It is now clear we will have a Labour leadership campaign.
For better or worse I was a participant in last summer's campaign after discovering that I was the author of what came to be called Corbynomics. This was the selection of what turned out to be mainly (but not solely) my ideas that were published as Jeremy's economic manifesto last summer at a time when few considered he had any hope of winning.
Win he did.
And quite probably he will win again. But we don't know. Any more than we know as yet who will definitely be standing against him.
What I do want to make clear in that case are some ground rules that I am going to apply whilst any debates on this issue go on.
The first is that I will not be endorsing a candidate. I will endorse their policies, or not, but not the candidate as such. That is what I did last year and I will do the same now.
I will also not be voting. I am not a member of the Labour Party and will not buy a vote for £25. I have never been sure democracy should be for sale.
My interest will be in policy. I have made clear my policy agendas in The Courageous State and The Joy of Tax. They are radical. Most would consider them left wing. I suggest that they are pretty coherent. I think they are deliverable. I would suggest that few others have come as close to offering anything as compete in terms of overall economic thinking that flows from industrial, social, housing and education policy through to tax and fiscal policy which also considers the management and control of the central functions of the economy as a whole. I do not pretend they cannot be improved: that would be absurd. But they're a start, and that's important.
Corbynomics was an extract from those ideas: at the time it was not, in truth, the extract I would have made although the importance of People's QE has gown enormously in the last year.
What Corbynomics, as presented not by me but by Jeremy's team, lacked was a coherent theory of money, tax and the role of the state in the economy. That is why John McDonnell has got himself into such trouble in working out where he stands on running deficits, where his position has been a long way from anything I could recommend, and has been far to the right of what I and I know the economic advisory panel have suggested.
In that case let me be clear for the sake of those who think I am now to the right of Corbyn and McDonnell because I have suggested Labour needs another leader, that this is simply not true. One (but not the only) of my frustrations has been with their refusal to move out of neoliberal economic framework on this issue.
Another has been their lack of willing to explain a coherent policy framework that rejects neoliberalism to their colleagues and demand that they work within that genuine alternative when creating policy initiatives. If they have failed in party management ( and they clearly have, so far) then it has been because they have, as far as I can see, not been willing to impose a clear policy line within which their shadow team could work and this has led to much confusion and the current impasse.
I reserve the right to say so, and will when I think it appropriate.
I will certainly say the same of any other candidate's proposals if I think it appropriate, without fear and without expecting favour, of which I have no expectation or desire.
But, and this is the key point, I intend to stick to arguments and facts.
I am willing to hear comment about personal qualities when those are relevant. I think my criticisms of what has happened in the last nine months fall into that category.
I am also willing to hear argument about political realignment, which I now think quite likely, although I think that the reasoning for that to happen has not been coherently supplied as yet by any who might break away from Labour. In that case I wish to hear what it might be. The social democratic alternative to what is very clearly the socialist option that Corbyn and McDonnell presents needs to be stated, and I am happy to hear it.
What I will not be happy about is abuse.
I think some language being used at present is inappropriate. To hear 172 Labour MPs described as sinister so soon after one was murdered is worrying, and I hope that those who use such language will reflect very carefully upon it.
I make it clear that I do no think it wrong for a person to hold what they consider to be social democratic views that contrast with the current Labour leadership's, even if I was over many years that Labour was in office, and when subsequently in opposition, quite critical of many such opinions and felt they did not and could not provide the alternatives that this country needs. Disagreeing with someone does not make them a lesser person, let alone an object for abuse.
The rule is going to be, in that case, hate the policy if you like, but leave the person out of it. Discuss the personality of you wish, but only in terms of whether they can objectively do the job, and nothing more or less. And if you stray beyond those boundaries expect to be deleted, whoever you might be.
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:
Thanks for opening the discussion. I will read your book.
For background information, this is the current strategy, as distributed by the group “Labour First”. It outlines the Labour centralists plans over this year, 2017 and 2018
http://pastebin.com/cRjbKWaU
I am not condoning the contents of this message, just placing it into the public domain. The message states that forwarding is permissable.
“I have made clear my policy agendas in The Courageous State and The Joy of Tax. They are radical. Most would consider them left wing.”
I’m sorry Richard, that is where we have to disagree. Your policy agenda, to me, seems normal, moderate, sensible. The agenda is one that most parties supported (and followed to varying degrees) in the 1950s and 1960s. It ain’t “left wing”.
It is time that we recovered the “perceptual” centre ground. We are the normal ones, your policy agenda is centerist. If “most” consider it “left wing” that says much more about them than it does about the policy agenda and perhaps it is time we started to make this point.
Left wing is perception
In the current worlds it is
But it’s not Marxist, I agree
The thing I find particularly concerning, is what I percieve to be a “scorched earth” policy of the majority of the PLP.
Their reasoning for removing the Labour party leader, to my amateur opinion, appears to be a tautology.
“He is unable to lead the party effectively, as he does not have have the backing of the majority of the PLP.”
“He does not have the backing of the majority of the PLP because he is unable to lead the party effectively.”
Some members of the “centerist” faction of the Labour party (New Labour, for lack of a better description) have stated the following:
1) Jeremy Corbyn won his election by using a loophole, enabling a large email list to be converted into an election win due to a change in the rules.
2) They think there is no point in Jeremy Corbyn running for election again
3) If Corbyn wins the next election, then the situation will be unchanged. I quote “None of this will be changed if Corbyn is re-elected, however wide the margin. MPs are not going to go crawling back to him saying they made a mistake. They will challenge him again and again as his failings and the un-tenability of his position become more and more apparent, until eventually he is defeated.”
4) There will be no split if Jeremy is elected. First-Past-the-Post does not enable a new political entity to succeed, and will only help the Tories.
5) Corbyn can be beaten by a brute force campaign, lasting potentially until 2018
source: http://pastebin.com/cRjbKWaU used with permission
On points 1 and 2 I disagree. Corbyn’s policies are bold and have revitalised political interest across the broad British populace. People who previously blasé to politics feel inspired to both vote, and to speak up on their countries future. I find this to be an exciting grassroots shift to the political paradigm, and unique in my lifetime.
On point 3 I feel afraid. A Parliamentary Labour Party that steadfastly refuses to honour the result of a leadership challenge is going to cause damage to it’s own party. This much is obvious. The previously stated tautology is not a sufficient reason to behave in this manner.
On point 5, I feel afraid. I realise that politics is a game of subtleties, but I do not see how a scorched earth policy where the PLP refuses to follow their leader is beneficial to Labour, or the people of Britain. We, the British people, have been given no reason other than a tautology.
The assertion that Corbyn cannot enthuse the British population is patently false, he is exceptional at that. TThis goes back to point 1. There was perhaps a union “email list” to seed his campaign. The subsequent growth has been borne from passion of his integrity, manner and policies.
Just my £0.02
on point 4. A Progressive Alliance is forming on the left. With first priority to kick the Tories out. And introduce Proportional Representation as highest priority in office. PR will allow both Labour and Conservatives to split as they clearly have been exposed as two parties in one.
Good post. I agree. Many in the PLP/Anti-Corbyn faction seem obsessed with just removing Corbyn rather than replacing him with someone better. They seem determined to prove the ‘Corbynistas’ wrong rather than to enthuse and lead them to victory. The downright incompetence of the attempted coup and their failure to understand what is driving even their own party members gives me no confidence in the presented alternatives to Corbyn.
Well said, J. Simpkin
I particularly liked this bit about the white-anter’s reasoning:
““He is unable to lead the party effectively, as he does not have have the backing of the majority of the PLP.”
“He does not have the backing of the majority of the PLP because he is unable to lead the party effectively.”
It’s not actually a tautology’ so much as a classic Catch-22 and I can assure you that you are not the only one that is noticed it.
There are many who are amazed at the sense of entitlement that so many PLP members have displayed in openly disregarding the will of the membership.
Given the current electorial system a disintigration of the uneasy alliance that labour makes, will lead to a permanent rule by Conseratives
This may very well lead to the disintigrationn of the UK, though Scotland will have some difficulty in returning into the EU, fold.
Rump Britain will then be further turned into a platform for finance management, other interests will be subordinated. Economic success if it be such will depend on money inflows from the plutocracy of the world. We are well down this road. The state spending will be further squeezed to below 30% of GDP.. What ever is left of the “family silver” will be sold on the cheap to those who have means to buy. This process has been underway for the last 30!years. In the developed world this means widening gap between the wealthy and the marginalised workforce whose intersts will be trashed. Behind the smokescreen of the brand NHS, it will be disolved, more and more of it contracted out to corporates. Patiant Payment for these services will follow and our health service will become more expesive.
How this process can be challenged can take a spectum of forms. Yours is a top down state mangement of money approach, there is a bottom up approach. This can take two basic forms campagning political protest or proctive building new solutions beyond the state by self forming democratic enterprise. In itself this will not solve the problem of challengibg the plebicital prutocratcy we live under. However if progress is made in making such developments viable and congenial, then tthese to scaled up with the help of local government if these are allowed. The challenge to do so is difficult and needs competance and patient effort.
Any benign political economy depends in such processes, which build up a supporting platform, with culture and practice becoming an emerging norm. Your policy suggestions might then have a sounder suppoting base. The State and Institution Power as things stand is an alian force for many, overlording, with the democratic element hollowed out and shallow.
“The social democratic alternative to what is very clearly the socialist option that Corbyn and McDonnell presents needs to be stated, and I am happy to hear it.”
I was intrigued by this sentence as I think this probably gets to the heart of much of the division between the PLP and the Labour party members. The party is currently committed to democratic socialism as per its Aims and Values, which by most definitions is distinctly different from the aims and values of social democracy.
The majority of the PLP has proven to be unwilling to overtly promote democratic socialism as they consider such policies “unelectable” under the current FPTP two party system. I am putting personalities aside at this stage as you suggested.
However, it could be argued Corbyn and Mcdonnell are only trying to take the PLP in the direction of the party aims and values towards a more democratic socialist set of policies. Although in reality they have probably compromised on so many things now that their political direction is probably closer to social democracy than democratic socialism.
There is a very distinct difference in my mind between these two political and economic theories. As the Labour party is committed in its own rules to democratic socialism are you suggesting that the party rules should be changed in order to be “electable” in the eyes of the PLP or should there be a more principled set of PLP members who stick to their party mandate?
I agree it is a moral dilemma but if real politics is to cleansed of its increasingly meaningless diatribe of non-sensical two party centrist political non-arguments, this seems to be at the heart of the Labour party’s current debates.
For others to decide: I am saying it is an issue and you are agreeing
“One (but not the only) of my frustrations has been with their refusal to move out of neoliberal economic framework on this issue.”
I don’t think any candidate is going to do this. I am not sure it is possible with the PLP we have.
An endorsement of PR (and prior to being able to enact that, a left wing alliance) is likely the best bet so parties can eventually realign. But again, I don’t think a candidate is going to advocate an alliance because of tribalism and wanting to ‘save the Labour Party’. So advocating PR is probably the most that will be on offer.
Just to add – I know there has been talk of a progressive alliance on the left but only a small minority of the PLP subscribe to that.
Re your point about “I have never been sure democracy should be for sale.”
I fully agree, democracy can never be for sale because that would be un-democratic in itself, but as well know that is the current reality of our non-democratic political system.
Interesting that Monbiot’s article is out today on this subject and also his suggestion for a fixed party membership fee matched by a fixed ratio state contribution (of all approved parties) makes for an intriguing way to re-level the political playing field (especially if combined with PR).
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/13/billionaires-bought-brexit-controlling-britains-political-system
Something like that makes sense
I’m not sure it is wise to distinguish a candidate’s policies from what is likely to be electable and also how likely the candidate is to still hold those policies in power, so I personally think judging a candidate based on just their policies is a bit like the view from nowhere in social sciences – it doesn’t exist. Rather it is necessary to take a (personal) judgement about what would happen when those candidate’s policies meet wider social forces such as the electorate and or the realities of office if they are so elected.
The notion of ‘electability’ quite often appears to be an arbitrary centrist conjecture that assumes divine knowledge of the electorate’s potential.
Thatcher was once said to be ‘unelectable’ as was Obama, and numerous other elected leaders.
An insightful article posted today (14 July) on TruePublica: Labour’s century old problem — Leadership performance http://truepublica.org.uk/united-kingdom/labours-century-old-problem-leadership-performance.
Hi,
A couple of quick questions/queries. Firstly, if Corbyn and McDonnell were to present policy ideas with which you agreed, would you tacitly endorse them (again), or are your concerns regarding their leadership such that you could never advise them again, as you did last summer?
Also, I detect some contradiction in your argument in this short article. On the one hand, you express concern with Corbyn and McDonnells’s ‘lack of willingness to explain a coherent policy framework that rejects neoliberalism’ – presumably here you’re lamenting their failure to pursue your credible, radical, ideas on People’s QE? But then later on you refer to ‘the social democratic alternative to what is very clearly the socialist option that Corbyn and McDonnell present’. This would suggest that, despite what you said previously, Corbyn and McDonnell do in fact have a coherent, radical policy agenda…
They are presenting policy ideas with which I agree
I have not said I will not advise them
I have said I do not think Jeremy Corbyn can, on the basis of what I have seen, lead Labour to victory
Part of the problem has been that the policy they put forward did not follow the advice they were given
Why I agree Jeremy Corbyn can’t lead Labour to victory only show what path to take I would be most interested in knowing what advice their chose not to follow
They keep talking about balancing a budget
That makes no sense and kills all other necessary actions and sends all the wrong messages, including a willingness to play to the Tory tune which belies other rhetoric