Jeremy Corbyn’s politics might not signal the end of Labour as an electable party but a much deeper change in British politics. James A. Smith explains that the Left has long focussed on protest politics, but led by Corbyn, the causes that the Left stands for now have the potential to gain the backing of various institutions. And although Corbyn does not have such support yet, recent developments indicate that he soon might.
Things are going well for Jeremy Corbyn… right? Well, there’s the matter of the poor polling of both the Labour Party and of Corbyn personally, and the fact that Corbyn does not command enough support within his party to effectively fill all shadow cabinet positions. And yes, under his leadership, the Labour Party is in a state of disrepair unprecedented for a British opposition in modern times, even as the Tories have responded to their own crisis with characteristic ruthlessness, and put power ahead of faction. Yet within the Labour Party, one thing after another is going Corbyn’s way. Collectively, these imply a sea change in the party institutionally.
A court action against the NEC’s decision that Corbyn must automatically be included on the ballot in the current leadership contest has failed. This was followed by an initially successful one by Corbyn’s own supporters against measures that would exclude new (presumed to be Corbynite) members voting. While this appeal has itself now been defeated, the unedifying spectacle of a Labour establishment reduced to squabbling for payment of legal fees from its own members can only have strengthened Corbyn’s hand among many of those that are still permitted to vote.
Corbyn’s shadow cabinet is now more diverse, more Left wing, and generally more congenial to his project than it was before. Even the leadership challenge seems to have improved Corbyn’s standing institutionally: journalists formerly critical of his leadership’s notoriously awful media strategy now report improvements within his team.
Within the party structure itself, the elections to the NEC have swept pro-Corbyn candidates to every seat in the elected CLP section. And, more pressingly, standing Tory plans to reduce the number of MPs via a boundary review, due to be implemented in 2018, mean that the reselection of existing MPs (and so, potentially, the replacement of the more intransigent among them by pro-Corbyn Leftists) is now less an insidious “Trotskyist” threat than a simple administrative inevitability.
No one should take lightly the prospect of committed centrist MPs with politics perfectly in keeping with Labour’s broad traditions being removed from their candidature. But as one anti-Corbyn commentator has recently conceded, the “party is in a fight to the death… There is no longer any hiding places”. Either Corybn goes – and it doesn’t look like he’s going anywhere – or the changing identity of the party is going to have to be reflected in the PLP.
It is common for Corbyn’s critics to represent him as an exponent of a “politics of protest”, more interested in demonstrations over single issues than in participating in the adult rigours of actual power. In their enthusiasm, it is alleged, Corbyn’s supporters are toppling a historically great party of government into a vaguely defined “social movement”, all chants and banners, leaving a free hand to the more institutionally savvy Tories.
But what if the reverse is happening? Political writers of the radical Left such as Jodi Dean in the US, and Nick Srnicek and Alex Williams in the UK, have been arguing that if it is to return to meaningful influence on how politics is to be shaped, the Left must end its love affair with the “folk politics” of Stop the War, Occupy, and student demonstrations. To greater or lesser extents, these authors acknowledge the important contribution such movements make to progressive causes. But without meaningful institutional formations such as think tanks, media operations, and a party itself, they contend that the Left will remain stuck in a politics that goes no further than a kind of feel-good hobby or academic abstraction.
What if, then –far from being the expression of retrograde protest politics of popular legend – Corbynism represents the institutional coming of age of the remarkable “folk politics” of recent decades, from Stop the War, to Occupy, to Black Lives Matter? The moment, as Dean might put it, when impressive but politically limited “crowd” ossifies as hegemony-influencing “party”?
Corbyn’s recent internal victories within the Labour Party suggest it may be so. This is not “entryism”, then. Such academic analysis of Corbyn’s supporters as exists suggests that the Labour membership – always to the Left to the PLP – was longing for their personal politics to receive such institutional manifestation well before Corbyn appeared on the ballot paper. In this regard, something like the programme argued for by Dean, and Srnicek and Williams, has been waiting to happen in Britain for some time.
____
James A. Smith teaches at Royal Holloway, University of London. He is the author of a book on tragedy. His next book, Other People’s Politics is forthcoming from Zero Books.
I think you need to demonstrate folk politics gaining space across the the political spectrum (left to right) to demonstrate your conclusion.
Thank you for sharing your thought provoking insights. My take is: 1) Why Corbyn? He resembles the image projected by aspirations of a certain segment of British polity—for whom ‘being heard’ is not enough anymore; they want for they voice to enable a decisive change, back to welfare society. Corbyn looks (much more than anyone else in Labour’s top ranks) like he can do this for them. No one in Labor can win a contest against him, at least for the time being. (2) What is controversial with Corbyn’s leadership? At the heart of all fighting is the notion of ‘winning’ leader. The paradox of this situation is that, with citizens’ mood (as perfectly exhibited in the Brexit referendum) and with current state of affairs in terms of economic growth and various social problems Labour stands much better chances winning the next elections with Corbyn than with any other party figure. What also seems quite realistic assessment though is that he can become prime minister but hardly can perform as one (not because of his qualities but because of the opposition within his own party’s elite—just project what happens in shadow cabinet to No 10). (3) What are the options? Corbyn remaining as leader, Labour is not going to be at peace and therefore faces two scenarios. One is that the party keeps struggling and infighting makes it weak and disorganised. This is not a healthy outcome for politics generally, as there is no other party to replace them in their balancing role against Conservatives (at least in the visible future). Second scenario is that the party splits and each part seeks new alliances, whether to the left or close to the centre of political spectrum. This may turn to be the best outcome—if not immediately but at least in the medium term. There is nothing ultimately good or bad in politics, everything is fluid and changing rapidly in this realm and thus what was the best strategy yesterday may turn to be irrelevant today and vice versa.
The 172 MPS who voted no confidence in the party leader have shown their contempt for the labour party members. Corby will win again. The party members are not going to allow the labour MPs to sabotage the labour party again. The labour party belongs to the members on one member one vote basis. An MP is no more important than a member. One MP equals one member.
Members want the whole of the NEC to be elected by one member one vote process. The labour party National Executive Committee (NEC ) are protecting the unreasonable MPs from being held to account by members, with NEC threats to suspend and expel any member who challenges the MPs to be accountable. NEC has shown contempt for the labour party members. 130,000 members were excluded from voting. Also the NEC have unreasonably suspended and expelled part members without giving them detailed reasons for the suspensions and expulsions. Members are now demanding that all of the NEC should be elected by one member one vote no matter how much the MPs and those who support the sabotaging MPS will try to avoid it, members will succeed to have the whole of the NEC elected by one member one vote.
Presently under the labour party rules if the members wish they can replace MP with the trigger ballot and the bad way the 172 MPs have behaved to bring the labour party into disrepute, members will make sure that the trigger ballot rule is used to subject these MPs to reselection contest against other candidates. One thing all members will never forget is that in each Branch members can hold a no confidence vote in their MP anytime because the precedence of no confidence vote has been set by the 172 MPs when they held no confidence vote in Corbyn the leader. The no confidence vote in the MPs could start anytime from now to the general election.