I usually think John Harris is one of the better voices on the Guardian opinion pages.
Yesterday, though, he had an article headlined in this way:
I think the article is total nonsense.
When neither the Democrats in the USA nor Labour in the UK are remotely left of centre - both being neoliberal, market fundamentalist to their core - of course, society did not reject the left. Instead, they despise those who pretend to be left-wing, sometimes using a cloak of identity politics to support that false claim.
I am not pretending that getting left-of-centre issues in front of people is easy because it is not. But to make claims as crass as this really does not help.
And it really is time that the Guardian and its commentators stopped pretending that labour is remotely left-wing. It is not.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Yes its pretty bizarre to say the least to regard Labour and the Democrats as left wing. Is it wishful thinking or a lack of understanding of what ‘left’ might mean?
[By the way you said ‘vices’ instead of ‘voices’ in the first line.]
Corrected
Thanks
Its always easier to spot typos in other peoples work!
There was another one in there – only just corrected.
I have long maintained that Corbyn failed not because of his policies but mainly because he’s a grumpy ass who hates compromise, bitches at the media and refuses to work with any people outside his narrow coterie.
We haven’t had a credible, charismatic and competent leader on the left for far too long. If and when one emerges, the political landscape may well change dramatically.
Kim SJ
This comment is really not on.
Corbyn’s failure was not just about him but a party whose Right wing undermined him.
I’ve never been to rock concerts and seen people spontaneously start singing about a politician as they did about Corbyn; people enthusiastically telling me that they’d been to standing room only meetings he had attended; people crying after the 2019 election.
You do not paint an accurate picture – and that is being kind.
Correct, PSR. Under Corbyn’s leadership the party grew to close to half a million members, the largest political party in Europe. Many of those members were young, enthusiastic, and newly engaged.
Yes, Corbyn was a bit grumpy at times, and yes, he didn’t play the media’s games, but his downfall was carefully and ruthlessly engineered by his opponents within the party and outside it, as those of us in the party know at first hand.
And we have had a credible, charismatic ,intelligent leader in Tony Blair, at least, some (many) thought so for a while. And that ended well, didn’t it!
This 100% PSR. Corbyn certainly inspired me to get politically active, along with many others. He didn’t get everything right, but who does? I definitely thought he was credible, charismatic and at least as competent as any other politician. There is no one among MPs (now Caroline Lucas has stood down) who I find particularly inspiring, maybe Carla Denyer will grow into that. Reckon Zack Polanski, deputy leader of the Green Party, has potential though.
Totally agree PSR. The post you reply to is so far from the mark as to be almost a parody.
“Grumpy Ass”? I met the man twice and heard him speak more. Far from being grumpy he was always approachable and humane. He connected with people, and especially children in a way most PMC politicians find impossible.
“Unable to compromise”? If anything he compromised too much, tried too hard to work with the right of the party who never accepted him as leader. Contrast with the ruthlessness of the right in expelling and deselecting the left of the party, nodded on approvingly by the media including the BBC. Imagine the howls of outrage and daily headlines had the left followed a similar path when it controlled the NEC, many constituencies and the leadership. And wonder why the inner circle was suspicious of the media.
Corbyn was not without his faults and probably carried too much baggage to ever be acceptable to many. But that is no reason to smear him with outright falsehoods as in the post above
Orwell: If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever.
Corbyn & McDonnell were far from perfect, but at least their hearts were in the right place. At least they gave people a reason to hope for a better future. Now we’ve just got hard-hearted neoliberal robots and foaming-at-the-mouth ultra-right nutcases awaiting their turn to put the boot in.
A fair rebuttal of my criticism, but also not entirely fair. For example, during the Brexit campaign, Corbyn refused to share a platform with any other campaigner. And I have a picture of a meeting in 2019 between all the major opposition parties (Greens, LDs, Plaid and SNP) where Corbyn is conspicuous by his absence. Remember, too, that he scuppered a coalition to oppose the final implementation of Brexit by insisting that he should be its leader. Yes, he’s great at schmoozing with those on his wavelength, but not good at building wider alliances. A nice man with good policies, but not the leader the left needs.
Very unfair.
I think JC’s downfall was mostly Labour’s right engineering his demise and his stubbornness in failing to convincingly fight against Brexit.
Kim SJ
It was very frustrating time for sure, but speaking as a leader myself (of a team of people) if you are not confident in your team it can seriously affect your ability to lead and perform, take on challenges etc.
Above all he is just another human being who has frailties but whose frailties did a lot less harm than Tony Blair or David Cameron and many others who are be considered ‘successful’.
I wonder at Kim SJ’s comment about Corbyn, “he scuppered a coalition to oppose the final implementation of Brexit by insisting that he should be its leader. ” It’s one of those things where it applies both ways: as well say that certain others scuppered it because of their refusal to work with the leader of the largest ‘bloc’ in the would-be coalition -and on the basis of exactly the kinds of slurs and disinformation being discussed earlier in the thread. It’s worth also bearing in mind that one of the criticisms of Corbyn has been that he was too accommodating to people not of his ‘mind’ in the Labour party and that he should’ve been as ruthless as Starmer and co turned out to be.
At the last general election a colleague said her old school friends (south Wales valleys) would likely vote reform, then said she’s not surprised as neither socialism or capitalism had benefited them. As they’re in their early fifties they’d have been less than 10 years old when there was last a socialist UK government.
Not to be pedantic (but I shall), the UK has never had a Socialist government. The Labour party are not, and never have really been, socialists. At best, they want to maintain Capitalism with a “kinder” face. They have never had any interest in changing the fundamental principles by which Capitalism works. As my old Granda used to say, they only want to make the slaughterhouse more acceptable to the cattle
I disagree
I think Atlee’s government was socialist
Though if the people concerned were in their 50s, they would not have lived under a socialist government -they’d’ve been born in the lat 60s or the 70s (calibrating by family members’ birthdates and then checking the maths).
So, not under Atlee; Wilson maybe, Callahan definitely, then tory all the way through their formative years.
Agree. No support for his position.
An interesting alternative was posed in the FT Weekend. “Trump unleashed: what now for America” – no link, I read the papyrus version!
There the proposition was that working classes, left behind, feeling neglected and not benefitting from neoliberalism and not represented by a neoliberal “left” had turned to Trump.
That seems much closer to reality than Harris’ view.
Indeed: similar article in Mother Jones; same basic thesis https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2024/11/why-donald-trump-won-election-white-house/ .
Also another article with similar here: https://chrishedges.substack.com/p/the-politics-of-cultural-despair
‘Totally agree with this comment.
Neo-liberals need a left wing enemy to scare people with. They haven’t got one, so they create one.
As for the left wing, they are scared of the neo-liberals so move rightward.
There are always exceptions, but that seems to be the trend.
This is the establishment once again promulgating a falsehood to move the Overton window further right. They are serious about what they do, Milliband and Harris repeating the errors of Brown and Hilary Clinton instead of tacking left, were the latest in a procession of successes. Thatcher said it out loud about Tony Blair.
The left needs to get serious and get organised, creating the conditions for a charismatic leader to emerge. Funding is essential as well. Surely there are some progressive multi-millionaires out there who could get behind such a leader?
In past times, an important route for growing charismatic leaders on the left was through Union activism. The damage done to Trades Union by Thatcher and others has made this much less likely.
I have to argue against this concept of a charismatic leader. Mark Drakeford represents for me the kind of leader the left needs. Quiet, intelligent, caring, articulate, modest. Not at all in the mould of a Macron or a Blair, or an Obama.
There are different types of charisma and I far prefer Drakeford’s to Blair’s, Macron’s or Clinton’s.
The prerequisite is having the courage to lean left instead of right. Andy Burnham might fit the bill, I’d be suspicious but everyone gets a chance to change. Starmer’s had his.
Drakeford was very quietly impressive.
I’m pleased that I’m not the only one who thought Harris’ article was rubbish. As to socialism, I’d agree with RM that postwar Labour was socialist. In those days, community was important, and there was also a much wider range of political opinion (e.g. prewar Communists). The general notion of service for all didn’t really break down until the late 1970s. BTW nationalisation seems surprisingly popular in the populace as evidenced by polls, so Starmer clearly is not ‘reading the room’.
It was a very strange article by John Harris. You can’t really call Liz Cheney left.
Was it Peter Mandelson who said that Labour voters have nowhere to go, so they have to woo the Tory ones? This was the Democratic strategy and it failed spectacularly. Looking just at the figures – Trump didn’t get any more votes than 4 years ago, but Harris got millions fewer than Biden. Going into more detail – she lost the Arab vote almost completely, young voters didn’t come out in predicted numbers etc. Voters always have somewhere else to go – even if it means not voting.
It’s really interesting – as she started well. She started the conversation about corporations” profits and the necessary changes in the US foreign policies – but this lasted only days. It was like she was told by the advisers – you have these voters in the bag, you have to turn to the right now. And she did. And it failed spectacularly, so much that it can be said that she represented nothing in the end. It was a battle between nothing and hate, and hate won. Lessons should definitely be learnt, but I doubt they will be.
Absolutely Peter, Mandelson and the DNC’s “nowhere else to go” prescription didn’t take account of a not voting option or minor parties newly attracting the “let down”. It suggests to me that TINA statements from neoliberals are probably poor analysis skills as well as a clumsy attempt to suggest Necessity. Psychology aside though, I’d say a partisan corporate press and media’s near monopoly of people’s information and ability to formulate options is a key strength for the status quo.Mandelson/DNC. Can’t see it changing much.
I’m definitely attracted now by the idea that voting should be mandatory (with a conscientious objectors’ clause) and made easy: a civic duty. I used to oppose the idea but having now seen over decades the way that ‘no vote’ is quite a significant factor and doesn’t seem, in fact, to signal acceptance of the result but rather a way of saying ‘a plague on all your houses’ and ‘I don’t believe it’ll make a difference’. It’d be interesting in some contests to see the possibility of a ‘Re-open Nominations’ option.
Thank you and well said, Peter.
It turns out that Harris was told that having the Cheneys alienated their young and / or liberal base and even anti-war republicans, but she was having none of it and even sent Cheney and Bill Clinton to campaign in Michigan. In Michigan, which has a sizeable Arab population, Mr Bill said the Israelis were there first and Hamas could get lost.
It also turns out that two advisers seconded from Uber, David Plouffe, who started with Obama, and Tony West, who’s married to Harris’ sister, counselled against tacking left (and the rehashing of build back better and bringing Sanders into the fold).
The Dixiecrat circular firing squad is enjoyable, especially as Pelosi aims at the Bidens and the Clintons snipe at the Obamas.
The obvious conclusion to all this is that genuine democratic socialists in US, UK, Deutschland and everywhere else that a group of ‘third-way’ protagonists entered ‘left’ parties and aggressively negated traditional democratic-socialist and Keynesian thinking need to leave their historic political parties and (maybe one day) establish new parties, new community awareness and discover new Hope.
Happily, Ukraine, Gaza, a war on ‘terror’, (in UK) the ‘centrist’ neoliberals’ use of The Terrorism Act, 2000 to proscribe support for pro-Palestinian opinion (currently), etc., etc. is making this clear to over 2,000 ‘dearly departed’ former members of UK Labour.
Happily again, 5 or 6 new formerly Labour MPs being returned to HoC as Independents, a significant increase in The Green Party’s membership and votes and – most encouraging of all – analysts like Richard Murphy critiquing the economics of ‘third-way’ pretend-left wing neoliberalism and de-TINA-ing its ‘common sense’ bodes well for the future!
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think a “new party” will suddenly appear and steal ReformUK’s ascendency and immediately fix the third-way harm done to ‘the left’ the first week it’s in power. That’s not how these things work. Ideas and understanding precede action and that’s why tax research org is pivotal and critical.
Thank you and well said, Richard and readers.
Not for the first time, Harris is forming a narrative to head off a left wing alternative from a calamitous neo-liberal campaign run by Labour or the Dixiecrats or apparently left continental party (delete as applicable). One can expect more from the Grauniad, which has US readers, in the weeks and months ahead.
I’ve been watching a lot of CNN for the past week or so. It was interesting to see class based analysis get an airing last Wednesday and Thursday, but much less so, if at all, by the week-end. Other than Michael Smerconish on Saturday afternoon, there was nothing on the week-end. Leftist US commentators like Krystal Ball, formerly on MSNBC, have noted, too.
Connecticut senator Chris Murphy gave the game away yesterday. He said a leftist programme would alienate the Dixiecrats’ high income base*.
*Speaking of that, Bob Woodward’s new book details how wealthy donors noticed Biden’s cognitive decline a couple of years ago when hosting intimate fund raising dinners. I heard a year ago from a friend / former colleague whose cousin is a diplomat** in Washington. **They host the Bidens regularly as he likes to emphasise these origins… (but not his Sussex and French ones… as recommended by a grandmother when Biden said wanted to go into politics)
The LibDems will never tack left here for the same reason…
That’s why no-one should pin any hipes on them
Thank you, Richard. That makes sense looking at their seats and target seats.
The problem is 100% neo-liberalism who are very clever at framing issues.
Anyone left of neo-liberalism (e.g. Labour) is left-wing, despite Starmer being right of Thatcher.
And left-wing means socialist, a label that enables the establishment to describe in the terrorist Prevent framework, that socialists are a concern to national security.
And then socialism is one step away from communists and anarchists.
The left do not have a credible narrative; policies maybe, but no aspirations or goals.
But Labour is not left of neoliberalism
People like left wing policies when they are explained to them
Unfortunately people are also uneducated on the whole and the media and politicians have demonised “socialism” and “Communism” for 100 years at this point. It’s very easy to apply these labels to turn people against anyone proposing left wing ideals.
I think Richard may be too harsh on John Harris. The problem is that almost all popular thinking is based on wrong ideas. Richard knows this too well on economics. He can safely be dismissed as crazy without needing to listen to what he is saying. Epidemiologists have a similar problem (antivaxers natural cures etc.). I would recommend this blogger “Your Local Epidemiologist” and this post https://yourlocalepidemiologist.substack.com/p/9-ways-to-spot-falsehoods. My preference is to try to ask simple questions, e.g. Labour supports the 2-child benefit cap. Who should pay to feed the extra child? Are the parents best placed? (over 50% of families with more than 2 children, the parents go hungry) It is all the parents’ fault. Should you be punished for what your parents did?
Harris typifies so much of Guardian opinion – so many words without defining what he’s talking about. A discussion about the « left » in this way is playing into the hands of those that want to discredit opposition to the established neoliberal economic system.
Asked about real policies that oppose neoliberal economics there is considerable voter support. Using left-right labels in this way plays into the hands of those that want to avoid confronting real issues and pretend that there in no alternative to neoliberal policies
I am going to be bold and defend John Harris a little here. For a start, he has included himself in his definition of the left that he has given. But I do think that he has been a little unclear in his framing, which is what makes his point somewhat ambiguous. This is what I have understood the point of this article to mean.
The Overton window has moved so far to the right that characters like Trump and Farage are now seen as acceptable by a scarily large amount of people. Even though many mainstream political parties traditionally from the left, including Labour and the Democrats, have been moving their policies and parties ever further to the right to keep up, by the standards of many in the media and particularly in the polarising parts of online media, they are still considered “left wing”.
Viewed through this heavily skewed lens, we have politicians, that many of us who read this blog would view as being staunchly right-of-centre, being branded as “left wing socialist extremists”! I think what John Harris is trying to say is that the broadness of opinion and ideas that is seen as coming from the “left” is damaging the reputation of everyone in this externally determined group because there is clearly no cohesion, no clear narrative and a lot of infighting.
This mishmash of often contradictory ideas and beliefs that now emanates from so called “left” damages the reputation of anybody who has been lumped under the “leftist” banner in all directions. Mainstream politicians like Starmer and Harris end up being accused of supporting radical “woke” or economic agendas that they actually strongly disagree with while those of us who are progressive are accused of being part of the establishment in the way that Starmer and Harris so obviously are.
I think the lesson that John Harris wants progressive people to take away from Trump’s victory is to avoid blaming the voters that choose Trump or Farage. Calling people stupid or racist for supporting Trump is only playing into the hands of the populists. The left needs to be seen to be listening to people and taking their concerns seriously. This will also mean that there does need to be a reckoning of sorts to be had with certain mainstream parties like Labour and the Democrats, who have abandoned their original causes and become big-money mouthpieces and defenders. They either need to come back to represent people against those who would exploit them, or they need to be disbanded so new political forces and brands can be created to deal with the issues that many people are facing. But in countries with FPTP voting like the UK and the USA, replacing Labour or the Democrats with a truly progressive new party would be a big challenge indeed.
Well, that’s a view, and it was worth sharing even if I stick n by my original interpretation
Thanks