I am aware that Owen Smith thinks that he will win the Labour Party leadership on 24 September and I admire his confidence. I am also aware that there are many pundits who do not share it.
What then? What happens on the day after when the reality will dawn that a man in whom the vast majority of Her Majesyty's Opposition have no confidence is its leader nonetheless and that his support organisation is to hold a complete parallel to the Labour Party conference just outside its doors?
What can we expect?
What should we expect?
Have those who triggered this crisis - Hillary Benn and Margaret Hodge - thought that through any more than Jeremy Corbyn has considered why he wants to be leader?
And is there any chance of a viable opposition emerging from this (let's be candid) most unholy of messes?
I am not as yet proposing answers. I have posed questions for Labour over the last few days. My rules on not being abusive apply. Any suggestions?
In particular, and of most interest, how is Opposition to be managed because this matters most to me, and many in this country?
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 CLPs have not moved right with the PLP; Blair lost nearly a quarter of his votes between 1997 and 2001, his success was down to Tory failure not New Labour’s popularity. Corbyn got 84% of the CLP nominations (of the roughly half that nominated).
Ed won because he was not David. Corbyn won because the 2015 manifesto was an insult to the intelligence of Labour voters. That election was lost because they gave few any good reason to turn out. We’ve had enough of their cowardice in the face of the media; the anti-austerity argument is not hard to make they’re just too damn gutless to make it. Until now, because May did when she entered Downing Street.
What the PLP do if Corbyn wins is up to them but the electorate are not content to be offered only two slightly different sorts of kleptocracy. Obediently voting for the least worst option just guarantees we never get any better options, while the power and wealth keeps concentrating.
Forty years ago neoliberalism was an unknown, now it has delivered global economic disaster on top of the perpetual disaster it has always been for the least powerful in society. Corbyn has been elected to change the narrative and put us back on the path to social democracy. This is not the 1980s any more; it’s a lot more like McDonald’s betrayal followed by Attlee’s shock triumph.
Which is why the media is panicking of course. Their ridiculousness is very helpful. They’ve been astonished by the result of every major vote held since 2008 and right now they’re Corbyn’s best promoter. His critics are the people who have proved they can’t be trusted and the volume of their critique is helping draw attention to the fact that someone, finally, is challenging their crap.
I wrote Corbynomics
I don’t trust Corbyn to deliver
So did I now write crap? Because I have not changed one iota of my opinion
I have just realised he has none of the skills needed to lead a party
Totally agree with Obama. The ‘leader’ model and narrative is based on the film star/PR/tvpersonality/ focus group/media model. Not about Corbyn about democracy and trust. People believe Corbyn is saying what he believes and is not swivelled eyed double thinking the electorate. It’s about a cabinet and a party, not one person. Economics is a problem area for the whole of Western Capitalism. Neoliberalism is dead- the only hope of a new economics would seem to be that coming out of the Mcdonnall school- there are no easy answer. I would have hoped that you could be part of that debate and my criticism of the Corbyn school is that you were frozen out. We need your expertise especially re tax. Also there a moral vacuum at the heart of politics. Only Corbyn seems to talk ethically especially re the nuclear question. That is why many long standing labour members supported Corbyn. I joined Labour 40 yrs ago as an ethical Socialist, and that has been squashed by the thirst for power, compromise and plotting.
There is no McDonnell school
He is not an economist and he froze out all he asked to help
“Crap” not aimed at you, apologies if you got that impression. I’m talking about the BBC and the papers they allow to set the agenda.
You might not trust them but you are not the electorate and you are definitely not at the sharp end of neoliberalism or in any realistic danger of finding yourself there. Most of us associate slick suits with empty words and betrayal.
I find it really hard to understand why you are backing a wing of the party that stood on such an amazingly stupid economic policy when the election was theirs for the taking. Do you think they’re capable of reforming themselves without an almighty kick up the arse from the membership?
I am not backing a wing of the party
I am walking away from incompetence: Jeremy Corbyn really does have no clue what he is doing and I know we need an opposition and he cannot provide it
I also happen to know Owen Smith is not as he is portrayed: I do quite agree that there are people I have strongly disagreed with in on the right in Labour but Owen is not one of them
And I do think they can read the writing on the wall – which is why they have accepted Smith who was sent to Wales for being too left wing by Miliband
This election has nothing to do with competence. If it was, the PLP could have chosen an alternative path. That path would have been first to support rule changes to reduce the proportion of MPs/MEPs required for a leadership nomination from 15% to 5%, so guaranteeing that a left candidate would be on the ballot in any subsequent election. This would then have opened the way to discussion around whether or not Corbyn was the best candidate to represent the activist base.
As it is, the choice presented to us is either to stick with Corbyn or be marginalised again as the managerial wing retakes control and the Blairites emerge from their self-imposed silence. The rejection of the alternative path shows this is not really about Corbyn’s ‘incompetence’ at all but about destroying the left.
Mike, “The Corbyn School”? Definition, please.
Penderyn,
Sorry, if I’m being repetitious, but could you please provide a definition of “Blairite”. The word is being thrown around so much.
Corbyn’s leadership ability is hard to discern amongst all the “click-bait” produced by the frightened oligarchy’s main-stream media organ on this subject. It would be more supportive to argue that whilst Corbyn’s policies provide an antidote to the disfunctionality of Neo-Liberalism thought must be put into organisation responsibilities.
This is silly. The oligarchy isn’t frightened; it’s falling over laughing, watching Labour destroy itself. Corbyn has rolled over for the Tory Government on Brexit, and in doing so has made Labour the perfect scapegoat for the destruction of communities up and down the country.
And instead of challenging him to fight for those communities you are rerunning sequences in ‘The Life of Brian’, with the humour removed…
You need to check your facts, Richard. Momentum will be a part of the conference fringe like any number of other groups. The “alternative conference” spin is another attempt to smear Corbyn and his support.
I am well aware of fringe events
I am speaking at one
But fringes are not full blown alternatives
This is not a fringe event as far as I can see at present
While Momentum, pursuing its claim to lead the Labour party membership, is organising its “complimentary” (sic) conference to “transform the world”, the woman who commands a majority in the House of Commons, has already set out her stall (as I’ve pointed out on an earlier thread) on key economic policies. This places a focus on boosting productivity, increasing R&D to support investment, focusing energy policy on reliability and affordability, building more houses, using Treasury bonds to fund infrastructure investment, developing an industrial policy, reforming corporate governance (to tackle excessive executive pay combined with consumer and worker representation at board level), tackling market abuse by the big utilities and retail banks and cracking down on tax avoidance and evasion.
This does not signal the end of neo-liberalism in Britain. (This is a term I’ve never liked because it had nothing to do with free markets and competition. The capitalists and oligarchs (and their armies of functionaries and flunkies) used every means to subvert, rig and distort markets, to suppress competition and to suborn governing politcians and public officials. But it allowed the deluded on the left to signal their abhorrence of defined property rights, the pursuit of profits, well-governed markets, efficient competition and effective economic regulation and their espousal of vague forms of state, collective or social ownership of economic activities).
But it does signal that some restraint will be imposed on excessive and egregious rent-seeking. The PM is a sufficiently shrewd and statute politician to recognise that she must be seen to rein in excessive profiteering, price-gouging, market abuse and tax avoidance/evasion. But her heart is not in it. And the irony is that it is virtually impossible to insert a cigarette paper between this outline of economic policies and similar policies advanced by Ed Miliband while leader. An effective opposition would challenge the PM and her cabinet to spell out these policies and to advance legislation to implement them. If she does so, she will encounter significiant opposition on her own benches and she will be relying on opposition support. This would place a united and effective oppostion in an extremely strong position in the Commons with an ability to force the Tories to implement what, previously, were Labour policies.
But the Labour leadership wants to transform the world. Speechifying and sloganeering to smitten acolytes is obviously far more appealing than the hard, tedious, mind-numbing grind of enforcing progressive and incremental changes in policies that will have a beneficial impact on the daily lives of those whose interests the party is supposed to advance.
You last paragraph is so relevant
COrbyn and McDonnell have never done the job expected of MPs, sitting on committees, serving as part of a team, analysing evidence, drafting alternatives, going through the slog (much if it tedious) of being legislators and opposition that results in reasonable outcomes
They literally have no idea how parliament works as a result
In many ways they have been the ultimate free-riders, taking a salary and never doing the job. but worse, they didn’t even create a coherent alternative if their own with all the time they had in their hands
Just got around to checking your claim about not sitting on committees.
Corbyn: https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/10133/jeremy_corbyn/islington_north
Member, Justice Committee (16 May 2011 to 30 Mar 2015)
Member, London Regional Select Committee (14 Dec 2009 to 6 May 2010)
Member, Social Security Committee (27 Apr 1992 to 21 Mar 1997)
McDonnell: https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/10383/john_martin_mcdonnell/hayes_and_harlington
Member, Justice Committee (25 Nov 2013 to 30 Mar 2015)
Member, Unopposed Bills (Panel) (17 Oct 2001 to 14 Nov 2002)
Member, Regulatory Reform Committee (16 Jul 2001 to 11 Apr 2002)
Member, Deregulation Committee (19 Mar 1999 to 11 May 2001)
Your wording also implies that this is somehow a voluntary choice when it is party patronage. Bit unfair.
So very largely they did nothing
As I said
I sincerely hope that time will prove the party as a whole (Momentum and the PLP) has made a big mistakes and it should not have behaved in this way – hopefully before 2020. I detect a slight thawing here and there that gives me hope – and others too. I do not like Labour but you are right – the country needs an opposition.
That is why I am really quiet annoyed that the Labour party has chosen to go missing at this time as well as undermine their Leader (imperfect as he is). There was so much to gain after BREXIT and the hurried ‘washing his hands of it’ departure of Cameron but the Party decided to pour it all away like water in the sand.
After the 24th September Labour will have to lick its wounds and those who are not satisfied will have to go (those who have already indicated joining the Tories are especally welcome to sod off in my view). But more imporatntly it will have stop gazing at its navel, grow up and get on with the the job at hand.
If Corbyn wins it will also have to learn to mature very qucikly from a movement into a political party that can deliver its ideas on the ground. This could by all accounts take a very long time.
What a way to appeal to the floating voter.
Appleseed
I think that you have misunderstood.
I for one can’t stand floating voters. They are a menace to democracy whose needs are usually met by short-termist policies aimed to win elections that cause more long term problems to be ignored. I do not promote the means to give these people a say in how the country is governed.
The point I’m making is that the bridge between being a movement and viable political party able to operate within an admittedly imperfect polity/democracy has to be crossed by Corbyn’s Labour if he should win.
Richard’s view on this is quite correct – there is a difference and such a party under Corbyn must be able to grapple with the established workings of Parliament if it is to bring other parties (as allies) and voters along with it.
This does not result in floating voters Appleseed. Rather it will appeal to those of us who want real change.
Words have to be turned into reality. The bridge has to be crossed.
Bridges need good engineering to make them stand up. Many of them are different in order to solve the unique problem of crossing a gap between two points in certain location. What suits one locations would not suit another.
The equivalent of good engineering in politics is a policy that is thought through, costed and also breaks with previous methodology in order to recognise and solve problems of the time.
Politics is about solving problems.
Lately it has become about solving problems for the few and leaving the rest of us with far too many.
If Corbyn realises this, he has not convinced me yet – but neither has Smith for that matter.
Labour has a problem – not just Corbyn or Smith.
I think it may depend on the margin of victory for Corbyn, I think it will be close but still expect him to win. I was wondering what margin you think he requires? If he has a 60% majority, it gives him a mandate, though I can’t see how the PLP falls in behind him. A victory by 51% to 49% means that I can’t see how he continues.
I just can’t see the electorate trusts Corbyn enough to run the country and economy. I agree with a lot of his ideals and think he’s a product where new Labour failed, ie; Iraq, Credit Crunch/best we can hope for is a Thatcherite agenda with proceeds recycled to public services/membership ignored and Sun and Mail courted. I just hope Labour can eventually find a candidate that has Blairite appeal but has learnt from the mistakes. Not sure Owen Smith is there yet.
Also I think Sadiq Khan in London and the SNP in Scotland, both to a certain extent show that a competent Left of Centre government can win.
A 60% win is at least plausible: he has done it before
I have some sympathy with your second paragraph
I think it’s an error to think that the Blairites were popular so much as the Tories unpopular, unelectable even. New Labour lost 3m of 13.5m votes by 2001.
Angela Rayner, Clive Lewis, Emily Thornberry, Andy McDonald are all possible future leaders but there is no point thinking about that until the neoliberal rot has gone. Blairism can only win when the Tories are unpopular and half the country disenfranchised through lack of meaningful choice.
Corbyn’s Labour has outperformed its polls in electoral contests so far; the pollsters had to adjust their turnout model after 2015 but they have no idea what model they should be applying now. If the PLP ends it’s sniping and there is a shadow cabinet actually getting on with its job – as is now happening – there is every chance of victory.
Big if though. Some in the PLP have an enormous sense of entitlement and no self-awareness whatsoever. But the majority are following the herd and will most likely stampede back when they realise the Blairites are finished in the party.
Let’s assume that right now the Tories aren’t popular but Labiur is deeply unpopular, which is your thesis
Why continue with the person who is creating that unpopularity?
And what do you mean by neoliberalism?
I know what I mean – but tell me what you think beating it requires
What is a “viable opposition”?
An opposition that is branded as such by the media?
An opposition that can capture the centre of a political spectrum that has moved dramatically to the right?
An opposition that accepts the cultural and economic dominance of London and the South East and the concomitant decay of the North?
An opposition that is comfortable with the bestowing of honours on the likes of Goodwin and Green and that writes a farewell note saying “there’s no money left”?
An opposition that does not look too closely at tax reform, at the reform of company law and that does not question the restricted use of QE (Hodge was strong in th PAC but what has changed)?
An opposition that supports the growing role of the private sector in the NHS?
Yes, I think the above constitutes viability.
Having said that I want a left wing party with a technocratic edge . I do not want to be represented by “demonstration” style politics.
I think we may be close to a wavelength
Hmm.
Let me see…
Corbyn is an anomaly…a bad leader that draws crowds and seems to be liked..
Smith is a good leader that doesn’t draw the same crowds, but is still liked.
For a bad leader, he seems to have good people skills…maybe getting together a decent team will help…
Blair was a good leader, with good people skills and a good team. Apart from being partial to warfare, he didn’t do a bad job (although G Brown probably did a better job of government..silently)
A conundrum!
Labour would seem to not have anyone who is people-popular, with good management skills (leadership) and capable of team-building. Let along all of the previous plus being liked.
Maybe if they stopped stabbing each other in the back, they could sort it out?
Politics always involves stabbings in the back….
…which in a nutshell is exactly what is wrong with politics!
https://medium.com/mosquito-ridge/the-sound-of-blairite-silence-aed2ef726c8a#.l3y9w581g
Mmmmm
Paul Mason is losing it
But that’s what happens to ageing Marxists
So many of the PLP have spoken so vocally against Corbyn now that they have tied their hands, and will not be able even to making a show of working with him.
From their perspective, there are two options. One is to split from Labour and start a new party (perhaps call it the Democratic Party in the style of the Italian left). This party then becomes the official opposition until the next GE. Of course they lose access to Labour’s members, organisational apparatus, and funding, but I suspect they would find donors. The problem then is that it seems 28 or 30% of the electorate may still vote for Labour (whether because they’re left-wing, or out of tribalism), so this new Democratic Party has to win over not only the centre, but Labour loyalists. A huge gamble for them, particularly because with all the bad blood, a coalition is unlikely.
The other option is to spend the rest of this Parliament actively undermining Corbyn, in the hopes that a disastrous defeat in the next election will force him out, and they can claim they were right all along. If they do this, Corbyn’s best move is probably to introduce some form of deselection (i.e. a purge) which would then either trigger by-elections or force MPs into scenario 1. The risk here is that if by-elections happen, firstly we are going to lose seats in areas without a strong Labour majority, and second we don’t know the quality of the Corbynite candidates who would replace the incumbents. There is a real chance we could end up with a smaller minority in Parliament, and the competence of that minority is a total unknown.
I suspect the Blairites have decided to dig themselves in for a long, slow war of attrition, rather than risk forming a new party. This means we will not have any form of effective opposition until at least 2020. Sadly, that may mean the only real channels to promote alternatives to neoliberalism are through the Mayite wing of the new government.
Do you really think 172 ambitious people ate going to sit waiting to be de-selected?
I can’t see it
No, I don’t think they’ll sit waiting around. I think they’ll do everything they can to sabotage Corbyn and distance themselves from him (perhaps even form a shadow shadow cabinet). They’ll try to use procedural rules to stop deselection. If it comes to it, deselection could be what finally forces them to form a new party. But again, in any by-elections or general election, a new party would just split the left wing vote, and hand even more power to the Tories. I don’t see any way out of this impasse.
As I said, it’s an unholy mess
I don’t think that the loyalty to the Labour brand is as high as 30% now, I suspect it’s somewhere around the 20%-25% mark at best. That said, the key to any split will be numbers. If the Centrist-Labour group has 179 MP’s that will make the Momentum-Labour group the fourth largest party in parliament. That will mean that the Momentum-Labour group will get less national media coverage than the SNP and will have difficulty making the case that they deserve more. With Labour losing support in its heartlands to a UKIP that is undergoing an existential crisis and the Lib Dems looking like they’re taking the long road back to relevance, it seems like this is the best opportunity for a new centre-left party to emerge, and if it emerges as the official opposition that just makes it’s case for electoral support stronger.
Nothing good is the short answer.
I’m backing Smith but I suspect a majority wont. It might be close, though the influx of new members are likely to swing it significantly to Corbyn.
If that happens, I cannot see Corbyn getting any better as a leader or in us providing anything like an effective parliamentary opposition. Some MPs may come back but I suspect most wont and will sit on the back benches keeping their heads down.
The internal feuding will continue. Mistrust will gather pace, anything resembling comradely discussion will become rare, the nasty edge to much of the “debate” within the party will intensify. Almost certainly people will leave and a split will become a very real possibility.
I think we’re in for a very bumpy ride.
Sooner teacher then later, I suspect
Richard, I agree with you completely about the unholy mess. There won’t be a winning side on September 24th, only two losing sides. Unlike you, however, I am sticking with Corbyn.
I joined Labour last year because of Corbynomics. If I thought there was a charismatic alternative leader who would carry his policies through, I might well switch, but I simply don’t trust his opponents. Rather than rational argument, Corbyn opponents are too keen on using the rule book to freeze out their opponents, and on trying to win elections by telling people what they want to hear. Since Corbynomics are counterintuitive, I can’t see them laating long with a change of leader.
To give a specific example of my distrust, I am a member of the Brighton and Hove Constituency Labour Party. Their AGM this year had three times the normal number of attendees and a pro-Corbyn executive was elected. On the basis of anonymous allegations, the Constituency Labour Party was suspended and the elections declared null and void. As far as I am aware, the anonymous allegations have never been made public, so that they may be difficult to refute. At least 60 out of 600 attendees have made statements indicating that they saw nothing untoward. However, the local organisation remains suspended indefinitely. I may not like it, but this is within the rules.
My problem is with declaring an election null and void on the basis of an anonymous allegation. It would have been legitimate to put the result in abeyance until the complaint was investigated. If the complaint was upheld, the election should indeed be declared null and void. But if you can use an anonymous allegation to nullify any unwanted result in a party election, that is going too far. It allows an individual or clique within the party to decide the winner.
My biggest fear is not Smith winning, but Corbyn winning and his supporters starting to use the same sort of dirty tricks on his opponents.
I agree the Labour apparatus has hardly covered itself with glory
I think I kind of agree with you although I would go further than “unholy mess”. I see two big reasons not to vote for Corbyn again.
1. Although it’s hard to really get a handle on what’s been happening because the obfuscation and hyperbole on both sides, I think it’s fair to conclude that the Corbyn administration has been utterly awful.
2. Much of what I hoped Corbyn would achieve he has achieved and even surpassed. I hoped against hope that he might be able to nudge the LP leftwards, away from the neoliberalism of New Labour and the nihilistic void of the Milliband years. Smith’s ticket is so far to the left of anything the LP would have considered pre-Corbyn, it’s clear that this objective has been fulfilled.
That said, for several reasons I’m still going to vote for Corbyn.
Firstly, and chief amongst them, is the fact that the anti Corbyn/mainstream wing of the party have proved themselves to be completely unreliable custodians of the legacy of this “unholy mess”. A. They will never allow a left wing candidate on the ballot ever again. B. In the main they and their allies in the commentariat have made practically no attempt to understand what has happened and work with the reality of the current situation. eg. Corbyn was castigated for not resigning, but The NEC ensured that he is so I indebted to the £25 selectorate that he couldn’t resign now even if he wanted to. C. They’ve only been marginally less incompetent than his team and compounded that mountains of disingenuousness and spite.
I would love a vote for either of the candidates to mean an end to the unholy mess but it won’t. The only hope as I see it is an increase to Corbyn’s mandate that forces the PLP to have a proper think. The alternative appears to be either a split or a return to the stultifying nothingness of the EM years. The indignity that the LP is suffering now is nothing compared to the embarrassment of being seen to have let the PLP back into the playgroup after being on the naughty step for all of two minutes, screaming “NOT FAIR” The whole time.
I will still vote for him although a. I think some of the PLP’s bizarre behaviour is completely understandable- I wouldn’t want to make petty accommodations towards someone I hated just days after my friend and colleague had been murdered. B. I totally respect Richard Murphy’s position.
Michael,
Some good points here re the mess. As far as “telling people what they want to hear” I fear this is also Corbyn’s modus operandi. Simply saying that he’s against war or in favour of free education for all at rallies where he is consequently feted leaves me unimpressed. You hit the nail on the head re the counter-intuitive nature of corbynomics: it does need someone special to convince the electorate, and Corbyn doesn’t seem to be the one to do it, or McDonnell, with his flip-flopping over supporting Osborne’s balanced budget lock. The fact that he’s fallen out with the founder of Corbynomics (the host of this blog) is a very bad sign. As Richard M. has pointed out earlier Jeremy’s economic policy document, that references Richard at key points, has now disappeared from his website., along with AFAIK all references to Richard. Likewise, the Corbyn team’s parting company with the anti-austerity economist David Blanchflower. Without the expert backing that Blanchflower or Murphy can supply how on earth is Corbyn going to convince the electorate of the reasonableness of Corbynomics? Decent man that he may be he doesn’t appear to be one of the great intellects of our time.
Things really don’t look good for the Labour Party right now. It seems the basic duties they have as the leading opposition party in Parliament are not being carried out. And I’m not even particularly sure they have a full shadow ministerial team – a shadow cabinet, yes, but not the 100 or so shadow ministers needed to fill a front bench.
Yet Owen Smith’s polling isn’t actually as good as I had suspected. A little blog post appeared on my Twitter feed yesterday (I think), and it doesn’t seem like it’s from a Corbynista, and it raises some interesting doubts over the popularity of Owen Smith.
Here it is if anyone wants to read it, by the way:
http://www.pollingdigest.com/home/2016/8/18/three-way-may-vs-corbyn-vs-smith
Though I am a Conservative and obviously have an interest in Jeremy Corbyn retaining the leadership, I do think it is a sad day when the Labour Party ceases to be a party of government. Not least because it leaves a vacuum in which the Tories think they can do whatever they want with no consequences. It’s vital for Labour to take up the mantle of opposition. And though I doubt Owen Smith can win an election outright, I think he’ll at least hold the government to account in a more competent way than Jeremy Corbyn and Seamus Milne do.
In other words, Richard, I agree. For once!
With regard to his polling, I think Smith is very much an unknown still (as shown by the high number of don’t knows/neutrals in polls concerning him). How popular he would be as Labour leader can only really be known if he becomes Labour leader and starts to carry out the role.
Corbyn’s unpopularity, on the other hand, is already known, and seems unlikely to improve significantly (though for me it’s more his incompetence than his unpopularity which is the issue).
I share your concern Richard, the task of building an organization to prepare to go into government on a major reform agenda, where opposition from the right wing media, the finance industry and to some extent the EU and the US, will be aggressive and persistent, will be a massive challenge. It will be more difficult than it was for Blair who embraced neoliberalism and therefore had the gift of expertise from the finance industry. If we assume that Corbyn will win the leadership vote, then he and McDonnell must be forced to address the organization issue. The reform agenda is, I believe, broadly agreed and reflects the overlap in thinking between yourself and the original members of the economic advisory group. So what form would the opposition organization need to take to do the job, such that it gives confidence to PLP members and shadow ministers while meeting the aspirations of the membership? How could an organization that was capable of coordinating detailed planning and political strategy have the confidence of a leadership that at best, would be only distantly engaged in the detail? If it doesn’t become an organization that it is a pleasure to be part of, it will fail, because it will need people with excellent knowledge, understanding and skills to give up their time.
Missing reply button so quoting you first before I answer, Richard:
“Let’s assume that right now the Tories aren’t popular but Labiur is deeply unpopular, which is your thesis
Why continue with the person who is creating that unpopularity?
And what do you mean by neoliberalism?
I know what I mean — but tell me what you think beating it requires”
The person who created the unpopularity was Blair and no, I don’t think we should continue with any of those associated with that era or the 2015 manifesto which was an absolute disgrace. Ashcroft’s exit poll shows 83% of Labour voters saying austerity was either never necessary or no longer necessary. Little point turning out for the insulting drivel they tried to sell us.
I mean what the IMF means by neoliberalism: imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2016/06/ostry.htm The belief that the markets can solve every problem and allocate resources effectively. Idiocy. Take healthcare. Competition cannot work when we all want the best available and cannot tell who is offering the best available and it is unaffordable when capacity is to expensive to allow it to fail. And it is a good which we value more than most but are unlikely to be able to pay for when we actually need it. Education the same; we cannot have a modern dynamic economy when we throw 80% of the talent on the scrapheap and reserve so many spots for the idiot sons of the rich. And we cannot have a modern economy at all if the workers cannot afford to buy what they make.
Beating it requires pointing out the absolute bullshit spouted in the name of making the rich richer; pointing and laughing at the cynical shits who say “you’re struggling because the poor people have all the money, go kick them for us”; pointing out the cynicism of demonising benefit claimants when the economic system demands 4-7% unemployment and puts half the workforce at risk over any given decade. There’s a decent article in the Graun right now on this sort of stuff: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/19/socialism-left-hard-well-morally-superior-right
As your investigation of Tory v Labour spending showed, along with writings by Ha-Joon Chang and Simon Wren-Lewis and Krugman’s work on performance across the pond, the right is utterly incompetent economically, profligate with our money with only more poverty and lower growth to show for it. Westminster and the media think the voters are stupid but they aren’t; this is not a hard battle to fight when we are no longer as reliant on the old skool media to pick and choose what they do and don’t tell us.
Couple of specific policies I missed off my rant:
– truly progressive personal taxation, not this appallingly reggressive state of affairs which is barely dented by the 50p tax rate: https://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/jun/16/british-public-wrong-rich-poor-tax-research
– the state to compete in any sector where it can compete. If the private sector cannot beat collective purchasing they’ll have to look for profits elsewhere. Housing, health, education, utilities (incuding retail banking). And if the private sector is refusing to take a profitable opportunity in the hope of higher future profits, then a “use it or lose it” policy must apply. Time-limited planning permission and extremely high taxation for land or property left idle or empty.
Both things I haven’t seen fully addressed by McDonnell but which need to happen. We’re letting oligarchs hold us to ransom and it makes no sense whatsoever.
Apologies for lengthy rants. Do feel free to get bored and ignore. *blush*
Bama,
Thanks for providing a definition of neo-liberalism. Is there any evidence that Blair or the people labelled Blairites today are/were of the rather extreme opinion that “the markets can solve every problem and allocate resources effectively”?
Owen smith is certainly not left wing as his answer to a tuition fees question was they should be replaced by a graduate tax.
Is that the sole criteria for being left wing?
I don’t agree with him but come on…..
I think general taxation much more appropriate than graduate tax but grad tax much more progressive and also much less costly.
With a loan, graduates on very high pay (think Cameron’s starting salary of £90k) can escape with only a few years’ interest, middle earners pay a fortune, low earners accumulate debt for 30 years. Martin Lewis ran some numbers: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/borrowing/loans/11237733/How-to-save-thousands-off-your-student-loan.html
Graduates who earn lower salaries in the public sector instead of lining their pockets should not be penalised. The public sector employs nearly half of all graduates and we cannot afford to price them out of those jobs. General taxation obviously best because we should all pay for the economy in proportion to the amount (in terms of utility) that we benefit from it.
I still don’t get it, sorry guys. I respect those who like Corbyn’s ideas, or think Corbynomics works (personally, I don’t – it’s unworkable, spiteful and no sensible economist would endorse it) or those who like Corybn for his stances on unilateralism or anything else, but most of you also accept that he cannot win an election for Labour, so sure, he can turn the party into exactly what you want it to be, but to what end? What is the point? Just so you can feel better? You might think that you can “teach the PLP” a lesson about who’s boss, but it’s them who need to actually form a cabinet and an effective opposition – the split between members and the PLP is suicide for the party.
Smith isn’t a million miles away from Corbyn on many issues so why wouldn’t you accept him (or someone else) and have a chance of regaining power? Even if you hate Smith, surely you gate a Tory government more?
It just seems like sheer bloody-mindedness to vote for Corbyn now. Okay Corbyn voters, we get it, you’re annoyed, you’re principled, but you also have to be smart enough to know what’s in the longer term interest. You’ve made your point, you’ve thrown your toys out of the pram but are you really going to deny Labour power in your struggle and to make the point? The whole party loses.
Collecting tax due and PQE does not work and is spiteful?
Pardon?
And you want to be thought credible?
I’m not sure who you are aiming at anyway: if it’s me you’ve clearly not been following
“no sensible economist would endorse it (Corbynomics)”. Confirming my suspicion that you can easily get a consensus of “reputable economists” to agree that any given idea is wrong, but you would struggle to find two economists to agree that n idea is right. I am not sure there is even a consensus among economists that the world is spherical.
It’s not perfectly spherical
I hope you agree 🙂
Richard, you pass the test
You have some reading to do. imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2016/06/ostry.htm
Fair questions (David Smith), ones that I, and probably many people who intend to vote for him ask themselves every day.
The easiest point first: yes Smith isn’t a million miles from Corbyn on many issues but, even if you were to believe that he actually means it there’s nothing to suggest he’ll still mean it this time next year.
Hate Tories more than Smith? Of course but I also don’t think Smith would be any better at sticking it to the stories than JC. I would have voted for Liz Kendal if I thought she had had a chance in hell of winning the GE.
I think all sides are still distrustful and bitter about the EM years. The selectorate is utterly non-plussed as to why the PLP tolerated him for so long when he was, in many ways, so much worse than Corbyn and the PLP is still furious at being forced by the selectorate to tolerate him for so long.
I think everyone has been shocked by the avalanche of incompetence and intransigence from all sides that followed last year’s Corbyn victory and in the absence of anyone appearing to genuinely try and work out what has happened, let alone what to do about it, we might as well try to carry on with Corbyn and have the massive far reaching conversation about what the Labour response to the 21st century is going to be.
Hi Richard
I’m an IT consultant and life long Labour supporter and previously was an LP member until Kinnockisation. I was just a broadleft member, a supporter of Tony Benn. I was never a Trot indeed I opposed them and all forms of entryism.
I think the main problem is not entryism from the left but a very long period of entryism from the right, I call them the Murdoch Tendency.
I much admire your work on Tax Justice and I fear you may be worrying unduly about the Corbyn phenomena.
I went to a Momentum meeting the other day and was pleasantly surprised by their inclusiveness and their modesty. They realise they have a big job to do to shift the machine of the Labour party, the PLP and many of the voters to their view.They also seem to realise that their project is a long term one.
I think that the new blood in the party and the return of the left is a symptom of a profound shift in the Zeitgeist.
NeoLiberalism has totally failed, there is no component of it which has any socially just utility. This fact is now universally understood (although still defied by the powerful) and even the Tories under Theresa May are stealing the shirt of the left and resuscitating Joseph Chamberlain etc.
I am relaxed about Corbyn, he seems to be shaping up and sticking to policy which is beginning to get through.
I am impressed by the range of people joining or rejoining the LP not just the young but a broad spectrum.
There are very few Trots causing trouble – just a few old lags and their student acolytes but tiny numbers. Most of the new young members are Social Democrat or Libertarian socialists not Trots.
Please keep up the good work.
Kind regards and much respect…
Tim Murphy
Tim
I have no problems with social movements: as you note, I helped form one
I spoke at Occupy
I supported UK Uncut members
I oppose neoliberalism
BUT I have massive problems with a social movement that wants to stop a political party being a parliamentary opposition
AND I have as big a problem with incompetence, and when it comes to running a political party Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell are just that
So bring Momentum on but I object to its involvement in Labour as much as I do Progress’
Richard
This entire controvery – call it what you will – is bizarre to say the least. The Labour Party is the 2nd largest party in the UK and hence the official opposition. In order to get elected it must attract a minimum number of voters in identifiable constituencies. They’ve done the maths and know how many and where. The core Labour vote, from whatever end of the spectrum, is far from being enough to win a GE in 2020.
It’s not rocket-science to draw up a manifesto with policies that address the major crises of the past 6 years. The Tory government has a track-record you could drive a Sherman tank through: banking, bankers’ bonuses, tax avoidance/evasion, inequality, employee security, directors’ salaries, pensions, environmental degradation, energy costs, rail fares, food inflation, university fees, housing, low productivity … etc. etc. The list is already a long one without accounting for the gaffs that lie ahead.
So, all the Labour Party has to do is to address these well-publicised issues with positive, well-documented solutions that would appeal to more than half the population, surely. And we’re not talking Tory-lite. There is absolutely no need to offer the electorate anything controversial that would frighten the horses.
Corbyn or Smith should then start behaving like a national leader appealing to people who may not necessarily be natural Labour voters. Once in power the party could then gradually start to move the goal-posts to a more radical agenda, one step at a time, Kaizen-style. Just like the Neo-libs have done over the past 40 years, with extraordinary success. Their hegemony didn’t arrive by accident.
Without power, all this dialectical and personal bickering is pointless and unproductive. The LP has a choice. To morph into a pressure group or offer itself as an alternative government. Personally, as a non-member, I’d prefer they’d opt for power simply to evict the parasites that have taken over the body. But, having read all the comment over the past few weeks, I think they prefer to internalise their differences rather than check in their egos and co-operate for victory at the polls. Their choice.
The comment earlier on about there being a moral vacuum at the heart of politics struck a chord with me. Albeit, I would enlarge that to be a moral vacuum at the heart of modern society. Do have a listen to a recent TED Talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/anand_giridharadas_a_letter_to_all_who_have_lost_in_this_era
I would put money on many agreeing with Anand.
Maybe the only solution that would be acceptable to both the membership and the PLP would be for Corbyn to stand down voluntarily in order to back a candidate who fully supports him.
If we define a close Corbyn ally as someone who nominated Corbyn last summer and meant it (rather than to widen the debate) and who hasn’t called on him to stand down, then by my reckoning (and I could be wrong) we are left with 15 MPs.
If we exclude from my list of 15 the three aged 72-83 as too old (Kelvin Hopkins, Ronnie Campbell, and Dennis Skinner) and the four in their thirties as too young (Cat Smith, Imran Hussain, Richard Burgon, and Rebecca Long-Bailey) then we are left with eight close allies, all of whom are in the shadow cabinet.
Dianne Abbot
Clive Lewis
Gorden Marsden
John McDonnell
Grahame Morris
Kate Osamor
Jon Tricket
Catherine West
We can perhaps rule out Dianne Abbot. I like Clive Lewis and would be happy with him as leader. Aside from McDonnell, Lewis, and Abbot, I know very little about the others, so can’t comment on their leadership potential, or if they would even want to be leader.
I suspect the only one on that list who would really want it is Clive Lewis
I like Clive, who I know
But I am not at all sure he is ready for it as yet
I think Clive would be very good as leader and accepted by many. Unfortunately, as you say, he is very unlikely to be ready yet having only become an MP in 2015.
I would add to the above list of possibilities some people who didn’t nominate him but have remained in the shadow cabinet – Emily Thornberry for instance. But it’s not like Corbyn could just appoint her leader!
I share concerns about Corbyn’s competence as leader – managing the shadow cabinet etc but he has gained a huge number of members (only a tiny minority of whom are ‘trots’) hungry for something different.
Owen Smith doesn’t have enough of a back story – he’s too much of an unknown. He’s not like say, Jon Cruddas, who has over the years put his ideas forward via various outlets. Not that I am a fan of Blue Labour thinking but members would know for sure where he was coming from. It doesn’t matter if Smith was sent to Wales by Miliband for being too left wing if people only find that out via Richard saying so on this blog. And though Ed made many compromises – too far for my liking – there was a sense that was a more radical leftie keen to get out.
So it is an unholy mess. That’s probably putting it too mildly.
I could see a split happening after Corbyn wins again (I can’t see that he won’t). I can also see a war of attrition by the PLP continuing which would be grim in terms of their being a lack of opposition. I am minded to think a split would be better although that’s a big worry given first past the post. The only way it could work is if there was an electoral pact between the two Labour parties which seems like very wishful thinking given the bad feeling.
I guess the future looks rather grim for Labour and that’s very depressing. And seems a bizarre shame given the 300,000 new members.
There is a severe lack of context to this discussion. Jeremy Corbyn has been under siege from all sides ever since he was elected and especially from the right on the PLP with the suppory of the Labour Party machine directed by Watson.
Despite this he is now in a position of increasing strength having seen off the worst of the Chickencoup. He will win with at least 65% in September possibly a greater margin. The new NEC will then allow CLP meetings which will start to hold the chickencoup supporters to account. I expect the vast majority to agree to support their re-elected leader while a small number will either be deselected or will split to the Libdems (or Tories). There is no prospect of an organised split as Margaret Beckett acknowledged a few days ago. These developments will make it much easier for Labour to operate as a coherent opposition.
Meanwhile the Tory schism on Europe will intensify as its leaderships fights over how to reconcile the city’s need for complete accesd to the EU market and the right’s demand for an end to the free movement of labour.
Thanks for confirming Entryism is happening
Whilst I don’t agree with Richard Morse’s take I don’t think that confirms entryism. I don’t think the new NEC are entryists are they? Plus I have read in the New Statesman that the proCorbynites on the NEC aren’t enough in number to completely dominate it – not sure of the details.
If there’s a threat of deselections then I think there will be a formal split.
I do think there has been entryism
I stress this is not heavily or overly Troty infkkyenced, although at a theoretical level it looks Trotskyite all the same, particularly in the choice of a narrow defitnionefinition of democracy
I am instead saying that there has been what feels like Entryism because of the quite overt threats to de-select most Labour MPs, which I think will happen
Now some may be open to question: Labour’s right has long been a source iof difficulty, but let’s take one who will be thrown out, I am sure, who is Margartet Hodge. She did fantastic work against the BNP and on tax. Bang down the line what Labour needed. But she will surely be de-selected.
Why? And if so, isn’t that a takeover, which justifies the term?
Richard Morse
About the context thing: The principal problem you have with your analysis is that no one outside a small number of people cares about your plans to purify the party. Theresa May doesn’t have to worry about a schism in her party because Jeremy has signed up for Brexit; she can offload the economic problems, outside the City of London, which will undoubtedly arise as a result of Brexit, onto Labour, and leave him to deal with Sunderland when Nissan pulls out, as it will, sooner rather than later, given the way in which Nissan plants have to compete against each other for orders.
That leaves the financial sector; I’m not sure that even the most ardent Tory Europhobes are wholly immune once the Lord Mayor of London starts playing hardball, and he will. Delusions about there being some way in which we can have everything we want, and nothing we don’t want are delusions; the most obvious consequence of Jeremy’s rush of blood to the head is that in signing up for Brexit he has handed the Labour Party to the Tory Prime Minister as the perfect scapegoat for the economic disintegration of Labour’s heartlands. This may look like a good plan to you but it’s probably not going to play well with the people dealing with the consequences…
The heart of the matter is most Labour members appear to want a socialist party and seem to have at last realised they are actually in a party with a mixture of centrist, tory-lite or neo-liberal MP’s. The MP’s still hold the party’s levers of power hence the bizarre sight of the NEC stopping it’s own members voting and are presumably the source of the endless drip, drip, drip of anti-Corbyn propaganda. To accuse Corbyn and McDonnell of incompetence seems completely the wrong way round as the right wing cannot even manage a proper coup and haven’t got the bottle to try and parachute the King over the water into a safe seat. Just glad I’m in the Green Party.
There was no coup
I keep asking and am told there was no plan, just a point here the anger spelled over
And I witnessed the incompetence: it began with John McDonnell wanting to be a neoliberal endorser of Osborne’s fiscal plan and never stopped
No ideas
No listening
No organisation
No agendas
No nothing
Utterly hopeless
But NI coup either: just fury at an Article 50 comment that struck anyone who knew much about it as absurd and a true indication of what Corbyn had always wanted and lied about
If you are so anti Corbyn why bring him up so much on a tax site? let it go. what will be will be and JC will win its what the true labour members want, the Labour party back not a light Tory one
Tax justice and politics and intimately related
I am afraid that you are basically right. If Jeremy Corbyn is re-elected there will be slow , agonising tearing apart as those at all levels who do not support him are removed. Eventually this will turn into some kind of split with electoral consequences that are probably disastrous.
In other words the political vehicle for progressive ideas , particularly about the economy , is going to be very doubtful for a long (?) time to come. That does not mean however that it is not worth working on those ideas. For example a reflation of demand through public investment is widely accepted as desirable. How should that be delivered ? What are the comparative advantages of printing money as opposed to borrowing ? How important is it that this is done on an international scale and how can that be achieved ? What form should the investment take and how should projects be selected ? How do we judge the size of that investment given the need to avoid going begging to the IMF or stoking inflation ?
There are quite a lot of good , progressively minded politicians in Britain even if at the minute they are badly (really not all) organised. When they are ready to make a serious go at power we need to help them with a programme of action that will both convince the electorate and can be successfully implemented.
On a factual point, World Transformed is not a parallel Momentum conference, just a larger than usual fringe event. I’m secretary of a Momentum branch and we’ve not been asked to send delegates as we would if this was an alternative conference. Indeed, I only found out about it through social media.
So Momentum is now big enough to have delegates?
I don’t know how big we are nationally, but if local experience is anything to go by then we are growing quickly, as people (often new to organised politics) appreciate a welcoming environment in which socialist politics can be discussed and new ideas listened to. Many of our new supporters have told me how refreshing this is after the tedium and hostility they have too often encountered at official party meetings.
My point about delegates was simply to illustrate that this is not a formal Momentum event. It will not take any resolutions or make any decisions, so it is not the ‘alternative conference’ it is being portrayed as.
So it us definitely a party within a party then
Not just that, Richard, note the even more significant reference to being secretary of a ‘Momentum branch’. That is hard evidence that Momentum is a separate organisation (as it must be if it has it’s own branch officers) – or has become one. However, as Corbyn’s future depends on its existence I don’t envisage any action being taken against Momentum any time soon.
Nor do I
So activists are right to be suspicious. You have confirmed everything we fear about purges that would follow a Smith victory.
In my case I am actually secretary of a branch of Welsh Labour Grassroots, which is now recognised as “the home of Momentum in Wales”. I though it would be easier for a UK-wide audience to just say Momentum. WLG has existed unmolested for over a decade but the McCarthyite hunters will be out for us all if Corbyn loses.
As I have said, this election has nothing to do with Corbyn’s competence or otherwise.
I can say nothing
I am not in Labour
And I have heard nothing of purges from anyone but those connected with Momentum
I suggest you check out some of Tom Watson’s recent statements. Plus ask why thousands of supporters are being excluded from voting.
I know what Tom is saying
And I know why a cut off was chosen: it was to give volunteers a fair chance to have assessed membership applications
Several have told me how hard that is
What happens after 24 September, if Corbyn is re-elected, will largely depend on the attitude of those MPs now backing Smith. These are a mixed group, including Progress MPs who are keeping quiet for now but will re-emerge after the election. Those who continue to subvert the party’s ability to oppose the government will have to be fought. But hardened Blairites are a minority. After the election, we should once again try to work with others, in the hope that some will co-operate in the interests of both the party and those suffering from Tory policies.
As Smith has leaned to the left to attract votes, there are areas, notably on the economy, on which declared policies have some similarities. For example, the differences between Smith’s £200bn ‘New British Deal’ and McDonnell’s post-Brexit plan involving £350bn of public money should not be insurmountable in a party that genuinely wanted unity. So we should call the bluff of Smith’s backers by offering discussions on such policies. As elected leader, Corbyn’s preferences should carry most weight but that need not exclude negotiation or compromise.
One problem is that the precipitate haste of MPs in forcing an election ahead of conference rule changes has embittered the atmosphere. The attempts by party officials to rig the election and the lies told about Corbyn’s supporters have provoked resentment, but the activist base has sufficient political maturity to understand why reaching out to Smith’s supporters matters. A more serious difficulty rests on the other side. Smith has burnt his bridges by declaring that he will never work with Corbyn. Sadly, many others will also put personal interest and hostility to engaged members ahead of party unity and effective opposition, but we have to try. There are some good MPs and party members supporting Smith and I want to win them back.
Let’s also remember that opposition is not just about Parliament. It’s also about local politics plus communities and workplaces, as it always has been. Here experienced activists and new members have an important role to play.
As I am pretty much the author of both policies (bith are based largely on the Green New Deal) how are you going to cal my bluff?
I was thinking of MPs and beyond that of party members, who will need to decide if they want to engage or not after the election. But the broader discussion also needs to continue, which is why I wish you would write more about issues, not personalise the election so much around Corbyn.
But the issue is personal, unfortunately
And I have written on the issues too – many times in the last week
Richard, apologies for coming back again but I have a lot of respect for the work you have done on taxation and other issues over many years and I’m saddened by the misunderstandings you have of the movement for social change within the Labour Party.
Yes, of course, you have discussed some of the issues but the emphasis on personal qualities is getting in the way of that. You asked several days ago what Corbyn’s Labour thought about the private sector and I tried to explain how we wanted to work in partnership with the private sector in a way that ensures public benefit, but all you picked up on in that was a comment I had made in passing on Owen Smith.
Advertising was not an area I had remarked on (my comment was already long) but I thought the extract from ‘The Courageous State’ on this subject that you included in a post on 15 Aug was very useful, and I’m sure the vast majority of the activists supporting Corbyn would think the same. Unfortunately, you used it to attack the lack of policy development in Labour’s social movement. I think you fail to grasp the practical constraints we have been under over the past year. Let me give you an example from personal experience.
At the start of this year, I was involved in a project to develop a policy statement to stimulate debate around the next Welsh Assembly. I wrote a section on economic policy but personal commitments prevented the authors of some other sections from meeting our planned date. By then, we were too close to the election, which both consumed our energy and meant that any statement could be made obsolete by the result. Once the new Welsh Labour government had been formed, we picked it up again, only to then realise both that the EU referendum could be lost (so had to focus on that) and that the impact of the outcome on Assembly funding could again force us to rework. We started but then we were thrown into the leadership crisis, now absorbing all our attention. I could tell a similar story about policy development for May’s local elections, now postponed into the autumn.
The left of the party has the will to develop policies to build a social movement to challenge neoliberalism. We are struggling with a lack of resources and the incessant pressure of events, worsened by continual attacks and slanders. Somebody with your record should be helping us to develop the policies we need. If Corbyn loses, the prospects of building the movement you want will take a serious blow as activists become demoralised and the party machine turns against us. This election really is not about Corbyn’s personal qualities. It’s about keeping alive hope for the future.
Sorry…..but excuses won’t do
And that’s what you’re offering without even being willing to say who you are
That is not conviction politics
“not personalise the election so much around Corbyn”
But Penderyn that is EXACTLY what is happening. Many Corbyn supporters are simply refusing to give Smith a fair hearing, and are blindly following Corbyn without any kind of rational appraisal of the candidates.
For many of his followers, it really is Corbyn or nothing. I’ve heard it plenty of times. If Jeremy goes then I’m off too, or I’ve only joined the party because of Jeremy. If this isn’t some sort of cult, it’s damn near one as far as I can see. Uncritically supporting a man while ignoring his failings is not healthy, and is no way to properly assess his suitability to the leadership role.
This morning Sadiq Khan has come out in favour of Smith. In doing so he lays out perfectly valid criticisms of Corbyn and why he thinks Smith is the right man to elect now. I bet he will get a torrent of abuse and be called all sort of names because he’s dared to suggest Corbyn isn’t up to it. But he’s simply right.
You ask what happens after the leadership election. The answer always been simple and the same; loyally and fiercely support your leader!
And may I add, that is what all should have done from the moment Corbyn was decisively elected – then we would have had no internecine self-destruction and a much-mauled government.
But what if the leader very clearly can’t do his job?
Or what if the leader is a “Blairite”? It’s funny seeing all this demand for absolute loyalty to from people who excoriate the majority of the PLP for their loyally supporting Blair over Iraq.
The Labour leadership election in September 2015, and the ‘replay’ in 2016, have illustrated the fact that the ‘Labour’ party was (and still is) a ‘covert coalition’ of a ‘natural’ ‘Old Labour party’ and a ‘natural’ ‘New Labour party’. In the UK state General Election in May 2015, 9 million voters had voted for the ‘Labour covert coalition party’. The ‘Labour covert coalition party’ lost that UK state General Election. Subsequent to that UK state General Election, the ‘Labour covert coalition party’ held an intra-party election for a new leader. That intra-party election was open only to 500,000 ‘members’ of the ‘Labour covert coalition party’ (i.e. just 5% of the 9 million voters who voted for the ‘Labour covert coalition party’ in the earlier UK state General Election). In that intra-party election, 300,000 ‘members’ (i.e. just 3% of the 9 million voters who voted for the ‘Labour covert coalition party’ in the earlier UK state General Election) voted for Jeremy Corbin (i.e. the de-facto ‘leader’ of the ‘natural’ ‘Old Labour party’), and 200,000 ‘members’ (i.e. just 2% of the 9 million voters who voted for the ‘Labour covert coalition party’ in the earlier UK state General Election) voted for candidates from the ‘natural’ ‘New Labour party’. Jeremy Corbin won, and those who were trying to vote for the ‘natural’ ‘New Labour party’ (perhaps as many as 97% of the 9 million voters who voted for the ‘Labour covert coalition party’ in the earlier UK state General Election) were disenfranchised. Nevertheless, Jeremy Corbin (and the Momentum cult supporting him) claimed (and still claim) to have a mandate to represent all of the 9 million voters who voted for the ‘Labour covert coalition party’ in the earlier UK state General Election. That was not (and still is not) ‘true democracy’.
The 500,000 ‘members’ of the ‘Labour covert coalition party’ should not presume to ‘own’ the ‘Labour covert coalition party’. They should presume only to be ‘custodians’; with a duty to act on behalf of all of the 9 million voters who had voted for the ‘Labour covert coalition party’ in the earlier UK state General Election. Better still, the honourable democratic response would have been a split into a ‘natural’ ‘Old Labour party’ (which should then have chosen a leader from the Old Labour ‘Big Beasts’), and a ‘natural’ ‘New Labour party’ (which should then have chosen a leader from the New Labour ‘Big Beasts’). The 9 million voters who voted for the ‘Labour covert coalition party’ in the most recent UK state General Election would then be able to choose for themselves which of those smaller ‘natural’ parties to support in the next UK state General Election. However, with the current non-proportional voting system, both of those smaller ‘natural’ parties would be wiped out in terms of MPs. So, of course, the ‘Labour covert coalition party’ has always resisted the idea of such a split (and the idea of proportional representation itself) out of venal self-interest.
However, whoever led a ‘Labour covert coalition party’ in the next UK state General Election, the ‘Labour covert coalition party’ would struggle to (re-)gain power and influence. The rise of the SNP and UKIP parties, the Conservative boundary changes, and the fractured image of the ‘Labour covert coalition party’ would leave the Political Executive field to a Conservative-led (covert and/or overt) coalition for the indefinite future.
Thus, the best that supporters of a ‘natural’ ‘Old Labour party’ and supporters of a ‘natural’ ‘New Labour party’ could hope from the next UK state General Election would be a fair and proportional (but non-dominant) share of power and influence over the de-facto Political Executive. Thus, in turn, honourable democrats in the ‘Labour covert coalition party’ must now reconsider their position on proportional representation. They must consider the possibility of working with honourable democrats in other parties in a campaign for ‘Optimised Democratic Governance’ (based on fully-proportional representation in the Representative Assembly holding the de-facto Political Executive to account), as a pre-requisite for a constructive split into a ‘natural’ ‘Old Labour party’ and a ‘natural’ ‘New Labour party’.
The question asks, what happens after 24th September?
Corbyn will win by at least 65%, maybe 75%.
The PLP have completely misjudged the mood and attitude of its core labour vote. In exactly the same way Cameron/Osbourne misjudged the public sentiment over Europe.
Why? Because we have, everywhere within our pool of MPs (on all sides, with sadly, one or two exceptions) an appalling lack of talent and political nouse. With the mantra of winning at all costs, rather than winning over the electorate.
What will happen? A re run of 1981 when Michael Foot was elected and Messrs Rogers, Jenkins, Williams etc set to the SDP.
Labour Party disappear into the wilderness for 15 years, navel gazing and trying to understand what went wrong.
Meanwhile Tories see the advantage, become unaccountable, introduce utopia, make a complete mess of it and back to square 1.
Who loses? The public that who!
Richard, another story on Jersey.
You see this?
http://www.bailiwickexpress.com/jsy/news/norwegian-tax/?t=i#.V7llVJgrK00
I’m not sure that bringing up the Michael Foot period is valid as an argument this time around.
Martin Jacques writes in the Observer today about the slow death of neo-liberalism and although there is nothing much new in what he writes ( and as far as I am concerned he fails to offer any alternatives as promised in the article – but then again these maybe implied in his description) he sums up just how different things are this time quite well.
When Foot was Leader, neo-liberalism was in its honey moon period (later to be saved by the result of a certain away game with Argentina in the Falklands). As it stands now with worse inequality than what we had in the early 1980’s at least its cover is close to having been blown wide open if not completely gone already.
People are very unhappy – and rightly so. The arrival of UKIP – so perfect that it could also be part of a divide and conquer tactic of the progressive Left by the Establishment – has also muddied the waters alongside the issue of inequality.
However, one cannot quite ignore the fact that the Labour party has purposefully aimed policy at floating Tory voters rather than those who needed them to step in and deliver policies to protect their already difficult lives. And they did not.
We also now have Sadiq Khan – obviously full of himself having won the mayoral competition pretending that what is good for London (him!) is good for the country – obviously ! – by suggesting that people vote for Smith.
And once again, they are using Corbyn’s apparent luke-warm response to the EU Referendum as reason for him not being leader. This is when I actually thought that of all the leaders in the vote, he was the most honest about Europe – views that I too hold as do other Remain types here. But when you see this excuse (and it is an excuse) being wheeled out yet again by those who want Corbyn out, the only conclusion you can come to is that the anti-Corbynites must be getting desperate.
If Smith got in, how long would it be before the PLP started calling the shots?
And why is neo-liberalism getting away with producing inequality, destroying wealth for the majority and boosting it for the few? Not because of Corbyn; not because of Smith but because Labour as a party is a complete and utter mess.
The entry-ism the anti-Corbyn crew has bemoaned already started well before the £25 Corbynistas got on the scene – you only have to look at the likes of some of the PLP to spot the new intake of ‘champagne socialists’ or those not clever or nasty enough to be in the Tory party.
It is going to take something catastrophic to change all of this and I believe Labour as we know it (or thought we knew it) is actually defunct as of now.
If we accept that, then we can forget about them and then start making demands of what is left of the opposition because they are all we have now.
What is ahead is very hard road indeed and we need to girdle our loins and get on with it because Labour are just not there anymore. They are not. They’re gone.
Nothing apparent about Corbyn’s less than wholehearted commitment to the remain side during the referendum. It was there for all to see. I even remarked upon it at the time, noting that Jeremy didn’t seem that enthusiastic. As leader of the party he had a duty to campaign vigorously in line with party policy. He didn’t. It was a turning point for me, and led me to conclude that i could no longer back him as leader of my party. Others, quite reasonably, have come to the same conclusion.
Is Labour gone? It might be. Retaining Corbyn will hasten its demise as electoral catastrophe will surely be the result if he leads us into a GE. Can anyone really see him leading an effective campaign, given what the Tories and the media will throw at him? Smith does offer a chance. It might be a slim one, and a lot depends on him following through on his commitments and the PLP really getting behind him. There are opportunities for a progressive social democratic party to make headway but its going to be one heck of a job.
These are fair comments Steve – but I saw much less of May than Corbyn and she is now the PM! So what? The EU vote was won by well supported liars and cheats on the Leave side – not by what May or Corbyn did not do.
That is what happened regarding BREXIT.
I’m not a Labour Party member and I don’t have a vote in this contest. I do want them to do well though. And although as I outlined in posts earlier on this thread I can see trouble ahead with the expected Corbyn win and am concerned about his lack of competence. However if I thought Smith was going to win that wouldn’t exactly fill with me with hope and confidence either to be honest.
I had many criticisms of New Labour but they knew what they were about – until the financial crash. And since then they haven’t really been able to get their act together. I don’t think most of the PLP realise neoliberalism is in its death throes although still hanging on as evidenced by there being a Tory majority government (albeit a small one).
They didn’t see the SNP coming, the influence of UKIP etc and how to respond. Although Ed Miliband brought in the new leadership election rules they were a Blairite idea. Indeed, according to Owen Jones , Liz Kendall’s team thought they might get a very large number of £3 voters on their side. (Mondeo men and Worcester women). They didn’t realise that the crash (and ensuing unchallenged Tory economic narrative) had completely destroyed these voters’ confidence in Labour’s economic competence. It was as though many in the PLP thought they could resurrect the late 90s. On the whole the Labour Party had a serious intellectual failure in understanding how things were panning out post-crash.
What will happen next? It seems like Labour is having to go through the mincer. The only hope is that in the long term something new and worthwhile will materialise from the shreds of the main party of the left.
In the very immediate future MPs forming their own part within a party idea seems to be growing – the latest being that a 100 odd might join the cooperative party and be their own opposition.
“It was suggested in reports today that there would be a drive to sign up MPs to the Co-Operative Party as a method for consolidating internal opposition against Mr Corbyn.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/corbyn-labour-leadership-rebel-mps-a7202641.html
The two groupings may end up vying for official opposition status.
Having hippy-ish tendencies I’d hope they could end up in a not too fighty alliance. More likely they will continue to take knock serious lumps out of each other.
JC gets re-elected, following an election that should have never happened and either the Labour MPs finally buckle down and respect and follow his leadership or they are replaced by MP’s that will.
So it’s entryist forced compliance woth an unknown policy then?
That’s a reassuring basis for the left
Gareth
Your post suggests that you have absolutely no idea of how MPs become MPs, but I may be wrong; perhaps if you explained exactly how you envisage replacing MPs before the election in 2020 it would help the rest of us decide whether we are on the same planet.