I am not a member of the Labour Party. I am, as is obvious, interested in what it does: its success or failure has had direct impact on the well-being of many people in the UK.
Over the weekend Owen Smith talked of the risk of Labour splitting because according to some reports there are MPs considering the possibility after the Labour party leadership election result in late September. And John McDonnell got angry about it, demanding that Owen Smith condemn any such talk of division despite it being very obvious that the supporters of Jeremy Corbyn can only describe anyone who does not support him as being unfit to be in the Labour Party.
McDonnell is reported to have said:
Smith must do more to denounce those seeking a split or risk becoming the “disunity candidate”
and that Smith:
needed to be much clearer that this was not an option
Which is slightly surreal, because the fact that McDonnell is discussing it shows that he realises it is an option. Smith's approach, that recognises the risk and wants to do something about it is very obviously more realistic than the denial that John McDonnell seems to be suffering.
I should add that I, at least, am glad that the option is beng considered. This is a welcome indication that for once someone in UK politics might be considering that planning for the possible consequences of an action is a desirable thing to do. Whatever John McDonnell says it would be recklessly irresponsible of those MPs who do not back Corbyn and think it will be impossible to serve in a shadow cabinet with him to simply sit in their hands now and wait, unthinkingly, to see what happens in the event Corbyn is re-elected.
I happen to know that this is what MsConnell did last summer: whilst Corbyn was marching round the country winning support last summer McDonnell was on holiday for weeks with his phone off: it was one reason why there was so little preparation for a Corbyn victory and so much confusion when it happened. John may think that the way to do things. I sincerely hope others don't.
And McDonnell, the man doing more of the splitting in Labour than anyone else, really does need to do his own contingency planning. If he really thinks that in the event of Corbyn winning 172 MPs are simply going to sit on their hands for 44 months behind a front bench that they do not support and which clearly loathes them whilst they are de-selected from ther seats then he must be living in cloud cuckoo land.
The MPs in question were elected by their constituents to undertake a role, whether in government or opposition, in parliament. I sincerely hope they recall that and appreciate that it will be their duty to form an opposition in the event that Corbyn wins. The country needs an effective opposition, and Corbyn cannot supply it, so they have to act.
I make clear that this does not necessarily mean that I will like or support
all the policy positions they will adopt and I will be more than happy to say so if that is the case. But this does create the possibility of there being a Porgressive Alliance that might really transform UK politics for the very large number who feel utterly unrepresented now. And if that was to be the outcome - as electorally I suspect those MPs would realise it would need to be - in anticipation of which they should be looking to form a coalition in opposition before the next general election - then I think the prospect of something that could really transform UK politics exists, whether John McDonnell likes it or not.
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:
The ‘preogressive alliance’ ought to be called ‘The Courageous Party’. I’d vote for any party whoses aims were in line with your book – even UKIP.
I wouldn’t go that far!
But then they wouldn’t be UKIP!!
Indeed, John. On radio 4 this morning the UKIP representative was talking about poverty and what they would do. It was bringing back grammar schools and more corporate involvement in education. Secondary moderns for the majority is the other way of putting it.
UKIP are not the party of the working class.
They never will be
And therein lies a major issue. UKIP have a lot of traction with disaffected Labour voters and those who like Britishness , nothing wrong with that provided it is positive , but sometimes it is not. Labour and those who adhere to its values need to win elections. Most of us are not politicized , we tend to vote with our wallets , the exception being the EU referendum when the people gave a majority , albeit a very small one , to leave the EU. Like it or not immigration was a major issue. I am not a politically motivated individuall and I know noone who is. But most of us want fairness , are willing to,pay for it and see it not really coming , no matter who is in power. So navel gaze away , nothing will change. Honors will be given , the odd pleb will get one , the rest will go to to,the usual suspects.
It was tongue in cheek Richard. Mind you, with politics these days – who knows…………..!!
I think we’ve gone well beyond “if”. The questions now are “when” and “how”. It appears most of the “selectorate” have made up their minds; and there will be only one outcome – the reaffirmation of Mr. Corbyn’s majority support from members, TU affiliate members and supporters. But we’ll have to endure this increasing fractious slanging match for the best part of another two months.
There are moments when even I might wish for radio silence
Maybe
Richard, I find what you are calling for quite unsettling and irresponsible.
Firstly, I really do not expect a new liberal, centrist, grouping to have any sort of success in a FPTP system. This is not without historical precedent, one that, being older than me, I feel you ought not to have forgotten! This will sunder the progressive vote and disillusion many people, perhaps irrevocably. Why won’t a progressive alliance work under the current Labour leadership?
Secondly, regarding the candidates and what they represent, beyond an admittedly attractive list of – seemingly second-hand McDonnell/Corbyn – ideas, I have heard nothing from Smith to suggest that he has a strategy to deal with the challenges that face the Labour Party. For instance neither he, nor the people around him, have had anything to say about how they will use the huge new membership (largest democratic socialist party in Western Europe) and to reform the party to provide a home for them.
Neal Lawson (http://labourlist.org/2016/08/labour-can-lead-a-new-politics-of-parties-and-movements-or-it-can-try-and-go-it-alone/) has written about Smith’s (and those backing him) lack of vision and strategy. For his failings, Corbyn grasps the enormity of the challenges facing democracy in western capitalist societies. Paul Mason, someone I gather is close to the leadership, wrote extensively at the weekend about how a newly-installed Corbyn leadership can manage the 3 pillars of the party: leadership, PLP and membership. A lot will be settled at conference
Thirdly, on economic matters, you may have a point about the fiscal rule and austerity (I am sympathetic to your argument regarding tax revenue constraints for expenditure), but announcing £500b in investment does not seem to be particularly austerian. I’d like to hear a counter-argument from you on this point.
Finally, what Corbyn offers is a vision of social justice, something on which that no one else in the PLP – and certainly not Smith – has anything to say. By this I mean: anti-racism, protections for immigrants, a foreign policy built on peace and solidarity, rather than net-imperialism and endless war.
Under an exiting Labour framework there is no chance if any alliance
Labour is, on the left especially, tribalist and antagonistic. That’s its mistake in Scotland
And Corbyn has brought all the worst in that
Those from Labour taking part in such discussions are not, that I can see, from the Momentum wing
If a split does occur, it will centre on ideals and policies, rather than personalities as there is no obvious leader of the New Labour faction amongst the MPs. But on policy issues it would place both Smith and Corbyn in the same camp, even though, as you have rightly defined, Smith’s economic views are currently more Keynsian than Corbyns.
Richard, you say that under the existing framework there is no chance of an alliance and those taking part in discussions are not from the Momentum wing, despite Clive Lewis being strongly in favour.
In May there was in Independent article which said McDonnell was calling for PR for Parliament to maintain its legitimacy
The article says that Corbyn is open to electoral reform, although he hasn’t come down firmly one way or the other, and in January Corbyn was in secret talks with the Lib Dems about an electoral alliance in favour of PR.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-john-mcdonnell-proportional-representation-pr-make-votes-matter-protest-a7018056.html
Labour is highly unlikely to win a majority at the next election regardless of who their leader is, and I’m sure Corbyn and McDonnell know this. If Corbyn stays as leader they will have to pick one of two options:
1. Fight against the other centre-left parties with a small chance of a Labour majority and a very high chance of losing the election and a lot of seats.
2. Electoral alliance in favour of PR and there’s a good chance Corbyn becomes PM
Surely Corbyn and McDonnell realise that under any risk-benefit analysis the only course of action they could take is 2.
2 is also the best option for keeping the party together now – the idea of waiting to split until PR has been implemented would be far more appealing to the anti-Corbyn MPs than it would be now.
Ironically, the more unelectable Labour becomes, the further they fall behind in the polls, the more the Tories change the voting/boundary system in favour of themselves, the more likely it is to push Corbyn and McDonnell to 2.
If Corbyn and McDonnell want to join a Progressive Alliance – and its role – then I would be delighted
It may be the way for them and a breakaway party to still work together for a common goal until PR is delivered
Wouldn’t that make sense?
I can’t see it happening another way at present, but I could, of course, be wrong. It has happened!
Great article on tax and economics… Only it’s not. I’m guessing that as you host a tax and economic blog and you avoided the subject completely that you have no complaints about economic policy?
I think tax and economics only exist in apolitical environment
I guess that’s why I am Professor of Practice in International Political Economy at City University, London
So how will this Progressive Alliance work?
The SNP won’t join it, as they are so dominant in Scotland they would lose seats as a result.
PC/Greens would join with Corbyn/McDonnell not the Labour moderates.
As for the Lib Dems, Farron would be interested but I am not sure he could carry the party – especially with the likes of Clegg and Lamb still there. The danger is they would be overwhelmed by Labour moderates (8 LD MP’s, 172 anti-Corbyn Labour MP’s). It would be a repeat of the SDP and their starting position would be much weaker.
I think the lessons of tat have been learned
My question is, why give up on a possibility?