It is depressing to know that the left-wing of UK politics continues to be in a complete mess.
To make clear that my comments are not party political, just look at what I noted about the SNP a few days ago, and read the comments below the line there. It is apparent that under its current leadership SNP is now a decidedly right of centre party.
The Liberal Democrats did, of course, disappear in the same direction a long time ago.
One nation Tories are now just a slogan.
And just when the country is in real need of an effective opposition Labour is descending Into further infighting that can only be of benefit to a profoundly populist government whose every instinct is to abuse the people of this country, about whose fates, and even their deaths, it would appear to be entirely indifferent.
In this discussion I am taking the EHRC Report on anti-Semitism in the Labour Party as read: they have had much better opportunity than anybody else to form an opinion on this issue. I am presuming they are right.
That said, from my brief experience of working with Jeremy Corbyn, and having met him and his family, I seriously doubt that he is personally anti-Semitic. I believe him when he says he is not.
At the same time, it took me very little time to appreciate that he was out of his depth as Labour leader. That's not a criticism, as such. I do not think he ever planned to have the role, or expected to win it. His whole career was focused on a series of single issue campaigns that he tirelessly pursued, being opportunistic to advance his cause In ways that, at least in retrospect, suggest he was insufficiently cautious about those he worked with. But, within the framework in which he expected to pursue his career he could probably have got away with that.
What was impossible was for him to bring to that role the same naive belief that he had previously held that those who professed broadly common objectives could not also hold views that he probably did find repugnant. I think Corbyn found it almost impossible to believe that there were those on the left who could be both apparently anti-racist and anti-Semitic. And so the obvious fact that this is true was something he did not, and still cannot, comprehend.
This hardly stands to his credit. It most certainly made him unsuitable as leader of the Labour Party, for which task a considerably greater degree of worldliness is required. All leadership requires an acknowledgement of ugly truths, and it seems that what the EHRC is saying is that there was a serious failure to appreciate this at the highest echelons within Labour, which means the buck stops with Corbyn.
But was Starmer right to suspend him in that case? Was Corbyn saying that the issue has been overplayed by those who wished to oppose him so wrong when glaringly obviously this is true? I doubt it. This has all the feeling of being a trap waiting to be sprung, just as was that set for Rebecca Long-Bailey. She too was unsuited for leadership, in my opinion. Corbyn could have been more contrite. He could have been more accepting of responsibility. But the Starmer response was heavy-handed. And that is also worrying, because this is clearly an attempt to shift Labour very markedly to the right.
And the reality is that so far we know little of the Starmer agenda. But it fair to say that it is not that impressive on COVID. Even his call for lockdown was too late, especially if he gets high-level briefings, as I presume he does.
The position on the economy is timid, at best, as yet.
The demands for long-term economic reform to support those losing jobs are tepid. It was clear Corbyn's team got the Green New Deal. It is not clear that Starmer's do.
On Brexit, Scotland, Northern Ireland (a major failing), electoral reform, localisation, immigration, and so much else there is as yet little to really say about Labour's current stance that offers much hope. Calling the Tories scum may be justified when it comes to school meals, but anger is not enough.
Worse, in a turbulent political environment Labour cannot presume it has four years to wait for office and naively believe it can produce a winning platform that will gain support in the last few weeks before an election. This government it is now facing across the Dispatch Box is chaotic, unstable and despite its majority quite capable of imploding next year. If Starmer can't read that he is at least as naive as Corbyn.
But where does that leave those of us who wish to see social and economic justice advanced in this country but do not do so through party affiliation? There are, after all millions of us. In quiet despair might be the best description.
No one who really seeks to deliver anything but a centre ground neoliberal alternative to Johnson can take much delight in Labour's positioning at present. With it standing only neck-and-neck with the Tories at present even that limited appeal can hardly be said to be working that well. And that delivers those with real aspiration for reform little hope at all.
In fact, I feel much like the person in the US who was interviewed by Lindsey Hilsum for Channel 4 News in the last week. When asked whether she thought the US political system had any solutions to offer to the issues that impacted on her life as a black woman she was almost mocking, and simultaneously despairing in her response. And, I am sure, rightly so.
The simple fact is that our political system is similarly constructed to ensure it cannot deliver solutions to the issues that we face. Labour's dedication to maintaining the duality of politics to its desired exclusion of all others is, of course, a key part in that. On this there is no difference between Corbyn and Starmer. Both worked and are working their hardest to ensure that that views of as many people as possible are denied representation in the UK. Both have sought to make Labour representative of decidedly minority views. Each set out to alienate as a consequence, just as the SNP are doing right now, and as the LibDems once did when they had chance to do so.
I want to frame the current crisis for Labour in this context as a result. This is not just a crisis for Labour, although it will do its upmost to make it that. This is an existential crisis for British politics where, as we have already seen with the Conservatives, capture of one of our two mainstream parties by a faction is a threat to us all. This is now also being replicated in Scotland. And let's not pretend otherwise; Starmer is a faction leader just like anyone else.
In other countries this is overcome with a comprehensive system of proportional representation and by having politicians who appreciate the need for compromise to create effective government. Of course, it does not always work: no system ever does. But, it is most certainly more effective than the system that we now have, and that the USA has. In this context Labour's problem is much bigger than that which many will represent. Its problem is that it is standing out against real democracy.
The question, then, is how can this be resolved? Clearly the endpoint has to be a new constitutional settlement fit for the 21st-century, able to supply us with government that is capable of allowing a variety of views to be represented but working, necessarily, in pursuit of common goals. That's the easy bit to define.
Getting there is harder, but Scotland indicates the way. The SNP would have a singular ultimate goal of independence, although I know some doubt whether the existing leadership share that. But presume it does. Then the goal is to use the existing system to achieve that aim and then write a new constitutional settlement that does not let the SN keep the power it now has, and which actively encourages wider political participation and representation. In other words, the existing structure has to be used wisely to achieve something better. I can live in hope.
And so too do I in the rest of the UK. Labour has to recognise it has a duty to end this in-fighting. It has to recognise that it cannp0t keep the system as it is. It has to work with others to propose that new constitutional settlement that is required. It has to accept that this might then see it split. And by then, almost certainly rightly so. It is life expired. But so too is the system it is in.
Then and only then might we have hope for democracy in this country. But right now Starmer is as much an opponent of that as Johnson is. It is to neither's credit but I could hope more of one of them. Is that a reasonable thing to have? I wish I knew, because if this does not happen we are in even deeper trouble than I thought, and the last day's troubles are clear sign of that in very many ways.
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:
And meanwhile, the ice continues to melt.
The most important comment.
Squabbling Labour should be a side-show. The signs are that the rate of global heating is accelerating, with an ice-free Arctic likely during my lifetime (and I’m nearly 75 now, so it’s within 20 years) and a worrying decline both in global soil fertilities (not agriculture – present farming practices are more akin to quarrying the land) and plant diversity (the base of the food chain).
These days are bleak. I’m not sure that I want to see my century – or even to reach my late half-brother’s years.
Starmer is a breath of fresh air to the Labour Party and is the best chance of getting the Party elected. Of course he is trying to purge the hard left / momentum but it is this faction which makes the Party unelectable. In fact the best thing that can happen is Momentum breaks away to form its own Party.
You miss my point
Ben H.
What exactly are Starmer’s policies?
I have no idea what he stands for?
Looks good in a suit though.
Tell me – why does the Left have to be ‘purged’ from Labour? You do realise that that is a very Thatcherite POV – yes? Not being able to tolerate others and not being able to produce the compromise that real politics is actually about (politics is now about winning by ensuring that someone else loses bad; it’s about cementing your self into power and absolute power at that).
It’s the leader that was the problem – not the Left itself. But both Left and Right of the Labour party behaved badly towards each other and took to fighting themselves rather than offering relief from the suffering that started in 2010 under the Tories gleeful cruelty as they punished the country for not voting for them in 1997.
We know what happens when you try to fight on two fronts. All I saw was a load of very well paid people (Labour MPs on £80K plus expenses) who simply luxuriated in the fact that they could not even work together in the same party. Luxuriated whilst people of all colour, religion and class lost jobs, lost hope and even killed themselves.
The issue with anti-Semitism should have been handled differently and skilfully with a view to the potential harm it might cause the party – pro Labour Jews should have kept it out of the public eye and not weaponised so that you could not tell if it were genuine or whether it was factionalism. To say for example that Labour was an ‘existential threat’ to the Jewish community when the biggest existential threat to EVERYONE was already in Government did not help. My family had been associated with the Labour movement all my life and before, and I’d never heard a derogatory word about the Jewish community so it was news to me that Labour had a problem. And then you read that Right wing Labour factions deliberately made it harder for the leadership to deal with anti-Semitism!!
Who or what to believe!!?
The biggest problem with anti-Semitism and Labour was trying to get to the truth of the matter because so many people had a vested interest in seeing it become THE focus. Identity politics seemed to take over from the national needs that if addressed would have benefited Jew, Muslim, Christian, black, white etc., alike. And that is the tragedy of all of this – the big fail – the political cluster-fuck of the century. There is something still dark at the centre of all of this that needs a light shining on it.
The impact on HM Opposition having more to say about itself in the end, than what was happening to the people they said they cared about has been corrosive. I just cannot take them seriously any more and they will not be getting my vote until I see a marked improvement – and I mean ‘marked’ – and that includes moving Leftwards and aligning itself with the emergent new progressive ideas such as MMT, electoral reform and a genuine green agenda and resolving the issue with the Jewish community.
If Labour as you say needs to kick out the Left, then no wonder it is weak, as it also means that it cannot tolerate the Greens, electoral reformists, fiscal revisionists (MMT), nationalists and what I would call genuine progressives. All these people are working for a better world. Why can’t Labour incorporate them?
Labour has to be a lot more than a nicer version of the nasty party. Surely?
Now – lets see if the EHRC get a chance to examine the Tory party’s much under-reported bias against Muslims shall we?
Your point that Corbyn is not the left – and it’s daft to link the two as if inseparable – is spot on.
Please define hard left? People throw these tags around as if it means something. Labour’s last manifesto was timid in the face of the present situation and yet declared radical.
OK – I’ll have a go.
I think ‘hard Left’ has two main qualities that are rather self-destructive:
1) An inability to share power – to lay exclusive claim (Hard Left exceptionalism?) to socially progressive values at the exclusion of others in the main party or cross party. BTW – this affliction also applies to the Labour Right and other parties in the UK these days as a Thatcher doctrine (‘not one of us’ and all that) that has made our FPTP political system even more unrepresentative and unfair in the way we are governed.
2) An inability to compromise politically – yes I know this might be hard to differentiate from the above, but for example I see and hear the Hard Left talk about overthrowing capitalism – destroying it – even now! – when what we really need is Polanyi’s suggestion that a society can make markets work for society by regulation and intervention. Accepting that markets exist means that some sort of compromise must also exist. Pro-Social markets can be realised.
The disdain for markets – naturally occurring confluences of people trading, bartering, exchanging – all human behaviours in societies going back through the history of all of human development – is a major problem for the Hard Left. I’ve heard them going Soviet style on this and even talking about getting rid of money all together – I kid you not! There is no doubt that (for example) the financial sector has some reprehensible products – credit default swaps for example – but these should be in my opinion at least outlawed or heavily regulated without having to get rid of markets per se.
The Hard Left sees markets as evil and bringing out the worst in people (which can indeed be true) so it is best not to have them at all. Now that position is total rubbish in my view and a world view not fit for the world. There is a puritanical streak in the Hard Left that means that I don’t think they can even cope with thinking about MMT either – because its money and money is EVIL! Period!
If I was to mention a 3rd negative point about the Hard Left then it is an intense curiosity they have about themselves – the science of being Hard Left, of being intent on self definition (I would call it self-existential navel gazing) of living the ‘Hard Left’ life and aligning themselves with others in the hierarchy of the party or group or cadre. A lot of effort and passion goes into them putting clear blue water between themselves and others as they the lay claim to providing the ‘one true path’. There is a religiosity about it.
So although they tell you that they care – I would say that the Hard Left are actually more like the worst sort of capitalists in that they are into self absorbed self-realisation at the expense of others except that instead of grabbing all the money for themselves like the capitalists, the Hard Left are mostly obsessed with grabbing all the intellectual credibility to validate themselves in society. In fact I think they are actually precursors of identity politics.
The shame is the capitalists and the Hard Left are two sides of the same coin. The internal dialogue is what drives both – not the tangible externally verifiable world they live in or the results of their self-realisation on others which they are deaf and blind to.
PSR.
Did you think the Labour manifestos in 2017 & 2019 to be “hard left”?
While it’s clear that currently the Labour Party and its leadership are dedicated to going back to the wasted Blair years and are, in the words of the recent Guardian article, ” the new fiscal hawks” there is no liklihood of Proportional Representation ever being even considered by the Tories. That being so whether we like it or not only Labour can, if elected, change neoliberal economic direction.
While I may disagree with your views on Jeremy Corbyn, it is true that the right and particularly the media descended on him in a startling way, using accusations of anti semitism to pursue him. So one wonders why this was. If as generally agreed he was highly unlikely to be a wonderful party leader (as he pointed out himself!) then one can only consider that this acute personal vendetta was against potential policies that he supported in the party ie A Green New Deal and a move towards MMT Economics.
So we can either despair and give up or recognise that many who joined the Labour Party under his ” leadership” can change its direction even if it seems currently fashionable to call them the “hard left”.
There was nit the slightest move towards MMT in Corbyn’s Labour
And they would nit actually commit to a Green New Deal either
For the record
I make clear, I criticise it from the left
Couldn’t agree more!
The sh*tshow that is the FPTP system is tearing the country apart and causing a massive lurch to the right that is truly worrying. Those on the right didn’t feel like they had a voice – cue brexit and eventually the Bojo show. We are now reaping the consequences.
I only hope the work of the good law project in exposing the Tories as the truly nasty party once again will bring the electorate to their senses and pull us back from the brink
So what needs to be done about it? I suggest there may be two main routes.
1. Find as many MMT and UBI* sympathetic people as possible willing to join the Labour Party ( as well as locating those members already MMT sympathetic ) and work to ensure MMT and other progressive policies are adopted. This may once again require a change of leadership. But it will also entail a lot of washing the dirty laundry in public and may see Labour not winning the next election if the washing isn’t completed within a year or two. Therefore out of power for the best part of another decade.
2. Create a new MMT and UBI* Progressive Political Party from scratch and develop excellent joined up MMT backed economic policies. But, under the present first past the post electoral system this is an all but impossible task. However, if it starts to become popular with voters, we could see other mainstream parties adopting parts of it’s policies which could lead too absorption ( a la Brexit party and the Tories ). I think that theoretically this is the better path, but yet much harder and almost impossible route. This has been my first hand experience of having been the leader of a minor political party.
*I seem to be an outlier in ‘orthodox MMT’ thought at the moment as I think UBI and MMT are natural bedfellows, with UBI emerging out of Job Guarantee (which I support) as the nation gains full sovereignty and abundance in food, energy, housing, sustainable green technologies and other essentials. Finally becoming a Universal Comfortable Income (UCI). But as a professional futurologist my perspective on things is often different to many others as I factor in exponential acceleration – which means automation and AI efficiencies happen far faster than most people think.
Join the Green Party and leave the shit show that is Labour to stew in their own juices.
You’ll find it a refreshing change.
I think it unrealistic to hope that lots of progressively minded people will now join the Labour Party. Out of all the people I personally know who could be described as progressively minded and who were Labour voters or strong Labour Party supporters, MANY have declared in recent days that they will NEVER vote Labour again and have torn up their LP membership cards. Maybe as time goes by they will calm down and swallow their anger. I do know a couple who might be described as Guardian-believer LP supporters who think that Corbyn’s suspension is exactly what he deserved, but they are in a small minority. The Green Party may pick up some supporters, but many more are even more despairing of the state of politics in this country than they were before.
Yes, this is anecdotal, and may not be widely representative. And course the MSM will be ever more comfortable with Starmer-Labour which can only help Labour’s election prospects. In the meantime, this only adds to the shitshow that is 2020, not least because, as some one pointed out above, it certainly adds to the sense that, with few, powerless exceptions, our political class are entirely oblivious to the climate change elephant in the room.
As a Labour voter for over 50 years, I’ve still got to ask myself on a regular basis
What exactly is the Labour party for in this 21st. century & for whom ?
And I thought the so-called anti-semitism issue was all about criticism of the Israeli state not the Jewish religion—there’s an excellent documentary on the Palistinian viewpoint called ” 5 broken cameras ” ( ? )
Keep looking after yourself. Richard
“out of his depth as leader” ; I do not know what this means although it is obviously a favourite meme of the media and a dinner table cliche. Looking at the last three prime ministers would you say that anyone of them were within their depth, the current one is manifestly drowning but is being kept afloat by the very people who say that Corbyn was out of his depth.
It is a smear.
It may also be true but the fact that it is applied to Corbyn alone demonstrates the visceral hatred that he evoked. The Daily Mail today talking about “his legacy of hate” – the Daily Mail whose only selling point is the manufacture of hate.
Our media is broken, not fit for pupose.
I agree that many have said this
I saw him and his team close up for a while
I hate to say that he was out of his depth, because as a person I quite like him
But he was out of his depth: he simply did not have the skills required for the job he was trying to do and it was apparent
I think that you, deliberately, miss my point.
In my time I have sat round the table with Conservative ministers and come away thinking that they were out of their depth.
But a meme based on their perceived incompetencies was not fashioned by a hostile media, loosed into the atmosphere and then taken up by the commentariat until every Tom, Dick and Harry was repeating it as though it was a clinching argument.
Biden ( a man clearly out of his depth) supporters are currently saying the the perfect should not be an enemy of the good and whilst I regret that MMT and the Green Deal issues were not front and centre the Corbyn policies were good.
The singling out of Corbyn was shameful.
It is difficult to do a job, any job, when continually being stabbed from behind.
True
But that was not my main point
While the lofty heights of PR and MMT may be unrealastic immediately for Labour, surely focussing on the immediate and the obviously attainable would help. Labour should have been banging on every single day about the need to follow the science advice of Sept 21- the need for a circuit breaker. The government is explicitly allowing infection and death to spread in the full knowledge that it could be stopped – (East Asia, even Germany etc).
It isn’t even good economics – we have the worst deaths and the worst economic hit in Europe.
If that isn’t an open goal to show there is an alternative competent government in waiting, what is? Labour doesn’t seem to have the confidence in it’s own analysis and policy – even when, as in this instance, it has one.
It could then also begin to step away from the ultra defensive ‘fiscal responsibility’ – by at least changing the money language – away from ‘debt’ and ‘borrowing’ , towards ‘creating’ , ‘investing’ etc etc…
A lot to think about. As a Labour Party member I am saddened at what we have become.
First, I think your analysis of Corbyn’s leadership is correct. His latest comments about the EHRC Report are emblematic of his leadership – politically naive, blind to reality of what was happening in the Party and pushed about by an unsavoury team around him. Was Starmer right to suspend him? I don’t know. My instinct would have been not to respond and expect Corbyn’s views to sink quickly without trace. Also, it looks a rather “cartoonish” attempt to manufacture a “Clause 4” moment. But, having made the move, Starmer will have to deal with a membership that to some extent still loves Corbyn….. and this will sap his energy when the Party really has other things to do. Nothing quite as vicious, petty and pointless as a bit of Labour in-fighting.
Second, I understand that those looking for social and economic justice despair at what Labour is doing…. me too, but absent Electoral Reform, Labour is the only game in town. The best way to get change the Party is to remain in the Party and vote for candidates (NEC, prospective candidates etc) that might steer the organisation in the right direction. I must confess that my efforts thus far have borne little fruit (although I suppose Starmer over Long-Bailey represents victory of sorts).
Third, in the previous paragraph I say “absent Electoral Reform” – and I agree with you this is essential for a renewal of democracy (along with more local powers). You are right about Starmer’s view on this but it merely reflects the orthodox Party view and may not be deeply held. Generally, the FPTP system is supported by the far left as it represents the only chance they have at real power on the basis that if the government is truly dreadful then, with patience they will eventually get their turn…. except they didn’t! The problem is that promoting electoral reform right now will not play well with the public who have more pressing concerns. Nevertheless, it must be attempted and in response to the health and economic crisis the solution might an electoral alliance between Labour, Lib Dems, Greens and Plaid Cymru (would the Scotland/SNP play ball?) that selects a single candidate for each seat (seats in proportion to current share of the vote) with a manifesto commitment to electoral reform and devolving more power to Local Authorities with another election straight after that reform. Outside of that it would be a technocratic centre-left administration acceptable to most “shades of left” that would focus on crisis management. Is this wishful thinking? Yes…… but wishes do come true sometimes.
Thanks
Much to agree with, especially in your first point
@Clive I think your idea of an electoral alliance should be explored, although I have serious doubts about it coming to pass (as I suspect you do).
As for your query – “would the Scotland/SNP play ball?” – given that Scotland has some form of PR at all levels, and the SNP are the only party other than the Greens who have actively promoted the idea of PR at UK level, I don’t think they would demur at your suggestion.
PS: I’m an SNP member, and have the same concerns about the party as expressed here by Richard.
Thanks George
Clive – I share similar views on an electoral alliance. But the public need to be normalised to the idea of this over the next 4 years. It simply won’t work if it is first discussed a year out from the election.
Be a “Harmer with Starmer?” Probably so.
For example, on the very core issue of money creation as a medium of exchange containing a unit of account or measurement of value it seems highly logical to understand that it works on the basis of infusion and retirement. Yet what do we have in British society a commonly accepted mantra that government creation of money competes with private bank creation of money! It’s highly likely Starmer believes this yet it’s clearly a nonsense if you want a society that cooperates in all possible areas to advance social well-being for all.
Private sector banks under government licence work to expand the infusion of money. They are under licence because only government can perform the role of ensuring appropriate infusion and retirement of both its money creation and that of the private banks according to circumstance. Gordon Brown’s nonsense of giving the Bank of England independence simply muddied the water but no doubt we’ll eventually discover this is Starmer policy. The history of money’s development in the UK was never logical and the notion of our government needing a central bank was something we stumbled into!
Labour are no longer a party of the left, nor are they they a party of labour. They are the Tory Light Party, there to give the impression that there is a choice of government when actually there isn’t.
As far as Scotland is concerned there appears to be very little likelihood of a referendum any time soon, possibly because the fighting fund appears to have disappeared. Also the motion to have a Plan B discussed at conference has been binned and SG lawyers are opposing Keatings legal case at the High Court.
All in all it appears that the SNP have taken lessons from the PM and are trying to rule by dictat.
I agree with almost all of this.
Both Corbyn and Johnson are good campaigners but neither have the gifts of clear leadership. This government has been chaotic. Corbyn is probably more principled and not personally bigoted -he hasn’t made comments about Muslim women looking like letterboxes, for example.
I imagine Starmer is trying to create an impression of a moderate, sensible party which can represent the majority in the so-called centre. As a path to power this might seem reasonable. But we live in times which call for far reaching change. There is huge challenge of climate change. There is the corporate capture of the state’s function and through the Oligarch funded think tanks and mass media, much of the political structure. We can see this in the scandal of contracts given out to cronies with little accountability and little challenge from the Tory press or BBC (where public support for trans people is now forbidden as ‘virtue signalling )
We do need a progressive alliance across the UK with a common set of core objectives (minor issues can differ).
I am sure readers of this blog would easily find common ground in
a Green New Deal
Proportional representation
close co-operation with Europe and re-joining at some point
action on tax evasion and avoidance
distancing from American military adventures
ending and reversing the privatisation of utilities , railways and the de-facto privatisation of schools with academy chains
a public investment bank to invest in infrastructure and new industries to support the green agenda
We could go on.
We need clear inspiring leadership.
In my view, all Corbyn had to do was say nothing and accept the report. He chose not to and that was deliberate on his part. For many in this country both Corbyn and Starmer are a bit of a sideshow. Corbyn because he was wedded to his own ideals that do not reflect the views of enough voters and Starmer because he isn’t setting out any serious policy.
Labour does now need to support PR not just because it has zero chance of getting a majority in the next election, but as Starmer might say ‘it is the right thing to do’
You are right
Corbyn need only have said ‘please implement it’ and he would have moved on
But he couldn’t
I found this paragraph in a LabourList report to be very telling –
“LabourList understands that Angela Rayner and her team were in touch with Corbyn and his team about his response to the EHRC statement before it was posted — and warned that it would be problematic.”
It has also been reported that Keir Starmer personally called Jeremy Corbyn on the Wednesday night to make it absolutely clear that it was Labour Party policy accept the EHCR report in full. Corbyn has self evidently made a conscious decision to seek either confrontation or martyrdom. I am really struggling to comprehend how he imagines that either of these strategies is going to enhance the electoral chances of the Labour Party, or perhaps that’s the point. My way or no way?
It is noticeable that his expected allies amongst MPs are staying well clear
As highlighted here
The response to the dramatic events has been mixed. 20 of the 33 SCG MPs (not counting Corbyn himself) have, at the time of writing [17:45 30/10], yet to comment on the suspension of the former Labour leader. Another five have simply retweeted the initial SCG post calling for his reinstatement, while others such as Ian Lavery, Kate Osborne, Zarah Sultana, Bell-Ribeiro-Addy and currently-suspended Claudia Webbe have taken to social media condemning the disciplinary action but giving no comment on what Corbyn said.
Then there are others on the Labour left, such as MP Clive Lewis, who has criticised Corbyn’s EHRC report statement. The Norwich South MP and brief 2020 leadership contender appeared to agree with journalist Rachel Shabi that the comments of the Islington MP were “ill-advised, to put it mildly” and it is “beyond frustrating to see Labour yet again descend into factionalism over this [antisemitism] issue and thus torpedo the EHRC report”.
https://labourlist.org/2020/10/how-labour-left-mps-have-reacted-to-the-suspension-of-jeremy-corbyn/
I find it hard to disagree with a single word you said this morning, Richard. Unfortunately!
If by some chance Starmer is more radical, and a better politician than we fear, the ball is now in his court if the Labour Party is to be saved from itself. In outline, he has to persuade Corbyn and his left supporters (like me) that the anti-semitism issue is lost (as you say, it was a trap, probably long-prepared) and we have to accept this, however unfair to Corbyn. But in exchange Starmer will need to prove that he meant what he said in relation to the need for radical economic policies and a Green New Deal. (MMT would be nice as well, but realistically we would have to be content with Keynes.)
The right of the party would then get what it wanted in terms of capitulation in the battle it provoked on anti-semitism, but lose in the war to save neoliberalism (its main aim).
Could Corbyn be prepared to fall on his sword in exchange for a commitment to the economic policies that he has been fighting for all his life?
Your main point to me is that Labour have reverted to type by suspending Corbyn. What is intended to signal a change in something is actually just starting it all over again.
In my view, Starmer should have got the Jewish reps and the Corbyn supporters together and tried to sort it out that way like a great leader should -reminded them that the objective of opposition was and seek forgiveness on all sides, stick together and get the Tories out. For us out here.
So I agree with you about Starmer – I think he has over played his hand. It’s not good. It just makes things too easy for Johnson.
At times though Richard, it seems that things all too easily go the way of the Tories – it’s just all too convenient at times.
I ask my self why is this is so in an age of mass mis-information and dark money and the potential answers are horrific.
Here is a rather different analysis of the EHRC report- by Peter Oborne- so hardly an apologist for Corbyn.
https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/ehrc-labour-antisemitism-starmer-corbyn-soul
As ever, Starmer is taking the “populist” position . He really is a coward, I have no hope of him, sadly, as I started thinking he would be a good leader. So far he has failed totally to show that he has any principle that he will stand up for – apart from the antisemitism one even when the accusations are not all justified.
Many thanks AliB,
That Peter Oborne analysis is a true eye-opener, which is all the more believable as Oborne himself has no axe to grind…
“on a conference call with the authors of the EHRC report…The questioning largely focused on why the report had not been tougher, personally, on Corbyn. Not one journalist probed the inconsistencies, contradictions or omissions of the report.
Starmer clearly believes he has now firmly established his own political identity and laid the foundations for the transformation of Labour’s electoral prospects — in the mould of Kinnock and Blair.
It may be that he has simply destroyed his reputation for moral and intellectual integrity — and inflicted a mortal wound on the soul of his party. “
AliB.
I agree with your assessment of Starmer.
His actions don’t look like conciliation. They look like eradication.
AliB
Thanks for the link to the article.
Could be awkward for Starmer if Corbyn goes to court over his suspension and coming expulsion.
Seems there is enough in the EHRC report for Corbyn to have a strong case.
I appreciate that Starmer has to draw a line under the whole anti-Semitism question, but throwing Corbyn under the bus may not have been the wisest move.
Depends if Corbyn wants to defend his name and reputation, or happy to take the personal hit for the future good of the party and retire to the allotment?
He doesn’t owe those backstabbing shisters anything though.
The EHRC report specifically criticised the leadership for intervening in disciplinary matters. Corbyn’s suspension (on grounds unable to be explained by the General Secretary on being questioned by members of the National Executive Committee) is itself exactly the type of political interference censured by the EHRC. At best, they are playing to the gallery. At worst, they have contracted to supply dead cats to distract from Johnson’s messes.
Please don’t be crass
Any disciplinary process has to have a start point
That does not make it political
And a refusal to discuss it reflects due process
You really need to learn a bit about how such things have to work
It’s probably a cliche to say that there has been such a shift to the right that to call anyone in Labour “hard left” (or even a “wee bit left”) is totally risible. Some members of Labour look as though they would be to the right of Ted Heath, and probably quite comfortable with Thatcher.
Blair/Brown and before them Smith & Kinnock destroyed Labour as a Socialist Party. Do they know what socialism means? Do they ever intend to remake themselves as a modern socialist party or do they intend to continue as a Tory-lite party? If the latter, then as soon as Johnson goes, as surely he will, and is replaced by someone who is competent and serious then why would anyone vote Labour?
There are millions who don’t vote, millions whose vote is meaningless thanks to FPTP. A Labour Party that differentiates itself from the Tories through a socialist manifesto surely has a chance of capturing these votes.
I agree the SNP leadership seems to have moved to the right, but it is still a more humane, socially caring entity than any of the alternatives. My hope is that when independence comes there will be sufficient candidates, of whatever party, that have a socialist/green mindset that in the ensuing coalition they will take Scotland back to the left.
Meanwhile I fear for the UK, with, on the one hand a bunch of clownish, yet dangerous mafia-like desperadoes, way out of their depth, socially, economically and politically and unable to respond to the current health emergency (or the climate emergency), and on the other an opposition in crisis and without a programme for change, either of themselves or the country.
Your heartfelt post has provoked a rare comment. I think you need to set this in a broader context. It’s not surprising, but there is a total lack of awareness here that the Tories have become England’s version of Ireland’s ethno-nationalist Sinn Féin. — just ourselves or ourselves alone. English ethno-nationalism had been suppressed for so long, it was bound to re-surface at some stage. And the duration and intensity of the suppression meant that its re-emergence was going to be dramatic and impactful.
And like Ireland’s Leprechaun Economy enclave which has allowed the comfortable classes to grow fat and complacent, but also part-funds a re-distribution from those on the higher incomes to those on the lowest — to buy a semblance of social cohesion, England also has its own version based around the City of London and encompassing much of the south-east. But Tory governments here were ideologically opposed to funding the necessary great redistribution to the less economically advantaged regions to buy a semblance of social cohesion.
Combine that with a resurgence of English ethno-nationalism and you get Brexit. It was copper-fastened by much of the British media’s amplification of the federal superstate fantasies of many leading Eurocrats and politicians. And it was further reinforced by those who took a cold-eyed look at the economic performance of the EU. The US has given us the FAANGs and Big Tech; the EU, with a much larger but just as wealthy a market, has given us the GDPR.
But the political salience of this resurgence of English ethno-nationalism remains. Many of those on the English left have always felt uncomfortable with, or sneered at, expressions of English ethno-nationalism. Orwell spotted it long ago. Corbyn never seemed at ease with it, but he enthusiastically embraced virulent expressions of ethno-nationalism by other national groupings and ethnicities — once they were opposed to the west and a vaguely left-wing banner could be spread over them. It was this more than any of the economic policies he espoused that repelled so many traditional Labour voters — and so many other voters. His support for Sinn Féin is one notorious example. And his support for the Palestinian cause — which easily slid in to anti-semitism for many of his supporters — is another. In fact many of the economic policies secured significant public traction, but the hodge-podge that was thrown at voters before the last election just aroused scepticism and disbelief.
Johnson won big because he has hitched the core Tory vote to this resurgence of English ethno-nationalism and he sees the need for a great redistribution — “levelling-up”.
You may describe Starmer as a faction leader, but he is seeking to mend fences with large swathes of the voting public. The voting system won’t be changed, so he has to work within the current electoral parameters. There remains huge scope, and a huge potential popular appetite for boring, sensible, competent social democratic governance. Effective collective representation of workers is vital, but ultra trades unionism is a no-no. Significantly Increased funding of public services, enforcement of competition policy, collective consumer protection and effective economic regulation are winners. But anti-capitalist, neo-marxist claptrap is out. And that’s just for starters. There’s a long way to go to re-earn the trust and faith of large swathes of voters who would be disposed to vote for these policies, but who have been repelled by Corbyn and his followers.
Great article. I too agree that a new constitutional settlement is required. All I’d say is that during the Labour leadership election Clive Lewis proposed this and he didn’t even get on the ballot. So I doubt there’s enough support for this in the Labour Party to happen. If that’s the case, what now? I can’t see any chance of change coming through democratic means, and that is both sad and worrying.
There is currently a vigorous grassroots campaign to get PR on the agenda for Labour’s decision making body in 2021.
Good
Absolutely correct Richard. And as usual, the media will play the Labour civil war for all it’s worth while, as PSR points out, completely ignoring the Islamophobia in the Tories.
What an utter disaster English politics is. A man who’s utterly unfit to be PM with a majority of 80 due to the grotesque FPTP system leading a party that is corrupt and incompetent, and an official opposition that is hopelessly factional and tribal.
And how did we get here? I would suggest the afore mentioned voting system. Had New Labour done as they said they would, (but then dropped in 1997 when they saw the size of their majority) and given us PR we would not have had the disastrous series of right wing governments we’ve had since 2010, and all the rubbish they’ve brought us. Neoliberal austerity, Brexit, and utter incompetence in tackling Covid.
Contrast us with NZ (where my sister lives). They introduced PR in the 90’s and where are they now? They have a sane, competent decent human being for a PM who has more or less eliminated Covid from NZ and handled the attack by the murderous right wing extremist last year with skill and empathy. And as a result, she’s been handed a majority (highly unusual under PR) by a grateful electorate.
So NZ, which had some obnoxious right wingers in charge in the past, has a centre left party with green leanings in power. Thanks to PR.
While the UK heads towards the end of the union, one of the world’s worst death rates per capita from Covid, mass unemployment and worsening poverty, a possibly ‘no-deal’ Brexit on 31/12/20, and an assault on its civic institutions (NHS, Civil Service, the Judiciary and the BBC) and democracy by an unelected hate-filled anarchist and his hangers on. Thanks to FPTP.
Tony Blair’s greatest failing wasn’t Iraq, or keeping too many of Thatcher’s policies; it was his failure to introduce PR.
I feel like the SNP as the political aspect of pro-independence in Scotland was really the last significant potential escape route from modern neo-liberal politics in the UK.
The independence referendum campaign massively shifted support in favour of independence in no small part on the back the idea that we would be able to do things differently.
Of course, we lost the referendum – and yet now it seems that at the UK level there is an underlying sense that it is now more likely. Bizarrely though, now just as it seems the SNP nails its colours to neoliberalism, there is no movement towards an independence referendum!
If Labour in Scotland could abandon their Unionism, they might find a new and radical space to the left of the SNP now, and drive both political and economic discussion forward, not to mention force the SNP’s hand on pushing towards independence once more. Alas, I doubt they have the vision, and they don’t have much talent internally and almost zero public trust externally.
I can’t help but be overtaken by the gloomy notion that Scotland may have her independence, but only once everything has been put in place to ensure that it is run in the same neoliberal vein.
Many seem to believe that The Labour Party has been a radical left party. This is simply not true. It was founded as a party to advance the rights of workers and funded primarily by the Trades Union movement. It was from its inception a modestly conservative party and never wanted to man the barricades. It has changed little over the decades and one of the party’s most successful periods was the conservative era of Blair. There have been many attempts in the history of the Labour Party to shift it leftwards and all have failed. In europe the Euro Communist parties were far more successful in creating a more radical left agenda especially in Italy but ultimately failed because of their support for and from the Communist Party of the USSR. The UK communist movement failed for similar reasons.
The Labour Party needs to garner the support of non-radical working class voters, which are by far the majority of socially progressive voters, in order for the party to have any chance of power and therefore to influence how our society is governed. In a FPTP system it can never be anything else unless it wishes to condemn Britain or whatever rump will exist in the future to a one Party Conservative state and consign itself to being a pressure group.
To that end it needs to end issues like the anti-semitism saga and end them decisively. Maybe Jeremy Corbyn is right and that it is overblown and has been weaponised against him we may never know the truth but that is no longer relevant. His time as leader is passed and he needs to work within the new leadership to advance his aims not undermine the new structure. There is no point in trying to prove you are right. It helps no one least of all the people of this country.
What Labour does need to do is set out clearly what it stands for and Ian Robert Stevenson’s list above is a good starting point.
Thanks
I, personally, do not think the allegations are going to stop because of new management.
They are going to continue. Even if only because they have been shown to work. And because even untrue allegations have been shown to be highly effective.
They’re not going away anytime soon.
Take a look at the Trump playbook for actions after an election in which he again fails to win the popular vote:
https://watchingromeburn.uk/news/trumps-64-day-post-election-endgame-or-can-a-criminal-be-inaugurated-president/
Feel like Starmer has painted himself into a bit of a corner on this one, in an attempt to look strong and decisive.
He has no choice now, but to expel Corbyn or he will look weak.
But what Labour rule has Corbyn actually breached?
If it goes to court, and the judgment goes against the party, Starmer’s credibility could be shot.
Meanwhile Rome burns.
Who, in UK or US politics looks like they have the abilities to steer us away from the cliff edge of climate catastrophe?
Biden is preferable to Trump but really????………….
Boris or Starmer??????……..
Maybe humanity has become ungovernable?
I think Starmer was absolutely right to suspend Corbyn.
ECrC aside, if Corbyn can defend this mural the he really has no place in any mainstream political party.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/artist-mear-one-kalen-ockerman-admits-he-was-warned-over-antisemitic-mural-vh7262sx9
It does not really matter what policies the Labour party espouses (or how ideologically pure, or not, they are) if they remain in opposition. To make real changes, they need to win a general election. So the first question needs to be, how do they build towards that?
They have not done so since 2005, and probably won’t get the chance until 2024 or 2025. Starmer has plenty of time to (a) let the Conservatives keep making more and more mistakes (as they are) and then (b) set out his stall.
But one thing he cannot do is let the Labour party be smeared as institutionally anti-Semitic. The message has to be “yes, we accept mistakes were made and we will sort it out”, not “it was never as bad as some people were making out”.
I meant 2023 or 2024, but you get my point.
Andrew.
I’m not sure that Labour can win a majority and there in lies the problem.
With FPTP, we are living in effectively a one party state. Once Labour lost the Scottish seats (and look unlikely to get them back any time soon. Never mind Scottish independence) they lost the ability to win a majority.
A few tweaks of the electoral boundaries thrown in, and their task will become even harder.
Taking all that into account, Labour’s performance in 2017 GE is even more remarkable.
On a progressive left agenda to boot.
Vinnie
As to whether or not I thought Labour’s manifesto was Hard Left or not – well that is a good question.
It was in many ways traditional Hard Left in that it did not seem to accept the ethos of MMT – it was a bit like a self-conscious old-fashioned re-distribution effort of the money we already have rather than introducing new base (Government) money – or even re-introducing that which had been taken away by austerity under the Tories). It was more like ‘Timid Left’. Treating the economy like a close loop concerning money.
But there was nowhere I could see that it was actually being that which I call ‘beyond Left’ – truly progressive with new ideas (of which MMT would be one). Labour (Left and Right) are still constrained by Thatcherite doctrine. That is a major problem for them and for me it ranks as THE problem for Labour at the moment as it results in the timidity that we see (never mind the anti-Semite issue because if Labour does not deal with its own adherence to Thatcherite doctrine about money, it will not be able to help Jews, Muslims, Christians – any one for that matter it claims it cares about).
The Hard Left and even the plain vanilla Left all the suffer the same problem. They call out the issue – say about the effects of railway privatisation for example which is the right thing to do. They wring there hands about it and rightly point out the injustices.
But where they fall down is in the technocratics of getting these things sorted out and done – and my honest opinion is that they are clueless Vinnie. Utterly clueless.
It’s all very well caring or saying that your care. But when you are also sharing the same world view as the people you are opposing? When you have Labour people like Liam Byrne leaving notes behind to the last Tory Government saying ‘There is no money’ !!!!!!!!!!!!!
I think that the British public sees this and that is what attracts them to Farage and others – as well as the Farage like rhetoric of the Tory party. To them Labour are useless.
Labour ‘labours’ under Thatcherite doctrine that it has chosen to adopt. As a result it has no genuinely new ideas. It also labours under the IMF crisis of the 1970’s which needs to be debunked big time – that casts a long shadow over the party still.
Labour – and the Left need to find their faith in humanity once again too. They have become rather distrustful of the people they say they care about. They need to be courageous again – genuinely so – like Attlee was. Ahern in New Zealand is reported to be making genuine overtures to the Greens there for example.
That is the way forward – to build a progressive base and a front against the opposition. And this is another thing about the Hard Left that inculcates Labour thought out – its inability to work with others because the doctrine of ‘being Left’ is more important than (1) being in power and (2) having some good ideas that if used would actually deliver the help to those you say you care about!
The Labour Party (Right, Left, Hard Left) all the suffer under the same market delusions as everyone else. But as Varoufakis has pointed out, it is not the Left’s job to destroy capitalism; it is the Left’s job to reform it and realise Polanyi’s compromise.
Labour needs to pick up the gauntlet that Polanyi laid down. Or wither away into irrelevance.
Well said
I have previously stated my opinion on Starmer and Nandy during the leadership election so won’t go into it except to say that my fears are quickly being proved true as was seen by the defenestration of Long Bailey.
So as to what exactly is happening with the current recruxifixation of JC – a bit Groundhog Day fashion?
1. This is aimed at these who joined as members following his election and attempted chickencoups against him from day 1. Making Labour the largest socialist Democratic Party in Europe with the British GRASSROOTS.
It has required a tremendous neocon/liberal self admitted Gauntlet to arrest and now reverse that type of populism. Many will have been cancelling their membership in fury.
2. He may have been a grade b, c or whatever leader, but leadership is about having an effective team around you who are supposed to make up for shortfalls in personal expertise and experience.
3. Leadership is also about setting the tone and gaining popular support.
Politicising the young and disenfranchised by being a ‘common decent man’ with right ‘motives’ and being ‘liked’ – was his greatest achievement along with a fresh new intake of MP’s not born out the Blairite parachuted ex spads and elites from on high to secure the safe labour seats.
They have already broken whip on several bills which Starmer has not opposed. Not much reported.
4. To finish with my regular CT that I am wont to do:
We are being driven full speed into the Hard BrexShit- which has been the decade long purpose of our ‘elected‘ governments.
Which like the Titanic Speeding into an ice field is only going to end in one outcome! Covid has been enrolled as cover. People will be offered a GNU lifeboat under Starmer and that will be the end of the pretend democracy of fixed elections – finally!
The left of the party showed they were willing to move on during the leadership election. Starmer walked it because his 10 pledges were largely a continuation of what had been offered under Corbyn, and that’s why so many voted for him instead of the continuity candidate Long Bailey.
It’s obviously early days, but that now seems to have been largely disingenuous.
From coming down hard on LB and Corbyn, to being ambivalent on BLM, to the Spy Cops bill, to not holding the Tories to account over the Covid contracts, nothing he has done (or not done) suggests he intends to stick to those pledges. They were just a vote buying tool.
The EHRC report was an opportunity for the whole party to move forward.
The report recommended that the leadership not get involved in disciplinary action. Yet that’s exactly what Starmer has done.
The fact that there are those in the media and the party/ex party members lining up behind Starmer on this largely seems to support the exact claim which Corbyn has been for suspended for.
“Corbyn and Starmer. Both worked and are working their hardest to ensure that that views of as many people as possible are denied representation in the UK.”
So very true and an indication of the true depths of Labour’s betrayal. The warring factions at the top hate one another, yet both are completely intoxicated by the lure of FPTP giving Labour COMPLETE POWER. This arises from the very 20th century Labour dogma that ONLY Labour can bring Labour values to ‘the people’ and so FPTP, like Gollum and The Ring, has become the Labour leadership’s ‘Precioussss’. A precious that both grips them with its power, but, again like Gollum, a precious that rots their very soul from within.
And so principles stand for nothing, as both Labour factions are so in thrall to FPTP that both are united AGAINST their OWN members (who hugely support PR becoming Labour policy – 76% according to a recent YouGov poll). Both are so in thrall to FPTP, that they DON’T CARE it benefits the Tories FAR MORE than Labour! – FPTP has a built-in right-wing bias, which (unfairly) delivers the Tory’s into power 66% of the time vs the meagre 33% of the time that Labour (equally unfairly) get their shot at government.
Fall outs? Yes. Stitch up their opponents? Yes Weed out anti-Semites? No problem. All the dirty washing. But both sides agree to never, ever mention Labour’s greatest taboo — its denial to the people of electoral reform.
Labour’s real dirty secret, Labours real shame.
I am not opposed to PR in principle but I wonder if it would actually work in they way people hope. The problem is, there are many things wrong with our democracy so why pick on the voting system as the thing to change? For example, we have the right-wing media, parties funded by vested interests, lobbying, propagandist “think-tanks” funded by big money, MPs allowed to have second jobs, ex-MPs and ex-Ministers offered lucrative directorships by businesses and corporations, and the unelected House of Lords. And recently we have seen how easy it is for an unscrupulous PM to drive a coach and horses through our constitution.
Introducing PR would not change any of those things. It seems more likely that monied interests would find new ways of gaming the system, almost certainly leading to right-wing governments in perpetuity.
IMO PR should only be considered as part of a constitutional review which looks at all aspects of our democracy. Any changes flowing from that review should be carefully planned to ensure that we don’t get locked into permanent right-wingery.
Having said that, I don’t think PR or a constitutional review are very likely. As I see it, we are more likely to gravitate towards the American model of two right wing parties, both funded by corporate interests, taking turns to be in government. Especially as we have thrown away the small chance of change that Corbyn’s election to the Labour leadership offered. The right will now consolidate their grip on the party and make sure another left wing leader can never be elected.
Does the report provide evidence of antisemitism in the Labour party that would constitute a crises? If it doesn’t its simply joining in with the Westminster political and media discrimination campaign against Corbyn and his supporters.
Corbyn’s complicity with this campaign despite it’s obvious fraud showed his allegiance was ultimately with centralized power and not the development of democracy.
This has shown me that command and control power that permeates our society is highly dysfunctional and won’t allow development. I think it suffocates humans natural sharing of ideas and compassion by promoting sectarianism in order for a minority to profit.
I believe the antidote could be communities collectively deciding what work has value. With this democratised work people would have a real moment to moment say over their lives which would drive engagement, motivation and innovation. It could provide room for ideas free from the cage of the profit margin to develop and be shared.
Everyone could become professionalised in terms of how the mechanisms of society and their communities function, which would take away the oxygen of the establishments sectarian plots and conspiracies.
Ben
Yea it does show that
Anti-Semitism is rife in society
As is racism
And Islamophobia
And other prejudices
And it, I am sure appropriately, says that Labour clearly failed to tackle it – real victims say so
Please do not deny that
And please don’t call here again
Your views are not welcome to me
Richard
Avoiding the current depressing Labour strife perhaps it’s more useful to analyse why, as you say,Labour under Corbyn was not moving towards a GND or funding it with a policy of MMT.
The quite likely devastating economic consequences of Brexit and Covid will lead to a political crisis too.
It has been suggested that a possible consequence might even be a Starmer led National Government.
Will those on the left support this? Or break away?
But in essence how politically could the only rational solution including massive new investment in a Green New Deal be pursued?