I have to admit that, to my surprise, I find Emily Thornberry entirely on a wavelength with me. This comes from the Guardian:
The question now is: how do we fight back from here? The answer is certainly not to have some great ideological debate between left, right and centre. Neither is it to set this up as a battle between leave and remain, north and south, or indeed men and women. When did we stop being for the many, not just half of us?
It won't earn raucous cheers at a rally, but our starting point should instead be to ask ourselves: where is the strategic thinking in our party? Who has a proper plan for the future?
Say what you like about New Labour after 1994, and it's known that I disagree with much of what it did, but credit where credit's due: that team had deep political insight and absolute clarity of purpose, boiled down to a five-point pledge-card. It would never have voted to give Johnson the Brexit election he craved.
Spot on.
Those are the questions I have also been asking here over the last few days.
And they are the issues that need to be addressed.
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:
I agree. Having listened to Tony Blair’s speech this morning, he also makes a lot of sense and reiterating some of your key points.
He may well have done
It does not make me a Blairite
But the Left does badly need some electoral competence and it has not got it
The LP could save itself a lot of time and simply adopt the GND blueprint, breaking it down into bite-sized chunks that would be both appetising to and digestible by the general population. It’s not really rocket science. Just needs a generous sprinkling of relevant wisdom + practical experience + imagination. It probably also needs the outside input of a progressive equivalent to McKinsey – if one exists.
Inevitably though, the wretched household budget hurdle still needs to be addressed and overcome. As Ezra Pound identified over 40 years ago: “In our time, the curse is monetary illiteracy, just as inability to read plain print was the curse of earlier centuries.” After all that’s been said and written on this thorny topic over the years (and as recently as yesterday by Peter May – http://www.progressivepulse.org/society/further-to-how-money-works-on-the-doorstep-in-about-150-words) I still haven’t come across any meaningful solution, other than long-term grass-roots education and/or a sustained multi-media PR campaign which would necessitate serious funding.
Putting that aside for the time-being, surely there is now a pressing need for political egos to be dumped in order to bring the progressive political parties together into a formal coalition with a shared core agenda. Although I’ve been a dedicated Green Party supporter for decades, until we have PR my vote is always going to be wasted. Yes, it would take some doing and a lot of goodwill but the election result offers something of a window of opportunity, at least for discussions to start in the background. The challenge is pretty straightforward: how to overcome the new Tory hegemony? Plus there’s a mountain of reliable, empirical voter analysis available as a basis for policy constructs.
I can’t believe it’s not possible. There are so many decent, clever & inspiring people already engaged within these parties and on their peripheries – e.g. the Unions. There has to be some workable synergism to create a coalesced core of shared ideals, beliefs and pragmatic experience. I’m sure that if they could discard their tribal identities and ‘false consciousness’, they’d find they have much more in common than that which separates them.
As I said, a functional starting point could be the GND, incorporating some of the tactical priorities posters have suggested here. But, as all the great visionaries have said, first you have to imagine it. Although the alternative is entrenched neoliberal dystopia, any plan must avoid negative criticism while focussing on what is realistically achievable & to restore people’s faith in the political process.
If only the LP can elect a leader, or leaders even (https://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com), with wide enough managerial talent and public appeal to spearhead the transformation that is now imperative. That’s a big ‘if’ isn’t it?
It’s a massive IF
To win the leadership have imaginative positives to accentuate and do your best to eliminate the negatives (slagging off others, etc.)
I’ve been saying for a very long time now that the political spectrum can’t now be measured from right to left. It’s now very much top to bottom. Have and have not.
Britain has now become an obscenity and social justice has by all intents and purposes disappeared.
If the Labour movement stood for anything it was to address that imbalance. Not easy I know but as you’ve stated in a previous piece “meaningful jobs in every constituency” is a good starting point.
I know there will always be exceptions but the large majority of people just ant to work for a decent wage and not to be forced to live off the state.
Abolishing zero hours contracts and a basic minimum wage that takes people out of DSS top up range is a good start.
I can’t believe that the entire country has turned into uncaring tory neo liberals overnight so Labour have to get their act together and thinking caps on or we will be in for a lot worse to come
I find this Alexander Mercouris analysis at Consortium News VERY compelling. And optimistic in terms of the majority of the policies developed in Labour, its membership and the boter base, especially the part about retaining the ‘middle class’ metropolitan seats across the country.
https://consortiumnews.com/2019/12/17/letter-from-britain-why-labour-lost/
What do you say? Particularly about the roles of Thornberry and Starmer regarding their part in steering the brexit policy to where it was taken into the election.
Am I fan of Thornberry for leader? No
Am I of Keir Starmer? Yes
Why?
Simply because I believe in winning
I am really not interested in perpetuating disputes over past campaigns
The past is another country
I am not interested in it anymore
But if you are, you’re going to guarantee Labour loses again
It’s really that simple
There is no room left for the People’s Front to fight the Front for the People
When will the left learn?
I am fully onside with your efforts at pragmatism and creating a electable opposition professor. My efforts are amateur at best in trying to offer rigorousness in that attempt.
For me it’s a clear Starmer/LongBailey choice.
(Who ever has best hair!
That’s what people vote on apparently.
And no beards ot glasses.
Just being flippant – to avoid any doubt )
– It is clear that to avoid the constant attack of Labour never having a female leader – it has to pick one this time.
It is also clear, to avoid the accusation of ‘out of touch London liberal elitists’ – it has to be someone from out of London.
Pidcock lost, that leaves Phillips, Nandy or Long-Bailey?
Of these there is only one I have any faith in as i suspect the membership will hopefully agree on.
And that is?
Here’s a line that says it all:
“Every Labour leader since the establishment of the Labour Party except for Tony Blair has been the target of right-wing smears.”
He was too
The great British political merry-go-round: New Labour, New Danger – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1lNLoEcJKQ
Yes, competence. And that’s what many who wanted Corbyn out forgot, that those up against him (twice) were pretty atrocious.
I agree competence and strategy are key, but those seeking to profit from Labours loss, are those who helped create it.
Instead of sniping from the sidelines, the “right wing” should have accepted the members choice, and helped. Instead they flounced out and helped anyone they could to bring Labour down.
Had they done the right thing and worked with Corbyn, Labour would have won in2017
You ignore the utter incmpetence of most in team Corbyn
And their utter hatred of all who they thought crossed them – me included
I did not reciprocate
I can understand those who did
But no one is calling out Lansman and Momentum? The lunatics have taken over..and a candidate can’t win a leadership election without some buy in from momentum and the Labour Party can’t win an election with them at the helm.. this is the mess we are in..instead of messing around at the periphery talking about future policy etc which might appeal to the traditional labour supporter we need a party which is line with their thinking and representative of their values. Alan Johnson said it and was spot on.. the candidates in the frame won’t or can’t. It seems so pointless unless the cancer that is momentum is eradicated. Anyone who wants the Party elected as opposed to seeing it as an “academic plaything” should channel their efforts to ensure this happens.
I have called out Lansman
According to Seumas Milne I am ‘unforgiveable’ and have been for three years
That’s not a burden I have carried heavily
“I have called out Lansman..
According to Seumas Milne I am ‘unforgiveable’ and have been for three years“
Brilliant, I didn’t realise.. in what context??
Whatever the context you have been proved correct.. as a respected voice of the left why not continue to be vociferous against them?
Haven’t you noticed?
Apologies no.. I haven’t noticed, please enlighten!
Too many on the left are scared to death of Lansman
A quote I recall – from military rather than political history:
‘Defeat is bitter. Bitter to the common soldier, but trebly bitter to his general. The soldier may comfort himself with the thought that, whatever the result, he has done his duty faithfully and steadfastly, but the commander has failed in his duty if he has not won victory – for that is his duty. He has no other comparable to it.’
This is surely the truth; it is his estimated capacity to obtain victory that entitles a general to his badges of rank, his quarters, his A.D.C.s, the salutes of the Quarter-Guard, and the salary he receives.
(John Terraine, in the Smoke and the Fire, quoting and developing on Field Marshal Lord Slim, Defeat into Victory)
As true for political party leaders as it is for generals.
And while quoting, remember also Shakespeare, in King Lear:
“… you have that … which I would fain call master.
– What’s that?
– Authority.”
Bill Slim was known for talking to the troops at the front line.
According to The Electoral Reform Society this “landslide” was won by the Tories through gaining just 1% extra votes. Just that miniscule percentage change resulted in a catastrophy for the climate, future generations and democracy. Getting Labour to embrace proportional representation and to work with other parties to stop the Tories is a big ask, but it must be a priority.
At the very moment Labour acknowledged the climate emergency, they should have done their patriotic duty and taken EVERY possible step to WIN this election. Which would have meant, without question, immediately forming a progressive alliance and running on a PR manifesto.
Unforgivably they didn’t and we as a nation have, at a stroke, lost 5 whole years on the countdown to 2030.
The next Labour leader absolutely must now not only accept both policies, but actively champion them in the interests of one, single goal – beating the Tories and then enacting the GND.
Thanks
This is quite interseting too how did Laura Lidcoc lose?
She was nailed on as the next leader.
https://mobile.twitter.com/Groot66/status/1207310177780850691
I agree with Emily Thornberry that strategic vision is needed, but as John McDonnell has pointed out, given that the SNP and the Lib Dems had already decided to vote for a general election, and given that Johnson was able to override the Fixed Term Parliament act by passing a motion with a simple majority (thus rendering the FTPA rather pointless!) it doesn’t actually matter whether Labour decided to back an election or not: the motion would have passed even if all Labour MPs had voted against it.
it wasn’t a motion, it was a bill/act as only law can override law. but yes, as soon as the libs/snp decided to give bj what he wanted, only a simple majority was required
Labour has the right policies. What worries me is that a new leader forsakes these in order to win votes. We have five years to convince the public that these policies are for their benefit and start the education now. With the failure of Toryism over this period let’s focus on demonstrating where Labour is to their benefit.
It had too many policies
Politics is about priorities
It needs to decide them
And be remorseless
I agree but it has to be prepared to challenge the will of the electorate where it is not in the national interest. I have always maintained that politics is about leading not following. Especially, it needs to be prepared to educate the voters where their desires are not in the national interest or the best interests of people as a whole. We could start by challenging the hypocrites that go to church on Christmas Day after having voted Tory last week.
Only some who will be in church on Christmas day voted Tory…
Labour wanted a confidence vote followed by _something_, possibly a GNU, possibly an election. BJ would have been hit with yet another fail and would not be in control.
BJ was desperate for the general election, crying that he didn’t want one while the ink was still wet on the bill, labour wouldn’t have backed it if the Lib Dems and I believe SNP between them weren’t clearly going to give it to him anyway. Once that was clear, there was no option but to embrace it.
Parliament was in control of BJ, now BJ is in control of parliament. Swinson (rumoured to be entering the Lords) apparently believed she would be PM.
Now that Clive Lewis has announced today he’ll be running as a candidate for the Labour Party leadership and stands for electoral reform and the implementation of the Green New Deal (which will require MMT style funding to be successful) should he not be a favoured candidate for those who support the values of this blog? Any reasons why not?
Clive is a member of the Green New Deal Group.
I admit I knew he was standing.
I am pleased he is
It’s going to take some while to scrub Momentum from the LP. Militant was a bit cowboy in comparison. I note that the (probable) new head of the BoE is the FCA guy. Does that bode well, in a general way? Intriguing possibility?
If you want working class votes, btw, Emily Thornbury is completely unelectable, whatever her virtues might be in (proposed) policy terms. That said, Macron….