This summer has not, so far, been a happy experience for those who want to promote social justice, which is a cause that does in my opinion necessarily mean overthrowing the philosophy of neoliberalism and the Washington Consensus.
The issues are obvious:
- Confusion over Brexit
- A new Conservative prime minister who is still committed to austerity
- Labour tearing itself a apart
- No obvious sign that Jeremy Corbyn has learned any lessons from his experience as leader of the Oppostion to date
- No clear sign that the right wing of Labour has learned that neoliberalism is a dead cause despite backing a candidate who is to the left of any seeking the Labour leadership for decades
- Poor opinion poll ratings
- No answer being offered to any of the issues surrounding nationalism, regionalism and devolution
- No obvious real sense of direction emerging on what the left is to do now from either camp in the Labour leadership election
There's nothing that will surprise most people in that list, I suspect. It's the last that worries me most though, by far, and here my criticisms are, I stress, of both camps in the campaign so please do not accuse me of taking sides.
What I do not, however, want to be is negative: I suspect I am not alone in thinking that the moment has arrived to start rebuilding from the rubble which has been oiled rather too high. In that case let's have the good news list as well:
- The world is now aware that inequality is not just unfair but positively harmful
- There is an awareness now that in equality is growing
- That neoliberalism has driven this inequality is now recognised
- The role of tax havens and the finance professionals who service them in this creation of inequality is now now recognised
- Millions of people are now saying that this technical realisation has to now turn into positive political action
- This is not just happening in one country: the sentiment is spread across countries and even continents
- The awareness of the need for change is real and looks likely to last and to rewrite the political narrative
But, and this is where the lists overlap, let me add the last buyllet point to that second list:
- No obvious real sense of direction is emerging from these realisations or the frustrations and anger they are giving rise to.
The simple fact is that neoliberalism has failed, most especially because it has not delivered growth or the economic stability that is its supposed purpose, and yet so far no-one on the left (or the right,m come to that) has much idea what to do about that fact, or what to replace it with. As many have noted, the one real success of neoliberalism was the fact that it was waiting in the wings to be adopted when Keynesianism hiccuped. The failure of the left now has been that, apart from the tax justice agenda the left has had almost nothing to suggest as an alternative to neoliberalism as it has failed. And I would stress,
I think this true on whichever side of the debate one falls on the Labour leadership issue. The policy proposals from both camps are remarkably similar, and far too timid (on which I say more, below). The debate then becomes one of competence, where I think Smith wins hands down, and commitment to the necessary process of change, where because of doubts about the continuing power of the neoliberals on Labour's right wing Corbyn winds hands down. Precisely because there are few doctrinal differences between the candidates, but there are perceived to be between their support camps, the campaign has been bitter and personal. Labour has lost as a whole as a result. And there is little sign that it has any clue how to recover as yet.
Let me put some theory around this mess if I might. In my opinion the neoliberal politician is the person who I described in my book The Courageous State as a cowardly politician: whenever they see a problem they run a mile from it and say is the responsibility of the market to find a solution. The result is that we have bred a generation of largely incompetent politicians whose conduct is based on that of the lawyer, who says what we must not do, and the accountant, who says what we cannot afford to do. Everything about the role of the cowardly politician, apart from their desire to make money for themselves, is negative. Cowardly politicians have sought power to dismantle the state they are tasked with running: a more destructive purpose is hard to imagine.
The trouble is that as yet the left has not realised that its task is to present not just a different set of policies but a whole new approach to politics. I genuinely think I named this approach correctly in The Courageous State: what we need are politicians who we can believe have not just the courage of their convictions, but as vitally, courage in their ability to deliver on them. This in a nutshell is the quandary of the Labour election: Jeremy Corbyn has the courage of conviction but limited apparent ability to deliver. Owen Smith has delivered (the opposition during this parliament to welfare reforms is largely his work) but people doubt the conviction of his support team, and so Owen Smith himself.
As an observer I see both points of view, but let me stick to reasons, not personalities for the time being because reasons are really important right now. This is because if the state is going to take on a positive role again - and both Labour leadership contenders say it should - then it really is time that it was appreciated that slogans and even timidity (of which both camps are guilty) are not enough, by a long way, especially if the public at large are to be convinced, as is necessary.
The reason should be obvious and is based on the big difference between the courageous and cowardly politician. Cowardly politicians do not require big skill sets: they need to be able to say 'no', issue P45s, pass the buck, and claim that doing less is best: the approach only requires an ability to say no to elements within an existing, and so pre-defined, range of options.
Courageous politicians face a much bigger challenge: they have to identify a range of options (itself a big skill), to then choose between them and then work out both the resources needed to deliver the chosen option and how to organise them. This is a massively more complex task than that faced by the cowardly politician. Real ability of a type virtually unknown in British politics for some time is required to be a courageous politician.
What I would also stress is that important as the role of being a critic has been during the neoliberal era that is not the same as being a courageous politician. Neoliberals critics - and this is, I think a fair description of the role Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell have played - did during the neoliberal era play an important role of pointing out its deficiencies. This is indisputable. But when it seemed that it would survive almost endlessly the critics did not have to develop ideas on what might replace it and as a consequence I am sorry to say that they did not have the courage to do so. If I am candid I think this is why tax justice became so important: as a solution focussed social movement it offered something that just about no one else did to those on the left, which was a solution focussed alternative narrative that could, at least in part, address issues like austerity.
I am pleased that it played that role. But I am equally clear that the tax justice is not enough, as I hope my own work makes clear. Rearranging the mechanisms of state to ensure sound money and finances, social justice, effective redistribution of wealth, a basis for fiscal policy and a foundation for democracy where the voice of each person counts, as I think a policy of tax justice can do, is important, but courageous politics is about more than that. Let me offer some examples, one in tax and the rest not, of what type of thinking is really required now, all of which indicate the weaknesses in the thinking on offer in the Labour leadership campaign.
Start with Labour's greatest love, which has to be the NHS. Attention here has focussed on little more than three things, which are the NHS budget and how it is to be paid for, whether the private sector is to be involved in NHS supply or not, whether the 2012 NHS reforms need to be cancelled.
The budget issue is wholly misplaced: as I have argued time and again, saying a tax must be raised to pay for a public service is wrong: as a matter of fact tax follows spend and not the other way round. Until Labour leaders realise this and say it, confidently, then they buy into the neoliberal argument of the state as a household and will never win any other argument because they are perpetually playing on the opposition's ground: they need the courage to say what is true.
The other two issues are as important though. As a matter of fact the private sector will be involved in the NHS: it will supply goods and services to it unless a candidate is really proposing the ownership and control of the entire means of production by the state in which case this argument is meaningless. In fact it's as about as meaningless as arguing that repeal of the the 2012 reforms will solve the NHS's problems because what existed before 2012 was already wholly unsuited for purpose in a post-neoliberal world. What has to be presented instead is a threefold vision.
The first is why the NHS is vital to the well-being of the UK that it cannot be compromised by its debasement by the false standards that marketisation now imposes upon it.
The second is to argue that in that case any structure of the type imposed upon it since the early 1990s that presumes that subdividing it into quasi-autonomous and supposedly competing self-accounting units is axiomatically contrary to its functional managerial needs and will automatically lead to sub-optional outcomes.
Third then, like it or not, another fundamental top down reform of the NHS is necessary in a post-neoliberal world. But that's not on offer in the Labour leadership campaign as far as I can see, and that's not good enough. Until the UK's health care is managed around integrated patient care - which is about as far away from reality as the current system can be - Labour is playing at the edges of the problem and it is not offering real solutions.
Take another example, which is rail nationalisation, which is, again, on offer from both camps in this campaign, but once more without proper justification as far as I can see. Rail nationalisation makes sense because as a simple matter of fact rail lines are natural monopolies. This was realised as long ago as the First World War, after which the UK government decided to sweep away the plethora of competing railway companies then in existence in the UK. It went for a half hearted measure in 1923; it had to go the whole way in 1947. Rail privatisation has only supposedly worked in the last twenty years at the cost of failure of one owner of railways infrastructure and its resulting renationalisation and because of a massive increase in public sector subsidies: privatisation has been a charade that has transferred public subsidy into private hands.
But what we are being offered by both Labour camps is a story of renationalisation as franchises expire: the 'cost free' option. The messaging could not be worse. First it's that franchising is valid and has served a purpose because its perpetuation is to be permitted for some time. Second, it says that there is no alternative vision for how to organise railways when we very clearly need one given their significance in national economic life and the obvious failures inherent in current models whether at national, regional or local levels. And it says there's a timidity about committing resources which suggests a lack of conviction. If that's courageous at any level I need to be told how, because I do not see it right now. To be candid, this seems to only be about changing ownership but (as with the NHS) not in any way moving the debate on what ownership by the state is for. And that's not going to answer any of the questions that those opposed to neoliberalism are asking. If the debate cannot be about the role of railways in national life, sustainability, the way we work and where, and how public transport can and should be taking us to a new low carbon world then what is the point of rail nationalisation?
Finally, take wealth tax. Owen Smith has announced a small measure on this issue: John McDonnell has a commitment to more progressive taxation. But neither has gone near measures that would really address these issues such as those I suggested here and nor is it really clear how they will address all the issues concerning tax havens that permit the growth in wealth inequality, although some appropriate noises are being made. Again then I think there is a lack of courage: the need to fundamentally reform, which is what those who are angry are demanding, is not being taken on board.
Enough of examples. What needs to be done? First, Labour has to say that it is not trying to transform the existing economy: it has to say that the foundations on which that existing economy are built has failed. I am the first to say that Corbyn is closer to this than Smith.
Second, it has to show that it understands what this means: right now I am not convinced that the left has got its head round this issue but I would equally suggest that it should not be hard to do so: the metaphor of the cappuccino that I use on occasion might be of assistance here. A cappuccino is based on strong black coffee (the state) mixed with hot frothy milk (the private sector) to which a topping is added which are the fun things in life to which all should have access. The left has to believe in the state building the foundations for prosperity: that is its role alongside ensuring that all have access to some of the chocolate or nutmeg. Everything it does has to be focussed on this, and saying that the private sector is a partner, but a dependent partner in this task (which as a matter of fact is true). The real left wants a double shot in its cappuccino: it has to evidence that.
Third, the left has to realise that to achieve this it has to massively improve its management decision making ability, because courageous policies demand that for reasons already noted. This is where, based on personal knowledge, I know Smith beats Corbyn hands down.
What now then? Let me offer these final thoughts. First, if Jeremy Corbyn wins, as seems likely, then he has to acknowledge his weaknesses if he is to win any of the PLP he has alienated back. That's a major demand, not least because those weaknesses are very real and a procedure to address them has to be agreed.
Second, hard thinking has to be done and that means something much more than John McDonnell's tokenism with his economic advisory panel which met just twice, and without an agenda on either occasion. It also means something much more root and branch than the three reviews that were supposedly being undertaken, none of which have delivered as yet, because each only focussed on the machinery of government and the thinking has to be much broader than that.
Third, it requires a recognition that management competence has a real value and some in the PLP have that: if they are willing to align that with a post-neoliberal agenda then the leadership has to do all it can to keep them on board.
But most of all this requires real vision. That's not the vision of opposition that Corbyn currently embraces. Nor is it the tepid tinkering that many think those supporting Owen Smith will tolerate, at best. It is instead the vision of fundamental economic reform to bring in a new courageous era in economic management where the state is a proactive decision maker in shaping fortunes and their distribution for the sake of all in a society.
That demands competence of an order we have not been used to for a long time. I know that at a personal level Owen Smith comes closer to delivering that competence than Jeremy Corbyn does right now, but neither has all that's required. So cooperation and team building will be they way forward, by necessity.
If that though is to be the case vision is needed. I really hope that at sometime that will be on offer. I am not convinced it has been as yet. But I live in hope because vast numbers of people need that hope to be fulfilled if their chances of enjoying life to the full are to be met. The vision then must be uncompromising. But I suspect compromise is going to be needed to deliver it. It's time to talk.
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:
Buy me a coffee!
Good grief. I thought recent criticism of my writing for being overly long and avoiding defining my terms contained a teaspoon of merit. This contains a bucket.
Long I agree Paul
Which terms didn’t I define?
What replaces neo liberalism?
Wow, what a daunting question.
As you say the system has failed by producing inequality, which by all measures is wrong.
I recommend watching this on iplayer if you missed it –
Adam Curtis: Bitter Lake: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p02gyz6b via @bbciplayer
It includes coverage of what must surely must be neo liberalisms final stage (as Rome burns, if you like), where the consumer’s wages stagnate in real terms and future consumption (that is sales and selling people more crap, sorry I mean “stuff”) is put at risk, but is rescued initially by forcing mum out to work to increase family income (and convincing mum that it’s her choice!) and then by never ending credit, now reaching its zenith as money and credit is made so cheap and available that everyone who can get it wants it.
Truly, what s the next stage?
If it weren’t so worrying, you could regard these times as exciting.
I have no clue what your logic is
Are you saying it has not produced inequality?
I’m sorry: there is no argument here
It seems you’ve made a pin-badge of Competence and determined to put it of Smith’s lapel .. but that’s it, no logic to it as far as far as I can see, you just state he deserves the badge.
Even more boggling when the vision of The Courageous State which indeed was and is inspiring seems alien to Smith and indeed any Labour ‘moderate’. Even more so if one perceives as many do that Smith’s job is not to win but to cause damage.
You are riled about Corbyn and McDonnell, and it was brewing over time, all that is clear. But over many weeks it seems you frame your frustration around the status quo context of having your politicians cooked to an establishment recipe and not outside that conformity-mould which one would expect Courage to be all about.
Corbyn’s extra-difficult task is to soak it up while trying to form an offensive. While making sure that does not make us at least myopic if not blind to mistakes, that should lead us to help him with ultras difficulty not pick up beating-sticks placed on the ground that we are goaded into picking up.
As a matter of fact at almost any level you choose to look at Smith is a more competent parliamentary politician than Corbyn, and I believe in change through parliament in which case I need to pin nothing: competent people can assess facts and he wins hands down
But I hardly go out if my way to send undiluted praise in his direction here
You however don’t notice that
As for riled? Yes, but not for me because I do not have personal ambition as a politician and never have: remember I never asked them to do anything. I am riled by their uselessness in delivery: so should you be if you care. I presume you don’t
But there’s nothing establishment about what I am saying. I am very strongly saying we need something more radical than Corbyn will ever dream of. And it’s really sad he is going to betray so many people right now
Betray? Won’t selectively nationalise/invest to grow/replace lost protections/constrain bankers + corporate rip-offs/overturn PFI culture/stop tax havens etc.
Nothing suggests he won’t – and more – does it?
Everything suggests he is being opposed including by Smith just to stop him ‘betraying’ us as the only person with Courage ever to get himself into potential position to force change.
He is at least the transition.
Respect your view, won’t question you on it after having done so a few times and with respect to you providing those opportunities. Parting shot is to re-emphasise the depth of my confusion with assurance I will always strive to keep open-minded.
I remain unsure what you are trying to say
It seems sloganeering keeps you happy
As I argue, it’s not enough
Sarah Palin is by most measures more competent than Trump, but that doesn’t make her competent to be president. Owen Smith is a better option than Corbyn, but he won’t win any elections.
As the author of two books on the solution focused approach I was curious to see you use it in this article. Did you actually mean SF or something more generic?
Anyway I suspect the PLP are jealous that Corbyn has captured the zeitgeist because of their lateness to the table. Trouble is he’s the only one who sounds remotely genuine because of his past consistency. Andy Burnham might have been a good alternative, but Benn, Smith et al are surely simply power-hungry?
I still think it was never likely Corbyn would make it to 2020 but by triggering a coup right after Brexit, I fear the Labour Party has scored a massive own goal 🙁
I admit your comments do not suggest deep analytical analysis let alone an analysis based in effectiveness of delivery, but I also confess I am not familiar with your work or what you mean by solution focus
I mean it is policy driven by an understanding of a desired outcome
I am not sure what else you think it might mean
Solution Focus is a type of therapeutic approach which focuses on the goal rather than the problem. Maybe like coaching.
I know
That’s why I used the term
I do focus on solutions, and not just problems or even techniques
SF is also characterised by a focus on ‘exception’ or times when the problem isn’t happening, small signs of the solution happening now. I was simply curious, it wasn’t a hostile question.
I found your analysis interesting and balanced. I do think that the PLP have possibly realised late in the day that they could have been a lot more courageous but they are fixated on winning the election. See, they are stuck on a goal, which is essentially a problem-focused approach. (Like the jilted lover who imagines that they can only be happy if they get their partner back). The alternative – that they are Tory-lite, is on balance less likely, but it’s hard to overlook the hostility towards Corbyn and believe it is simply his competence – he was under attack or isolated from the outset, wasn’t he?
But you’re right, I haven’t presented a deep analysis. Corbyn quacks like a Socialist duck. Owen Smith just quacks.
Well that last para made me laugh
Richard, thanks for writing this – I believe you’re right – it is time to talk. I am ex-Labour (in some ways it still hurts to admit this) and now Green. I left Labour around the time of the anti-immigrant mug. Lack of courage was the straw that broke this camels back. As far as Labour nowadays I support Corbyn, but I also agree that the message still lacks both clarity and courage. I also agree that – provided the statements made by some centrist Labour MP’s are genuine re their dedication to the cause – there is talent beyond those who are Corbynistas and, as we fundamentally agree across a variety of issues, that we should employ all the talents that the left possesses (now especially). To this end I support Paul Mason’s endorsement of a progressive alliance – and (naturally many will say) that Caroline Lucas should be at the forefront of any such alliance – because Caroline is outstanding and courageous and we need outstanding and courageous leaders. We need to work together. We should work with all the talents on the left (Mhairi Black) and enact bold change. I’d like to see yourself and Paul Mason helping Labour and a progressive alliance to re-shape the UK into a saner place. I’d like to see a clear direction – with a forward thinking economic policy – with PR, an elected second chamber and a federal UK.
I agree with all that
Still not sure what Paul meant here earlier though!
Thanks Richard – I was, likewise, a little confused over Paul’s comment. Generally, I find him very clear.
I have not read all of this yet – but I will after I’ve got the kids to bed and done the ironing. But let me say this for now…….
Neo-liberalism has failed!
But has it?
Yes – it has failed to distribute the fruits of capitalism – no doubt about that and its consequences.
But why is it still here as an idea for which there seems no alternative? Why does it endure so?
It some ways we need to reframe the question and ask ‘Why has neo-liberalism been so successful at winning the battle of ideas’?
Friends: we must answer that question first before we put forward am alternative. Because the viability of any alternative will I’m sure depend on what we can learn from neo-liberalism in terms of gaining acceptance in public life – certainly not from the faulty economics it puts forward.
Can I also say something about competency and parliamentary level? I’m not keen on overegging the ‘indispensable’ PLP.
Many moons ago I used to work for Tesco in Lewisham (before I went back to Uni as a mature student) in the petrol filling station. One night who should turn up but recently appointed MP Glenda Jackson. She bought some petrol and some charcoal briquettes and being the helpful Tesco worker that I was I picked them up for her and took them to the boot of her car.
Just before I lay the bag of briquettes down, she halted me to move a way a pile of papers that turned out to be introductory guides for new MPs.
I asked if she had a lot of reading to do and she told that yes she had but that she was also getting a lot of help to settle which was just as well.
The moral of the story for me is that the if the PLP is playing the ‘only we know how to get thing done around here’ card they and we could be sadly mistaken. Working in committees, forming alliances, winning friends are all things that can be done by anyone if they get the chance.
Our MPs are human like us – they’re not Gods or superior beings and everything they do can be done by others willing to learn and more importantly willing to stop being orthodox and courageous instead.
Must go.
Thankfully all I have to do for bedtime now is bellow loud enough to penetrate the headphones….
There’s no shortage of new macro-economic ideas and progressive social policies that would deliver a more sustainable & equal society. They’ve been around for decades. However, restating them regularly is to be welcomed.
Putting the Labour Party’s current domestic issues aside (oh, if only we could!) the main problem is ‘selling’ these policies to the electorate. The Neo-liberal ‘revolution’ was planned and executed in depth (starting in the universities) from way back, before the 1970s – when American capitalists were desperate to choke off permanently the growing power of the workforce. It has turned out to be one of the most ‘successful’ political movements in modern history. The result has been a deep-rooted belief within the electorate’s sub-conscious that governments must balance their books (how many times have we mentioned this?). It is akin to a religious ideology and to believe otherwise seems counter-intuitive.
No need to go into more detail as it’s been thoroughly documented almost to exhaustion. But it remains a fact of life. Hence, when push comes to shove, the Labour Party has always backed away from a direct confrontation on the topic for fear of alienating the electorate, whose mind has been permanently impregnated with the creed that Labour is an irresponsible ‘tax & spend’ party that has historically wrecked the economy only for the Conservatives to come back and restore order. The fact that it’s total humbug is irrelevant. New Labour was re-elected (with ever declining majorities) because it sang from the same economic hymn sheet as the Tories.
The $64,000 question is ‘how to break the mold / mould’? And I fear there really is no easy answer to that short of another financial crash on the scale of 2007. Neo-liberal principles (i.e. the Washington Consensus) are now so firmly ingrained into the popular psyche that to achieve a fundamental shift is near impossible in the short-to-medium term. And this will necessitate a unified, sustained and relentless campaign waged by all the progressive parties, in the face of opposition from the Tories in cahoots with the MSM. No mean challenge.
That’s the bad news. The good news is that shift happens. And such a campaign will be on the side of history. I just wish the Green Party was more vocal and aggressive. I appreciate Caroline Lucas does her best but she rarely gets a prime platform.
Personally I think that the most important thing that the left has to do is reconnect with the electorate.
So while I broadly agree with your perspective on a lot of the things you mention, I think it will be largely immaterial until the left reconnects with the electorate.
What does reconnecting involve? My suggestion is that reconnecting doesn’t involve primarily putting forward an energetic left wing vision (although that might be a part of it) but rather, accepting a lot of the things that brexit told us – that there is scepticism about immigration, that there are those that have been left behind by globalisation, that there is a disconnect between the electorate and the leadership of the main parties etc.
Once that happens, then a Labour victory at an election becomes possible, and implementing a vision based plan also becomes possible.
The point about Corbyn is that he is largely unable to connect with the electorate on issues like immigration, foreign policy (eg. trident) etc.
Is Smith able to connect? My guess is that he is probably too technocratic to connect (as displayed by the fact that he has basically shadowed Corbyn’s policies). But might well be a bit more credible than Corbyn.
Adam makes a good point here.
I have felt that Labour has lost faith with the British people and just couldn’t be arsed to try to win them over – especially those pre-disposed not to vote. So it tries to please its traditional base (or what is left of it after UKIP) and appease the floating Tory – an impossible task.
I had high hopes when I have heard of people going to meetings held by Corbyn. The response to these has always been positive so he/they has/have been sort of reconnecting with people at a grass roots level (on a trip to Derby, the venue was full – people were listening outside. Standing room only.
However, Corbyn’s response to the neo-liberal lock on economic thinking is woeful and the risk here is that his faulty thinking inculcates his grass root support and neo-liberalism wins again.
I like the sound of what you propose and intend to read up on the work you have already done, particularly the Courageous State. The ‘success’ of neoliberalism isn’t the only consequence of cowardly politicians on the left. The refugee crisis is an equally important failure of leadership. Most European leaders are culpable. It’s a failure that will not be forgotten by history. The body count is not going to be kept secret.
Given than Jeremy is almost certainly going to win the leadership election, we must, as you say, look to the talents of the PLP to play a full part in developing, promoting and defending new policy. I am puzzled as to why you are ready to dismiss John McDonnell’s commitment to the tax justice cause. I understood that he has been onside with that for over 10 years. Also, it would be far easier for Jeremy to be more courageous, as you seem to be advocating, if he had the full backing of more of his own PLP. Guns trained on your back are hardly encouraging. I wonder what lessons you think he is supposed to learn. Sorry, but I disagree that there is no obvious sense of direction emerging. We are in year one of a notionally five year parliament. This needs time. Those economists need to keep going. They should be big enough and expert enough to thrash out an agenda themselves.
Given time, the PLP, if they were honest brokers, acting as a united team, could make the Corbyn project work if they really wanted to. There is enough talent in the Labour Party to exploit and also showcase Jeremy’s undoubted gifts; his campaigning genius, his charisma and his gift with people. But the leader should not, in the modern world, be expected to be the fount of all knowledge and wisdom. There are others in the Labour Party who are technically more capable in specific areas. Though I genuinely see no credible alternative leaders. The synergy that could be produced by everybody in the PLP acting for a common purpose could also harness our huge army of new members making them an unstoppable electoral force; the biggest political party in Europe. We could be a million strong but for the recent PLP shenanigans.
In fairness, current divisions were initiated not by Jeremy but by other people in the party. There clearly isn’t ‘a common purpose’ at present. The PLP is wasting a massive new resource (Jeremy) which is bringing millions of pounds worth of revenue into our newly-solvent party. I feel this is verging on criminal irresponsibility. (By the way, I’m aware you are not a member of the Labour Party).
Jeremy has brought Labour to a unique moment in history. He has his flaws, (you mention them) but he has brought us here. Yet we see people in the party trying their hardest to turn new members away; thousands per day according to some reports. We are supposed to be a broad church. Yet are we spending so much time (and members’ money!) disqualifying new recruits from voting. I’m afraid this activity polarises the Labour selectorate. There are those who want democracy, welcome new people and would give them a vote. And then there are others hell-bent on rigging a system to suit their own, possibly nefarious, ends. Why get party workers to leaflet and knock on doors and then tell potential new recruits, oh sorry, you might not actually be the type of new member we really want. (You might be a Trot!) It’s just preposterous.
I’m afraid the excellent policy positions you outline will never be on any Labour agenda until Owen agrees to serve on the front bench using the talents you have observed in him at first hand. That goes for a number of others who, at present, seem to want to sulk rather than serve.
This brings me to Paul Mason who urges Owen to stop his challenge now. He reported recently that there is a second coup planned. It strikes me as a credible hypothesis. Unfortunately, that would kick your proposals into the long grass. And if Paul is correct about those orchestrating Coup 2.0, many of your ideas would in any case be anathema to them. Not right wing enough…
It is obvious to me that the coup was carried out for factional political reasons. We seem to be in agreement that (ostensibly) policy differences between Jeremy and Owen are not earth-shattering (except perhaps the Trident issue — a matter of conscience). The membership is about to demonstrate, by re-electing Jeremy, that it is not prepared to tolerate all this upheaval on the basis of some perceived personality failings; failings MPs seem to see as being on the part of the leader and nobody else. The poll ratings are viewed by most unbiased observers as the fault of so-called ‘moderates’ in the PLP; a result of press briefings leading to division and factional infighting all instigated by MPs who never had any intention of backing last year’s winner in the leadership election.
The reasons given by those who have resigned come across as, to put it kindly, a bit pathetic. Whingeing and complaining that the leader isn’t perfect (BLAH, BLAH, BLAH) demeans the office of MP. We know that dissent among MPs has always existed, whoever the leader was. Chris Mullin’s diaries, Alastair Campbell’s diaries, Tony Benn’s diaries and many accounts of the Blair years demonstrate that this is par for the course. As I am now retired, I have had ample time to read these things through – and think long and hard about them. Unless PLPs are moaning about ‘sofa government’ or ‘parties of protest’ or some other damned nonsense they never seem to be happy. Party members expect them to get on with the business of governing or opposing the government. If the PLP doesn’t do the latter after this leadership election, I suspect they’re asking for big trouble. Reselection, admittedly a nuclear option, may be the only option short of a formal split.
I am happy that there are people like you trying to point a way forward, rationally and in a civil fashion. But sadly there are other, massive issues to resolve first. Both sides have to want a resolution. I’m not seeing that at present. Party democracy ought to be sovereign. Some of the protagonists in this dispute are not prepared to accept that. They believe they know best. The majority, naturally, won’t accept that. I’m clear in my mind that democracy should have the last word. I’ll accept it. Why won’t they?
But the big problem – an a,most insurmountable one – is a leader who will not talk or listen to let alone act with those he is meant to lead
“I am puzzled as to why you are ready to dismiss John McDonnell’s commitment to the tax justice cause. I understood that he has been onside with that for over 10 years.” My observation, based on the fact that they alighted on Richard’s ideas but didn’t ask Richard, or anyone else, to help them understand those ideas well enough to be able to promote them tolerably well, is that both Jeremy and John are either too proud to ask for help on the economics or too un-self-aware to know that they need it. And maybe too intransigent or idealistic also to understand that highly moral intentions have to be translated into specific plans that can earn enough support for them to have even a chance of implementing them.
Meanwhile,the PLP, without whom J & J cannot hold the government to account under our system of representative democracy, have demonstrably thrown a hissy fit but give the strong impression that they remain, in the main, committed to a version of the totally failed neo-liberal project.
I agree with Richard that opposing the Tories is the first priority, because Labour’s greatest sin would be to allow the Tories to go on ripping this country apart. I find it very difficult to believe that JC is electable as PM precisely because, good man though I believe him to be, he is not the person Labour needs right now.
The leader Labour needs is, I believe, someone who:
has a vision of where he/she is heading but accepts that the destination won’t be reached “overnight”;
has the self-evident passion – and understanding – to convey his/her vision;
knows what he/she doesn’t know and is prepared to seek help where help is needed; and
understands that he/she will never have the 100% support of his/her team and, as a result, that compromise on the detailed route to be followed is inevitable.
Unfortunately, at the moment, there seems to be no-one within Labour who has all those qualities, no-one who convinces me that they are looking at the biggest immediate picture, presenting a considered plan for an alternative to the Tories that might deliver the power to make a change for the better.
Please, someone in Labour, knock heads together!
Thanks Nick
I wish they would
Well put
John Laybourn, you have expressed my views better than I ever could. Thank you.
Oh come off it, Richard. Your economic analysis and assessment of what needs to be done is spot on, but your grasp of politics is naïve. Corbyn is a rebel; he is not an effective leader but he presents as a man of principle in an age of corruption. Smith comes across as a chancer and his backers regard him as merely a stooge. There is a war within Labour. but it is not really about “competence.” As always in politics, it is about power and New Labour is fighting to the death not to lose it. Follow the money.
I cannot countenance an incompetent opposition
I think all sides are still thinking about internal divisions rather than building a bold social democratic program
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/news/78297/labour-rebels-‘plan-new-group-parliament’-if
Your middle section of 7 bullet points is inspired and neatly knits together the corrosive dynamics of the neo-liberal economic world.
Your definition of ‘cowardly politicians’ is spot on.
Interestingly you use one word closely associated with strong Tory leadership mythology – ‘conviction’.
The sad fact is that conviction politicians – especially those we know have made huge errors of judgement based on their ‘conviction’ such as Thatcher and Blair – have given the word a bad rap.
Infact Richard – to be honest I am heartily sick to death of conviction politicians period. A lot of the mess we are in now (econmically and thinking about Iraq for example) is because of ‘strong beliefs and opinions’.
Nevermind a ‘post truth’ era we need a ‘post-conviction’ one with the word being banned in politics henceforth. A lot of what Corbyn has been saying sounds like conviction to me when we all know that what we really need are factuals on which to base properly laid out policy (just as you have done in your writing).
My next point is about the word and concept of ‘the Left’. Is this valid anymore?
I do not think that the left exists anymore. If it does it has become tainted by the hegemony of neo-liberalism and therefore must be dispensed with in my view. The way politics is shaping up now means to me that Left and Right need to be redefined – they seem to be no longer relevant. Left or Right and even centrist is just a typical way we westerners try to create taxonomies to simplify our understanding of the world and in doing so we miss things.
My final observation is about the nature of leadership itself in politics. It is not necessarily so that the best leader is the one who lays down the law with say their ‘convictions’.
Modern leaders can work as enablers of carefully chosen teams. Is the concept of leadership in politics out of date? I suspect it is. How can one person govern a party or a country under the miscomprehension that they know it all just through their opinions? It’s bizarre. The expectation is just unreasonable.
I agree no one person has all the answers
But the idea of holding a team together is not absurd
And we know Corbyn can’t do that
We do not know if Smith is a viable alternative or not for the reasons noted
Richard, I agree that no one person has all the answers, so back to the progressive alliance. An alliance led by a cross-party shadow cabinet team that adheres to collective responsibility – not least to diminish the cult of personality, but also to allow other talented voices from outside Labour to play a role. The left believes in collective action and this should be reflected at the very top. I don’t think Smith is the answer – but I don’t think Corbyn is either (much as I like him personally). I think this arrangement offers the possibility of bringing back in those who have expressed reservations about Corbyn’s competence – it will not be to serve a Corbyn administration. A progressive alliance also offers the chance to silence any right-wing Labour MP’s who oppose this – the only choice left to them would be to cross the floor to the Tories – which would, in the long-term, be of little personal benefit (which seems to be their main motivation) – and could head off any possibility of further damaging leadership challenges. I appreciate that this is a big ask – but it is not impossible. The alliance would need to have a clear and radical agenda – resetting the UK’s constitutional basis and a complete rejection of the failed economic policies that have so badly damaged this country. A starting point could be that both Smith and Corbyn undertake (publicly) to serve. In a Compass meeting I attended both Caroline Lucas and Clive Lewis intimated that some discussions are taking place – I’d dearly like to see the pace pick up – and I’d dearly like this alliance to bring together an advisory economic panel (with you, Danny Blanchflower, Simon Wren-Lewis, Paul Mason and others on it) to thrash out a clear and coherent policy (much of which seems to be already broadly agreed on). Again, I fully expect there would be argument and debate – but that is a good thing – as long as collective responsibility is acted on this need not be damaging – indeed I would view it as a plus. It would isolate the Tories, who have no plan and several incompetents in charge of that non-plan (which fulfils my definition of an easy target) – the left coalescing would be their worst nightmare. The alliance could offer a clear vision of a route to a better country, there is the talent available, there is a plan available. Forming such an alliance would stop the divisive and damaging Labour leadership contest and focus energies into a positive campaign opposing the Tories. Appreciate we’re much in agreement (which is essentially my whole point) but I feel there is too much emphasis on a Corbyn/Smith binary option when there is a bigger picture. Thanks again for your posts.
I am willing to help if the aim is to establish a broad basis for the left within the framework of parliamentary democracy
Very good post Richard – I agree pretty much 100%. My feeling is that neither Smith nor Corbyn really has what it takes; the next successful leader will probably be someone from the 2015 intake. My money is on Clive Lewis.
We are faced with having to opt either for a Parliamentary Party that has failed historically and which would continue to follow ( egged on by the London media) the centre ground of British politics as it moved further and further to the right or for a leadership that has no technical vision or executive competence.
Back to basics you either believe that one’s life chances are better served within a society that strives to be fair to everyone or you believe that there is no such thing and that you get what you deserve regardless of your moral luck, this is the starting point. In opting for the first it then becomes crucial that the energy, ingenuity and flair of millions of individuals are not dissipated but are nurtured so that our economy grows.
We need a visionary and a technocrat, we have neither at the moment.
I agree that progressives need to develop their ideas in detail ready for action when political circumstances (over which we have very little control) permit. This is what the right wing economists did and they eventually found the chance , unfortunately , to put their ideas into practice.
I also agree that progressives are nowhere near that state of readiness yet . For example a lot of people are still content to present themselves as anti-austerity without saying where they stand on fiscal or monetary policy. This is another form of the “cowardly” or “lazy” politics you talk about it.
I hope you won’t mind if I bring up what I regard as a vital issue – the choice between nationalism and internationalism. You do not seem to me to say much about it but it was in my opinion the real dividing line over Brexit. I think you can divide politics between those who instinctively look to existing (or new like Scotland) states for solutions and those who recognise that the economic power of individual nation states is limited and democracies need to work together much more.
I am an internationalist by nature
Hence my commitment to beating tax havens and working internationally on it
Thank you for the reply Richard. I suspected that you were an internationalist.
My point really was that in trying to develop a political programme for progressives/radicals people like you need to give this issue a much higher priority than I think you gave it.
You rightly set out that Labour needs a bolder as well as a more coherent agenda. Part of that surely is being clear that international cooperation between democratic countries is vital. In the debate on the “left” I sense a kind of implicit nationalism – not so much flag waving as “socialism in one country”. I think you can see this in Jeremy Corbyn’s ambivalence over the EU.
It also means having a clear attitude to globalisation – are we trying to stop it , get Britain (or England and Wales) to opt out or manage it in the interests of all ?
I suspect that times for progressives are going to continue to be not very good in British politics since it is hard to see a quick way out of Labour’s troubles. The support of those facing similar problems in other countries can help us keep going.
PSR asks if Neo-liberalism has failed:
“Yes — it has failed to distribute the fruits of capitalism — no doubt about that and its consequences.
But why is it still here as an idea for which there seems no alternative? Why does it endure so?
It some ways we need to reframe the question and ask ‘Why has neo-liberalism been so successful at winning the battle of ideas’?”
Easy, no politician has ever pointed out that neoliberalism is a con-trick.
Where money is aka resources, no progress is going to be made by the Opposition until it properly explains to the electorate where money comes from. It remains an open goal: QE is still being created if required. So the Government and BoE have once again shown that money can be created out of thin air. Once Labour establishes that, it can then decide what the electorate can expect from a government issuing its own sovereign currency. But it needs to get across that fact. We haven’t been on the gold standard for decades. We’re now on our own paper standard.
It should be an easy sell – who doesn’t want to hear that we spend first and tax later? Only the one per cent who pay precious little tax anyway. Who wouldn’t like to hear that, either as a country or personally, we don’t need to be nearly as indebted to the banks as we are?
(A short cut to emphasise the idea might be to campaign for the roll over of existing QE – due in September I think – to be ‘rolled over’ into infrastructure spend instead. If the banks squeal then that should help the ‘where does money come from’ cause.)
If this is all too ‘courageous’ then at the next election we’ll have to campaign to get every prospective parliamentary candidate in the country from Green to UKIP, to outline in their manifesto where money comes from. After all, the overwhelming majority of everything a member of government does involves spending money. They shouldn’t be organising it if they don’t know where it comes from.
And most do not know where it comes from
I’m genuinely baffled as to why you should think a political chancer and lightweight like Owen Smith would make a good leader!
I am saying he would be better than Jeremy Corbyn
I have not set a high barrier
I also do not agree with your comments on Owen Smith, which are wrong, but also reveal a deep antipathy towards the Labour Party
As few self identify as neoliberal, its opponents are like Don Quixote fighting windmills. If we give it a different name, like corporatocracy, they will accuse you of wanting to destroy jobs. Better to focus on a way forward.
I agree with you, Richard, that tax justice can be a cornerstone. I think the message will not become clear until we pick up on MayP’s point that everyone needs to understand the basics of the money circuit, that governments spend then tax, rather than the other way round.
Once the electorate is armed with this knowledge the challenge for any politician is credibility, that they will not mess up, spend too much and devalue the unit of exchange (someone has to talk fiscal policy and convince the media). I know that Labour’s record is not worse than the Conservations, but perceptions are as important as facts as most do not bother to check.
And yes it will take a courageous politician to reframe the argument. I guess we should all do what we can to help that person or persons to emerge, regardless of party politics.
I’m not sure what all this agonising will achieve. In the modern era, it took Labour 18 years from 1979 to secure an overall majority. Subsequently, it took the Tories another 18 years to secure (a small) majority. Desite this small majority and the barely concealed fissures in the Tory ranks, the combination of fixed term parliaments, of the total implosion of Labour as a parliamentary force and of the PM’s stated intent to capture parts of the progressive centre-ground that Labour has vacated suggests that (1) the PM will allow Labour all the time it needs to demonstrate to voters its total inability and unsuitability to provide governance, (2) that 2020 will be a write-off and (3) that Labour will struggle to re-secure power in 2025.
While they indulge their fantasies and desires it will be for Labour members, TU affiliates and supporters to decide whether or not this notion of social movement can co-exist with Labour as an effective parliamentary force that eventually will emerge as a government-in-waiting. In the meantime, those of us who wish to advance and secure the implementation of progressive policies will have to explore every avilable (non-Labour) avenue – because the Labour party may simply fizzle out as a parliamentary force.
The last point is, I think, a real possibility
There’s a weird, horrible inevitability about all of this – like a really bad Hollywood movie. The members, TU affiliates and supporters backing Mr. Corbyn will have to experience an electoral hammering, most likely in 2020. But this won’t faze them; they’re already rehearsing their excuses and lining up the scapegoats. In any event, many of them would prefer a much smaller parliamentary grouping say, 30-40 MPs, with all of them being ideologically pure.
But we’ve had long periods of single-party government in the past. Generally the governing party generated its own internal opposition, often unsatisfactorily, but, occasionally successfully – until the main opposition party reinvigorated itself. As you suggest, there is a real possibility that Labour will fail to present itself as an effective and credible government-in-waiting. But an effective opposition will emerge – as will a government-in-waiting. A majority of voters will ensure it. But it won’t be Labour.
I very much doubt there will ever be a Labour government again if Corbyn wins
There will be a post-neoliberal government but it will be one that rejects the fundamental materialism of Marxism as well
We know that there are Tory MPs pushing for ‘Hard Brexit’; given Corbyn’s track record it’s perfectly possible that he would support them.
The results would be catastrophic for everyone bar the wealthy, and I find it extraordinary that people who claim to be defending those least able to defend themselves are willing to collude with someone who has demonstrated so clearly that he doesn’t actually care about those people.
In these circumstances I don’t think the Labour Party will fizzle; it will implode. At the moment, the 179 MPs who passed the motion of No Confidence in Corbyn are what stands between us and the event horizon of the black hole of ‘Hard Brexit’. All things considered I can only hope that they will carry on defying Corbyn’s edicts from on high, because the alternative is a betrayal of the principles on which the Party was founded.
it never ceases to amaze me how so many people who define themselves as “progressives” continue to use adherence to a blind belief in the EU as a touchstone for judging the sincerity or otherwise of other people’s (for instance, Corbyn’s) left-wing credentials.
i would have thought that even to the most hopelessly bamboozled of europhiles it would have become blindingly obvious by now that it is *antipathy* to the eu and all its institutions which more than any other single attitude defines a left-wing position. the eu is from top to bottom on any measure the very embodiment of neoliberal doctrine in action. and you don’t have to be a UKipper to recognise that fact: just take the case of greece.
yet some “left-wingers” go on bemoaning the outcome of the brexit vote – when instead they ought to be rejoicing at it – and castigating corbyn for having been (in their opinion) insufficiently warm in his advocacy of it during the referendum campaign. in general I hold no brief for corbyn but i think it does him credit that as party-leader he went as far as he did to uphold the party-line in support of Remain however acute – as an erstwhile Bennite – his private reservations about it must have been.