I didn't post yesterday because I did not have time. This blog is an unpaid, spare time activity fitting in amongst others, like duties to my family. But maybe it was right not to post anyway. I did write several mind maps to explore my own thinking. I suspect this was much more useful.
Let me offer a few thoughts now. There will be others to come.
Of course I am disappointed. Disappointed, that is, that we have a Tory government, that is. Angry too that a prime minister who knowingly lies is now our prime minister. On so many levels I think this wrong for the country, and that it will end in tears, as some once put such things.
I am frustrated too. That's mainly with Labour. More so with Corbyn. From his inability to even tell his glasses were wonky onwards (and yes, these things matter) he ran a bad campaign. But the fault was not his alone. Those running the campaign, from Milne onwards, were very obviously clueless as to what was required.
I admit to also being angry about a manifesto that was so obviously off mark, from nationalisation onwards. It did not reveal an ability to prioritise. That was fatal. However good bits might have been as a message it very clearly did not work.
And I am upset that others - notably the SNP - showed that it was possible to fight the Tories and win, as they did. This result was of Labour's creation then.
But all this being said, I reiterate that I am not a member of the Labour Party. For better or worse I decided for a great many reasons not to try to be an MP. I last seriously considered whether to pursue the option in 2008 - 10. For a great many reasons I did not. I think that was the right decision for then. It's certainly too late to revisit it now.
So, I remain a critical friend of progressive politics. And I make no claim to have got all my judgements right in that capacity. Although I never joined People's Vote and went to only one of their events I did, for example, perhaps consider for too long that Remain was right when a very soft Brexit might have been a better option, electorally.
But we will never know. All we have is where we are now. And that is in a very difficult place, with the left hopelessly divided. Its dogmas and divisions are going to become more apparent over coming weeks and months. Its ability to create a common platform may be tested in the extreme. The People's Front will, to misquote Monty Python, tear lumps out of the Front for the People, and vice versa. None of that will advance the interests of the people the left should be representing one iota. And I am not very interested in partaking in that fight, precisely because it will nit advance the interests of those people.
What I am interested in doing is in stepping back and asking what the left should be doing if it is to win in 2024, in whatever approximation to a democratic process survives by then. This seems to me, a much more useful exercise when I have no more interest in engaging in the Labour Party leadership election now than I had in 2015, when I would not pay £3 to vote for the candidate who used my ideas to get elected, and then promptly abandoned them.
The outcome of my thinking may nit appeal to all in the left, or right. But I am a pragmatist. Without power the progressive cause goes nowhere. It really is time it realises that. It's a lesson it has long forgotten.
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 a member of Xtinction Rebellion iirc, which is an overtly political movement.
I’m a member of the RSPB
That is an overtly political movement
I’m a proud member of both, and will so remain.
George Monbiot hit the target in his article in the ‘Guardian’ on Friday – and his blog. ‘Resist and Rebuild’ – it’s what those of us who identify themselves as progressives must do.
I will
But the effort has to be constructive
The challenge is strategic – understanding fully and deeply why this happened and people’s views and wants across the electorate, crafting, agreeing and articulating a clear, consistent, appealing and understandable position, and mapping out how to get this across and plan a route to electoral success to be able to implement it.
Instead I expect all the focus will be on who will be the next Labour Party leader (and LibDem leader, to a lesser extent), with the internal and external debate being about factions and popular appeal (or otherwise) – rather than their ability to steer a strategic renewal and collaboration to achieve a progressive movement for change and a political force that represents this.
An analogy is when unsuccessful football clubs change their manager – fans and the media focus on the apparent charisma and reputation of who they want next, rather than what other critical problems there might be within the club and the ability of potential new managers to tackle these and build all the elements that lead to sustained success.
Firstly, many thanks for all your effort and work on this blog, it is truly appreciated by myself and (I am sure) the many people who read and comment here.
Alas, all the reflection and emotional soul searching that goes with such an outcome as this is potentially misdirected. Obviously there are lessons to be learned, but the result has arisen because of a ruthless and corrupt assault from an incredibly well funded and powerful minority. The (more than) 70% of the electorate that did not vote Conservative were well and truly ‘divided and conquered’. Corbyn was the biggest threat, so drew the majority of the attack; it is truly unbelievable at the level of vitriol people seem to have for him when comparing him side by side with Johnson; almost entirely generated by a horrendous media campaign.
I have no ideological alignment with the Labour party, but feel their relatively recent political moves have provided hope and inspiration to a new political generation.
With the inevitable end of Corbyn as leader, it is possible that an even more left wing and radical movement may emerge, completely disenfranchised with the utterly sh*t political system that we currently endure.
What is crucial is that all sides (opposed to tory rule) are able to unite and provide a cohesive rebuke to the current status quo…. Namely a dictatorship run by a select few super wealthy media barons and corporations.
‘ …..a cohesive rebuke the current status quo ….’ The only way the current status quo is going to be replaced is when things get bad enough ( and no-one ever knows when that moment is ) that the Left ( or whatever it’s called by then ) have a new story to tell, and a leader to embody it, and then and only then will the people embrace it , and vote for it.
I meant to add: this is what happened in 1979 . The perception was Labour had run out of steam ( winter of discontent etc. ) . Thatcher came along and said to hell with all this nonsense, this is the direction now and so began forty years of Neo-liberalism . Evidently its time is not yet over .
Sadly, no
What is wrong with nationalisation when the alternative has so obviously failed? Is it wrong to suggest that key areas of public service should be owned by the public? Having said that nationalisation does seem to frighten people. If we’re talking about making progressive politics electable in the future perhaps sacrificing nationalisation and using smarter regulation might be more palatable.
It’s complete distraction
Nothing matters if it distracts from getting the power needed to deliver the effective change needed for most people
Nationalisation is a game for a few lefties that in the sectors that would be nationalised make little real difference to lives
That’s why it does not matter
Although the history of the labour party includes creation of the NHS, this is now lost in time and over the last 40 years and more the party has become technocratic, focusing on tinkering with the status quo rather than anything transformative, managing a settled status quo rather than challenging it. When it’s had power that is. In doing this it has capitulated to the right wing, neoliberal economic narrative. What I would really like to see is not a party coming up with policies to vote for decided centrally, but a party dedicated to creating democracy in the UK for the first time, with a radical decentralisation if power, decision making and the money to go with it, not handed out from the centre, but collected locally. I’d like to see the role of politicians changed from one of decision makers, which has always failed the vast majority, to one of administrative implementers of decisions taken collectively at a local level. The political centre should be made up of local interests not a concentration of power. We have never lived in a democracy, but we call what we have a democracy in much the same way that many countries call themselves what they are not, such as dictatorships that call themselves people’s republics and so on. If anything we are an oligargichic/plutocratic monarchy, and westminster is the talking shop of those interests, with the labour party letting the elites know how broken the downtrodden are at any given time. The system isn’t failing, it’s doing what is intended, maintaining, entrenching and furthering oligarchic interests. The labour party need a manifesto to change the system, not tell us how many more nurses we need, or how we need to insulate our homes. Only system change, shifting power away from Westminster and centralised power will change things. The tories look set to be in power 75% of the time, and can undo any good ideas because of the system we have. And this time round it looks like the tories are looking at ending elections (getting rid of the FTPA, limiting power of parliament to hold government to account) by essentially creating the conditions by which the government can act with impunity, it’s all in their manifesto. Labour have missed these opportunities throughout its history because its leaders like power – from refusing to end FTPT, to failing to decentralise, to wearing the emperors neoliberal clothes, we are now on the brink of our own place in the rise of fascism globally. No GND, the destruction of healthcare, education, social care, public space, and the rise in hate, division, surveillance, witch hunts and so on. What is happening with the use of antisemitism amd Jewish elites by the far right has happened before. And it is now starting to happen in the US to Bernie Sanders. Where we are heading is very ugly, dark, violent and deadly.
A state cannot ever make control if its currency local
That has to be centrally controlled
I disagree with your direction if travel and 99% of the U.K. would – this is nit in the slightest what they want
Helen, you make a very good point that ‘the system is doing precisely what it is intended to do’…
It is very frustrating when you hear multiple commentators calling for changes to the labour party using football metaphors about changing the manager. If football is to be used, it is analogous to one team with a limitless budget playing at their home ground, with the referee bought and paid for, against an amateur side with a scant understanding of the rules. Trying to beat the incumbent party using a conventional approach is likely to be fruitless.
Nigel Farbage managed to elevate his toxic ideology of ‘independence’ and completely dictate the agenda on a single issue. Surely the issue of electoral/political reform could be equally engaging for the unrepresented 70%, because it is crucial for people to unite and collaborate to achieve a more truly representative system.
I’m sorry, but I don’t agree
Labour needs to learn the rules if the game
I am not saying I agreed with Blair / Campbell
But they did know how to play the game
So could the real left
But it hasn’t bothered to do so and that’s its failing
The Labour Party perilously ignored what the more skilled, professional Tory advisers adroitly adhered to – the KISS principle.
That in a nutshell is precisely what the Left need to learn
Professor , i don’t know if this comment belongs on this article or another – please feel free to post it where it seems fit.
As the greatest election fix in modern western history gets it’s feet under the table the cover stories are flooding out.
Like all good lies they are mostly true! It is just further gaslighting.
The explanations of the Durham/Sedgfield vote volte face is a doozy – ‘it was down to Corbyn being a sissy because in the north they were proud to be canon fodder when they weren’t being slaves down a deadly dark hole!’ and such variants.
When discussing this weeks ago with friends and strangers, as traditional Labour voters were holding onto the AS lies about JC we settled on why?
I give you the red-wally’s Stockholm Syndrome.
——————
The victim sees the abuser as the “good guy” and those trying to win his/her release as the “bad guys”, as this is the way the abuser sees things.
The victim resents outsiders’ attempts to free him/her from the abuser.
Over a period of months or years, the victim’s entire sense of self may come to be experienced through the eyes of the abuser.
The victim denies the abuser’s violence against him/her and focuses on his positive side.
The victim may have extreme difficulty leaving the abuser, if the opportunity arises, because s/he no longer sees a reason to do so.
————–
Winning the war while losing battles is what the implaccable global robber barons and their establishment did – even as they used a ‘strategic weapon’ postal vote rigging – to guarantee it illegally. Do we yet know how many there were out of the total votes? 10 %? Quarter? Third?
—————
The cover stories will continue and be repeated by the queen and the monarchy saved. She, her heirs and the aristos who long ago stole Scotlands wealth and land will NOT allow it to be returned to the Scottish people – as they didn’t before.
To you who will attempt that independence, I say learn the lessons of the evermore all powerful masters and their weapons. The Irish got freedom, India and other British Empire conquests did … it will come down to extreme localism. Know your neighbours and friends and be agreed. Work with such natural cells across the voting population. Guard against agitators and waverers who take the silver and status, to turn their coats.
That will ensure that you know the vote is clear. And also allow solidarity when the thugs are sent in to break heads! As in Catalonia.
———-
The various talking heads on this site are great and regrouping from the mental anguish within hours – to you all – thankyou.
To you sir, the biggest thanks and long may you hold the candle for us to be guided by.
It doesn’t matter why the electorate thinks what it thinks. They do think it.
We can’ blame them.
We can only understand why they’re willing to persuade them and sell them a better story
That’s all politics is
The left is dire at selling good stories
That’s because they always create plots that are far too complicated
Yes you are right in that and I hope radical politicians come knocking at your door to understand.
That’s why I also believed the ‘it’s about the NHS, stupid’ was a good story.
But the story that won was ‘Can’t trust Corbyn’ more so than ‘Get b****t done’
That and the fact that ‘they’ didn’t set out to ‘win’ this election but to STEAL it.
I know that falls into the CT whine, but as it is said (Pynchon?) ‘just because you are paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t really out to get you!’
I do still think the status quo merchants failure to have an ‘owned’ opposition in the two party fptp system to hand over to, means that system will now come under the sharpest focus for this generation. Silver linings perhaps.
But the NHS is toast.
I think your contribution re Money and Tax is successful and will be a corner stone for a new paradigm – to get past Maggies.
I certainly learnt more about that in the last year than in my previous 40 odd of education and commerce. Thankyou.
Lets keep buggering on!
We have no choice but do that
In the new and now firmly rooted age of surveillance capitalism in which we live, the traditional media, the regulators and the journalists are out of touch, not up to the task, and have comprehensively failed the polity. The power of the algorithm is slowly going to turn our democracy into one large rotten borough, under the nose of a blind media and indifferent political class. You and I are not supposed to notice.
The real genius of this election, as it was in Vote.Leave, as it was in North East England, when he demolished the local aspiration for regional devolution, is the only campaigner who actually seems to understand the English electorate, and has the capability to manipulate it very precisely to his will: Dominic Cummings. The commentator John Crace, who has tenaciously pursued the tawdry politics of Cummings and Johnson has the measure of them both: for Crace, Cummings “crowning achievement was to install an impostor as prime minister. Classic Dom”. (The Guardian, 13th December, 2019).
Politics, as generally understood by most people, is dead. You are now just a bundle of commodity data, and your behaviour is predictable. The proof is in this election.
So the left needs to learn the lessons
That is the only way it will again
There have only been two who have done this
Alastair Campbell and Dominic Cummings
Maybe Mandelson
That does not mean subscribing to their views
It means learning the lessons
There was too much in the manifesto – even if it was great. Tories won with almost nothing in theirs.
I agree with you on nationalisation – I really think it should happen but this election was clearly the wrong time for it when the were more important things to focus on.
I note your point re SNP but not being in Scotland I don’t really know how the media looks up there. I would be very curious to hear though if anyone has any insight. Was there a massive anti SNP/ Sturgeon smear campaign in all the papers/ tv?
It seems the longer a labour leader is in power the longer and more effective the smear campaign against them will be.
Whatever people think about Corbyn, it seems to me he is a genuinely nice person who wants the best for people and this country, yet people hate him after years of media abuse.
I don’t know how any labour leader can counteract that unless a decision is made to switch leader a year or maybe 6 months before the next general election.
All leaders are subject to smears
Let’s be clear: no one had any hesitation about attacking Johnson. They did, and rightly so.
But Corbyn stuck. And the reason was his record.
No one doubted Johnson was a liar
But the links Corbyn had seemed more dangerous to most people, like it or not.
Remember most people are deeply conservative (small c)
Hi Richard, great blogg, been reading it for a while.
I think you misunderstand the nature of the attacks on Johnson and Corbyn. Corbyn’s started just before he was leader, but before he was known. The attacks have been steady and increasing in hyperbole, over the years. They are repeated, synchronised, and spread widely. They also came from within Labour itself. No-one had heard anything of Corbyn so they had nothing to measure them against. His record could have been a bonus if used correctly.
Johnson had a personality, of a “jolly fellow”before any of this. This is why they stuck to Corbyn – he was deligitimsed, and so lost credibility. Blair avoided them, by not being a threat.
Labour’s new leader can counter the attacks, by going on the offensive, immediately the first smear arrives, and the party has to attack with one voice, no gaps. This requires planning and discipline. It also requires ALL media be considered hostile.
Once credibility is established, it has to be rammed home, at every possible moment.
I have known Corbyn and McDonnell fur a long time – about 2005 on, I think
I do know
I also stand by the fact he was nit a good Labour leader and did alienate people
And it’s absurd to consider all media hostile
It’s right to think it’s job is to question
You’re making a big mistake. Labour needs to learn to handle the media and get out of its ‘poor little me’ victim mentality
The reason they stuck against Corbyn was the sheer number. I think some of the analysis Mark Curtis has done sums it up better than I could like in the link below. Considering how Johnson would tell bold faced lies he didn’t get anywhere near as much negative press as Corbyn, when he should have rightly had more.
I don’t know how anyone could sustain that long and brutal an assault and I don’t know how the next labour leader can hope to counter it. Other than by being a neo liberal like Blair, and so not getting attacked as badly by the media. And that would also be awful for the country.
https://mobile.twitter.com/markcurtis30/status/1205170891849715714
Look at the comments on the blog tonight in Sturgeon
She has suffered a torrent of abusive media
And she increased her vote
Sorry, but to blame the media is to make up excuses
And remember, the Tories also hate the BBC
It is not as biased as the left claims
Adam H asks “Was there a massive anti SNP/ Sturgeon smear campaign in all the papers/ tv?” in Scotland.
Adam, there is a permanent anti SNP/ Sturgeon smear campaign in Scotland. There are 23 dailies and 13 Sundays and of these, only 2, the National (a daily) and the Sunday National, are pro-Independence. BBC Radio & TV in Scotland is generally hostile to the SNP, so the mainstream media up here is overwhelmingly against the SNP and the wider independence movement. Most of the pro-independence news and info is to be found online as indeed is a huge amount of anti-independence stuff. Quality of online news is extremely variable, but the best sites offer wide-ranging articles, if biased to one side or the other.
My perception is that, despite this, Nicola Sturgeon is widely recognised as a capable politician, but hated by those not in favour of independence. That she has gained increasing traction against the continuous barrage of negative articles in the MSM is evidence that she and her organisation are indeed very capable.
I agree Ken
The media bias is phenomenal and proves Labour needs to stop making it an excuse
A plus for politicians and the media in Scotland was that the leaders of the parties in Scotland allowed themselves to be teased by the Scot Squad.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000c5t1/scot-squad-the-chiefs-election-interviews
But without principle, power is pointless. And if gaining power means sacrificing all your principles to get it, a la Blair bending the knee to Murdoch, what’s the point?
Who said anything about that?
According to the Guardian ‘senior figures’ in the Labour Party are backing Rebecca Long-Bailey to become the next party leader.
Since those ‘senior figures’ have just led the party to its worst defeat since 1935 I’m baffled as to why anyone thinks they are qualified to judge this. Also horrified…
The fact that the SNP did so well despite the torrent of hostility and misrepresentation from all the televised media and most of the written media is down to SNP direct activity on the ground. SNP activists are willing to go out, chap doors, appear in town centres, speak to people and generally be seen and heard. And they do it all year round, election or no election.
I think Labour might take a leaf out of the SNP’s book when it comes to reaching voters. Instead of relying on media, activists need to do more work on the ground. Obviously any party needs to have policies that are well thought-out, realistic, and will have appeal to the electorate. But the personal touch is vital, ESPECIALLY when media is hostile.
Our candidates were visible during the campaign, braving the wind, rain and cold to knock doors and talk to people. Nicola Sturgeon went everywhere, bolstering the campaign with her presence, talking to people, etc. When it comes down to who to vote for, people often do gravitate towards voting for people they’ve met, who have taken the time to listen and react to issues.
Just a thought.
To put it another way, SNP supporters believe in what the SNP is about enough to work for it
There was far too much available to smear Corbyn with, and it was too easy. I’ve thought long and hard about going into politics as well, but I’ve made too many coarse/risque comments on social media, been to too many raves, experimented with too many recreational substances. It’d be too easy for those inevitably wishing to smear me. And I wouldn’t want to drag my family into it.
Corbyn was never going to appeal to Mondeo Man. His appeal, whilst very strong amongst some, was never enough. He was electoral poison to a large % of the population.
The position on Brexit screwed him as well. In hindsight, second referendum campaign should have been left to the Lib Dems.
The candidates proposed for leadership of the party do worry me somewhat. Labour have to get real and appoint a leader that has the necessary leadership ‘appeal’ for want of a better word.
If you look at past leaders of both Parties:
-Blair- undeniably had that something that made him convincing and statesman-like
– William Hague – wet blanket, too weak, despite the tough talk.
– Iain Duncan Smith – too angry, no warmth
– Michael Howard – just a bit weird. didn’t really have it either
– David Cameron – immediately when he was elected as leader, I thought he was PM/election winning material.
– Gordon Brown – dull and boring, lacking the ‘appeal’ of Blair, but was a victim of circumstance.
– Ed Miliband – nice guy, very warm and likeable, but too soft. Too easy to portray him as weak.
– May – authoritarian robot, but had that ‘strict headteacher’ vibe about her that seems to go down well in the UK.
– Corbyn – Never a serious contender for PM. for all the good he did, he alienated far too many.
Any candidate for leader needs to pass that immediate test of whether you can picture them winning an election. Whether they could persuade people outside of their safe group of voters to back them. That judgement is one I can make instantaneously. And for the names put forward so far I see it like this:
Cooper – yes – she has the credibility and fire in her belly to convince people and win them over. But not on a centrist, war-mongering platform. Serious policy revisions needed.
Lammy – no – I like him but he has the ability to rub people up the wrong way. could be a convincing minister though.
Long-Bailey – far too quiet and considered. the Tories will be absolutely delighted if she is labour leader
Nandy – have not heard her speak enough to judge.
Phillips – forget it. big mouth & class baggage. she will not be taken seriously.
Rayner – not a big mouth but see Phillips re. class baggage and stereotypes.
Starmer – has similar credibility as Cooper to convince people and win arguments. comes from cut-throat legal background where you have to know how to win. has a prime-ministerial look and air about him. people on the centre and right would not be put off by him. Both him and Cooper are reassuringly ‘safe’ for many voters.
Thornberry – has something about her, a charismatic spark, but she has made snobby comments about working class people in the past. I wonder if she would cut through.
So that’s two, possibly three, out of a field of eight. The left of the Party will never back Cooper because of her baggage. So it’s down to Starmer and Thornberry for me. The only two in the field that could possibly win people over to be successful. To have a chance of becoming leader, they need to build alliances within the party first.
n.b. my above comments re. leaders might not be nice or PC, but we have to face the reality of the situation as to what it takes to be elected. this is no place for wishful thinking.
You’re right, Richard. We SNP members do believe in what we’re about. However, the media has NEVER been our friend. During the 2014 referendum, the only newspaper in Scotland that backed independence was the Sunday Herald. No TV media bothered to give us a fair shot. We still got 45% of the vote. We’ve had to learn to work around the media, rather than counting on it to get our message across.
Obviously the Labour Party needs to come up with a new approach and a new set of objectives. But once that’s more settled and they have a new leader in place, then the activists might want to get out on the streets and start talking to people. They need to ensure that the people on the street understand who is responsible for the problems they’re having with the economy, life in general, the NHS, etc, and keep hammering that home. Media doesn’t listen, but activists can. Even better if they are in power as local councillors, etc.
At least in the north of England there isn’t much actual hostility towards Labour itself, and it’s only recently the voters have switched. I think they’re ripe for switching back, once the focus comes back to what Labour voters really care about–and once they get a party leader with a bit of fire, whose specialty isn’t looking aggrieved and nitpicking and swithering at crucial moments.
I do think England (at least the north) will suffer buyer’s remorse once this Tory show gets fully on the road. That’s when they might be willing to listen to a ‘new’ new Labour. But accept that conservative/right wing people own most of the press and certainly are leading the BBC around by the nose, and they won’t be much help getting real information across to voters.
Thanks
The post-election polling – particularly from Lord Ashcroft and DataPraxis – makes interesting reading.
Apparently the core policies are still popular, it was Corbyns overwhelming personal unpopularity that was by far the biggest issue.
The Brexit data is interesting, it seems that Labour’s failure to come down on one side or the other was the biggest factor.
DataPraxis reckons that contrary to popular belief they’d have held more seats if they’d supported remain. Seems remain Labour voters thought they supported leave, and leave voters thought they supported remain. They ended up losing more remain voters to other parties than leavers.