Thoughts on the current state of the Labour Party



A right-wing friend of mine (yes, I do have right-wing friends. Befriending them is part of my on-going commitment to our Care in the Community Programme) has been goading me recently about the pantomime that surrounds the leadership election in the Labour Party. In one of his saner, less partisan, missives, MD asks for my opinion. His wish is my command (if only, MD, if only) so here are my thoughts on the topic.

 

How did Labour get its knickers in such a twist?

 

The recent General Election was, in the view of informed commentators, Labour's for the taking. The coalition was an unpopular construct, presiding over a period of falling living standards and stagnant growth with a prime minister leading a government many people felt was out of touch with their lives. But, instead of breaking through or even causing a second hung parliament, Labour went backwards and is now engaged in an existential crisis. How come? Here's what I think:

 

*  Labour's defeat was, to many, unexpected and the scale of defeat was more unexpected still.

Result? Gloomy activists wondering what the future holds for the party. However, I say to people to bear in mind the actual results. Labour's opponents, and that includes most of the media, are bound to overstate the numbers but remember that around 9 million people still voted Labour (compared with 11 million for Conservative) giving them 232 seats and 30.5% of the vote (compared with 331 seats and 36.9% for the Blues).
 
*  Those on the right of the party say the reason is obvious: Labour was too left wing.

Result? They argue the party has to move to the right and point passionately to the election success of Tony Blair as proof of it.

*  Those on the left of the party say the reason is obvious: Labour was too right wing.

Result? They argue the party has to move to the left and point passionately to the SNP's success as proof of it.

*  So who's the enemy for Labour? It depends on who you ask. It could be SNP, UKIP, Labour, Tories or any combination thereof.

Result? Confusion reigns.
 

*  A chunk of the Labour movement, its left, has, for years, felt sidelined, belittled, scorned and ignored. Suddenly, in Jeremy Corbyn, they have a standard bearer with a platform, offering a clear, socialist platform. But don't believe everything you read in the right-wing press without checking where he stands on various issues, Corbyn is not "too left-wing", he's a proper moderate social democrat. Unfortunately the whole of UK politics has lurched so far to the right that anyone to the left of Genghis Khan is now seen as a rabid communist.

Result? He can give straight answers to straight questions and talks with clarity and conviction. His supporters are upbeat and, in the electioneering spotlight, his three rivals do more twisting and turning, caveating, triangulating and not answering questions so clearly. Or even, whisper some, being boring and saying nothing that might possibly offend someone somewhere sometime.
 

*  Two of the Labour leadership candidates, Yvette Cooper and Andy Burnham, served as Chief Secretary to the Treasury when Labour was in government, at a time when Labour faces questions about its economic credibility. One, Andy Burnham, was also Health Secretary - meaning questions about the deaths at Stafford Hospital would keep coming too. And let's not forget that Yvette Cooper is married to Ed Balls and is guilty of heinous financial acts by association.

Result? Some Labour activists fret they are hostages to fortune and will provide too much ammunition for the gutter press to fire at them.
 

*  Supporters of Ed Miliband say one of his greatest achievements was working in the background to keep the party united.

Result? This spontaneous combustion has been a long time coming. And it really shouldn't be a surprise as the party is actually just living out the age-old pathology of a renewal cycle: Govern - Disappoint - Backlash - Strife - Modernisation - Govern. It happens after the passing of every strong leader. Just think of what happened in the Tory party after Thatcher: it went through Hague, Howard and Duncan-Smith before anointing Posh Dave.
 

* The Tories are nauseatingly gleeful - and quickly pinching as many Labour policies they think are worth pinching as they can

Result? When Tories are cranking up the rhetoric on the minimum/living wage and talking about being 'the one nation party for hard working families', what is Labour for, some ask.
 

I'm bound to have missed some important points out but put all the things I've listed into the pot, shake, stir, and you arrive at.... the current situation.

What happens next?

Obviously, getting the leadership election out of the way. Although I must say I wouldn't have done it this way. I think it was a mistake for Ed to step down so soon: he should have stayed at the helm until a new leader had been chosen. But it's more complicated than that - the party still needs to decide what it stands for and how it is going to articulate this in a way that people can identify with.

I have described myself in the past as a tribal Labour supporter but my allegiance is less to the institution of the party than the political philosophy it espouses. At the moment I'm not certain what this is and whether or not, as a social democrat, it will remain a party that I can continue to support. If it isn't, then where should my support go? It is a very worrying development that nowadays people tend to accept rapacious untethered free-market fundamentalism as some kind of 'centre-ground' instead of the extreme and nasty form of capitalism that it actually is. I remain convinced that social democracy must be a counterbalance to right wing neoliberalism. Will the Labour Party have a leader who will promote policies I, and others with similar views, can support? I have a vote in the forthcoming leadership election and, right now, I don't know who I am going to vote for. In the absence of a 'none of the above' box, it's got to be one of them but who? Decisions, decisions.