Someone said yesterday that this blog appeared to have become a discussion board on the Labour leadership. I would argue that is merely symptomatic. It so happens that what is happening in that debate is of some significance to my broader issues of concern. But the issue is not Labour per se but the broader consequences of the debate.
The Labour party leadership debate matters for at last three reasons. The first is because Labour is the current official opposition in the UK parliament. This means that its MPs have the primary task of holding the government to account for its actions. If what the government was doing was benign the role of the opposition is one to which little attention need be given. but when the government seems intent on actions that might be of harm to the groups in society whose interests most concern me then the opposition has a crucial role to play. I happen to think that the case at present.
I do not believe that the government is running sound economic policy. Partly deliberately and partly as a consequence of that policy we know we are suffering wage recession for many, a crisis of affordability of housing, rising debt burdens for far too many households and a destruction of the social safety net that has been a fundamental component of the UK's society for generations. Having a functioning parliamentary opposition is a pre-requisite to drawing attention to these plan and seeking to change them. My contention of late has been that this opposition has not been supplied under Jeremy Corbyn's leadership and that this has been his fault.
The second reason for concern is that I think that the whole fabric on which successful change in the UK political environment has been built has been the democratic process. To pout it bluntly nothing but political power secured through the ballot box has been able to challenge the power of capital. Those on the right who are open on this issue call this the tyranny of democracy. By this they mean that democracy has given a majority who own little capital the power to make claim on that capital through tax and regulation to make sure that some of it at least is used for social good. Capital has, of course, fought back, which is the whole tax haven story in essence. But the reality is that it has been unable to do so as long as democracy, and democracy alone, has a popular legitimacy to constrain its power. If that legitimacy is threatened, and I think it is, then the ability to constrain the power of capital will be foregone and with it nearly two centuries of struggle to bring it under some form of control.
Third, the phenomena of what is happening is in itself interesting. As a political economist I am interested in the interaction of ideas on the economy, politics, law, sociology, history and philosophy and how they explain what is happening in our society. I am not afraid of taking positions as a result. Nor am I worried about becoming a participant in the process of change: I see the relationship between the observer and the observed as active, fluid and not only necessary but essential. This is why I offer ideas that have been and are being used in the same process that I observe and comment upon. This does not make me neutral in the comments I make but in saying so I am only making explicit something that is always true: as a matter of fact there is no such thing as neutral comment.
What that means then is that if this blog appears to be comment on Labour leadership issues that happens to be because I think the issue is important.
It's important because this country needs a functioning opposition and it has not got one.
It is important because the struggle to control Labour is about something much more than the supposed claim that this is socialism against neoliberalism. The policy platform Owen Smith has out forward is objectively way to the left of anything Labour has presented for years and in many senses just as radical as those policies of Jeremy Corbyn's that can be identified. Labour's politics have, I think, shifted to the left for the time being at least, come what may. But if there is still a clear and passionate difference then there is more to the issue than mere left v right argument. As I have suggested, I think this is in a very real sense a power struggle with the structure of parliamentary democracy itself. This may appear reasonable: that democracy has, because of the hegemony of neoliberal thinking for more than three decades come to be seen as a mechanism for what many rightly see as an oppressive ideology that has created considerable social harm, but I would argue that the anger is misplaced.
And that issue important because there appears to no plan to fill the void that the attempt to undermine the role of parliamentary opposition is creating and this, quite astonishingly and apparently mostly unnoticed to those partaking in the debate, is letting a government that should be held to account entirely off the hook.
In all this I have a strong feeling of déjà vu. I recall the heady days of Occupy only a few years ago and the hope that inspired and see some similarity with what is happening now. That was a movement without defined goals: indeed, that was much of the criticism made of it. When it eventually adopted a list of demands they were in many ways those of the tax justice movement. I, of course, welcomed that, but once that happened the question became how these could be delivered and for all sorts of reasons the role of Occupy faded, but tax justice did not.
Putting that in the current context I am worried. It's been my experience as a campaigner who has, I think, enjoyed some success, that being opposed to something is not a sufficient condition for change to take place. Tax justice only worked because we were for something, and could always say how to deliver it. So we demanded accountability for multinational corporations, and offered country-by-country reporting as the way to do it. We demanded transparency for tax havens and automatic information exchange was the way to do it. And so on. We, in other words, defined a problem, created a solution, made a demand and have negotiated our way towards delivery.
I cannot see that pattern in what is happening in the movement around Corbyn. In fact I see anything but that. I see a rejection of the idea of specific demands. I see no policy solutions being presented. And so, right now, I see no way demands can be met. As a campaigner that looks to me like a disaster in the making.
Of course I share the view that neoliberalism needs to be challenged: I have done so relentlessly. Read The Courageous State.
Of course I also share the view that democracy needs to be changed: I want PR and broader account accountability. I wish Corbyn shared that view.
And of course I believe in a radical change in economic policy. That is what the Green New Deal has always been about.
And I believe in social justice. Read the Joy of Tax.
But this requires a plan, and a delivery mechanism and strong leadership.
I hoped Jeremy Corbyn might have provided that. No one is more disappointed than me to find he cannot, but the sad truth is that he can't, and nor can those around him: the necessary skills to combine vision with workable ideas that can be coherently presented in a way that will ensure detailed management can be delegated to a team who both understand what they are meant to do and what their role in both delivering and communicating it might be is not present.
And now when that has become obvious - because of the revolt of the PLP who needed that plan to do their work and did not get it - the backlash has been against the PLP and not against the person who failed to lead it, which was his primary task.
That does not mean the PLP is faultless: far from it, there are clearly those within it whose role in supporting a neoliberal agenda permits reasonable questions to be asked, as I have done, many times. But that does not mean that making the work of the PLP nigh on impossible, as seems to be the intention, is any solution. Nor is questioning whether democracy has a continuing role when there is no viable and in any way potentially legitimate alternative being offered by those seeking to destroy the effectiveness of the opposition within the existing structure of government in any way reasonable, and yet I perceive very strongly that many in the Corbyn camp (for want of a better term) do now pose that question of democracy without having any suggestion as to an answer.
And this is what worries me, and why I have focussed on this issue. The structure of power that can deliver change has to be of interest to anyone who wants to effect change for social purposes. And all I can see right now is a process of destruction of the best and so far only effective mechanism for delivering alternatives in society on behalf of those without economic power that I know of.
So I opt for an explicitly parliamentary route to delivering the best available policy. I am sure I will not agree with all the policy Owen Smith will present. I suspect he won't either: leadership involves embracing views that are not your own.
And I opt to maintain parliamentary democracy in which MPs are representatives and not delegates.
I do so noting that I want parliamentary reform.
And I do so noting that there is in power a government that will do all it can to prevent that reform and that must be displaced from office in the existing system if reform is to take place.
I do not think undermining the Labour parliamentary process, as has happened, can in any way help that process of change.
I wish the Labour leadership we have had would have shown that it was aware of the compromises needed, on electoral reform, on cross party cooperation, and so much more that might have made viable change a possibility that people could have united around instead of promoting a populism that threatens its potential delivery. But it did not.
And I do so noting that to question democracy at this moment is to throw away the only way change can really be delivered.
Which is why I believe that on an evidence base those supporting Jeremy Corbyn are poor party politicians, poor democrats (at best), poor campaigners and poor defenders of those in whose interests they claim to act. And because some disagree this blog appears to be a Labour Party discussion board.
But I assure you, the issues are much bigger than that.
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:
You’re prejudging the issue of Corbyn’s “ability to lead”. In the first place he has hardly yet been given the chance in the traditional sense. Kinnock was allowed to lose two elections before being replaced, but in these days of instant gratification Corbyn has not been given anything like the benefit of the doubt from day one.
His style of leadership is very different from the usual “do what you’re told or I replace you in an hour”, which has already led to one MP returning to the shadow cabinet. He is trying inclusiveness, kindness, forgiveness even, and this really is a new idea in British politics.
While it may yet work, it won’t work overnight. His many hundreds of thousands of supporters know this and it’s one of the reasons for that support. It takes 15 years to become an overnight success don’t forget.
Secondly, the analogy with Occupy is a false one. They were never a long established political party led by a man of principle. They were as you identified “rebels without a clue” and no defined goal whereas the Labour Party now have both. What they lack is socialist MPs to take the fight to the country but with the likes of Clive Lewis and Richard Burgon they are getting there.
I just hope it’s not too slow, but the leadership contest may well accelerate matters now that 85% of the CLPs who have expressed an opinion have gone so in favour of a true socialist.
So we should wait until 2030?
He will be well until his 80s by then
Get real
And realise he is not the Messiah
No he is not the Messiah , just a naughty boy!
I guess that one was inevitable!
This “style of leadership” has a name:- Anarchism.
It has respectable credentials as a political phhilosophy (I’m not talking about its bomb-throwing caricature), a long history and a substantial literature.
But its record in the real world is, by and large, appalling. Both as regards the propensity of those attracted by anarchism to be unable to agree with each other about anything of remotely practical import, and the sort of murderous behaviour which its followers have seemed all too ready to direct against political opponents. Read any history of the Spanish Civil War for plentiful examples of both of these tendencies.
Ask yourself: how can an Anarchist regiment successfully fight an enemy one if every soldier is as entitled as every other to decide whether or not to obey the commands of a commander (which must be approved-of by all)?
Does this sound familiar…?
Homage to Catalonia, whilst admittedly not a history, is a contemporary account of the Spanish Civil War. It portrays anarchism quite differently to your description.
Your description of proponents who are “unable to agree with each other about anything of remotely practical import, and the sort of murderous behaviour which its followers have seemed all too ready to direct against political opponents” would be more appropriate for neoconservatives or radical islamists.
Corbyn’s had ten months which included the most important vote we’ve had for decades. He’s failed his probation. Out!
Despite his many faults, it is quite wrong to lay the blame for BREXIT on Corbyn. The conditions that led to the BREXIT vote had been germinating for much longer, during much of which time the Labour party was in Government.
Labour could have done much more to make a positive case for Europe whilst in Government, both at home and in Brussels.
But he did nothing prevent a Brexit vote
And he can be blamed for that
When it comes to MPs, they are all to blame (the ‘left’ included) for the neoliberal agenda going largely unchallenged up till now. Some of that failure could be down to self interest (see a bandwaggon, jump on, don’t get run over) But most of it is down to financial & economic illiteracy. Whether you see MPs as representatives or delegates, they should have to know their stuff on the crucial questions of the economy & the money system:
– What is the difference between money & wealth?
– Where does money come from?
– Do we have to ‘live within our means’, & if so, what exactly are ‘our means’?
All absolutely basic economics that most MPs (both sides of the House)are clueless about. Thanks to the election of Corbyn (IE the election of, not Corbyn himself)the forming of a mass movement & the imput of ideas from people like yourself, there has started a process of mass education. It’s only just started, but surely it’s all to the good if financial & economic literacy become prerequisites for MPs to keep their jobs. Whether they get deselected or unelected, they’ll only have their own inadequacy to blame. Where does power lie? In knowledge.
You think I’m not trying?
John McDonnell is not to blame at all, nor were Michael Meacher and Austin Mitchell, but they were overlooked by the masters.
But I agree with you that MPs owe it to us all to have some competence with economics. Even those with an economics background or serving on the (Shadow) Treasury team have no idea of the role which land plays in the ‘real’ economy.
I’ll risk investing the time in a comment in the hope that Momentum activists are not permanently banned from your blog.
You seem to me to be seriously misunderstanding the debate around representative parliamentary democracy. To my knowledge, nobody in Momentum is proposing abolishing this. If you have evidence that indicates that we are, then please share it, as I can then take that up and challenge it.
Instead, there is debate around the process through which the party should select its candidates for representative elections. Under the Kinnock/Blair model, it is extremely difficult for a local party to choose an alternative candidate to an incumbent MP, while in vacant seats candidates with no local standing were often parachuted in by the centre and nepotism has increased. Under the alternative model, those wishing to be selected as the candidate would make their case to the local party, as would an incumbent, and the choice would then be made on knowledge of the candidates’ records and their performance in the selection process. If an incumbent was not chosen as the Labour Party candidate, then s/he would of course have the right to stand as an independent or even for another party. The final choice of course rests with the electorate.
I don’t understand why you see the ‘job for life, then give it to my relative/friend’ model as the essence of representative democracy. Or what your objection is to a democratic process in which party members can assess an MP’s record, not just Parliamentary votes but also visibility and effort, rapport with constituents and local party, speeches, commitment to local or other causes, expenses or other issues, etc. I would find it very helpful if you could explain your preference here.
I do not agree with you about what is being proposed: that is the issue
I have given my reasons why: I will not repeat them
I have no problem with accountability but if you want MPs who can develop deep experience and expertise then you need to let that happen
The whimsy of an organisation like Momentum is a threat to that
So too is Progress, I would add
And I happen to think the central party must have a say. It is there for good reason. Militant was not labour’s finest hour and the aim is a single workable party in parliament
PPCs must be centrally approved before standing locally at the very least in that case
I agree with central approval — by a democratically elected NEC — of PPCs, whether sitting or new. Something like this already exists at a local level: when my branch chooses its candidate for next year’s council election, we will have to select from a panel approved by a city-wide body elected from constituencies. Some branches abuse this by automatically reselecting existing councillors but my branch will invite all members of the panel, including the current councillor, to apply, then we shall consider each on their merits. That’s all I’m asking for at a Parliamentary level.
I have read most of what you have written recently on Labour looking for hard evidence that Momentum is a threat to representative democracy. But I can’t find it. It’s all ‘perception’ which — in the absence of evidence — is just another word for prejudice.
I agree policy is underdeveloped, although no more so than a year into Ed Miliband’s leadership. I’m very keen to advance the policy debate in Momentum and the wider party, if only people inside and outside the party would get off our backs and let us get on with it.
Try opposing JC and see what happens
Labour can only govern in conjunction with the SNP. This isn’t Corbyn’s fault. It happened before Corbyn became leader.
About the only way I can see of breaking Tory hegemony is a progressive alliance of non-Tory parties. The parties would agree not to compete in a general election. A foundational agreement of such an alliance would need to be to change the electoral system to PR, and then hold new elections. Without such an agreement, the parties would reasonably refuse to withdraw candidates in constituencies they might win.
At that point, we might end up with a more representative democracy. It’s not going to be great (bolsters UKIP, more difficult to get decisions through parliament, and so on). But I think it would be better than what we’ve got.
Indications are that Corbyn and supporters are onboard with such a plan. For example, Clive Lewis is explicitly advocating several of the details. One of my concerns about Owen Smith is that Smith will actually try to win a UK majority for Labour. I don’t think it’s possible via the UK’s electoral calculus. It could lead to an even longer period for Labour in opposition, quite possibly with loss of seats in the North of England. I think this is a horrible scenario.
The only way I can see that an old-fashioned Labour FPTP victory might happen is if support for the Tories collapses dramatically (not impossible). In this scenario, it wouldn’t really matter who was Labour leader — that person would become PM by default. The result would be a flaky coalition with the SNP, similar to the 2011 ConLibDem grouping. Unless the Tory collapse favoured UKIP, that is. In such a circumstance we’d get a Tory-UKIP-SNP grouping.
External signalling for Labour (for now) must be that Labour can win a FPTP election, and that Scotland will be regained. It’s very unfortunate that some in the PLP are using the mismatch between Labour’s outward facing strategy, and what must be their internal discussions, to sow divide in the party. Either those people don’t realise that the UK is on the brink of fragmenting, or they’re stirring up trouble in the hope of personal gain within the PLP. It’s difficult to read it any other way.
It might be best if Labour splits. If the divorcees can agree on a progressive alliance plan to switch the country to PR, and the switch to PR actually happens, then the Labour split wouldn’t really matter. In fact, I think it would lead to a better structure under PR. British politics would be healthier with a centrist party, combining perhaps with the LibDem rump, somewhere between the Tories and socialist Labour.
An interesting analysis (I found it via Clive Lewis twitter feed). From the appropriately named LabourPains group!
http://www.labourpains.group.shef.ac.uk/labours-crisis-and-the-end-of-the-two-party-system/
I particularly enjoyed this possibly overly harsh assessment of many in the PLP:
” Within the Labour Party, the membership have made clear their desire for the party to put forward a progressive programme. However, it is abundantly clear that the vast majority of the current parliamentary party are just not personally, socially or intellectually suited to the task of representing even a moderately left-wing party or its key constituencies in the early 21st century. Almost all of them were selected as candidates and trained as politicians by the machinery established by Peter Mandelson in the 1990s, the key objective of which was to select and train parliamentary representatives who would never behave in any way likely to offend powerful financial interests or their agents. This was a key element of the project to re-brand the Labour Party as ‘New Labour’, a novel type of political formation in which most of the traditional apparatus of party democracy would be bypassed, the authority of the leadership being guaranteed by its control of the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP ) and its exclusive access to key media channels. “
I had read it
I do not accept that it is true by a long way of all PLP members
I think it is of some
This may be where some of the ‘devil’ is. In the last few parliaments MPs have been elected for the first time who have been immediately placed in senior positions many of whom were special advisers under well-known New Labour bigwigs. This also happened under Ed Miliband, under the Coalition, and now under this new administration.
I realise a modicum of this occurred in the past but I sense that today’s way of doing it is different so much of degree that it has changed into a difference in kind.
This is why May’s destruction of Osborne was so emphatic. His manipulation of the lower reaches of the govt. was so transparent that he had to go in order to clear out his network. This may also be one more reason why Cameron and Osborne called Blair the ‘Master’ as his control over the Labour Party was so efficient for the NL project in just this manner.
So this is a long-winded way of saying that controlling the choice of ‘some’ Labour Party PPC’s was all it took and why the tension between Clive Lewis’s views and the ‘parliamentary road’ has become so extreme. The parliamentary road was never supposed to be this elitist and because it has been strained further than it was ever meant to go it has become and has looked so exhausted. This has caused a space to build up, a vaccum, into which something different has moved. I think it’s still sufficiently unclear what that is just to give up before it has ‘matured’. With four years to go until the next election it should be given another two years and then we’ll see.
Now back to my obscurity. Keep up the great work Richard.
I accept that in this area candidate choice has been poor, to be kind
The skill base has been far too narrow and too nepotistic
Just a minor detail about Occupy. In its original form, Occupy had several characteristics of an anarchist movement. A hallmark of such movements is that they don’t make lists of demands. The reasoning is that to make the demands legitimises the extant power structure.
Instead, the desire is for the power structure to dissipate. So, when people in power say “What do you want — where are your demands?” the response comes “We want you to leave”. There is nothing else. The people formerly in power can keep their cars, fancy houses, pleasant lifestyles and so on. But they have no entitlement to the power over others they previously exerted.
There’s a simple analogy to a burning house. If someone’s house is on fire, you don’t need to outline a strategy for getting people out, extinguishing the fire, rebuilding the house, and so on. It’s enough to point out that the house is burning. This is essentially what the Occupy movement did.
Those involved with the Occupy movement would argue that the strategy was successful. The 99% versus 1% idea is now mainstream (despite the genuine figure being an even more alarming 99.9% versus 0.1%). This goal was achieved very quickly. It’s possible to argue that the Corbyn election was similarly successful, in that it smashed the cosy consensus of neoliberalism which had overtaken British politics since Tony Blair was elected.
Many will argue that these tactics don’t go far enough. Simply pointing out a problem does not lead to a solution. This is the basis for much of the criticism of Corbyn. It’s a fair criticism. But the counterargument is that Corbyn could do a lot better if he didn’t have to cope with infighting from a PLP which doesn’t like the new direction. We’ve not seen what would happen in that scenario.
So again, and for a different set of reasons to those given in my previous comment, I’m in favour of a Labour party split.
But Occupy did issue demands
But it did not offer solutions
Tax justice campaigners had to do that
And right now Corbyn is issuing demands but no solutions
And that’s why he too will fade
But in his case damage will linger
Occupy I. That sense knew its limits and succeeded
Maybe the original Occupy movement created enough political space for tax justice campaigners to gain some traction. That would be worthwhile in itself.
I do agree that Corbyn needs to offer a detailed policy outline. Hopefully Corbyn will do so over the course of the election campaign.
You have the ordering wrong
We already had the traction
>To pout it bluntly nothing but political power secured through the ballot box has been able to challenge the power of capital.
Political power secured through the ballot box has never been achieved and never will be achieved without substantial institutional support. Labour floundered for years because their main institutional backing – unions – also floundered. It only picked up steam again when it abandoned them and started taking money and support from capital.
Corbyn’s support hinges upon Momentum and the Unions.
>It is important because the struggle to control Labour is about something much more than the supposed claim that this is socialism against neoliberalism. The policy platform Owen Smith has out forward is objectively way to the left of anything Labour has presented for years and in many senses just as radical as those policies of Jeremy Corbyn’s that can be identified
This is a man also used to claim to share the exact same policy platform as Tony Blair (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1522032/No-welcome-in-these-valleys-for-Labour.html) and now chameleonically claims to share the same policy platform as Corbyn.
He also now enjoys the support of the neoliberal wing of the Labour Party who recruited him from a job as a corporate apologist.
I like his platform but I’m 90% convinced he’ll break most of his promises if he saw any real power. The apparent contradictions in his platforms/actions will also lead to the press making easy mince meat of him.
>I cannot see that pattern in what is happening in the movement around Corbyn. In fact I see anything but that. I see a rejection of the idea of specific demands.
I see a number of specific excellent policies of his which are sadly just never discussed:
* 10 pound living wage
* Reduce tax relief for companies
* Introduction of development grants (the North could really do with this)
* Introduction of a Land Value Tax (probably the most unappreciated policy of his, one that you support and one that you won’t see the pseudo-left touch with a barge poll).
* Printing money to finance spending, especially on house building.
Should I boringly point out he seems to have abandoned People’s Quantitative Easing and never offered LVT?
Or remind you that by adopting a fiscal budget rule he embraced austerity
Probably not: you won’t listen anyway
Or has it made the neoliberal consensus even cosier?
I mean, if Corbyn is going to be the electoral disaster he looks like he’s going to be, so to will the ideas he represents.
As Corbyn falls, so to will anti-west socialism.
And then we get another Tory government.
And then we get another ‘reformed’ (neoliberal) Labour Party.
Neoliberalism us dying come what may
Richard
I’m not going to repeat what I have already said on another thread, but I will say until Corbyn became party leader Owen Smith played little or no part in opposing Neoliberalism. Yet you now suggest the party, which you admit is now on the left, should elect him leader.
You rightly say the LP has moved to the left but fail to add that is mainly because of the 2015 LP leadership campaign which Corbyn won easily, after which socialist values once again acceptable in the party. Again Owen played no part in this as he worked for another candidate.
(By the way, far from calling to account and demanding accountability from a multinational corporation he became its PR man, which is something completely different from the work you did with the accountancy firm you worked for)
You say you opt to maintain parliamentary democracy in which MPs are representatives and not delegates,fine, but the downside of this today is the majority of those MP’s believe it’s the neoliberal way or no way. Hence the coup against the party leader. I cannot see anything within Owen Smith’s past which would make him capable of standing up to such a howling mob of LP MPs which undoubtedly have the mainstream media behind them. I simply do not believe he could or would.
If Corbyn loses it will be back to business as usual as far as Labour MP’s are concerned, and why wouldn’t they when they are amongst the small minority who have benefited from neoliberalism.
I wish you well and admire the work you do but on this issue you are dangerously wrong.
Mick Hall
The only danger are those to democracy that Corbyn represents
And the party did not go left because of Corbyn
The party has gone left because people want it to
That is why it will stay there
Another danger is this awful cult around Corbyn
As I have said before he’s no Messiah
Regrettably he does not also have leadership skills
I’ll tell you what I think that J.C. has and it would do his rivals a power of good to know it. His ‘cult’ is strong for good reason and resentment of that won’t make it any weaker. He also retains a broad base of support beyond the (alleged) cult level. Nobody else, Labour or Tory, has that.
His supporters are not merely attracted to his leftism or policy ideas, they are drawn to his integrity and his style. The not-so-adversarial, low key, non-technocratic style – combined with someone who means what he says. He’s clearly not a machine-man and increasingly, in today’s world that’s priceless. Sanders has a similar thing going in the US, but not as low key.
I am not going to argue for him as an administrator, your mind is made up about that and you may be right but I will note that there is irony in the fact that the PLP dumped him on a charge of “incompetence” and then botched their own rebellion – which you yourself described as “a cock-up”. They too, have a case to answer and the sooner they answer it the better, for their sakes at least.
You are an author who is great on issues and information but your reply to Mick Hall shows that you do not understand conflict within the context of close rivalry. In that one short reply you have needlessly antagonised the followers of a leader that retains considerable popular support, you have denied that leader any credit where at least some credit is due and exaggerated the accusation against him.
That sort of approach, the tone of it, is inconsiderate and far from persuasive. For some it would also appear to be inappropriate (if not downright confusing) given that this leader and his ‘cult’ are people that you yourself supported until quite recently.
I gave Corbyn a lot of credit
It was unjustified
And I am deeply distrustful of the Corbyn cult
Which I never supported
I was happy for him to use my ideas
Except he proved unable to do so
Among many other things
“… a howling mob of LP MPs…” ?! WOW – how did I miss that?
You say “It’s been my experience as a campaigner who has, I think, enjoyed some success, that being opposed to something is not a sufficient condition for change to take place.”
Maybe that’s true in the case of Corbyn, but the result of last month’s referendum would suggest that it’s not always true.
Fine sentiments Richard, but with Corbyn having won 82% of CLP nominations I worry they may be seen as slightly self aggrandizing.
The ‘tyrannous’ public are rightly tired of politicians of all stripes so it’s no surprise modern consensus calls for new ways of working. Corbyn may be old world posturing, but Owen is old guard.
I would be really keen to explore what conditions you would agree to in order to work with Corbyn again in the future.
Surely you agree that one should never say never in politics.
He has to adopt a radical, non neoliberal economic policy
And show he understands it
he’s a long way from there right now
If was actually a left winder it would help me a lot
Please explain in what ways the economic policy being offered by Owen Smith is “radical non neoliberal” while that being developed by Corbyn and McDonnell is not?
I’m beginning to wonder if these posts are about the same Labour Party that I am a member of.
McDonnell has committed, wholly unnecessarily, to a balanced budget
I have not heard Smith say he is
I will make the same criticism if he does
All I heard was the word borrow though
Thank you for your reply.
I admit that my hope biases my view, but I do wonder whether Corbyn and McDonnell used their expectation of a PLP coup to ensure that the Labour party shifted to the left before they personally committed to any Green New Deal and been skewered for their idealism by the right of the party.
I’m sure you have your own view that is better informed than my own. But we all need hope. I am at least encouraged that you didn’t completely rule out working with Corbyn if he does win.
And to remain naively optimistic, at least his poll ratings can only improve as we come closer to a general election.
Regards,
Is there a glimmer of hope here? I did watch Corbyn say this to Cameron, but forgot it due to all of the recent upset. But Corbyn shows here that he has no faith in the New Keynesian fiscal rules after all.
Read the short quote here –
http://www.cityam.com/244891/pmqs-today-jeremy-corbyn-pressures-david-cameron-admit
But he adopted one…
Citydreams,
Which opposition leader improves their poll ratings as the election gets closer?
Opposition is a time for parties to lead in the polls so that when the election comes and people start to think the governing party isn’t all that bad, the lead is sufficient enough for the opposition party to win.
To say that ‘it’s all got to go up from here’ at a time when he should be almost peaking in popularity is utterly, utterly naïve.
Hope is no great thing if it leads to the blindness which causes a fall.
Richard – this risks being a false promise. I believe that you genuinely want the Labour Party to offer effective opposition to the Conservatives, and that you think making the current system work to achieve that is what is important in the leadership contest.
My perspective from outside mainstream politics and outside the Labour Party is that people will settle for nothing less than substantial change. If there is a perception that the Labour Party is not willing to challenge the current establishment then it will be abandoned by both the liberal middle classes and the “left behind” working classes. There is no point being an effective opposition if you don’t offer hope of change.
I honestly don’t know what to make of Corbyn and Smith but I can see that the current structure of the Labour Party is not working, it leaves the membership permanently in conflict with an unresponsive PLP. I understand the frustration of MPs but I think most people perceive that they are currently acting in a completely counter-productive manner at a critical time in the history of this country.
The solution is to offer real change and I fear that the Labour Party is not going to do this regardless of who the leader is. Do you think the Labour Party can and will continue to change?
I agree with you
But the change that is offered has to look credible and deliverable
JC never cam close to looking either of those after assuming office
Will Smith be as good as JC’s one time promise? I do not know
I know he is the only option left
But because I know him one I am happy to work with
From outside the LP it is difficult to tell whether JC was really as bad as he is being portrayed. I’m very suspicious of the tendency of the past 30 years to prioritize presentation over substance and the desire for only leaders who are charismatic and slick. I want a leader who has vision, it is the team around him who need to actually translate this into action.
Maybe JC really can’t offer that, and can’t offer strong leadership, but I haven’t given up hope on that yet. Certainly the echo chamber of the media and mainstream politics seems to have convinced itself that JC can’t offer this but I think there are still many thousands of people who still believe that he can put forward a new vision. Unfortunately the way that he has been challenged reflects really badly on whoever stands against him and only time will tell whether that wound will heal or whether many more will simply end up feeling alienated by the PLP.
We have to play the cards we’ve been dealt, hopefully the LP will pull back together and start demanding the radical program that so many of us yearn for.
From what I saw inside Westminster (and I go rather more often than this blog might imply as this is never a diary) there was no slick presentation
Nor was their a team, largely because from day 1 there was no trust from Corbyn et al of many he appointed, which they sensed. So there was no action, and I blame Corbyn for that
Which is why there has to be change if we are to have a functioning opposition in parliament because he cannot provide it
At my CLP meeting (which went for Corbyn) there was a number of members who felt the choice on offer was hardly inspiring and decided to abstain from the final vote.
All of the members are genuinely fed up where the party is and what has been going on. Not just over the last few weeks, but going back a number years. The party has deep rooted problems that haven’t just surfaced with Corbyn. They stretch back years, following complacency and neglect from those running the party, as well as changes across society. Frankly we are in a right mess and desperately need some hard thinking, cool heads and massive amounts of goodwill.
I actually believe that most of the PLP now get it. They understand that Tory lite is the road to nowhere and the party must reconnect with its radical and progressive tradition. There are some who cling to 1997 but things have changed and we need to move on. If Corbyn has a legacy, it will be that he managed to realign the party in a dramatic way.
Neither Corbyn or Smith as leader offer any kind of quick or easy fix. Things have gone beyond one man or woman being able to bring all the divided strands together. They both have credibility issues – Corbyn’s lack of competence and Smith’s somewhat flexible standpoints – and neither may be able to save the party.
If you want someone who can unite the PLP and challenge the government at Westminster, you will go for Smith if you think that first and foremost this is what the leader of the opposition should focus on. If you think that working outside of parliament, galvanising new support and staying uncompromisingly true to their beliefs is more important, you will favour Corbyn.
I don’t believe either candidate can offer both and whoever wins will not be able to bring about instant stability or unity. We have a long road ahead of us whatever the result.
Some of the wisest words written here for a while
It seems to me that team Corbyn is more interested in creating a movement that is all about opposing free market economics.To do this it believes the present PLP is not fit for purpose and only by changing through de-selection that reflects more the views of the membership can society be changed.Whereas the PLP believes it is more important to put forward a programme that can be implemented,as a consequence the membership and PLP sometimes differ.To take one example the PLP believe we should renew Trident whereas the membership believe we should not,there’s a third way which I’ve expressed elsewhere.The problem is that team Corbyn seems to think by allowing the Labour party to split from the ruins you will end up with a party that is more democratic and therefore more electable.This may be possible but I doubt it,in the meantime working people suffer with no real opposition from the PLP because the leader is more interested in creating a movement than putting forward a vision of the future.
Derek
It is about power. It was about power when members of the PLP tried to move against Brown prior to 2010. The turning away and public rubbishing of Miliband after 2015 was about power too. And today members of the PLP say they will launch a challenge against Corbyn next year and 2018.
You are correct that Corbyn has not been good enough and that is not only because significant people within PLP withdrew their support from the opposition front bench from the first days of his leadership. And rather than advancing cleanly to a leadership election the PLP wanted to force him to resign through a period of public humiliation and political assassination.
You make a significant point about Owen Smith – that what he is saying sounds significantly to the left of what Labour has been saying for a number of years. There is a dissonance here: he is saying what he is saying and being endorsed by Yvette Cooper, for example.
Why wasn’t she saying these things 12 months ago when she had the platform and an already established profile in the PLP and recognition in the wider country? I am concerned that Owen Smith is receiving support from the PLP only because he is not Corbyn and is positioned as close to Corbyn as possible to provide the best possible (and I think significant chance) of beating him.
What then? Support for Owen as a leader without support for his statements on policy?
I am gradually moving towards a position of “a plague on both your houses” whilst the real leadership contenders remain on the sidelines.
The answer is simple: people change their minds
It us what intelligent people do
Even in the PLP they can see where they got things wrong and change
That is how progress happens
But to destroy the functional work of opposition and the parliamentary process will stop that altogether
That is happening now
“People change their minds…”
Possibly.
Or they tell people what they think they need to in order to win a leadership election, then, having baited, they switch back.
My hunch is the latter, I’m afraid.
Like Corbyn said he was a left winder and isn’t?
Ooooh, I like it!!
‘Left Winder’: (def.) A person who currently appears to emit blasts of hot air from a seemingly left-wing position, but, lacking weight or constancy, can be relied on to return to blowing from the opposite direction when normal conditions resume. 😉
And you reason for offering that is?
Winston Churchill said that all that was needed to show that democracy wasn’t a good idea (words to that effect) was a 5 minute conversation with an average voter. That may be a little cynical and could be more positively framed in support of parliamentary representation, but I can’t help thinking that those fighting over the leadership of the Labour Party are losing sight of what average voters are going to make of it all. I fear that they will be further alienated and deliver a larger majority to the Conservatives.
I an not convinced for a second that Labour looks like an alternative government or is likely to do so any time soon. All the energy that should be spent on opposing the government and holding it to account is directed internally. A great many voters will say a plague on both your houses. As a non-Labour voter willing to vote Labour I feel sure of this and that the passionately committed just don’t see it, and dream of great victories when the other side (not the Conservatives) are put to the sword for once and for all.
I would welcome a split in both Labour and Conservative parties. The old duopoly and the FPTP process that has sustained it is worn out and has alienated a large and growing proportion of the population. We need a new consensus-seeking middle that is pragmatic and willing to legislate for the greatest common good not for tribal supporters. Like most people I care less about the ownership of the railways than that they actually work. Idealogues, it seems to me, feel the reverse and willing to take us all hostage. When will this ever end? It won’t with the current electoral arrangements. This is why I am, by default, a LibDem (I believe in PR, having grown up with it and seen it deliver demonstrably equitable outcomes).
Why do people like you Richard presume people like me who support Corbyn Labour are gullible fools caught up in a ‘cult,’ when presumably you would never be so gullible, don’t you feel that is a tad insulting?
Much the same was said about Bernie Sanders supporters in the USA by Mrs Clinton and her media gophers during her primary campaign, yet when she finally won the contest and she needed Bernie’s support in the November election, they became loyal, sensible people who she would welcome into her campaign, she even went as far as to claim she has taken up many of Bernie’s leftwing policies.
There are echoes of Owen Smith here, surely?
One of the things I would find amusing if it weren’t so damaging, is the current cult of the opinion polls so beloved by so called opinion formers, and MP’s. Given the record of pollsters over the last few years one would have thought they were history. But no, today they are being used as a weapon and played an unhelpful role in the Bexit result. They should be banned during elections and referendum campaigns. Not least because lazy journalism makes them the story.
I despair when an intelligent man like you uses a poll to bolster an argument.
What is wrong with the simple facts?
I think you’re in a cult because by any objective standard (and cult members do not sue them) there is a cult around Corbyn
And I have always used this blog to tell the truth as I see it
I’ve upset a lot of people by doing so and now you
Do you honestly think that is of concern to me?
What matters to me is telling the truth and ensuring that those who I am interested in get their fair share in society
I don’t really care who leads Labour on that basis: I have worked with Brown, Miliband and Corbyn. I would work for Smith. I care that they can deliver
And I know Corbyn can’t
That matters
If you can;t see that then you’re failing a great many people
And one day you will kick yourself
I won’t say I told you so
Have I missed anything?
So far as I am aware, the Labour Party under its new(ish) Corbyn leadership has not published anything of consequence respecting a future Labour government’s economic policies.
What should I be looking out for, where should I be looking and when should I expect to see it? My usual supplier of books is Waterstone’s. They have no idea.
Given various hints that on becoming PM Mr Corbyn would embark upon a transformative project the likes of which has never been seen in any advanced industrialised society short of a civil war, I would expect to be seeing something as brilliantly conceived and as revolutionary as Keynes’s General Theory, something as comprehensive and as detailed as a Soviet Five Year Plan and something at least as accessible, well-publicised and ‘costed’ as a Tony Blair ‘pledge’.