The last few days have left me asking some pretty fundamental questions of myself.
I am very well aware that my suggestion that Jeremy Corbyn cannot deliver the policies that I believe are necessary for the UK, which appears to be an opinion shared by every one of Labour's economic advisers, is deeply unpopular with many supporters of Jeremy Corbyn. I only have to look at my Twitter feed and some comments here to realise that. What is more important for me to understand, however, is why those who are angry and I see the world so differently even when my opinion continues to be that we need radical economic reform.
Let me got some obvious things out of the way. Nothing I have said changes a single opinion I have offered in the past. I have same opinions now that I had a week ago. I have no wish for a compromise with neoliberalism. It is a failed economic system.
Let me also be clear: Jeremy Corbyn adopted my ideas last year. I did not write them for him. And whilst I was more than willing to explain them to his audiences and to welcome his use of them last summer I had to take serious and frequent steps to avoid being engaged in the politics of his campaign. You will not, for example, find a single tweet by me last summer supporting his campaign as such. I remained non-aligned, and remained so when many thought I would take a job with his team. I think it only appropriate to say that I was always a thinker and commentator on this issue and not an insider.
But at its core these are not the issues. If, as I think likely, my wishes remain very close to those of my critics then I think the difference of view is about a wide range of differing perspectives.
The first is that, as I have said repeatedly, Jeremy Corbyn is a man who it is very hard not to hold in warm regard and whose commitment is unquestionable, but whose ability to lead a party I now have to question. He did not campaign hard enough in the referendum and I think that was deliberate and party politically motivated on an issue which was too important fur the country for that approach to have been appropriate, as is now clear. This was a straightforward political error of judgement, in my opinion, and on such a large scale that it is quite reasonable to raise the issue.
That said, this would not have been an issue if Jeremy's leadership team had been open with, and embraced, the opinion of others in its thinking, but it didn't. For whatever the reason, and having been left out in the cold for decades is an obvious explanation, the team around Jeremy did not or could not, and I am not sure which, build the relationships with those working for them on which effective power in any system is built. This would have required an openness and an ability to listen and act that seems to have been missing. The result was that when a major disappointment arrived those who felt alienated (the MPs) cracked.
This is not to deny, thirdly that some of course always wanted rid of Jeremy, but to over-emphasise it is wrong. This is always the case in every political party. ‘The bastards' as John Major termed them are always out there, and they were for Jeremy, indisputably. But they can rarely act without opportunity being given. They took theirs here, but I strongly suspect this was not nearly as planned as most seem to think.
To make this personal again (and I am offering a personal reasoning) what I can understand is the frustration felt by many MPs, including decent people who really tried to give Jeremy a chance by, for example, working in the shadow cabinet, who simply could not see how to make working with Jeremy as leader into a practical possibility where effective opposition on a day to day basis in the Commons was possible. I admit I have sensed this frustration growing for some time.
Saying that what I realise this means is that I have viewed this whole issue as someone who has a Westminster orientation to their thinking. I do not think I am part of the ‘Bubble' but equally reflecting on this has made me realise that, as someone I know well has pointed out to me, I do have somewhat more of an insider's view than most, especially when I do not make a habit of reporting here much of the time I do spend around SW1A.
Politics has always, for me, had the purpose of effecting change through parliament. I have never had a taste for party politics per se. This is why I have deliberately chosen to talk to politicians from almost any party willing to engage in conversation, and hope to still do so. It is the change that has always motivated me, which is why tax and economic justice have been what I have worked on with those willing to embrace it. But I have never much doubted that this meant winning support in parliament, including in the EU on occasion. So I have become to some degree familiar with the workings of these places, without aligning to a party, whilst making clear I will always respect the privacy of conversations held. My orientation has, as a result been to campaign success, not party success.
Apply this to what has happened in the last week or so and what is clear is that Jeremy Corbyn is not delivering campaign success at present, in the terms that I describe. The result is he has now not got the support of sufficient MPs in his party to form an effective opposition. That means that, like it or not, he cannot create a team to deliver a policy programme in Westminster, and from my perspective that means it is time for him to accept the team needs changing in the interest of the policy goal, which I think more important. So I said so.
I accept though that others do not see it this way. First that is because I think they do not believe the real working problems that Jeremy's approach has created for the MPs who wanted to support him.
Second, there is disagreement on whether or not Labour ran an effective Brexit campaign. I admit my view had been formed within Westminster and makes me incline towards those who despaired.
Third, I have clearly not understood the symbolism of Jeremy to many. That is my fault. I put issues first. But is this degree of belief in personality in politics really wise, would be my question?
I also have a pragmatism that creates conflicts here. I have been used to trying to create coalitions of interest for a long time. That is, at the end of the day, how issue campaigning works. It crosses party lines and interests to emphasise why there are sufficient features in common to gain broader support. It means that working with those with whom I might not always agree is a normal part of life. I like most of those people even when I do disagree with them. In a very real sense this may be my Quakerism in play: I do always hope there is ‘that of God in everyone', which is a popular Quaker understanding even if there's much less agreement on the nature of God. The practical manifestation of that is I am not good at tribalism. That also means that whilst I dislike some ideas I'd rather not dislike their purveyor (although I do not always succeed: I am human).
And it is my instinct to persuade, find common ground, and progress in stages. The blog is not always a true representation of the fact that I can be quite subtle on occasions, but that is the way I have had to work. And by and large I think that if I have ever made progress it is because of that approach.
Long ago that meant I had to make a decision which all campaigners have to do at some time. That is that they can stay pure and outside the tent, or risk compromise and be within it, talking to participants at risk of delivering something less than optimal in the hope that there will always be another day when the next step can be taken.
I opted to be in the tent. I try to combine a clear vision and an ability to compromise. That's the necessary condition for campaigning success as I see it.
And this week that meant I said what I did. I repeat, I was delighted Jeremy Corbyn used my ideas last summer. I do not regret that he did. I am pleased that many see his economic policies and commitment to economic justice as amongst the best contributions he has made to political thinking and that commentators are saying they should survive his leadership. I sincerely hope they will. That will be my aim. But I could not see how those ideas had a chance in his hands when it was clear that he had lost the support of his parliamentary party, which has happened, in my opinion, for the reason noted above, ‘the bastards' apart.
That then, I hope, explains my reasoning.
It has left me at odds with many who I think of as friends, who do not see the world through my lens.
I will try to see things your way to seek to understand. To realise that this issue is not just about Westminster.
And that party matters much more to many than it has ever occurred it might to me.
And to accept that whereas my causes can require working across boundaries to create shifts in view others are wholly unused to that thinking.
So I will seek to understand, but ask that others try to do the same, including when or if I seek to work with another Labour leadership, as surely I will precisely because the issues on which I have campaigned are as important now as ever. That's what being non-partisan means. It's about trying to achieve a result across party lines. And I think an effective opposition in parliament is an essential part of that process. Which is why I hope we can have one again, soon, under any leadership that can be agreed upon.
This is my last intended comment in this issue.
NB the term 'apolitical' was replaced with 'non-partisan' at noon on 1 July 2016
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:
Great post, Richard.
On a completely different note: do you think the current crisis offers a way back for the Liberal Democrats, currently residing in the “where are they now?” file after the disaster of coalition with the Tories? It sounds like Tim Farron has decided to rebrand the Lib Dems as the single issue, anti-Brexit party. And that might be v popular (although traditional Lib Dem strongholds like south west England mainly voted Leave, so it may be hard for them to get a large number of seats with this new strategy.)
best
Howard
It’s a good question Howard
I am told by a north London friend that many ate now impressed by that Lib Dem position
I initially dismissed that as a typical in the moment reaction, but it may not be. The seats they might win could be in cities
This is excellent, Richard. For what it’s worth, it is my own position and it brings me no joy. I am waiting for someone with the skills of leadership to embrace these ideas and wonder whether I will be disappointed.
I find it hard to imagine that anyone reading this blog will doubt your integrity, although these are intemperate times.
Thanks
I respect your desire to draw a line under this matter and my admiration for your work remains undiminished. It is however worth pointing out that Jeremy’s efforts in the remain cause have been misrepresented. I twice complained to the BBC that his addresses to large audiences had not been covered in their news bulletins when smaller events had been. I was not alone in this.
Angela Eagle was quoted in the Guardian 2 weeks before the event – “Jeremy is up and down the country, pursuing an itinerary that would make a 25-year-old tired, he has not stopped. We are doing our best, but if we are not reported, it is very difficult”
In the light of subsequent events it is reasonable to ask whether there was an orchestrated campaign to keep him off the screens.
(http://www.thecanary.co/2016/06/30/angela-eagle-wants-labour-leader-might-want-avoid-repeating-mistakes-like-image/)
I think that fair comment
But it did all start very late
“…it did all start very late.”
That’s all the public were shown. But the comments referred to the time before he was allowed into the limelight. And I know someone who attended one of his sessions, so I know they were happening, and that they were delivered well.
Having said which, I have not been able to find a list of his engagements anywhere, which is inexplicable if he was nailing his colours to the mast, rather than simply putting in the effort.
Like you, I try to take a rounded view of any situation. Whilst we all have a viewpoint, I think we both watch for biases and try to anchor our views in objective facts. You speak to the players and have an insight into their thinking and motivation that I can only dream of. But you are right to ask whether you have been caught up in the Westminster bubble.
I sometimes retreat from my model of what’s going on and look at what I actually know, and what I don’t. I hear the PLP’s justification: that Corbyn is unelectable. I know that this is coming from experienced politicians who have been immersed in the action for decades. I also know that they are to an extent operating in an echo chamber. I also know how far they went in collaborating with the enemy before Corbyn took the helm. I don’t know whether their predictions are accurate, but I can compare their previous predictions with what has actually happened whenever Labour has gone to meet the electorate. (I also know their record in winning elections over the past couple of years.)
So I have the basis for a judgement as to how far to trust their judgement as to electability.
I know that savinglabour.com was put up anonymously and I have no reason to disbelieve reports that Eagle’s campaign website went up days before she resigned. And there is the matter of poptastic Tom Watson’s heroic crusade for work life balance, or an alibi.
I know that under the rules, Corbyn is impregnable, and that the only way the PLP could hope to get rid of him is by bullying him to resign. I see a game of chicken: either side could give way. The stakes are high, though. I don’t know that they are capable of pulling back from the brink. I don’t see why this should be taken as a given, though.
I also see polling of CLPs of MPs who previously supported Corbyn, which gives at least some statistical evidence as to whether he has support at the front line. I also hear anecdotal stories form the coup leaders. Again, you need to assess the data.
I also know that the main plank of Corbyn’s program, which appears to be getting spun as unelectably hard left, is your economic strategy. I know that the PLP embraced austerity as the only hope of getting elected. I don’t know, but strongly suspect, that if this judgement turned out to be wrong, many would struggle to live with their consciences. (And no, I don’t know that they have consciences. But I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt.)
I agree with you that the most important thing is to get rid of austerity. I don’t see May taking us in that direction. I don’t know that the PLP is unelectable without Corbyn. But I can look at their record. And I have to believe that, even though your expertise lies in economics rather than politics, your public judgement on Corbyn’s chances has to give comfort to the enemy. Most importantly, I can see how the PLP has previously accepted the austerity narrative and reinforced it in the public eye. Whatever people may say to your face, I don’t see an appetite for risking their already (unfairly) tarnished image on economic competence.
Obviously, this matters. You have made a judgement as to the most likely route to acceptance. You are a man of data. I don’t know whether you have put as much effort into assessing and analysing the actual objective facts as you do in your economic analyses. I could see myself, in similar circumstances, relying on the judgement of others and focusing on where I bring unique value. But I think your skills and rigour could cut through the groupthink in a way that others simply haven’t. You are faced with a huge strategic choice which could determine all of our futures. Are you comfortable that you have applied due diligence?
To your question, yes
As far as I am able to do so
It wasn’t a rhetorical question. The post was about unsettling questions and I tried to pick up the theme, without letting my personal conclusions interfere too much (I realise that they did leak in in places).
You have given a straight, sincere answer.
That’s all anyone can ask. Thank you
Most labour voters voted remain. The problem is the PLP were always hostile to him and they had been plotting to remove him. Not only that their actions were undemocratic and all I cna say is shame on them. They are a disgrace.
I wonder, did you read what I wrote?
I did. But they missed an open goal by starting a leadership contest when they could have given the tories a kicking(pardon the expression). It is also unfair to blame Jeremy Corbyn for the fact that in some former Labour heartlands voted leave because in a lot of cases the MP is not from the area and has been imposed. Another problem is that of “safe” seats where supporters of a party’s votes are effectively meaningless. I don’t think the result would have been any different under any other leader.
“Most labour voters voted remain.”
Which is just as well, because in the days running up to the referendum, just shy of 50% of them didn’t even know what the party’s position was.
It is the job of the leader of a party to break through the cacophony and psychodrama of modern party politics and to deliver key messages. This is the unique role of a leader – something no single MP can be expected to do. Corbyn didn’t – either through incompetence or unwillingness. Either way, he deserves blame. Does this mean he should go? I don’t know for sure, though as a Tory voter, I suppose my thoughts on the matter have little currency anyway!
If, as you mention, the Labour Remain percentage of 63% was not enough, I would suggest that the Tory percentage which was 39% You Gov or42% Lord Ashcroft,was the reason that Remain lost the referendum. Cameron worked his socks off and no one is suggesting he didn’t try hard enough. I do agree with another poster that the MSM did not report Corbyn’s efforts.
How is it known that most labour voters voted remain. Is the figure of 64% relating to the labour party membership or the wider labour electorate?
.
A You Gov poll and another poll by Lord Ashcroft.
I dont know what can be done the Corbynistas are acting like outers in my experince as they refuse to discuss the situation rationally and say they will leave the Labour if he leaves as well as saying MPs are out of touch despite all the local work they do.
I suppose it maybe that living in SE England they dont have many local Labour MPs
I used to be a Labour member and sometimes I deliver leaflets for individual councilor’s but have not seen many of the new members helping with the task
They say he was elected on a huge mandate but dont acknowledge that he has been far from successful within the electorate at large since his election.
In the electoral cycle if Labour was on tract to get elected in 2020 they should be well ahead in the Polls but they are not
Corbyn does say things that resonate with me but he just seems to be slogan based without articulating a vision or any policies
Every by election since his election won with increased share of the vote. Wins mayoralty in London and Bristol. How is that not a success?
I am not arguing
But relying on such things makes no sense when relationships in parliament have collapsed
It seems pretty clear that the PLP are out of touch though surely? They’ve been so narrowly focussed on an obsession with “anyone but Jeremy” that literally all they have is the ‘anyone’ bit – there’s no obvious, logical candidate to replace him, to unite the party, to appeal to the electorate, they seem to genuinely believe that all that is required of them is to remove Mr Corbyn and then it will all be sun-lit uplands for Labour.
They’ve created a coup with no leader and no plan, which is exactly what we’ve all been criticising Boris for all week.
I don’t think that many members really really want Corbyn to stay, it’s pretty obvious that the party will never be able to work with him again, but this really strikes me more than anything as an attempt to stamp ‘the Left’ back into a dark hole and make sure that the foolish, misguided public are never given the choice to choose one as leader ever again.
I think that over simplifies for the reasons I stated in the blog
Some were obsessed
I really do not think most were
I could be wrong
We all could be
The need then us for coalition within and beyond party lines
‘ The need then for us is for coalition within and beyond party lines.’
I am in 100% agreement there.
It takes a high degree of regard for evidence, respect for others and willingness to entertain different opinions to make a post of this kind; I’m not surprised you have those characteristics, Richard, and applaud you for demonstrating them once again.
Best regards. Keep up the good work.
I very much appreciate your comments today, they benefit from a little hindsight, and time for reflection.
The difference between you and me Richard is that you have said you are apolitical, and I am a socialist. My time in the Labour Party has given me insight into the machinations and tensions within, that I am sure you are aware of. An apolitical view such as yours may lead to a more balanced and tolerant acceptance of the current activities on the right of the party, whereas my view is more cynical, less trusting (maybe Chilcott will shed light on why this is the case), and yes, probably more tribal.
That said I concur wholeheartedly with this observation from above, with just one caveat:
“I am pleased that many see his economic policies and commitment to economic justice as amongst the best contributions he has made to political thinking and that commentators are saying they should survive his leadership. I sincerely hope they will. That will be my aim. But I could not see how those ideas had a chance in his hands when it was clear that he had lost the support of his parliamentary party, which has happened, in my opinion, for the reason noted above, ‘the bastards’ apart.
The caveat is that I credit the “bastards” with more malice than you do, and seriously question their underlying motivation, and I am genuinely fearful that replacing Jeremy will take us back on the neo-liberal track. For me, much will depend on whether Angela Eagle, Owen Smith or whoever comes forward, can espouse the policies that I believe in.
Thank you
One note: I use apolitical to mean not party political here
It is indisputable that my work is political: all campaigning is, as is much else in life
I am genuinely fearful that replacing Jeremy will take us back on the neo-liberal track.
This is my fear too. The one quality Jeremy has that at present nobody else has is that he provides a visible political focus for anti-neoliberalism. If he goes, who can do that? And keeping that movement visible and audible and developing it is the only way to wrench the public perception of ‘the problem’ away from immigration, which is so divisive in the country and will not help to solve its underlying problems. As things are, I see that priority as trumping the electability of Labour, since I don’t see the current mainstream of the party as any more electable now than they were under Miliband: the effects of Blairism are still too strong.
Thank you, Richard, for an excellent post.
I fear that too. Of course I do
And I will unambiguously fight it
But the reality is if Jeremy cannot lead we have to make sure that whoever succeeds takes the necessary line
I assure you I will not be a soft touch
I never have been
What I hope to see now that I (too) am unfortunately resigned to the fact that Jeremy will not be able to lead the party, is that he is at least given a shadow cabinet post and that John McDonnell remains significant in the Shadow Treasury (we cannot expect the new leader to keep JM as the Shadow Chancellor, if he is not their preferred candidate, but I hope he retains an influential post).
I think however, that Richard is understating the influence of “the bastards” in this coup – the media (even “left friendly” papers like the Mirror and the Guardian) have been anti-Corbyn since his election as leader, focussing on his appearance and behaviour rather than his policies, I assume because they know his policies would be wholeheartedly accepted by their readership! Right leaning MPs like Simon Danczuk, Chuka Umunna and the rest have been briefing the press to keep up the pressure and the live resignation of Stephen Doughty moments before PMQ have been orchestrated to inflict maximum harm on his leadership. Sadly, because of this, I believe Corbyn and his team have developed a bunker mentality, and though you cannot blame him for this, it is probably why he cannot now lead the party.
We will have to wait and see what happens after the leadership bid, my hope is that Corbyn wins support from the members, but (recognising he has lost support from the PLP) then steps down and nominates a successor who is favourable to the policies he borrowed from Richard. My fear is that he is supported by the members, tries to rally the party and the Labour party splits in two.
Last night I watched the Guardian Live post- Brexit vote event now available online https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBB8myf03hU&app=desktop
Paul Mason was a contributor. A man, like Richard, who is always worth listening to, is close to and influential within the Corbyn camp and with inside knowledge of recent machinations.
Mason spoke, like Richard, of the desperate need for people-centred, non-neoliberal economic plan for the future of the UK and identified John McDonnell as being the only person within Labour who has such a plan. Without this it will be impossible for Labour, under any leader, to challenge the tories successfully and regain those drifting to UKIP or who no longer vote.
McDonnell is a more abrasive character than Corbyn (who , to his credit but not necessarily his own benefit, seems to be able to see the good in everyone) has been prepared to “call a spade a spade” in the past and hence is even more unpopular within the PLP.
For Mason, Corbyn always was an interim leader (there is plenty of evidence that he sees himself in the same way) and the key issue going forward is making sure that the people behing the coup, who stand to lose out in every way from changing the economic model, do not succeed.
It may well be that those resigning are acting in good faith, but how many of them understanding the failings of and neccessity to replace the neoliberal economic model?
Mason said that he had been working on resolving the situation behind the scenes. Maybe it is possible to engineer a situation where a more polished communicator, with similar authenticity but sharper political instincts can succeed Corbyn (with his blessing so as not to alienate Corbyunistas). This person must share the economic vision and have minimal baggage from the Blair? Brown era. Angela Eagle icertainly not this person. Maybe Owen Smith is?
I have consistently said I want John and Jeremy in a shadow cabinet, with John I. The Chancellor role
Today, of all days, we should remember what can happen when we allow politicians to forget who they serve and to what end. We are responsible for the hole we’re in and we’ve been digging it for 30 years. It’s time to shape up, open the fist and offer a hand to the person next to us and to protest loudly at those who do not. We start by talking to someone we think we don’t agree with and we keep talking until we find common ground.
People have identified with the Take Back Control message of the Leave Campaign. Europe however was not the problem. It is our government that needs to take back control from Corporations and become the Courageous State as per your book of the same name. I still believe JC could do that
I hoped he would
But for all the reasons I note it was never a one person or one party campaign
I presumed that Corbyn was waiting for the local elections to be over before campaigning on the EU to try to avoid a loss of Labour voters in local elections that the media, and his unsupporting MPs had already trailed as a cause to depose him.
I am not a member of the Labour Party, but my perspective is that Corbyn’s team want to make changes to enable members to have more say over policy,, and to become a more democratic party. My understanding is that the enabling rules would be passed at the next conference i.e. the autumn. Having achieved this I suspect that if a suitable candidate i.e. someone wiling to take forward the general direction of policies that Jeremy has started I think he would then have stood down – I don’t think he has a great yearning to be prime minister. We could then have had some opposition to the current disgraceful government. The action and timing of Labour MPs is to make Labour unelectable for years, and to further disillusion people from politics, which will have a lasting impact.
Its hardly surprising if Corbyn’s team has a bunker mentality given the behaviour of many Labour MPs from the moment Corbyn was elected.
Leadership required them to reach out
That’s what leaders do
They did not
Don’t blame others for that: it was their job
Richard, whilst I share your disappointment in the lack of leadership it is very clear that some were never willing to be led. I feel at the moment that even some of those who served in the shadow cabinet were not there to serve us.
You mentioned somewhere, I think, that you hoped that John McDonnell would stay on but I have the impression that people want rid of him more than Corbyn.
This isn’t about one person, it is about whether the Labour party continues to represent ordinary people or becomes a British version of the Democrats. Whatever happens, that is what matters to me and will decide how I vote.
I have not spoken to all, of course, by a long way
I do think those I have some knowledge of really tried
Richard,
I appreciated your earlier postings and supported them. I think you are entirely right to wonder whether Jeremy really is up to it and believe you set out your position clearly and logically..
On the referendum, which I think has set alarm bells ringing within the PLP for a number of reasons, I’d say it’s entirely fair to highlight Jeremy’s somewhat unenthusiastic endorsement in what was a key issue for the party he leads.
Well written article but I disagree with it. There is a good rule of thumb in politics which is that good policies/actions do not need to be lied about (see EU referendum). It seems to me that the MPs with their pre-arranged plot went about the removal of Corbyn in the worst possible way and it was because of this that my heart sank when I heard what had happened. Labour has a perfectly good democratic system for getting rid of leaders and it seemed to me by the their actions the MPs were trying to bypass that and admitting that they could not sell their case to the membership.
Worse the MPs and their media friends appear not to realise that the Labour membership and the typical Labour voter is someone who respect values and this single fact explains the Corbyn phenomenon. On the subject of competence I would actually question the competence of the anti-Corbyn side. If the whole affair ends up with the party split which seems the most likely outcome how is initiating the process that led there a display of great political nous? From my perspective Corbyn digging in his heels was totally predictable. To do otherwise would be to betray his democratic mandate and all the people who voted for him. How come the plotting MPs did not realise that? The only other outcome from here besides a party split would be for Corbyn to resign which would trigger mass resignations in the membership. How can anyone think that this is a good outcome? The party seems set to be damaged either way and initiating this course of action and not appearing to understand the downside risks seems to be recklessness and stupidity of Boris-like proportions.
Corbyn and only Corbyn had the courage to put anti-austerity on the Labour political agenda and it was over late in coming. A value-based approached to economic policy would have put it on the agenda much earlier and probably won Labour the last election. The Labour strategy on economics was pretty weak validating Osborne’s disasterous policies in the minds of the public. Yet here we are again and it looks like Labour are once more in the middle of making a complete pigs ear of political strategy. I am a fan of both Andy Burnham and Yvette Cooper yet both were beaten resoundingly in the last leadership contest because they lacked both the courage and the nous to put up more radical policies.
It’s fine to criticise Corbyn’s leadership but the thing I find most depressing is that no one in the anti-Corbyn camp seems to have learnt any lessons from his victory last time. Since no lessons have been learnt it seems likely that no credible candidate will be put up and the longer the delay the less likely that appears.
I do wonder if you read what I wrote
Labour gave Corbyn a chance – lots agreed to serve
There weren’t that many who refused altogether
It’s just wrong to say all who resigned were plotters. Of ciyrse some did: I am not naive. But they would not have had a hope of an open goal had not been built for them. And that was the problem
I honestly think most who resigned were honest, non-plotters who were at the end of their tether with a system that was not working
Richard,
Thanks for the reply. All I am saying is here we are in a situation of perfectly predictable civil war when the party needed unity. I don’t think Corbyn has ‘a monstrous ego’ as some have said and I think it likely that he would have resigned sometime before 2020 if a candidate with more media skills could be found who would embrace the roughly the same agenda. I think the plotters panicked the other MPs with talk of Boris calling an election. Waiting to see the fallout of the Referendum would have led them to see that there was no election coming. I can’t see any way out of this mess that won’t harm the party and there is a chance the party will be permanently damaged. Allow this to happen suggests a lack of leadership skills in the rest of the party although Andy Burnham must come out of this with some credit. Not good overall. The one thing Labour MPs sometimes look very bad at is politics.
If the plotters and other MPs have such a good case how is it with all their political nous, media skills, leadership skills etc they can’t make the case to their own members? You can see by their own actions that they don’t think they can. I respect and understand your opinion and know precisely where your coming from so I think we’ll just have to disagree on this one.
So we need coalition – as I said before all this started
A coalition, of course! Now I understand! The PLP have handed the opposition to the SNP in a gesture of fraternal goodwill in the hope of solidarity after the next election. Good to see some strategic thinking at last!
And on the other side of the coalition, didn’t I see somewhere that Theresa May is thinking of rolling back from austerity? Have you been talking to her?
I started typing thinking I was being facetious. But it’s hard to keep up with the spiral into chaos. With your wits about you, I’m sure you’ll see opportunities in the strangest places.
I think your comments are losing touch with reality
I suspect this one always had a fairly loose relation to reality. It was originally a joke, until I saw reports that May would abandon the commitment to balance the budget. I appreciate that this is more a recognition of economic reality than a conversion to socialism.
I’m confident that the longer comment is solid.
The nub of the argument used to be, “he’s unelectable”. I think you agreed above that this is not necessarily consistent with the data.
Now, it seems to be “You can’t be leader because we won’t follow”, which is circular.
Of course there are real questions as to process. I have never seen an organisation which didn’t suffer complaints about its leadership process. I’m sure they are sincerely held. I can’t judge whether they are accurate, and those who are close enough are probably too close. There are similar questions about his media management.
I do think it’s unrealistic to expect him to simply resign without some reason to believe that his principles will go forward. And that this would be unwelcome.
An insightful post, I agree that the tactics, timing and planning for an alternative leader were woeful.
Excellent post Richard. I agree with you on this and I think it is telling of the attitude of the Corbyn camp that they can continually talk of “factional manoeuvring”. They are intent on their troupe of socialists controlling the party. They have lost sight of the ultimate objective, which is gaining power to implement change. They want to win arguments not elections.
I think you misunderstand Corbyn completely and attitudes like that you have stated are self-defeating. I can see that the anti-Corbyn MPs don’t want an election precisely because they think that they will lose it. The only hope for the party is for someone to actual find out what the membership wants and deliver it. Most of the membership are not ‘wide-eyed trots’ or even anything close to it. They just want policies they can relate to, deliver benefit to ordinary people and sound sensible. The last thing they want is a return to Tory-lite which just ends up validating Tory policies in the eyes of voters.
My own preference is for evidence-based policies and I have always done so. I expect my views are very similar to Richard’s and the disagreements we’ve had on this blog are really about the execution of politics and the best way forward. Unfortunately characterising Corbyn and his followers as unreasonable just means you are not going to engage them and you are going to lose the election for leader should one happen. Demonising your own electorate is not a good strategy particularly for a group of people talking about competence a lot and completely convinced of their own political wisdom!
‘They have lost sight of the ultimate objective, which is gaining power to implement change’
The problem is what point is getting in power if you’ve ditched the ‘change’ bit.
Or do we want a Labour that can deliver a few crumbs off the neo-liberal table? Is that better than a Labour that splits and reforms with something that CAN offer change and has found a way of communicating that? Genuine question, not rhetorical.
Richard … your stance is totally reasonable and rational. I cannot understand why so many people find it difficult to differentiate between the message and the messenger. Democratic politics is about persuading enough people to buy into your world vision. Strategy & tactics will differ depending on the particular voting system. Under a FPTP system it is arguably more difficult because winner take all. With PR there is more room for cooperation, which is clearly more staisfactory in meeting the aspirations of a mixed electorate. In our particular ‘version’ of representative democracy, MPs are elected to deliver a manifesto on behalf of their party membership but also their constituency. As we’ve discovered, we’re not (yet) accustomed to plebiscites and direct democracy, which is better suited to a PR voting system.
I don’t reacll you ever bringing Corbyn’s integrity into question. It is your opinion, and that of many, that regrettably he does not have the qualities to deliver his progressive manifesto via the mechanisms available – i.e. Westminster and then the country at large. No matter how many paid-up members of the party support him, if he doesn’t have the natural skills to persuade a wider electorate that their policies are better than the opposition’s then a new leader is required.
If the leader is out of step with his Westminster colleagues elected by millions of voters most of whom are not party members, then clearly that is a big internal issue to be resolved. If individual MPs find it impossible to work with ‘the boss’ then they have choices : resign, join the awkward squad and stay on the back-benches or plot to remove him/her. History shows that the UK general electorate doesn’t like divided parties.
If Corbyn stays (I gather there are suggestions that he may in the end resign) then the only thing he has to prove is that he can win a General Election, and we won’t know that until after. If he goes, then it is up to the Labour Party to elect someone who they think can win. The choice is entirely theirs. It’s certainly nothing to do with the vast majority of us until we cast our vote at a general election. But it doesn’t stop us offering advice & suggestions fromthe side lines in order to advance a wider progressive agenda beyond the PLP.
I don’t know if that makes sense to anyone else. Whether he stays or goes we progressive non-Labour Party members hope and pray whoever leads Labour can and will defeat a reinvigorated Tory party under the leadership of May or Gove, either of which is a formidable political animal not to be underestimated. While there’s still everything to play for, good leadership obviously makes the struggle easier. Like you, Richard, I don’t believe Corbyn is the best choice to achieve such a victory. It is beyond unfortunate that Labour is having this internal feud at a time when their opponents are in the throes of an internecine fight of Shakespearean proportion. Phew, my day has barely started and I’m already mentally exhausted. Need a strong coffee – Organic Fair Trade of course.
Enjoy the brew
Thanks. I hope you can enjoy a more relaxed day, wherever you are. All work, no play etc. ….
Listening to an ECB economist is raising my blood pressure
No surprise there!
Richard, very well articulated and I understand entirely your position on both Corbyn and Brexit and also why we have differed on these two things. We may come at life from different perspectives but I think still have a similar desire for long term economic and political change to improve the lives of ordinary working people.
We may all sometimes have different views on the means to the end, but it always a good idea to have a clear view of what your destination is before setting off on a journey. The route that different pioneers may take will often diverge and come back together again when the best route through has been identified and can be most easily traveled by future travelers.
As anyone who has explored wild and remote areas knows well, the terrain and prevailing conditions will always be the biggest challenge to reaching your destination. I think the same applies in business and politics, which is why we all have to adapt to survive and prosper.
And so my somewhat rambling point (from an inveterate rambler) is that once you have started out on a journey it is always wise to pause, review the conditions, assess the best route and then continue to head for your desired destination.
I certainly try to do that most days, in between my occasional outbursts!
I think you have made some very good points and have clearly searched yourself with a degree of reflexivity that is admirable and is a testimony to your integrity (and Quaker values).
I think this is exemplified when you say ‘I will try to see things your way to seek to understand. To realise that this issue is not just about Westminster.’ It’s great you can say this and I thank you for it warmly.
If I can just say a few things about my perspective ‘out here’:
When you write about the M.P.s around Corbyn saying they were ‘decent people who tried to give Jeremy a chance’, the impression ‘out here’ is that the gunning for him was continuous and John McDonell’s recent words seem to confirm that. The ‘faux statesman’ speech of Benn during the Syria debate was, in my view an utter disgrace and a mini-leadership bid in itself and had no element of compromise about it;indeed, Benn’s luke warm criticism of Cameron’s foul and totally inappropriate, amateurish accusation the Corbyn was a ‘terrorist sympathiser’ missed a superb chance to excoriate the man – instead Benn’s fire was on Corbyn by implication.
On the same theme: where was the taking on board of policy by the rest of the PLP; the admission that they were a policy-free-zone up to the last election? I never heard these voices. Where was the admission that Labour had let millions down and needed large-scale teleological change; why did THEY fail to explicate matters clearly during the referendum that they accuse Corbyn of losing singe-handedly. McDonell KNEW the issues that needed to be got across:
“The campaign to leave made three claims to the disenfranchised. First, they claimed that pressure on public services and the lack of jobs was caused not by Tory governments imposing austerity and failing to invest, but by migration alone. ”
If Corbyn failed to get that across , so did the rest of them. I do not hear the much needed reflection on this which worries me.
The second point I would make is in connection with your view that’the team needs changing in the interests of the policy goal.’ I’m happy to accept that may well be the case ( I have no Corbyn fixation as such) but with many of us ‘out here’ having severe doubts that there is such a team when the Party has, so far, shown NO signs of taking those policy goals on board as a whole leaves peoplle like me justifiable worried. Richard-nothing you have said so far alleviates that deep concern.
Thirdly the ‘symbolism of Jeremy’ was not, on the whole connected with him as an individual but with the need and possibility that Labour could shift from a pattern of 40 years of failure to challenge neo-liberalism. 9 months is not a reasonable transition time. Especially after the last five years that showed Labour in a state of utter impotence and cringing incapacity to challenge one of the most right wing Governments in recent history. This, in my view, is a real concern that you may not have taken on board. Some of us ‘out here’ experienced considerable hardship and distress and were st the receiving end of this stuff, that doesn’t make us more balanced in our observations, of course, but is an important factor in how we view things.
Fourthly: compromise is important. But there are natural limits to that if the compromise means excessive dilution or abandonment of policy goals and a drift back to Tory Lite that allows a cruel Government to continue unhindered. It might mean there is a notional opposition but to what avail? We’re back to the LINO position again and the ‘eternal recurrence of the same.’ Compromise means meeting people part of the way not the whole way. The word ‘opposition’ does not apply here, it is not opposing but a mere ‘simulacrum’ of it giving the illusion of democracy which, it has been said, is something that fuelled the anger behind Brexit voters. Do we want more of that?
Fifthly: ‘many see his economic policies and commitment to economic justice as amongst the best contributions he has made to political thinking and that commentators are saying they should survive his leadership.’ I would agree IF there were visible signs of this and statements to that effect from others in the PLP but barely anything has been said that gives one confidence in this area. Your sentence reveals the uncertainty with the word ‘should.’ We need greater clarity in this fundamental point than a ‘should.’ The times we live in are too volatile for this sort of ‘shilly-shallying’. If Corbyn is accused of lacking ‘leadership’ the those saying this had better come out of the traps with something useful-they are obliged to do so in my view.
(Sorry for such a long blog at such a busy (and difficult) time for you-of course you do not need to respond if you haven’t time as this blog is also about sharing between contributors).
Laughing: my spells check automatically changed ‘ideological’ to ‘teleological’ -so spell checks can make Freudian slips?
🙂
Thank you Richard, I value your reasoned and calm response to the current hysteria
More than anything the current situation fills me with sadness. So much hope was invested in Corbyns selection, and it has been wonderful to see so many young people energised and inspired by a political party. I suppose it should come as no surprise that someone who was a backbencher for so many years should find it difficult to lead a party, especially one whose PLP did not not support him 100%, and I suspect that history will show that he was not astute in the team he selected to surround him. At this critical time the country is in dire need of a strong opposition who espouses clear values on equality and Labour should be that opposition. This is why I and many others have reluctantly decided that Corbyn is not the man to lead this. I do believe that for the sake of his party he should resign, as a split to the party to which he has dedicated his life would surely be a legacy his would regret.
A very honest and sincere blog, which I hope both your supporters and detractors will respect, Richard.
But I’m going to take issue with you on one thing – which is unusual, as you know.
You are most certainly not ‘apolitical’. Apolitical means you have ‘no interest or involvement in politics’ (Oxford English Dictionary). Nobody who reads your blog or who knows you would agree with that. You are in fact one of the most political people I know – both in the sense of knowing how politics works, and operating within highly political circles. And you have on several occasions on this blog over the years made clear to people who really do err towards the apolitical that all policy choices are political – indeed, maybe all choices of any kind are.
So, let’s be clear, about what you are: you are not PARTY political. Or I think we could even say that you are non-partisan in your approach to politics, thus not favouring any one party over another.
But please refrain from referring to yourself as apolitical. It seriously misrepresents what you are and what you do, and it provides at least one avenue through which many of those Corbyn supporters who you’ve upset over this past week to attack you for what is, in fact, an entirely unjustified reason.
Ivan
I have already admitted once on here that I did not make a good choice of word there
You are right: I am political but not in a party way
Should I edit the blog?
Richard
Apologies, that response from you was not up when I wrote my comment. Personally I think you should remove ‘apolitical’ from ‘That’s what being apolitical means.’ in the final paragraph and replace it with non-partisan. To me that still retains the meaning of the final paragraph and the overall argument of the whole blog.
Done
Those of thus that know you would have no-doubt about your position which you have made clear. ‘Non-partisan’ may be a better way of putting it – but we can hardly point a finger for the odd (and it’s not often) less-than felicitous word choice when we know you are
a) typing at thinking at great speed
b) Trying to respond with some psychological depth to ‘us’ contributors.
c) Multi-tasking to a level that would have most of us tied up in knots!
d) Being a Dad
e) Being a Uni professor.
Might be good to edit that one, though.
Thanks Simon
I have edited now
Whilst waiting to talk international tax reform
Sorry Richard, I respect your integrity and financial nous but all I’m getting from this is political naivety. You need to at least consider the possibility that these ‘oh so sincere’ Labourites that tried so hard to work with Jeremy, are actually full of it. From day one of his campaign the mediapolitical structure has been rabidly against him.
He didn’t lose the PLP he never had them in the first place and that’s why acceptance of the PLP will is so offensive to so many of us.
Yes a leader can’t be effective without support from the PLP – but when that leader is in tune with public support then maybe it’s the PLP that needs changing not the leader.
If that was true he would never have got a sgphadow cabinet
He did
And I do think they tried
You clearly don’t
Of course some always opposed, unambiguously
But not all
And it seems to me naive to think the failure is all in the part of one side. That is just no the case
I accept my own weaknesses. Why not be open minded as well?
Nonsense, of course he would have gotten a shadow cabinet – I think a few even tried but the mediapolitical entity got rolling and sabotage was constant. I struggle to remember an individual, barring a heinous criminal, that the MSM so went against. Did some try? no doubt, but did they try really hard or keep one eye on their political future? Some almost seem as if they appeared to support JC just so that they could then resign in high dudgeon.
If Corbyn goes I guarantee you that the PLP will not reform around an anti austerity agenda. Or if they do then election would bring about a sea change back to the neo liberal. You may say this is me lacking an open mind whereas I’ll believe it when I see it.
You may be right on your second point – it depends on who is chosen
But I am not writing nonsense
I must admit my perception is with Alistair here but I would very much rather you were correct. The trouble is I don’t see to how to get to a situation where Jeremy is in the Shadow Cabinet with a fair amount of influence and John McDonnell is still Chancellor (with hopefully the EAC back up running). That should take care of the PLPs concerns and if Jeremy felt able to step down and back another candidate we could all breath a sigh of relief and get back to fighting the Tories. Why I still use the word coup in my writings is I don’t see any sign of compromise from the PLP’s side – they are not doing what they need to do to convince the membership that their intentions are for the good of the party or they are not being imaginative enough to see a constructive way forward. Both sides should be talking constructively now if they don’t want to see the party split. In fact the talks should have taken place before the whole ridiculous circus started. I am talking with a group of Labour Party members over the weekend so I will see what they think.
Richard sorry too many strands here I think but hopefully some of the ideas will help. Penned this just now
––––––-
I and I hope most of you are here because the current capitalist philosophy of Neoliberalism does not deliver and Richard gives me hope that there is a much better model which will deliver a fairer society. I an not a Quaker like Richard bit was brought up in Dublin as a left wing Catholic; very much in the Franciscan tradition. I have an ingrained desire for fairness; this seems hardwired and I still find it very difficult to understand how Christianity can be compatible with Right-Wing thought. I was interested in Economics but ended up doing Astrophysics. I’m sure the economist amongst you will have seen straws in the wind in the mid ‘70s after Stagflation but we seemed to enter a parallel universe when Margaret Thatcher was elected Prime minister and used St Francis’s prayer on the steps of number 10 on becoming Prime Minister. I was outraged.
At the time I was in the US doing the experimental part of my PhD. It was a tough time for Carter – the Iranian hostage crisis and Walter Cronkite used to finish off the CBS news with “This is the nth day of the Iranian Hostage Crisis”. At the time a clown called Regan was running for president. One of the things I found most Ironic was that whereas Carter was a deeply religious and principled person, Regan was a completer fraud and yet seem to capture a lot of the right wing religious vote. Some of my friends said the would leave the US if he got elected. As it happened I returned to Dublin to write up my PhD – some of you may remember the Bobby Sands hunger strike and saw Thatcher’s complete ineptitude. I thought at the time Thatcher must be insane; implementing policies which were the polar opposite of which would actually work. As a chemist surely she must understand the difference between water and petrol?
Regan got elected and what followed was a perfect storm of crazy economic policies on both sides to the Atlantic. “Trickle Down Economics” in the US and a form of raw capitalism in the UK. I had expected to go back to a postdoc position in the US but ended up in South Yorkshire and hence was in the epicentre of the miners strike. I know now that both the US and UK models were a form of Neoliberalism, a quasi-religious economic doctrine with no evidential proof at the time. It was clear even at the time it would vastly increase inequality in society but had the promise that ‘a rising tide lifts all boats’. There is an interesting debate to be had whether this was cock-up or conspiracy. However it is clear that this form of capitalism has been a disaster and has failed miserably even in it own terms.
Very interesting article in the Atlantic http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/brexit-voters-self-interest/489350/?utm_source=atltw which argues in terms of behavioural economics and strong reciprocators and altruistic punishers and the Ultimate Game. Essentially when unfairness reaches a certain level people don’t necessarily behave rationally but are quite prepared to bring the entire house down to regain a sense of control. Very scary in terms of Trump and we even might get a “Double Whammy” just as in 1979.
It won’t be a rerun of the 1980 or even the 1930s, they say history only repeats itself in parody and Jeremy Corbyn is not Michael Foot. I know these are desperate times for the Labour party and the Left in General. The quality of MPs is a shadow of what it was 20 years ago; just look at this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Party_(UK)_Shadow_Cabinet_election,_1995 and it is difficult to not to despair as a new leader needs to be found. To me only Caroline Lucas and Nicola Sturgeon make the grade, but the Scots are trying to leave the sinking ship so Nicola won’t be interested. Ireland leaving the UK has ultimately been very good for Ireland but the consequences for the UK are underestimated. It made it vastly easier for the Tories to get an overall majority and will be even worse if Scotland leaves.
What is important are ideas. Neoliberalism allowed Regan and Thatcher to profoundly reshape the US and UK and send both countries in a trajectory to dystopia. It has been an absolute disaster. More than ever we need to rescue the country. Richard has the ideas but politicians need to implement them. The natural leader of the Left is the Labour leader but under the current circumstances he needs not only to be able to inspire his own party but passionately get others to join the fold in terms of a coalition or other arrangement. Even dare I say it One Nation Tories.
Maybe there is no one who is up to the task but it is patently clear Jeremy is not. Please lay off Richard it is sucking up his valuable time and getting the country nowhere.
Thanks Sean
You may well need a laugh today. It’s a rather hackneyed clip but well done
http://www.irishexaminer.com/examviral/fun-times/it-had-to-happen-heres-the-brexit-hitler-video-407612.html
What a great discussion, apart from one or to sillies.Better than anything currently being churned out in the Guardian or New Statesman. Thanks, Richard, but please ignore the personal abuse.
My thanks to all too
Totally agree. It would be a pity if this discussion was just amongst ourselves, though as there a lot of thoughts and perceptions that would help other people’s thinking. I am going to point out its existent to others who are even now tearing their hair out at what has happened! Can I also add my thanks to Richard for his always stimulating blog.
I found this article interesting (and it was in the Guardian!). It does strike me that there is a growing public appetite for a bottom up approach to politics in this country – which has been attempted by UKIP, SNP, the Greens and now Momentum.
Perhaps that is what the PLP really fear, not Corbyn vs MP’s but Momentum versus Progress?
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/01/momentum-and-liverpool-is-labour-heading-for-a-split-jeremy-corbyn
Let’s keep talking coalition
Yes indeed – this is the way.
Part two of Ewan MacAskill’s report on the local Labour party’s view of Angela Eagle’s potential leadership bid also makes interesting reading. No doubt a similar issue for most other possible contenders.
Note to MP’s – before you poke the hornet’s nest, it is always best to consider the possible consequences!
https://www.theguardian.com/membership/2016/jul/02/angela-eagle-anger-rises-in-her-wallasey-constituency-corbyn-labour
But is it reasonable that 40 people can unseat a potential Labour leadership contender?
I agree with accountability, but is that really the basis on which a potential governing party can be governed?
If I can express what others have said slightly differently, one of the reasons the “regulars” on this blog are regulars is that you have convinced us of your honesty, positive intentions and integrity over a long period of time. We’ve learned that we can disagree with you and come to our own conclusions without falling out irretrievably. We’ve learned that we can trust you to fight in the best way you can to achieve what I believe is our common goal, a fairer and more equal world in which the needs of the many are not sacrificed on the altar of corporate and/or individual greed. Very long may that continue.
Thanks Nick
Richard, I think you are being much more optimistic than me about the chances of avoiding a return to neoliberalism if Jeremy steps down. At the last Labour election the nomination requirement was 15% of the 232 MPs (35 votes); now it is 20% of the 249 MPs + MEPs (50 votes). If Corbyn got at most 19 votes from people who genuinely supported him (not those wanting to let him in to “widen the debate”), then I do not see how any candidate close to putting forward the policies that both you and Jeremy support can at the same time garner 50 votes.
I’d be interested to hear an explanation from you about why you believe it’s possible to mostly keep your/Jeremy’s policies and still gain those 31 extra votes. You can’t suddenly gain those votes by being a tiny bit less leftwing, but only by quite a big movement away from those policies. Over the last few days you have mentioned Owen Smith, Keir Starmer, Lisa Nandy, and Angela Eagle as potential leaders, but these all abstained from the welfare bill last July and Corbyn’s opposition to that was a big factor early in the race for his popularity — I’m not sure any name from the abstainers could gain the support of the Corbynite membership (and Eagle voted for Iraq).
The dream combination is someone with your/Jeremy’s policies (or close enough) and PLP support, but I believe the choice is between the two. If I had to choose between Jeremy leading without PLP support and a candidate with PLP support with watered-down anti-austerity and semi-acceptance of neoliberalism, I would still choose Jeremy as the better option — while you are maintaining we can have both the policies and PLP support, I get the impression that if you had to choose between these two scenarios you would consider the latter scenario the least bad option. This is a big gamble, because if the PLP get their candidate as leader then the first thing they will do is change the leadership rules to make sure that only their type of candidate can get onto future ballots.
If Jeremy stands down then we will have a leadership openly opposed to the membership — I see this as just as big a problem as the PLP opposing the leadership — how can a leadership ask the country to support it when it doesn’t even have the support of its own party?
Instead of saying Jeremy should stand down and then we should see who becomes leader and hope that they are amenable to Murphynomics, I believe we have to be very careful about considering what would follow if Corbyn stands down.
I can see only three viable options.
1. Jeremy stands down in exchange for both McDonnell being put into the contest and the PLP agreeing to support McDonnell if he wins (though given the behaviour of the PLP over the last few days I would recommend Jeremy waits until McDonnell is officially on the ballot before standing down rather than taking their word for it). While there are other potential candidates with similar views to Jeremy, I think only McDonnell, as Corbyn’s number 2, would be accepted by the Corbynite membership as close enough to Corbyn.
2. Jeremy loses a leadership contest, and the new leader is therefore seen as legitimately commanding the support of their own party.
3. Jeremy wins a leadership contest and the PLP agree to support him temporarily with an electoral pact across centre-left parties with the promise of PR, so that after Prime Minister Corbyn brings in PR the party can split in two. I believe that if there was only one centre-left candidate in each English and Welsh constituency then Corbyn would have a good chance of becoming PM. They could even reach out to UKIP supporters with the promise of vote for us once and with PR your future UKIP votes will count for more. Maybe this coalition would also need to campaign on some sort of option for not leaving the EU to get the support of the SNP (though I accept this might compromise the previous sentence somewhat).
This is so academic
Jeremy cannot run the PLP
If there isn’t a unified PLP there will be a rump of labour at the next election
Of course I would prefer a strongly anti-neoliberal party
But I’d rather a party to work with than none at all
Thesis no chance of PM Corbyn in my opinion
I may be wrong. I would be happy to be. All I have offered an opinion, not a wish
And that’s the else risk
Richard
I am trying to keep to your ‘no more than 2 comments’ per post rule. I never expected the numbers of responses to you posts on the Corbyn fracas. I think that your motives are indicative of the fact that you are closer to Caesar so to speak than many of us who comment here.
I appreciate this post very much.
Did you ever think that the best opposition in the country to BREXIT and the Tories was/is actually YOU? And that may well remain the case?
I’m serious.
I have no problems with you having an opinion about the leadership crisis in Labour but for me it was when you aired it. That is all.
Please – indulge me a little more. Here is a little vignette to humorously (I hope) illustrate my point:
The Scene: Post leadership election – the New Labour Leader (Blairite/Leftie/Middle of the road/male/female – whatever) is having their first meeting to get things organised:
“Right” (to their new right hand man/woman/whatever) “I need to appoint some really good advisors to help me sort this country out. Any ideas?”
Right hand man/woman/whatever: “Oh well there’s a number of really progressive ones but the real star of the show is Richard Murphy – you must talk to him Boss”.
New Labour Leader: (enthusiastically) “Hmm……Richard Murphy – the bloke who advised Corbyn and was credited with creating Corbynomics” (then, staring directly at the Right hand man/woman/whatever, lowering their voice but increasing the volume) “……and then on his blog publically backed the PLP to get Corbyn to stand down you mean after the BREXIT vote!!!!!?”.
Right hand man/woman/whatever: (meekly) “Erm……yes-yes Boss”
New Labour Leader: “Hmmm…yes….erm…could you erm…get me Steve Hilton’s telephone number please – and erm… be discrete about it eh – there’s a good chap/chapette – er – sorry ‘comrade'”.
Right hand man/woman/whatever: “Yes Prime Minister” (rolling their eyes and – with a look of resigned ‘here we go again’ – they rush off to do the deed).
That’s my point and only ever was and remains as such.
If we are drawing lines under things today, this is mine. Please accept it.
I look forward to supporting your work, making my tiny contributions to the debate and FWIW I still want you to sign my copy of the Joy of Tax if I’m ever fortunate enough to be in the same room as you one day.
Maybe
Who knows
I never presume I will be asked anyway so I certainly didn’t figure that in
Hi Richard,
To my understanding, you and I share similar beliefs on how we would like the world to work and I read your blog daily because your thoughts, and the comments below, have opened my eyes to a great many things. In the interest of understanding, I’d like to explain to you my thoughts and why I am so angry with the PLP. I suspect I am not atypical of a lot of those who voted for Jeremy last year and now feel somewhat betrayed.
First, I feel like I woke up politically last May, although I have had an interest in politics since my teenage years, in the late eighties, I have only recently become active joining the Labour party in the days after Jeremy’s election. Since this awakening, I have been keen to learn as much as I can and reading about economics lead me here.
I was distraught by the prospect of an unrestrained Tory government after the GE, particularly as I had hoped we might have got electoral reform out of the Milliband coalition that looked likely from the polls. A small group of us at work formed a sort of informal support group and it was rather like a bereavement.
For the first couple of months after the GE, I went through the usual fight or flight responses that stress and depression bring on. Researching emigrating, ranting at the news and with like-minded friends in the pub etc. Then came the Labour leadership election and as I’m a long-time union member, so had an affiliate vote, and I took interest. I’d rarely voted Labour in the past mainly due to tactical voting and little affection for Tony Blair. My initial inclination was to support Andy Burnham, who I was aware of from his Hillsborough work, but he was terrible and chopped and changed his opinions like the worst careerist imaginable. Liz Kendall seemed capable but was too right wing for my tastes and I felt Yvette Cooper was too toxic because of her husband, although again quite capable personally. Then this surprise candidate joined who I was only vaguely aware of but there was a bit of buzz about him and so I listened and read what he had to say. Jeremy said what I wanted to hear and was offering something genuinely different from the insipid not-as-bad-as-the-tories arguments the rest were making. He wasn’t that slick or polished a performer but he seemed sincere and decent, surely what we had all been crying out for in the years before, so I voted for him as leader. The backlash against him was surprising. I have never understood why he is considered so radical and far-left. Mild nationalisation, a more ethical foreign/defence policy and greater equality seemed like such mainstream no-brainers for the political left it made me question why there was so much animosity towards him.
So, he wins as we all know, and I hope that this is going to be the beginning of a move back away from the “Thatcherite” consensus that I have by now come to understand as neo-liberalism. The right-wing press feeding frenzy was to be expected and though it sickened me I had no respect for the Sun, Mail, Express etc to lose. The Guardian, however, I felt betrayed by and have lost most of my admiration for. I have to admit that I was somewhat disappointed that his team were not faster out of the blocks and Cameron seemed to be getting away with it at PMQs when I had hoped he would be asked well-researched questions getting to the core of tax avoidance and inequality. The leadership did seem amateurish and disorganised at first but this wasn’t such a great shock as the left have been cut out of the power centres for so long they surely would be inexperienced. I had naively assumed the bulk of the Labour party, and at least some of the much vaunted new Labour spin machine would be there to cover this weak time. Alas not, they seemed to be spending most of their time criticising their own leader while the Tories ran riot and I was very disappointed with the lack of support he got from people who I thought shared his broad goals. The mass refusals to serve and the blowing up of petty or legitimate differences of opinion into outrage, the constant briefings and leaks, especially to the same right wing press that was doing everything in its power to establish a narrative of incompetence and dangerous hard left policies. How can any Labour politician go to the Mail or the Sun without realising what a betrayal of everything they stand for it is to do so? Is it any wonder that Corbyn adopted a bunker mentality and surrounded himself with a loyal guard of often dubious background. When he tried to be inclusive they betrayed him.
Time passes and I hope that the ‘Blairites’, as they are now usually called, will settle down and fall into line. The self-inflicted damage has been bad but I hope that maybe over time people will start to question the ferocity of the press attack and maybe social media and the internet will undermine their power. Many predicted disasters do not happen and the Tory incompetence and division is revealed in spades by the EU referendum. There has been some movement in the Polls and I imagine that Corbyn’s strategy is to make it to the party conference and re-establish a democratic and representative party machine. Once the position of the left is secure I imagine Corbyn will step down and allow a younger more dynamic and media-friendly leader to emerge. That would have been my strategy and perhaps it was just wishful thinking but Corbyn was often cagey about the prospect of his being PM. I think he sees himself as more John the Baptist than Jesus to use a hopefully not offensive Christian metaphor. In the meantime he has moved, what I now know is the called the ‘Overton window’ of public opinion so much that the Tories have had to row back on many of their most damaging ideas and I have even seen a Tory business secretary not laugh in his face at the idea of nationalising a steel works!
In the EU referendum, I thought Corbyn trod a very difficult path. The referendum was always a bad wicket for Labour and especially for a known eurosceptic like Corbyn. He stood to lose northern working class support if labour were seen as too pro-EU, potentially fatally if UKIP gained an SNP-like surge in the aftermath of a tight remain vote, and southern metropolitan support if he had come out for leave. Not to mention the fury of his mostly EU supporting MPs if he had allowed a free vote and campaigned for out. Given this poison chalice, I thought Corbyn did well distancing himself and Labour from the Tory civil war while presenting an honest but clear message for remaining in. It wasn’t well reported by the media but it was there if anyone looked. Corbyn’s message was, to my understanding, that the EU isn’t perfect but that it is better than the alternative so vote for it anyway. That was the way I read your message here too. Was I wrong? I think that resonated with how many people felt and the high number of Labour remain voters provides evidence this was the case. Personally, I had grave doubts about voting to remain as many people I know did. I did vote to remain in the end but I would say I was less than Corbyn’s 75% committed and in the end it came down to the fact that I trusted sceptical remainers like Corbyn, and even yourself, more than I did those campaigning to leave, even the Lexit branch. EU fans like Chuka Umunna or Tim Farron had absolutely no impact on my decision as I discounted, or disbelieved as hyperbole, most of what they had to say. Almost as much as I did David Cameron, George Osborne and Nigel Farage. It worried me greatly that I was voting for a status quo I despised and I only decided a few days before that I would vote remain. I have to tell you that I was very relieved that I didn’t feel guilty as I walked away from the voting booth and only then felt sure I had done the right thing.
So finally, and I apologise for my rambling argument, we get to now. The country is leaderless after Cameron’s resignation, the result has been a shock and it is clear that the most prominent leavers have no idea what to do now. The Tories are is disarray and never has the country needed a clear message of hope and unity from Labour more in my lifetime. Arguably the country is open to the message we all want to be delivered and probably more open to different ideas than at any time since the GFC. Do the PLP rally to their leader and establish a narrative that Tory incompetence and recklessness has brought us to the edge of ruin? Do they hell! They turn around and open up with both barrels on their own leader. I stared at the news in stunned disbelief as the resignations poured in. Not only was this to my mind utterly unnecessary and self-defeating it was incompetently executed and just about the worst timing imaginable. Yet we are told these bumbling rebels are somehow more electable than a decent honest man who stands for what I believe in? Corbyn probably is now unelectable but I don’t blame him for that situation, I don’t blame the Tories, the right-wing press, or even Seamus Milne and the ‘Corbynista’ revolutionary guard. I blame the PLP. If they had backed him from the beginning with half the zeal they have opposed him with, we would be in a far better state than we are now. I hoped that someone like Lisa Nandy or Owen Smith might have emerged later this year as a new leader endorsed by Corbyn. A bright new unifying hope for a properly electable and competent resurgent centre-left Labour party, its ranks swelled with enthusiastic new members, and the full backing of the unions and PLP. This force could have taken on a damaged and weakened Conservative party still bleeding from its EU wounds and won. I see no reason why this could not have happened had the PLP backed Corbyn and spun a narrative of the wise elder who was right about Iraq, right about PFI, right about rejecting the neo-liberal compromise. I don’t buy the worst of the careerist argument and I don’t doubt that many, if not the vast majority, of the Labour MPs are hard working and dedicated people who want the best for their constituents. As I noted yesterday Caroline Flint, a vocal detractor or Corbyn’s if ever there was one, was the MP pushing your country-by-country reporting idea. I also believe that if they had come to Corbyn as trusted friends instead of assassins he might have compromised more. If the entire Labour old guard had not staked their reputations on proving what a disaster Corbyn would be as leader then maybe they could have compromised more.
Perhaps I am naive or too idealistic. Perhaps my analysis is laughably simplistic. Maybe the differences of the ‘Blairites’ with Corbyn are more deep-seated and ideological. Maybe they do object to Corbyn’s brand of moderate democratic socialism and are true believers in the free market and neoliberalism. Although, if that is the case I have to ask who is it that is really in the wrong place? What we do now I have no idea. Maybe a reconciliation is still possible. Personally, my trust in the PLP has been severely damaged by this episode and my enthusiasm for the party may not survive the next few weeks. I doubt I am alone in feeling this way. Some of my ‘Corbynista’ comrades feel that the PLP is now part of the problem, a cancer, to be cut out no matter how painful and whatever the cost. Emotionally I drift between defiance and despair as I watch my dreams come crashing down in the daily papers. I felt in May last year that I had been an idiot for believing in a socialist ideal and trying to teach my kids to be good people when such things would go unrewarded and see them taken advantage of. I asked myself if I would have been better to use the advantages I was granted, a good education and supportive family, to climb up the greasy pole of material success. In my darker moments, I felt that was true and I vowed to be a more selfish person that looked after myself and my own above others I didn’t know or care about. It would be kill or be killed. Jeremy Corbyn gave me something to believe in again and I am devastated that those I thought shared my ideals have turned on him, and me, out of short-sighted pragmatism and fear.
That turned into a rather cathartic outpouring of my pain but hopefully you can see that I, and I suspect most others of the new joiners, are not revolutionary Marxists or the followers of a celebrity cult. We are just decent people who believe in a better society and have spent our lives watching the values we held dear crumbling around us. We need leaders and right now those leaders have failed us and we are angry about it. I don’t blame you for coming to a different conclusion Richard, your experience is different, but hopefully you better understand mine now and that of those like me.
Alberto I’m sure your comments echo many thousands of other people’s feelings and thoughts at this moment.
In summary I read that Corbyn offered you a glimmer of hope that this country (or at least the PLP as a start) could be re-directed towards a direction of travel aligned with the Labour Party’s own core values. And that is what is now being threatened by the action of the PLP itself.
And so if Corbyn is to be replaced for whatever reason, who will re-invigorate and re-inspire the PLP to follow its own Party mandate?
Chapter 1 Constitutional rules
Page 3
Clause IV.
Aims and values
1. The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone,
so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many not the few; where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe and where we live together freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect.
I am looking forward to seeing this new inspiring leader emerging from the dark shadows of the PLP, for the sake of all those who still believe that democratic socialism is a worthwhile cause (and actually understand what it means!)
Hi Keith,
Thanks for summarising my stream of grief. 🙂
I completely agree about the core values. What I find really arrogant of the PLP rebels is that they have made no attempt to engage with the membership. There has been no reassurance that a left wing program would survive a Corbyn resignation and no discussion of policy. It comes across as entitled, undemocratic and contemptuous. Most damning to their case is probably the sheer ineptitude of the coup, given that their sole argument seems to rest on Corbyn’s alleged incompetence. A much smaller rebellion might have ironically been more successful. Allowing Corbyn to stand down without total humiliation and a unity candidate to emerge from amongst those who remained loyal. How that happens now I don’t see.
I do find these comments very strange
Less than three weeks ago Jo Cox was killed after doing what, I know, most MPs do a vast amount of: meeting people and trying to sort out problems
We heard a vast amount about what a good MP she was. I am sure that was right
I have to say Jo also voted for Liz Kendall. She was not on the left. She would have been one of the ‘out of touch’ you describe
Was she?
Was she really?
Or was her duty primarily to her constituents?
I am sure she also met her CLP
And had time for he children on occasion
But wouldn’t it be good if you imagined all these MPs, juggling massively difficult lives as I see it, which I would not want to do, were maybe not the monsters they are portrayed as but instead are humans
And maybe, just maybe, they need some support and encouaement
I have made clear there were plotters
But they would not have succeeded if a lot were not given a mighty cause for frustration
Like all of us MPs are human
I think this characterisation of most PLP members in the way that is being done is grossly unfair when many of them – as decent as Jo Cox – are really trying to do their best for their constituents
Why not for a minute consider that possible?
Richard,
I’m absolutely sure some M.P’s ‘work hard’ (though Straw and Rifkind seemed to have a lot of ‘free time’), that doesn’t make them more or less in touch with their constituents it just means they work hard within the existing remit.
But let’s be clear: Labour did not, I repeat DID NOT challenge with conviction, the cruel policies of one of the most right wing Governments in recent history -and that DOEs mean we can and should hold them to serious account on that FACT whether they work hard or not. The hardness of the work is not the issue -the message and thinking behind it IS.
I am not saying that Labour was in any way right on many issues – read this blog in the past if you want confirmation
I am saying a great deal is being ignored
It is generally accepted that Jeremy Corbyn is a man of principle. Even his detractors agree on this.
What most people are unhappy about is the fact that he is being treated in an unprincipled way. This is at the root of the unease felt about this coup and it challenges our sense of fairness whatever our personal views on his competence.I fully appreciate your rational and pragmatic analysis but his removal should have been initiated in a just procedural contest
It was
This is politics
Hi Richard,
This is my first time writing on this site, however I have followed your articles for a while and very much enjoy them. I’m no expert in economics or politics and I hope you’ll forgive my naivety.
My biggest worry in concerns to what is becoming a near whole-scale rejection of Jeremy Corbyn is not so much in the rejection of the man, but in the rejection of the political/economic ideas of the man. Obviously Jeremy Corbyn is not the only individual to expound notions of social and economic justice, however, AT THIS POINT IN TIME it is a concern that what is perceived by the wider populace is the rejection not of the man but of the ideas. Yes, I am painting the current political landscape in broad strokes, but it was broad strokes that secured a win for the Leave campaign. My emphasising ‘at this point in time’ leads me to a quote by Milton Friedman.
“Only a crisis, actual or perceived, produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around.”
There’s no denying that the country is in a state of crisis. It is clear that neo-liberal ideology has benefited from recurrent social and political crises, the latest being the Conservatives austerity plan, which was justified by fears raised during the 2008 crisis. As an aside, I do see the irony in Osbourne using the current crisis to abandon his budget surplus targets.
Taking these points into consideration, does it worry you that rejecting Corbyn now is also a rejection, in broad terms, of his politics, at least for the between crises period, this being the time when we will be rewriting parts of our constitution and implementing new trade agreements with the rest of Europe.
In a world where a referendum can be fought and won on lies, where fascism seems to be gaining ground and where, well Trump is happening, surely the solidarity of left-leaning politicians, practitioners, activists is more important than breaking apart at a time when a clear voice rejecting neo-liberal policies needs to be heard.
As an afterward I do understand your particular arguments regarding getting rid of Corbyn and I’m a much less pragmatic person than yourself (partly why I read your blog), hence this response. In this case, do you see a coherent left response materialising if Corbyn leaves?
Of course I worry about that
But as a matter of fact it is now clear Jeremy cannot manage the party
So like it or not change is going to happen
I have then to work on persuading someone else of the idea
That’s the campaigner’s life
Re this: “The bastards’ as John Major termed them are always out there, and they were for Jeremy, indisputably. But they can rarely act without opportunity being given. They took theirs here, but I strongly suspect this was not nearly as planned as most seem to think.”
However, this article alleges that the planning was extensive and coordinated:
How a PR company manufactured the Labour coup — Part I http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheCanary/~3/32I6FLoYztE/
…and Angela Eagle’s leadership campaign website was registered two days before her ‘spontaneous’ resignation:
https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news/uk/angela-eagle-leadership-website-registered-days-resigned/
I own a host of web addresses ‘just in case’
So?
Eyes glazed over RM. Far too wordy as were the comments.
Like many posters above, just because I strongly disagree with you on this point does not force me to change my opinion of you and your work.
The respect you have is both hard and well earned.
For me,knowing someone who killed themself after being sanctioned and hearing the other day about a relation with special needs having all benefits cut off in a process neither her or her late seventy year old parents could hope to navigate, my contempt for these pearl clutching ninnies, these welfare bill cowards, pretty much reached breaking point.
They were happy to drag around Ed Miliband for 5 years to little effect or election yet descend to these ridiculous antics for no real reason.
It looks alarmingly like office politics is the only politics they know (though not nearly as well as they think).
They should maybe consider why 51% protested in the only way offered.
So you intend to sweep clean 80% of the MPs
Is that viable? Mid term? And is it likely to lead to their replacements being elected?
I have absolutely no agency in this matter
I did not create this situation, the PLP did and chose to do it now, not even waiting for the conference season.
So the answer can only come from them.
I understand Pauls feelings well Richard -I was also in the eye of the storm with bedroom Tax and benefits stopped at a time I was ill and to see Labour doing sweet FA and whizzing round like a weather vane in front of the draughts coming through the Overton Window was my ‘enough’ point.
Well, you know my view by now. Let ’em split and reform, the way they are only guarantees an extension of the neo-loiberal project anyway.
Labour has been a rump of about 50 M.P’s before (under Lansbury).
Other than that I would like to see a progressive coalition -but does Labour even qualify as ‘progressive.’?
The just procedural contest referred to should have taken place within PLP rules in a fair contest put to members. Personal abuse by politicians with assorted gievances in a vote of no confidence is not the constitutional way to implement change of leadership. Ordinary people want honest politicians and prefer when institutions act honestly. Your own campaigning seeks to encourage the principles of justice and fairness in taxation. If you are suggesting that principles are disposable in the face of pragmatism then I have not understood you or your campaigns and am saddened by that.
So people can’t resign?
Or express their disquiet?
Imagine that was said of any other work place. How would you react?
Interesting analysis of Brexit in Richard Wolff’s monthly video:
http://www.democracyatwork.info/global_capitalism_jun2016_monthly_update
Keith has Wolff’s website been down for some time? Is it now functioning?
His main website has been playing up for weeks, I’m assuming a hosting problem, so I’ve switched to Democracy at Work which is one of his main projects and includes most of his broadcasts too.
Of course people can resign and complain and it was not fair of you to impute these questions from my comments. Orchestrated mass resignations are of a different order and therefor more suspect. The point is that there are procedures to initiate removal of an incumbent leader and to circumvent these rules is deceitful. In my employment(retired Headteacher) complaints, grievance and discipline were governed by strict procedures in order to ensure fairness to Governors,staff and parents.The principle of fairness informs constitutional arrangements.
Did you ever have almost all the staff complain?
I do think my comment was fair
You are suggesting staff must be compliant come what may
In answer to your questions-yes I have received a complaint by all of the staff but not about me but about the local catholic priest governor. I dealt with the complaint formally through the Governing Body at some risk to my own position since I backed the staff line. Governors had to reach a conclusion and they decided against the priest which led to the priest withdrawing his influence. However I know many Headteachers who would have acted with pragmatism to this issue and glossed the whole thing over. My argument with you is not about your conclusions regarding Corbyn’s Leadership but about your willingness to jettison the principle of fairness in order to seek the change you desire. The PLP constitutional framework is in part designed to resolve disputes like this and it would have been a more honourable correct and ethical route for MPs to follow. All of this might appear to you to be hopelessly naiive in the political arena but ordinary people crave honesty politics.
You have campaigned tirelessly against Corporations and the rich who have circumvented the rules. Why do you condone the actions of MPs who have done the same?
Clearly in a well managed situation informal relationships will avoid tensions and this has not happened within the Labour Party BUT critically in this situation it is disputed where the blame for that lies.
Finally I have never implied that staff should be compliant and always sought to invite their comments. Nothing I have posted could support your assertion to the contrary. Thankyou for your response to my comments and I appreciate the time you devote to responding to your readers
Was that deliberately obtuse?
Have been following this blog with interest. Whilst reluctantly agreeing with Richard that Corbyn is neither a manager nor a salesman – I suggest both basic skills are required for leadership, I think the timing of the ‘rebellion’ is suspect.
Corbyn delivered as many remainer voters in his party, according to pollsters, as did the saintly SNP. And wasn’t Alan Johnson Labour’s man in Remain? Haven’t heard a word of criticsm of him…
Yet the gestation period of the rebellion was 9 months to coincide with a time when there was an open Tory goal. If Corbyn is a bad manager then the PLP/Blairites/Plotters of Choice are even worse!
Either that or they’ve almost all had enough. Which does seem rather like a suicide wish.
Neither scenario is encouraging…
May P -a crisis can be encouragement, if it is faced with clarity and reflexivity. No signs of either from the PLP.
The difference in opinion broadly is that while all share fear that a Corbyn removal could lead to the return of Labour neoliberalism, some fear it intensely as an absolute that yields all hope if broken, and others fear the impasse between two views has stopped radical change in its tracks.
I firmly believe the former, but the perspective to add to that is one of left coalition. Some of us feel sure that Corbyn and McDonald want a left neoliberal-ending coalition but because the Labour-right most certainly do not – and, because media and establushment do not, as they massively fear its potential – it has to be kept quiet.
‘Building a social movement’ was the phrase that really got the media wound up last year. That is why Corbyn cooled that vision, it’s too toxic while striving to go left when restricted by a right PLP. But all opponents including internal know it is on agenda.
If we on the broad left understand that, perhaps left perspective that thinks the impasse is the problem could then see why Corbyn has to make this firm stance, if they come to the view (that I without reservation agree with) which is that Corbyn is fighting for himself solely to be around to create left-party unity that deep-down both sides know is what is at stake.
Or: unified neoliberalism v. the unified visionary change that is consistently and eloquently enthused on this site.
Noted a few things since above plus aware that Lab soft left had got fed up with feverish anti-Corbyn sorts – very fed up – I wonder if keenest-neolibs reeled into a split of just them and not Corbyn v. all the rest? Maybe commentators etc had a part to play …
Did Corbyn not campaign hard enough? Just days before the referendum, this BBC headline caught my eye:
“Jeremy Corbyn says EU free movement means no immigration limit”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36570383
What is this? I asked myself. I thought Jeremy was campaigning for Remain. I had to open the article and read it to assure myself that Jeremy was indeed saying we were better off in the EU, but was also talking about wider issues and that European-wide austerity and poverty was the problem causing people to want to migrate in the first place.
Is Corbyn at fault for not presenting a clearer message? Or the media for their choice of emphasis? Or the rest of us for not having this debate around the wider issues? Or should we not be playing the blame game? Or should I not be asking all these questions?
By the way Richard, thank you for this article, it is a very helpful insight into your campaigner way of thinking. I like what you say about compromise and progress in stages.
No idea what you are on about. Under EU rules the can be no immigration limit from the EU countries. If you are for remain you are for unlimited migration from the EU.
I disagree, I am for remaining but there has to be a limit on how many immigrants a community can absorb without stress. Nothing to do with pressure on public services, but how quickly people can adapt to change.
Given this is an EU wide problem, there must be something we can collectively do to address the situation. Reform is needed.
DavidB – the EU was offered the chance of treaty reform on free movement of people at the outset of Cameron’s failed negotiations, they refused and despite my own hopes that they would offer greater concessions near the end of the campaign when it was obvious the vote would be close, they chose not to and stuck to their “rules”.
I was initially in favour of Remain and Reform, but it increasingly became obvious that the EU is not willing or able to acknowledge and address its fundamental systemic weaknesses. The Leave vote may change that or may not, more likely I suppose if more EU countries opt for a referendum.
But in the meantime the EU is increasingly operating like a panel of judges who can only implement “the treaty rules” and there is no democratic parliament that can actually represent those large number of people in the EU countries who want some of the treaty rules changed.
That is undemocratic and in my opinion, and in effect has institutionalised and moved beyond public debate and control far too much of the neoliberal ideology that so many people on this blog want reversed. That is the start of the slippery slope towards greater corporatism and autocracy and that is something I will never vote for.
@Keith Fletcher
Thank you for your kind explanation. I agree that the EU suffers from a lot of inertia which makes it difficult to change the rules, and that there is a risk of them being subjugated to corporate and vested interests. Nevertheless, I remain of the conviction that it is far better to fight for reform from within rather than walk away from the problems. The issues are not going to disappear overnight. Neoliberalism is just as much an infection of national governments as it is of Europe.
This is where we need Richard campaigner’s view, of working to persuade, find common ground and progress in stages. It is not an easy route. It will at times involve anger, disappointment and frustration. But it is the only way to build lasting relationships, and understand people from a different culture to our own. Europe’s cultural diversity is its rich treasure, and if there is to be such a thing as a European Union then we have to be aware of these different backgrounds and what it is that brings us together.
I am constantly reminded of Jo Cox, who said that what surprised her time and time again as she travelled around her constituency is that we are far more united, and have far more in common, than things that divide us. Two world wars led to the EU being established in the first place. Now we need to unite against the hatred that killed her.
Like Richard, we have to make a decision of whether to be inside the tent and risk compromise, or outside it to keep our ideals pure. Purity of ideals is a noble calling, but pragmatism is needed to carry them out. Personally, I believe we can do far more to effect change by keeping a seat at the table, than shouting from the white cliffs of Dover.
Best
David
“Like Richard, we have to make a decision of whether to be inside the tent and risk compromise, or outside it to keep our ideals pure. Purity of ideals is a noble calling, but pragmatism is needed to carry them out. Personally, I believe we can do far more to effect change by keeping a seat at the table, than shouting from the white cliffs of Dover.”
DavidB – that was last month’s debate and the British public has made a democratic decision to Leave. I am still waiting to see whether the UK parliament proves beyond any reasonable doubt that it is no less democratic than the EU, by rejecting the will of the people.
So be it if it decides that is its legal prerogative not to implement Article 50, if so it will have signed its own obituary in my opinion (not to mention the potentially horrific consequences on the streets of every major town and city).
The trouble with what we have done is vote to leave
We did not vote for anything
Parliament has to have a say on how we leave in that case
But I really do not doubt that leave we will, however much I regret it
A few men’s egoes will have blighted us for generations to come
Thank you Richard.
Keith, you are absolutely right. The British public made a democratic decision and we have to respect that. But as a democracy, I am entitled to my opinion that it was the wrong decision. Some questions are too important to be settled by a snap referendum on a knife edge, and I think this is one of them.
I agree with Richard that article 50 will probably be triggered eventually. But I don’t want a return of project Fear. If we have to Brexit, let’s take hold of the opportunities it offers to put control firmly back in the hands of the people. And if we can reach that level of mature debate, then people might realise we are better off in the EU after all.
Just because we leave the EU, does not mean we cease to be European. The challenge for us all is to rise above our party interests and put the good of the whole nation, even the whole continent, first.
Well said
You mention above in a reply that most involved are non-plotters – I think you are correct. Controlling groups in Labour consist of very keen neoliberals and some very strong Middle-East views both sections extremely prone to bullying and headstrong non-compromise.
Those groups mean that Corbyn has to outdo them even on headstrong-ness.
As ever here and on other blog-posts you make you points clearly and well and there is never any doubt you strive fot fairness and justice much much more than most who are directly involved politically and as such a source of inspiration for many.
With Labour, my strong hunch is that its powerful neoliberal groups are much more estanlishment-linked and much more alien to and determined to thwart the broad progressive vision we share.
Which suggests Corbyn’s headstrong stance could see the bullying-extreme leave Labour and the ‘non-plotters’ with Corbyn retaining suitable strength unhindered to build with the Greens and maybe the Nationals. This could be threshold of coalition moment.
We’ve said enough now as you suggest and need to get back to the nuts and bolts of reform. I endorse above comments about the sincerity in which you have expressed your opinion and suggest that you have very considerately and patiently afforded many to give their views about an an issue, not devoid of emotion, at an awkward time when it would have no doubt massively have helped your workload and general-coping not to have been so obliging.
This link gives ohn McDonnell’s version of events from Corbyn’s election till Wedneday 29th June
http://www.redpepper.org.uk/were-standing-up-for-democracy-in-the-party/
Thanks Michael, very interesting speech transcript and fascinating insight from John McDonell himself into some of the PLP shenanigans since Corbyn was elected.
A linked article is also worth a read, perhaps this is another of the real reasons that some people in the shadows were so determined Corbyn (and McDonnell) must go.
Were Corbynomics (i.e. much of Richard’s economic ideas) just too much of a threat to private financial capitalist establishment and their state sponsors?
Part of that “Far Left” threat that Blair so proudly stated needed defeating!
http://www.redpepper.org.uk/corbynomics-can-work/