free movement of labour is beneficial to our economy. Why not embrace a liberal economy and make sure it works for everyone?
And also I’m interested why you think forming a party of the left that does not accept Brexit is a waste of time. Brexit was not a large majority.
First we have always restricted free movement of labour
Second, there is good reason. Whilst migration is a benefit – and one I would strongly defend – i.e. in mathematical terms the first differential is positive – this has to happen at a rate that is manageable to communities. It is apparent that too fast a rate of change – the second differential – is very hard to manage socially and is disruptive as a result
Third, in a liberal economy capital always moves faster than labour and so exploits it
So the job of good government is to equate the rates of change within the constraints of stability
Wow some calculus! I seem to remember that Churchill describes this as a dark cave. We could well disagree on this one; you need to be able to solve linear differential equations on the back of a fag packet if you’re any good!
Richard I’m not surprised you are getting a lot of flack over this. A Corbyn re-election would be a disaster and your thesis is a perfectly reasonable scenario. I am a fairly recently rejoined member of the labour party and will be voting Owen Smith. Sadly Corby has had his chance and has failed.
I was born in a flack jacket
At least that was one of my son’s theory tonight when we took the dog for a walk
As for my calculus: probably nowhere near as good as yours, but probably still capable
Free movement of labour for some is forced emigration for others – the populations of Greece and Latvia for example.
I am very much in favour of free MOVEMENT of people between the UK and EU.
However I think the right EU citizens to WORK in the UK should be restricted to jobs paying above the mean average wage only.
So you’re saying we must allow people to come and not work meaning that they will be supported instead by the state?
Do you think that a vote winner?
Or are you just arguing for free movement for the leisured classes?
Have you really thought this through? It feels far from it
“I was sharing thoughts with a quite well known journalist yesterday (it does not matter who).”
If it doesn’t matter who, why mention it? Unless it’s to feed your own ego?
More probably, if you want to pretend that a ‘well known journalist’ would ask you your opinion of the future of the Labour party instead of (say) talking to a Labour party member or even Labour MP, just so that you can then share your opinion with your blog readers that’s up to you but it’s a pretty transparent device that you are over-using on your blog.
There’s one thing you forgot to note: it’s my blog
The journalist happens to have been a long time friend
“The journalist happens to have been a long time friend”
Then why not mention his/her name? You name drop all the time and I’m sure your long time close friend wouldn’t be embarrassed to be talking to you. ‘Off the record’ conversations usually refer to the person being interviewed being off the record, not the journalist!
I did not ask his consent to be named
So I did not do so
Don’t you think that’s being fair?
I’m sure Richard would welcome more positive criticism from you – as would other readers of his blog. We come here for inspiration and to suggest solutions to issues raised. And, yes, this sometimes involves rational and (hopefully) constructive critique of his original propositions. Unique among economic & political bloggers, Richard spends hours moderating and responding to our contributions while also having to manage a day job & a family. He is extraordinarily generous with his time. In this context I find your comment both ungracious and unnecessary. It’s indicative of the person that he actually bothered to reply to you. I wouldn’t have. It’s his blog – his rules.
Thank you
Owen Smith, yes a PR man, but PR is a two way thing, about communication, does not have to be Machiavellian. Will his communication skills carry a message that appeals. Can he pull it off and stop Labour from splintering, I don’t know. I hope so. Lots of questions, no answers yet. In the meantime, Mrs May is out charming fairly successfully, I think she has taken us by surprise, but does she have a simmering right wing waiting to protect their powerful interests.
There are some on Corbyn’s side who appear to be cooking up a perception – trying to characterise this as a contest between the enigmatic anti-politician,Corbyn & the corporate PR man, Smith.
I like Corbyn but I will admit that painting Smith as a ruthless, neo-lib technocrat is probably a bit unfair, all things considered.
It is
Because he simply is not
Saying he is is a bit like saying I know nothing about macroeconomics
‘..but does she have a simmering right wing waiting to protect their powerful interests.’
As her appointments since becoming PM are almost all more right wing than Cameron’s I’d say her right wing isn’t just simmering, Sylvia, but boiling over. And yes, more than ready to protect their powerful interests, particularly with no effective opposition.
Agreed
Labour really needs to improve its relationship with its core vote.
To help Labour identify where that core vote resides here are some clues:-
1. They do not live in London.
2. They probably voted Leave.
3. They want restrictions on immigration, not because that are racists but because they have seen their wages fall in real terms, they have been treated as second class citizens in their own country, they have seen preference given to non-uk nationals when it comes to social housing, school places.
4. Their concerns have been played down or ignored by the police and other authorities.
5. They have been preached to by their metropolitan elite betters, speaking from their million pound residences.
6. They gave been betrayed by Blairs policies.
7. They have seen their sons and daughters come home in body bags as a result of Labour.
I could go on
There is an argument for a new party.
Labour is toxic just like UKIP is.
Perhaps the best course for both parties us to cease to exist.
There is a big space for a new party that truly serves Labours core voters and one that probably bases itself within the towns of these voters.
If Labour cannot address those needs it is in deep trouble
I am not convinced team Corbyn is doing so
I have no idea if Owen Smith will
i have some doubts about anyone in Labour addressing that ‘constituency’ -just a few thoughts why it is so difficult:
1) Is there a natural ‘core’ working class vote for Labour anymore? This disintegrated from the 80’s on as manufacturing was destroyed and globalised and Trade Unions weakened as a result.
2) There has been an increased fragmentation society over the last 40 years where the sense of anything collegiate has virtually disappeared and where many under 50 cannot even remember that it existed.
3) Cultural dumbing-down by the media post-Murdoch combined with the auscultate on non-vocational adult education and the monetisation of education means that political and economic educative ventures are not widespread.
4) Labour (including Corbyn/McDonell) do not have a narrative that helps explain the predicament and the mess that people are in with private debt and housing/job insecurity. That narrative is there (many on this blog have been discussing it with Richard over the last few years as we observed Labour failing to enunciate it!)
A ‘Gestalt’ needs to be created that simply makes sense to people and maybe it should focus on:
1) the story of a 40 year housing bubble created by a lack of credit controls.
2) Wage stagnation and the banking systems profiting from renting out the currency to compensate for this while making a killing out of it.
3) Money could be keystroked into existence for Banks but not for jobs
4) You are being lied to when ‘they’ say ‘there’s no money’.
5) The privatisation of public assets has failed other than to transfer wealth-on every measure privatisation has ALWAYS worsened public services.
A good narrative can be created out of that, that could be presented in a straightforward way (as Richard often does) -it need not be complex. Labour failed for the last 6 years -can we get a coalition together that can present as one voice a narrative that changes perceptions? I can’t see it, I just can’t
I am working for that
I think Labour could deliver it
But smell the coffee – that’s nothing like what Jeremy Corbyn wants or can deliver
Good Gid for once we appear to embrace a synoptic viewpoint!!
I’m not a member of the Labour Party and am seriously unlikely to vote for them at the next election. I know little about Jeremy Corbyn or Owen Smith – just what I read in the Press and on the Net. Hence, I can only view the unfortunate situation from the outside looking in. It strikes me as more than bizarre that these people are engaging in this conflict – in full public & media view – at a time when the country at large is being so poorly managed by yet another Neo-liberal cabal, strengthening its power base at every turn.
Having read the above comments, and other blogs, it seems indisputable that the Labour MPs in Parliament represent those people who elected them and, as RM states, before Corbyn became leader. If the new leadership wishes to change the Party’s policies then surely he/she cannot act unilaterally without the consent & support of his/her colleagues in Parliament who were elcted on the official Party manifesto.
As the 2nd largest party (by far) in the country it has both a duty and a responsibility to perform its function as HM’s official Oppopsition as effectively as possible. While nobody appears to be 100% blameless, Corbyn should be held to account for not performing his duty as the Pary’s Leader in a way that represents the 9,347,304 people who voted for the Labour Party. No matter how many individual ‘lay’ supporters he has, if he doesn’t have the support of the majority of his Parliamentary colleagues then he cannot effectively lead and manage the Party in Westminster. This is all blindingly obvious to an outsider.
If there are major internal policy and/or personality differences then they should be worked out ‘in camera’ and re-presented first to the CLP and then ultimately to the electorate. We all need to know what Labour stands for. If an agreement between the various factions cannot be reached then, as a last resort, the Party must split. To continue with this charade in public is destabilising for the country at a time of historic instability (Brexit, austerity, TTIP, Syria, Turkey, climate change, immigration etc. etc.). It is totally irresponsible.
I – and I suspect along with most of the approx. 9 million others who didn’t vote either Labour or Conservative – don’t really care who leads the Labour Party. The Tories probably don’t care much either. What we do care about is having a functioning and functional House of Commons (or at least as functional as it can be under exisitng rules).
Of course it would be preferable for those on the progressive left to have an Opposition that in some measure reflected our orientation, especially economically, but that’s not within our remit, so to speak. Whatever the outcome we will deal with it accordingly. I just wish they’d get on with their proper job of holding the government to account and not wash all their dirty linen in public. Not a pretty sight and not worthy of a Party that once included so many historic social reformers. Some humility would be appropriate. Fat chance!
Fat chance indeed
Apologies for all the typos. As usual, penned in haste with no spell-checker.
This policy was deleted for going well beyond any reasonable boundaries of acceptable comment
Putting aside the labour leadership battle for a moment, it was only a few weeks ago that the discussion on this blog was also considering the impending split of the Tory party over the EU referendum. While it seems they have managed to temporarily patch over the cracks this is still a very much divided Tory party with its own power battle over Brexit, financial policy amongst many other things (all going on behind firmly closed doors and away from prying eyes no doubt).
I would not be surprised to see both major parties seriously weakened by events over the next few months, which does start to indicate that the electoral system will have to be brought back onto the agenda either before or after the next general election.
Saldy Caroline Lucas’s PR bill this week was defeated yet again, but I do think both the Labour and Tory party grandees are going to have to accept the inevitable especially if it seems they are both facing insurmountable division within their ranks.
UKIP is still snapping away at both the Tory and Labour flanks in England and Wales, the SNP are unlikely to lose much ground in Scotland so if nothing else I think the demise of both the current dominant parties is essential to once and for all get rid of FPTP.
If we have both an ineffective government and an ineffective opposition, both at the same time, that will make the next 6-12 months very interesting to watch from the sidelines in my view.
Let the vultures prepare for the forthcoming feast!
The Tory divides remain
And are very real
Do not rule anything out, bar their lust for power compared to the left’s love of infighting
A lot has been said about “competence” in this debate.
Remembering that “the premise of the discussion (is) that Jeremy Corbyn will win the leadership election this summer” I would call into question the political competence of his opponents.
If they are the exemplars of ‘competence’ why have they so spectacularly set themselves up to lose?
This question is not intended to be a defence of JC, that discussion has been done to death. No, this is purely a question about the PLP regardless of who their target may be, and to ensure that this not an easy, armchair, cheap shot I should suggest what I would do, strategically, if I was in their position:
1. I would constantly be mindful of the fact that JC is uniquely popular among members and why that is so. My first thoughts would be with the membership (whether I agreed with them or not) as they do the voting. I would never openly antagonise or disregard them.
2. I would, with perceived humility, establish a patient, reasonable narrative or debate about competence, effectiveness etc. through party forums. The press can pick up on that if they wish (they will). I would not snipe, dummy spit, grandstand or go the press direct as that would reflect badly on me, not the leader.
3. With the narrative established, and assuming that the evidence is well known and supportive, I would patiently wait for a new leader’s ‘honeymoon period’ to wear off and wait for a really good pretext before making a move. I mean one that is really good (and seen to be good). With time in abundance the pretext will inevitably appear if accusations of incompetence are true. I would be damn sure that the chances of winning the challenge are good before making one.
These are not my ideas. They are my observations of the way that successful challenges are conducted throughout the democratic world. A lot has also been said about “confidence” in this debate. I fail to see why anyone would want to support a group that has painted itself into a corner, set itself up to lose and generally
made a hash of its own rebellion.
To argue in favour of Smith or any challenger, one needs more than an argument against Corbyn. Members and the public will need to have confidence in the people that would replace him.
You assume there was a coup
Maybe there was a cock up – starting with Margaret Hodge and ending with Hilary Benn
You then assume that Owen Smith was a part of that cock up – I believe him when he says he was not. That may not have been true of Angela Eagle
And you assume that all engaged in politics stand to win rather than belief in an idea. That’s clearly not true: any labour candidate around my part of the world and all Green PPCs var one can tell you that
Then you assume that Owen Smith is offering something radically different to JC. I’m not at all sure he is: he’s reacting to the mess Labour is in by trying to offer a more competent delivery of it
That’s my impression. I can’t tell you if it’s true or not: I have seen it said I am in team Smith. Like many things that’s news to me.
A ‘cock-up’ that involves the active participation and approval of that many people across that period of time does not inspire any more confidence than an ineffective ‘coup’. Probably less.
I assume nothing much about Owen Smith as, like most of us, I knew very little about him until now. He might be OK, I don’t know.
I thought that the primary accusation against Corbyn, generally, was that he couldn’t win and that that he was ineffective, rather than an objection to his ideas. In which case I find your 4th point to be somewhat ironic.
And yes, within that context, I would say that the very least we could expect from his accusers is that they could be competent and effective in their own actions – and put themselves in a position to win.
Anything less reflects quite badly.
Too bored to comment again
Too bored? Again? As I recall you had the the last word on the previous occassion (quite a few words actually).
I think that normally you would have acknowledged the original point in this thread (or let it slide without reply) and done so without the need to concede anything on your part. But you haven’t quite been your normal self lately, not since the incident when John McDonnell made an unfair reference to you in the Commons.
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016/07/21/john-mcdonnell-is-right-we-do-disagree-on-macroeconomic-policy/
Since then it would appear that the bee in your bonnet has had an undue influence. I am surprised to see that as his answer was probably nothing more than a predictable tit-for-tat response to you posting against Corbyn’s leadership. Surely the history on all that is too well known for that one remark to make a lasting impression?
I (clearly) like your work and your blog. I am not a critic and I sincerely hope that you are not letting that incident (or this issue) get the better of you.
I was just saying I was getting bored by your comments
You are reading in far too much
That seems inappropriate as well as unkind. Uniquely, all that I was doing was identifying the irony in the “incompetence” charge. That,and answering your accusations.
Oh well, whatever.
There was no irony to the incompetence charge
It is fact
I can’t help thinking that if the PLP had treated Corbyn with anything like the respect he deserved from the start, that the situation might be very different now. They could have supported him at PMQ’s as Diane Abbott has said, instead of looking shifty and embarrassed. They certainly should have refrained from the overt press briefings against him. Not only is it possible his management of the party may have been more effective with their co-operation, but he may very well have been more open to suggestions to stand aside.
Instead of that we have a depressing situation where the whole party looks incompetent and unelectable.
I know it’s time to move on and we shouldn’t point fingers, but I remember the years when we on the left behaved ourselves, and supported the right of the party, even when we questioned the policies and direction (even after Iraq). More mature, and indeed intelligent and realistic understanding of Corbyn’s appeal (hint – it’s the policies!)from the PLP and we may not have been be where we are now.
I think you have to accept that for thirty years he had briefed against them
This was never going to be easy in that case
And some did try: they did forma shadow team
The outright opposition was probably no bigger than the Campaign group was once upon a time
There were obvious failures; I entirely agree
But it takes two to tango, or so I am told. It’s not on my bucket kist
Steve Richards discusses the dilemma faced by Labour MPs pretty well in today’s Guardian. His solution is ingenious, if unlikely. If Corbyn wins the ballot, as seems likely, then he suggests that the Labour heavyweights should offer to serve in his cabinet. There they would be in a position to influence policy and engineer the leader’s amicable retirement some time nearer the next election in 2020. I doubt they would want to participate or that Corbyn’s allies would welcome them, but, as Richards points out, their only alternative is to create a new party which, in an unreformed electoral system, would flounder, like the SDLP.
I think he has everything crossed
Some sort of smooth, patient and mutually acceptable deal would appear to be necessary. There’s no genuine reason to suggest that they couldn’t do that. Other parties have done similar things in Britain and overseas.
I like millions of others hope Labour can sort itself out but feel it’s on the brink of splitting with the members voting for a Corbyn led party and the PLP being opposed.Such a party can never ever win an election no matter how brilliant or empowering its policies are.In some way it reminds me of the England football team led by the best and supported by the greatest fans but still we win nothing and all because the team show no commitment or passion.People must ask themselves apart from the usual suspects who as never supported Corbyn why is the PLP so opposed? Is it because he’s generally been incompetent when campaigning or never explained a vision of the future.This country needs a united Labour party not the mess it’s becoming,or is Corbyn playing the long game where the PLP split away and he builds a party out of the ruins.Maybe this is the truth only time will tell but the people are losing patience and want to see real change not some utopia that never comes.
I was going to be one of the £25 Corbyn supporters (my partner did actually do this) but I stopped when I read (and checked up on) what the Shadow Chancellor had to say about your input in Parliament.
I am quite disgusted by this apparent causal repudiation of common sense. As I said before – Labour? Sod ’em.
So, the question still arises: Where is the opposition? Labour are not the only opposition party. So what are the rest up to?
I say this because this is not just a failure of the Labour party but also a failure of opposition politics in our Parliament across the board.
Until such a time as ALL the opposition can work together we will remain a one party state.
BTW – I do hope that when Labour does sort it itself out, it reviews its economic outlook as I would hate to see them peddling what the current SC is peddling at the 2020 election. In fact I would go as far as saying that I hope that they do not win on anything less than what Richard and many other sensible people have put forward as a way out of this ossified economic thinking that got us into and keeps us firmly in the mess we are in at the moment – worsened by BREXIT of course.
PSR
If Labour cannot work with other parties what you say is right – Labour? Sod ’em
R