On Brexit, we're often reminded that this is the "will of the people". But we're as easily reminded that Brexit is also the "will of old people". Given that half the electorate's wishes are being actively ignored by the government, and with the support of the media are characterized as people who should "get over it", what can the "48%" do?
If their voices are being ignored by the government, one simple suggestion might be take the government's implied instruction to take advantage of Britain's unique place the world, and leave the country completely. If the government simply ignores half of the electorate, and the opinions of those under fifty, what moral authority does the government over them?
"Non-Contradiction"
Democracy has been called by Marxists as "the dictatorship of the majority". But this is a false understanding of the term, because in a properly-functioning democracy the government is meant to represent and reflect the views of all the electorate, not just its own supporters. It's only if a government only listens to its own side when it becomes a system of majoritarianism, also known as "elective dictatorship". Sadly, this is the system that is too often the reality in the adversarial parliamentary system in Westminster.
The "First Past The Post" system has tended to create a system where governing parties simply take turns doing what they want, so that at each election when there is a change in government there is a chaotic "changing of the guard" that results in successive governments forever changing how social policy and national institutions are run. This explains how, for example, education in the UK is such a structural mess. The same is true for many aspects of government institutions. In this way, short-term thinking and an instinctive desire by new governments to change things for the sake of it have caused institutional chaos, with the civil service struggling to pick up the pieces.
Brexit and Theresa May's interpretation of it as a "divine cause" has meant the same culture of majoritarianism being applied in the most dogmatic and divisive way. As her instincts are toward a more authoritarian and hierarchical style of government, it has followed that those who are against this are against the "will of the people".
In a situation where half the electorate's opinions are ignored, what happens to their "will"? Have they lost the right to have a "will"? Free speech is an integral part of a properly-functioning democracy. Some in the Brexit-supporting media and in politics seem to suggest that the free speech of half of the electorate should be muzzled or at least questioned as "unpatriotic" if half of the electorate are opposed to what the other half are doing. These Brexit zealots argue that the opposing half should simply be quiet and let the country get on with it. In this sense, they want the other half of the country to pay taxes but otherwise not exist.
This is not how democracy is meant to work. Yes, there is a democratic process where all involved respect the process and institutions of government. But respecting the process doesn't mean being quiet. I'm reminded that when Theresa May made a speech that pitched why she called for the snap election, one of the reasons was that the opposition were daring to oppose the government on Brexit; in other words, she wanted a new election because parliament was acting as a parliament instead of just a rubber stamp! It should not be forgotten that many dictatorships in the world also have parliaments and elections, and some even have a legitimate opposition; the difference between those regimes and proper democracies is that in a dictatorship free speech is curtailed by the government and media and an opposition is only allowed to exist for cosmetic purposes. Is this the kind of regime that some Brexiteers would prefer?
"Either-Or"
In the current political environment in Britain, when the government is choosing to ignore the will of the 48%, one option open to them is emigration. As often said, the British passport is (or was, until recently) perhaps the most valuable passport to have in the world. As "Remainers" are often well-traveled, educated and open-minded, why should they not take heed of Theresa May's derision of calling them "citizens of nowhere" and become citizens of the world, using their passport to make a success of their lives outside of a Britain that no longer cares for them?
With the self-destructive direction that the government seems to be taking Brexit, European migrants are already ahead of the curve on this, with new arrivals declining to a trickle, and a steady stream of those already here returning home. In this way, economic self-interest serves as the best motivation over emotional ties. Likewise, Japan's recent warning to Theresa May that Brexit could easily lead to their businesses simply pulling out completely is another reminder of the economic consequences; those that see no future will leave the country. "Remainers" might be wise to follow the same track of economic self-interest, using their skills and experience to migrate to countries where they are in more demand and will get greater respect, a better salary and better quality of life.
There is a delicious irony in this "solution". Those that voted to leave the EU tended to be either the entitled, looked-after middle classes of the shires, or the uneducated, unskilled segment of the population who only saw "abroad" as the place to get a sun tan and get drunk. Their motivations to leave the EU were emotional, not rational. As Britain's government seems to be ran by the same combination of incompetence, ignorance and entitlement, then is it not a fate that the people who voted for them deserve? The "leavers" voted for Brexit for emotional reasons, some of them so impassioned of their hatred for the EU that they would seemingly happily live in a Britain that was impoverished as long as they had their "freedom". Boris Johnson's recent speech reminded us that those that voted to leave the EU did so because many of them simply didn't understand how it worked. This is an tacit admission that Brexit is guided on the emotions of ignorance.
It is not for "Remainers" to feel any obligation to try to live and work in a country with a government that treats them with such contempt, ran by ignorant incompetents and charlatans. Any appeals by the government for "Remainers" to stay in the country to make Brexit work - when the government seems to be doing all it can to ensure it doesn't work - are nothing more than emotional blackmail; appeals to blind patriotism from a government on a self-destructive mission. If the "leavers" want to run Brexit Britain into the ground as an economic basket base, why should others who didn't choose this fate be obliged to assist them? They have their passports; why not make full use of them?
"A Is A"
One last irony to mention is how this emigration "solution" bears some parallels to the plot of Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged". The "Brexit Agenda" is at its heart a libertarian project, and many of its advocates are well-versed in Rand's thinking and her literature. In "Atlas Shrugged", the country's "great and good" began disappearing from public life against the onset of an increasingly-pervasive Socialist government. After disappearing into voluntary exile, the country quickly began to fall apart as its institutions and businesses became ran by incompetents and boneheaded ideologues. The "great and the good" would only return when they could transform the country into a "libertarian utopia".
This is the delusional vision that many "Brexiteers" have, except that in our reality it is they who are the incompetent and boneheaded ideologues, and it is the "Remainers" who are being implicitly pushed into emigrant "exile".
If a significant proportion of the native population did emigrate (for the sake of argument, let's say ten per cent), this could make Brexit and its after effects economically-comparable with Russia in 1990s. The other irony is that, as all predictions are that Brexit will have significant negative effects on Britain's economy, "Remainers" are the best equipped people to "ride out the storm", especially if many of them did emigrate, at least for a while. Then, when things did eventually get better - one way or the other - they would be well-placed to return to Britain to bring their skills and experience to "make Britain great again". By that point, maybe the government would have even restored its respect for "citizens of nowhere".
And at this point, the poetic parallel with the plot of "Atlas Shrugged" would have come full circle. The "Remainers" would return to rescue Britain once the deluded, incompetent Brexiteers had finally shown their true anarchic colours for the rest of the world to see. The Britain that followed from this traumatic set of events would hopefully be one radically more progressive and innately "European", after seeing what nightmare Britain became if left to be ruled by a reactionary, parochial elite. In this way, from a "Remainer" point of view, the only positive to "Hard Brexit" might, might, be that the resulting economic meltdown would utterly discredit all the rhetoric of the Brexiteers, and Britain would embrace a strong European partnership as the only feasible option the country has for its future.
This might all be as much a pipedream as the vision that the "Brexiteers" have of Britain thriving as never before outside the EU, but for "Remainers", it's the only way to see any potential positive out of "Hard Brexit".
One wonders if this isn't precisely the kind of thinking that is going on in the mind of Jeremy Corbyn; keeping his powder dry, biding his time and waiting for the Tories to destroy themselves (but also, alas, half of the country with it). In the minds of some Momentum activists, it's easy to imagine them waiting for the rapture of "JC" to follow from the "end of days" rule of the "satanic" Brexiteers. "St Jeremy" Corbyn's strategy - a monastic Brexit vow of silence - is certainly morally questionable, as is his presumed strategy of biding his time. But, given the grim political situation which provides a lack of other real options, what else is there?
Showing posts with label Jeremy Corbyn. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jeremy Corbyn. Show all posts
Thursday, February 15, 2018
Saturday, August 15, 2015
The Jeremy Corbyn effect and the Labour leadership election: the death of New Labour?
A month from now, we'll know who the new leader of the Labour Party will be. The odds favour Jeremy Corbyn, given the massive groundswell of support from the party grassroots, which has left the three other "establishment" candidates struggling to come up with a plan. The latest one - involving all the "big beasts" - seems to be an all-out attack on Corbyn's values and what it would mean for the party electorally.
The surreal irony here is that the party hierarchy talk about Corbyn being someone who will have no resonance with the public mood, while he remains the only candidate of the five who has energised the party base and caused a massive rise in party numbers (more on that later). In other words, the hierarchy want someone who may have little in common with many of the actual party members, but will somehow resonate with the wider public. The surrealism of this point of view tells us what stage of absurdity the Labour party has now reached.
From party of government to political laughing-stock
In five years, the Labour party have gone through a seismic change in fortunes, at least as traumatic as that which they faced between 1979 and 1983 - arguably more so. The story of what happened in Scotland north of the border is highly educational. The party became complacent and relied on second and third-rate party hacks to run things on Scotland, while being dictated to from Westminster. The SNP took advantage of this ruthlessly, and took power in Holyrood with a majority. In 2015, Scottish Labour's MPs in Westminster found out when the same result is applied to a FPTP system: wipeout.
What we are seeing now is the accumulation of various factors, which have aligned together at one moment in time, bringing the spectacle of the current Labour party into full focus. Apart from the meltdown in Scotland highlighting an effective schism between the ideologies of the Scottish and English electorate, there are the changes that have happened within the Labour party itself over the last five years (and since the May election) that have contributed to this very public mess.
Ed Miliband's election as leader was due to the support of the unions. We can only guess now what might have happened if David had won instead; of all the possible candidates to lead the party after the 2010 election defeat, he was probably the best-qualified, having been Foreign Secretary, and being a figure who could easily articulate the "centrist" approach. As we now know, the grassroots of the party are currently much more leftist than many of its MPs, most of which have served through the years of New Labour. Ed Miliband has been seen as one reason for this realignment amongst the grassroots.
Then, after the Falkirk election scandal, the voting system within party was changed, with the intention of making it much more open to party members, making the process more obviously representative of members' views, and allowing for low barriers to entry to encourage increased party membership. Given that party membership is now more than 200,000, we can say that approach is a success. Unfortunately for the party hierarchy, the members are not looking to vote the way the party elite expected. The horrible complacency of Labour's leadership has come home to roost. Having allowed a "token" leftist candidate on the leadership election, once more the Labour leadership took things for granted: their members would vote for one of the uninspiring, centrist candidates because there was "no other alternative". They had learned nothing from the debacle of Scottish Labour. In the same way that the SNP became the beneficiaries of Labour complacency, Jeremy Corbyn has become the beneficiary of this grassroots insurgency.
Having given the party base a weapon to democratise the election process, the party heads are appalled at how this has backfired on them. While those at the top of the party are New Labour veterans and stalwarts, the "Ed Effect", and the shattering loss of the 2015 election, seems to have galvanised the party base to "stick two fingers up" to the out-of-touch complacency shown by Labour in Westminster.
This is also partly a result of the lack of any inspiring new figures coming through the party. While the likes of Chuka Umunna and Liz Kendall are new MPs and can articulate the "New Labour" idea, the problem is that it is not what many of the grassroots want to hear. Worse, their generalisations and lack of a "common touch" make them out as being only a few shades to the left of the Tories. This is also partly the legacy of New Labour and Blair: selecting yes-men and party hacks as MPs, that have little real life experience outside of politics. Only Dan Jarvis of the "newbies" bucks this trend as being a former soldier with a genuine life story to tell; but for (understandable) family reasons doesn't wish to step up to the mantle.
Cavaliers and Roundheads
This is where the "Corbyn-,mania" comes from. Being cut from a different cloth to the many indistinguishable "New Labour" figures, he is the polar opposite, something that hasn't been seen in British politics for thirty years. A natural populist, he appears as a bearded prophet, who dresses in the style of puritan socialist. This is in marked contrast the "professional" look of the rest of the Westminster set, from the "New Labour" types to the ranks of the public school Tories.
In some ways, British politics these days seems to resemble the ideological contortions of the mid-17th century. Certainly, with the situation north of the border, relations between England and Scotland may be said to be almost as bad and distrustful as they were in the days of the Civil War. While no-one of course is suggesting violence, the political situation, and the complex political realignments across Britain, could be said to be as convoluted and as difficult to comprehend as they were at that time. There are factions and sub-factions now as there were then.
The Tories are certainly living up to their role as the party of the aristocracy (The "Cavaliers"), doing just enough to rule the country, but doing so in a highly-divisive and dangerously-reckless way. Like back then, the modern Tories - the party of the aristocracy - are unpopular in London. Like back then, the Tories had "lost Scotland" to a group of Scottish political insurgents.
But also like then, bizarre political groupings and alliances were formed. The modern Labour party (aka The "Roundheads") has factions of its own, as Cromwell's supporters did back in the 17th century. During the Civil War and up to the Restoration, Scotland changed allegiances a number of times. This was also the time of "The Levellers", whose values these days Jeremy Corbyn would be sympathetic towards. The "Corbyn insurgency" bears all the hallmarks of being a grassroots rebellion like that which was formed by The Levellers in days of the Civil War.
The current political situation within the Labour Party in Britain may soon become even more convoluted, if Jeremy Corbyn becomes the new leader. Corbyn's campaigning in Scotland has shown that he has drawn the support of many who had only just recently swapped their votes from Labour to the SNP in the general election. However, the new leader of Scottish Labour, Kezia Dugdale, is ardently against his values. So we may well have a situation where the leader of Labour in England is more popular in Scotland than England, and more popular than Scottish Labour's own leader, who disagrees with him. This would be beyond farcical, but also a reflection of how complicated British politics has become.
A Corbyn leadership may well be a "moment of madness" by the Labour grassroots, given the fact that they lost the general election on a platform more to the middle than anything proposed by Corbyn. A mass movement of Corbyn support would almost certainly face a bloodbath in the face of the "Cavalier" Tories in 2020; but it would be an "honourable death", as seen by his supporters.
The problem is what state the Labour Party would be in afterwards - or after five years of Corbyn leadership.
The surreal irony here is that the party hierarchy talk about Corbyn being someone who will have no resonance with the public mood, while he remains the only candidate of the five who has energised the party base and caused a massive rise in party numbers (more on that later). In other words, the hierarchy want someone who may have little in common with many of the actual party members, but will somehow resonate with the wider public. The surrealism of this point of view tells us what stage of absurdity the Labour party has now reached.
From party of government to political laughing-stock
In five years, the Labour party have gone through a seismic change in fortunes, at least as traumatic as that which they faced between 1979 and 1983 - arguably more so. The story of what happened in Scotland north of the border is highly educational. The party became complacent and relied on second and third-rate party hacks to run things on Scotland, while being dictated to from Westminster. The SNP took advantage of this ruthlessly, and took power in Holyrood with a majority. In 2015, Scottish Labour's MPs in Westminster found out when the same result is applied to a FPTP system: wipeout.
What we are seeing now is the accumulation of various factors, which have aligned together at one moment in time, bringing the spectacle of the current Labour party into full focus. Apart from the meltdown in Scotland highlighting an effective schism between the ideologies of the Scottish and English electorate, there are the changes that have happened within the Labour party itself over the last five years (and since the May election) that have contributed to this very public mess.
Ed Miliband's election as leader was due to the support of the unions. We can only guess now what might have happened if David had won instead; of all the possible candidates to lead the party after the 2010 election defeat, he was probably the best-qualified, having been Foreign Secretary, and being a figure who could easily articulate the "centrist" approach. As we now know, the grassroots of the party are currently much more leftist than many of its MPs, most of which have served through the years of New Labour. Ed Miliband has been seen as one reason for this realignment amongst the grassroots.
Then, after the Falkirk election scandal, the voting system within party was changed, with the intention of making it much more open to party members, making the process more obviously representative of members' views, and allowing for low barriers to entry to encourage increased party membership. Given that party membership is now more than 200,000, we can say that approach is a success. Unfortunately for the party hierarchy, the members are not looking to vote the way the party elite expected. The horrible complacency of Labour's leadership has come home to roost. Having allowed a "token" leftist candidate on the leadership election, once more the Labour leadership took things for granted: their members would vote for one of the uninspiring, centrist candidates because there was "no other alternative". They had learned nothing from the debacle of Scottish Labour. In the same way that the SNP became the beneficiaries of Labour complacency, Jeremy Corbyn has become the beneficiary of this grassroots insurgency.
Having given the party base a weapon to democratise the election process, the party heads are appalled at how this has backfired on them. While those at the top of the party are New Labour veterans and stalwarts, the "Ed Effect", and the shattering loss of the 2015 election, seems to have galvanised the party base to "stick two fingers up" to the out-of-touch complacency shown by Labour in Westminster.
This is also partly a result of the lack of any inspiring new figures coming through the party. While the likes of Chuka Umunna and Liz Kendall are new MPs and can articulate the "New Labour" idea, the problem is that it is not what many of the grassroots want to hear. Worse, their generalisations and lack of a "common touch" make them out as being only a few shades to the left of the Tories. This is also partly the legacy of New Labour and Blair: selecting yes-men and party hacks as MPs, that have little real life experience outside of politics. Only Dan Jarvis of the "newbies" bucks this trend as being a former soldier with a genuine life story to tell; but for (understandable) family reasons doesn't wish to step up to the mantle.
Cavaliers and Roundheads
This is where the "Corbyn-,mania" comes from. Being cut from a different cloth to the many indistinguishable "New Labour" figures, he is the polar opposite, something that hasn't been seen in British politics for thirty years. A natural populist, he appears as a bearded prophet, who dresses in the style of puritan socialist. This is in marked contrast the "professional" look of the rest of the Westminster set, from the "New Labour" types to the ranks of the public school Tories.
In some ways, British politics these days seems to resemble the ideological contortions of the mid-17th century. Certainly, with the situation north of the border, relations between England and Scotland may be said to be almost as bad and distrustful as they were in the days of the Civil War. While no-one of course is suggesting violence, the political situation, and the complex political realignments across Britain, could be said to be as convoluted and as difficult to comprehend as they were at that time. There are factions and sub-factions now as there were then.
The Tories are certainly living up to their role as the party of the aristocracy (The "Cavaliers"), doing just enough to rule the country, but doing so in a highly-divisive and dangerously-reckless way. Like back then, the modern Tories - the party of the aristocracy - are unpopular in London. Like back then, the Tories had "lost Scotland" to a group of Scottish political insurgents.
But also like then, bizarre political groupings and alliances were formed. The modern Labour party (aka The "Roundheads") has factions of its own, as Cromwell's supporters did back in the 17th century. During the Civil War and up to the Restoration, Scotland changed allegiances a number of times. This was also the time of "The Levellers", whose values these days Jeremy Corbyn would be sympathetic towards. The "Corbyn insurgency" bears all the hallmarks of being a grassroots rebellion like that which was formed by The Levellers in days of the Civil War.
The current political situation within the Labour Party in Britain may soon become even more convoluted, if Jeremy Corbyn becomes the new leader. Corbyn's campaigning in Scotland has shown that he has drawn the support of many who had only just recently swapped their votes from Labour to the SNP in the general election. However, the new leader of Scottish Labour, Kezia Dugdale, is ardently against his values. So we may well have a situation where the leader of Labour in England is more popular in Scotland than England, and more popular than Scottish Labour's own leader, who disagrees with him. This would be beyond farcical, but also a reflection of how complicated British politics has become.
A Corbyn leadership may well be a "moment of madness" by the Labour grassroots, given the fact that they lost the general election on a platform more to the middle than anything proposed by Corbyn. A mass movement of Corbyn support would almost certainly face a bloodbath in the face of the "Cavalier" Tories in 2020; but it would be an "honourable death", as seen by his supporters.
The problem is what state the Labour Party would be in afterwards - or after five years of Corbyn leadership.
Sunday, July 26, 2015
The Labour Party in crisis: Jeremy Corbyn, the leadership election and identity politics
Two and a half months on from the general election, the Labour Party is in the middle of a leadership election. The shock of the leadership election has been the surge of grassroots support for Jeremy Corbyn, the candidate who had been supported by a handful of MPs as a sop the traditional left. Originally backed by MPs to promote the notion of the leadership election being about a real choice of values and ideas, it looks to have possibly turned around and bit those "useful idiot" MPs on the behind. He may actually, god forbid, win the vote.
Corbyn is an unlikely-looking insurgent leader, even to his own supporters. He's been an MP since 1983, as one of the "suicide note" intake, and his politics look like old-fashioned '70s socialism. Bearded, over sixty, and dressed like a Marxist academic, he is the antithesis to the modern idea of the "professional politician". He also has a record as being a perpetual rebel during the Blair government. "New Labour" he ain't.
These characteristics are somewhat reminiscent of another "old Labour" politician who was (to Blair and his allies) inexplicably popular: Ken Livingstone. Like Ken, Corbyn speaks his mind, and speaks from the heart. He does not equivocate. He does not mind making enemies. He does not mind appearing "controversial". He appears to have the same energy and sense of purpose that Ken was blessed with so that, compared to the other candidates, he is a breath of fresh air (albeit circa 1983). He makes "Red Ed" Miliband seem positively Blairite by comparison.
The "change" candidate
Speaking of Ed Miliband, some people blame Ed for the rise of Corbyn. The argument is that, because Ed was so keen to distance himself from Blair, it meant that those who joined the party post 2010 were drawn to Ed's anti-Blairite message. In the space of a few years, the makeup of Labour's grassroots had gone from being Blairite-supporting, to being anti-austerity Blair-haters. Miliband had thought that the "political centre" had moved left with the onset of austerity, but the 2015 election proved that, if anything, it had moved to the right. The rise of fads such as "Milifandom" have shown that while Labour has much greater appeal to the younger voter, it has likewise much less appeal to people who actually are more likely to vote. This is something that George Osborne, the Tories' master tactician, figured out a while ago.
This tactical error of judgement has led to the fundamental reshaping of the party's grassroots, in a way that makes it more difficult for a "neo-Blairite" candidate to succeed in the leadership election. While Corbyn has the backing of many unions, and a significant chunk of the grassroots, he also has another unlikely supporter from another party: David Cameron. It was reported recently that in parliament, Cameron took Corbyn to one side to give him a kind of "pep talk". He reminded Corbyn that like him, in 2005 Cameron was initially thought of as an outsider with little chance of becoming leader, but he marked himself as the "change candidate", who offered something different. It was unreported what Corbyn's reaction was to Cameron's cheeky little interjection. Its purpose can only been to cause greater mischief.
Corbyn as the "change" candidate seems like a bad joke, given the man's age, but this is also a symptom of the wider context. Further afield, the rise of SYRIZA in Greece, and "Podemos" in Spain, seem to act as beacons for those in the Labour grassroots who would believe that the impossible is possible in the UK. Also, as the grassroots under Ed Miliband have been replenished with a batch of younger members. this means there are also a whole cohort of activists who have no memory of life before Blair. It is scary to realise that there are Labour members now who were only two years old when Blair became Prime Minister in 1997. Because of this, they have no memory of the splits in the party in the eighties (which Corbyn would have played a part of); splits that saw the Labour party in opposition for eighteen years. Indeed, anyone under the age of thirty would have no direct memory of life under Thatcher and Labour's dark years; to them, it would be a part of folk lore that their parents might have talked about.
Political schizophrenia
Of course, the biggest inspiration for Labour's potential lurch to the left lies north of the border. The SNP has thrived not because it is nationalistic, but because its sense of identity is crystal-clear to its supporters (even if they are being mislead). Conversely, the Scottish Labour party has died because of its lack of coherent identity, plus a combination of complacency and poor management over many years. 2015 was simply the culmination and inevitable result of that. Furthermore, the SNP has benefitted from having two successive leaders blessed with intelligence and charisma. By comparison, the Labour party in Scotland has been ran by second-rate (even third-rate) party hacks, who were then dependent on having major decisions approved by the political heavyweights in Westminster. It was as bad as anything seen in the internal politics of Soviet Russia.
Staying on the idea of identity politics, the situation in the Labour party in general - let alone in Scotland - is pretty dire. While Jeremy Corbyn's "identity politics" is clear, the other three candidates offer "more of the same", albeit in different doses.
Of those, Liz Kendall is the most "neo-Blairite", who seems to most grasp the scale of the job facing the party, and the scale of the changes needed (and realities faced) before it can stand a chance of winning an election any time soon. The problem is that the starkness of her message, and its similarity to the politics of Blair, is deeply off-putting to the "Milifandom"-loving grassroots. Right now, many of them seek succour in the righteousness of opposition. This is why Corbyn message is so appealing, like the barman pouring you another of your favourite tipple after the acrimonious break-up. Corbyn's politics does nothing to help the party get back into government; it simply helps the party to better understand the face that it sees in the mirror. If the party sees its self-inflicted wounds as scars of pride, that is where the real problems start. Seen in this way, Corbyn becoming leader wouldn't even be the nadir: that would only be achieved with an even more cataclysmic defeat in 2020. It would only be after reaching that nadir, could the "demons" in the Labour party finally be purged.
Corbyn is not yet favourite to win. That honour goes to Andy Burnham, who is the most middling of the candidates. While a likable man, he and Yvette Cooper, the last of the four candidates, are former ministers who seem to be treading water politically. They are competent politicians, but lack any obvious charisma or drive that gives any real hope of the Labour party being anything other than a second-rate oppostion party for years to come. As long as Labour is led by people with no clear idea where to take the party or who the party stands for, the electorate will look at them with scepticism.
Politics is marked out by the personalities that dominate it. Thatcher dominated the eighties; the dull interregnum of Major's premiership was quickly overshadowed by the drive of Tony Blair, who went on to dominate British politics for ten years. The Tories struggled with Blair's drive until Cameron came along with the intention of matching it, which then saw him into Downing Street in 2010, by which time Labour's personalities were a fading force. While Blair and Brown dominated the last Labour administration, setting the marker for everyone else, Cameron and Osborne have done the same since then.
This is why of the four candidates for the leadership, Liz Kendall, as a newly-elected MP, offers the most legitimate claim as a real "change" candidate. Dan Jarvis, who was a name mentioned early on but quickly dismissed calls to stand, is another person of note; alas, like Alan Johnson before him, he has the personality but (for whatever reason) lacks the willpower to take on the mantle.
What is certain is that Labour face a task even more challenging than after the 1983 election. Faced with a war on several political fronts, the rise of multi-party politics has landed a hammer-blow to the long-term prospects of the Labour Party. Like their sister parties PASOK in Greece and PSOE in Spain, they face a long, hard slog. By 2020, no-one can even be sure what the UK will look like.
Corbyn is an unlikely-looking insurgent leader, even to his own supporters. He's been an MP since 1983, as one of the "suicide note" intake, and his politics look like old-fashioned '70s socialism. Bearded, over sixty, and dressed like a Marxist academic, he is the antithesis to the modern idea of the "professional politician". He also has a record as being a perpetual rebel during the Blair government. "New Labour" he ain't.
These characteristics are somewhat reminiscent of another "old Labour" politician who was (to Blair and his allies) inexplicably popular: Ken Livingstone. Like Ken, Corbyn speaks his mind, and speaks from the heart. He does not equivocate. He does not mind making enemies. He does not mind appearing "controversial". He appears to have the same energy and sense of purpose that Ken was blessed with so that, compared to the other candidates, he is a breath of fresh air (albeit circa 1983). He makes "Red Ed" Miliband seem positively Blairite by comparison.
The "change" candidate
Speaking of Ed Miliband, some people blame Ed for the rise of Corbyn. The argument is that, because Ed was so keen to distance himself from Blair, it meant that those who joined the party post 2010 were drawn to Ed's anti-Blairite message. In the space of a few years, the makeup of Labour's grassroots had gone from being Blairite-supporting, to being anti-austerity Blair-haters. Miliband had thought that the "political centre" had moved left with the onset of austerity, but the 2015 election proved that, if anything, it had moved to the right. The rise of fads such as "Milifandom" have shown that while Labour has much greater appeal to the younger voter, it has likewise much less appeal to people who actually are more likely to vote. This is something that George Osborne, the Tories' master tactician, figured out a while ago.
This tactical error of judgement has led to the fundamental reshaping of the party's grassroots, in a way that makes it more difficult for a "neo-Blairite" candidate to succeed in the leadership election. While Corbyn has the backing of many unions, and a significant chunk of the grassroots, he also has another unlikely supporter from another party: David Cameron. It was reported recently that in parliament, Cameron took Corbyn to one side to give him a kind of "pep talk". He reminded Corbyn that like him, in 2005 Cameron was initially thought of as an outsider with little chance of becoming leader, but he marked himself as the "change candidate", who offered something different. It was unreported what Corbyn's reaction was to Cameron's cheeky little interjection. Its purpose can only been to cause greater mischief.
Corbyn as the "change" candidate seems like a bad joke, given the man's age, but this is also a symptom of the wider context. Further afield, the rise of SYRIZA in Greece, and "Podemos" in Spain, seem to act as beacons for those in the Labour grassroots who would believe that the impossible is possible in the UK. Also, as the grassroots under Ed Miliband have been replenished with a batch of younger members. this means there are also a whole cohort of activists who have no memory of life before Blair. It is scary to realise that there are Labour members now who were only two years old when Blair became Prime Minister in 1997. Because of this, they have no memory of the splits in the party in the eighties (which Corbyn would have played a part of); splits that saw the Labour party in opposition for eighteen years. Indeed, anyone under the age of thirty would have no direct memory of life under Thatcher and Labour's dark years; to them, it would be a part of folk lore that their parents might have talked about.
Political schizophrenia
Of course, the biggest inspiration for Labour's potential lurch to the left lies north of the border. The SNP has thrived not because it is nationalistic, but because its sense of identity is crystal-clear to its supporters (even if they are being mislead). Conversely, the Scottish Labour party has died because of its lack of coherent identity, plus a combination of complacency and poor management over many years. 2015 was simply the culmination and inevitable result of that. Furthermore, the SNP has benefitted from having two successive leaders blessed with intelligence and charisma. By comparison, the Labour party in Scotland has been ran by second-rate (even third-rate) party hacks, who were then dependent on having major decisions approved by the political heavyweights in Westminster. It was as bad as anything seen in the internal politics of Soviet Russia.
Staying on the idea of identity politics, the situation in the Labour party in general - let alone in Scotland - is pretty dire. While Jeremy Corbyn's "identity politics" is clear, the other three candidates offer "more of the same", albeit in different doses.
Of those, Liz Kendall is the most "neo-Blairite", who seems to most grasp the scale of the job facing the party, and the scale of the changes needed (and realities faced) before it can stand a chance of winning an election any time soon. The problem is that the starkness of her message, and its similarity to the politics of Blair, is deeply off-putting to the "Milifandom"-loving grassroots. Right now, many of them seek succour in the righteousness of opposition. This is why Corbyn message is so appealing, like the barman pouring you another of your favourite tipple after the acrimonious break-up. Corbyn's politics does nothing to help the party get back into government; it simply helps the party to better understand the face that it sees in the mirror. If the party sees its self-inflicted wounds as scars of pride, that is where the real problems start. Seen in this way, Corbyn becoming leader wouldn't even be the nadir: that would only be achieved with an even more cataclysmic defeat in 2020. It would only be after reaching that nadir, could the "demons" in the Labour party finally be purged.
Corbyn is not yet favourite to win. That honour goes to Andy Burnham, who is the most middling of the candidates. While a likable man, he and Yvette Cooper, the last of the four candidates, are former ministers who seem to be treading water politically. They are competent politicians, but lack any obvious charisma or drive that gives any real hope of the Labour party being anything other than a second-rate oppostion party for years to come. As long as Labour is led by people with no clear idea where to take the party or who the party stands for, the electorate will look at them with scepticism.
Politics is marked out by the personalities that dominate it. Thatcher dominated the eighties; the dull interregnum of Major's premiership was quickly overshadowed by the drive of Tony Blair, who went on to dominate British politics for ten years. The Tories struggled with Blair's drive until Cameron came along with the intention of matching it, which then saw him into Downing Street in 2010, by which time Labour's personalities were a fading force. While Blair and Brown dominated the last Labour administration, setting the marker for everyone else, Cameron and Osborne have done the same since then.
This is why of the four candidates for the leadership, Liz Kendall, as a newly-elected MP, offers the most legitimate claim as a real "change" candidate. Dan Jarvis, who was a name mentioned early on but quickly dismissed calls to stand, is another person of note; alas, like Alan Johnson before him, he has the personality but (for whatever reason) lacks the willpower to take on the mantle.
What is certain is that Labour face a task even more challenging than after the 1983 election. Faced with a war on several political fronts, the rise of multi-party politics has landed a hammer-blow to the long-term prospects of the Labour Party. Like their sister parties PASOK in Greece and PSOE in Spain, they face a long, hard slog. By 2020, no-one can even be sure what the UK will look like.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)