Labour’s future direction is at stake. Its leader has the backing of a large part of the membership yet appears to have little prospect of forming a government in order to deliver upon his vision. Although the trigger was the addition of Jeremy Corbyn on the ballot paper in 2015, the crisis is caused by more than Corbyn. Artemis Photiadou and Sean Kippin explain why current events are instead about Labour’s fundamental and repeating conundrum: electability or ideology.
There is a saying that history does not repeat itself, but sometimes it rhymes. Labour’s history seems to rhyme rather precisely around every four decades. Whenever Labour was mauled in an election, its instinct has been to respond with a lurch to the left, before then entering into a period of crisis in which the centre and right attempt to expunge that left. This pattern can be reaction to defeat, but radical leaders emerged in the aftermath of financial crises that wrought profound damage on the public sector and on Labour’s constituency.
It happened in 1932 with George Lansbury, it happened again in 1980 with Michael Foot, and it is happening once more today with Jeremy Corbyn. And while there are comparisons to be made between these leaders, the current situation is ultimately linked to two recurring questions about Labour’s identity: how it responds to the far-left, and what it looks for in its leader.
Far-left pressure
Labour’s problem has always been how to manage its far-left faction. Such pressure is inevitable because Labour was created outside of Parliament and from the bottom up. Being a marriage of middle class socialist intellectuals and working class trade unionists, its 100-year history is replete with instances of it fighting with itself – with those considered by the party mainstream to be entryists, or those who attempted to make Labour more radical. Actions against this latter group were famously taken against Trotskyist groups, with the expulsion of members of the Socialist Outlook in 1954 and of the Militant in 1982.
Exacerbating this tendency is the fact that ‘radical’ views are normalised following financial crises, and so may become more widespread amongst members. Evidence for this is that Corbyn’s views resonated across Labour’s grassroots. But although leftward turns may resonate more with those already belonging to a centre-left party, they do not with the rest of the country, creating a tension between Labourites who prioritise winning elections and those who prioritise strict adherence to a set of unbendable principles.
Since Labour can ignore neither the perspective held by a large number of its membership, nor abandon the rest of the country, the elections that result from these “power vs. principles” crises tend to be fought between candidates who back similar policies – Labour tried to appease Bennites by electing the similarly radical Foot, and now a part of Labour rests its hopes with Owen Smith, who, at least publicly, shares many of Corbyn’s views.
So while parallels between Corbyn and Foot have been drawn, Foot was Labour’s unity candidate and, ironically, won the contest on the basis that he would prevent a split. Contrarily, Corbyn has shown something approaching disdain towards non-supporters: he presents himself as an outsider, and has threatened MPs with deselection, as if the leader owns those the people have elected. What is being settled, therefore, is as much about leadership style as it is about ideological direction: the question of how willing a prospective leader is to reconcile their views with others’ in order for the party to function properly.
Corbyn’s appeal is in part his refusal to apologise for his beliefs, and his desire to state unequivocally that he is left-wing. His stridency is seen as contrasting poorly with those in Labour who seek to meet the Conservatives half way over issues such as benefit cuts or privatisation – considered by many of their fellow members as something approach evil. This may not be surprising since Labour has long retained a preference for strict adherence to principles – even in Tony Blair’s zenith in 1999, over three fifths of the membership believed the party should stick stolidly to its principles, even if it meant losing an election.
And so what these “power vs. principles” moments make more pronounced is a question Labour has yet to satisfactorily address: what does it expect from its leader?
The Labour leader’s role
Being comprised of grassroots, trade unions, and the PLP, Labour does not think with one single mind – as we now see in flashing lights. Its only hope of articulating a vision lay in a leader’s ability to unite these groups. A talent for “appeasement” is necessary, but by no means sufficient. Even given the recent rises, Labour’s membership amounts to less than 1 per cent of the electorate. With a clear link between leaders’ approval rates and election outcomes, his (for it is always a he) appeal to outsiders matters enormously. If anything, this wider appeal is key in predicting whether the vision they preach to the 1 per cent during the leadership campaign has any prospect of being realised.
And while current approval rates indicate zero prospect for Corbyn’s vision, there is also a question for Owen Smith’s supporters about what exactly they expect of him – to “win back the party”, to go back to exercising effective opposition, to win a general election, all while preventing a split? Labour has probably written off its chances of success in the next election, even if Smith were to emerge victorious. Their best hope may be that he reprises the role of his fellow Welshman, Neil Kinnock, who shifted Labour away from the fringes, leaving the stage clear for a more electorally appealing successor.
Preventing a split may also be beyond anyone individual’s control, as it was in 1981 when the “gang of four” broke away and formed the SDP. And although the SDP did not become a threat in the long-run, thanks to a combination of residual loyalty to Labour and the First Past the Post electoral system, its short term impact was catastrophic. In the 1983 election, Labour won only 27.6 per cent of the vote – a mere 2 points more than the SDP/Liberal Alliance. The Conservatives gained a landslide majority of 144 against their evenly divided opponents.
Seeing beyond Labour
Debates and contests are part and parcel of democracy. Democracy also imposes a duty on the opposition to scrutinise and challenge the government. The unforgivable result of Labour crises is the party’s inability to fulfil this duty during them. While the 1979 election triggered a disaster that trapped Labour in opposition for 18 years, to the considerable loss of those Labour traditionally represented. The same spectre now haunts us.
Frustratingly, and even though there was a mechanism in the leadership rules to prevent such an outcome – a substantial nomination threshold – the decision of many MPs was to follow the path taken in 2010 when Diane Abbott was nominated largely on the grounds that the contest would benefit from the presence of a black woman in an all white male field. This time, a white man was incorporated in a more diverse contest on the grounds that the election would benefit from a debate only his presence could facilitate.
The PLP’s short memory was in evidence here. Having gotten away with it in 2010, and although the PLP is uniquely placed to mediate between the competing demands of electability and ideology, the MPs of a party which has from birth battled radical factions from within nonetheless saw it fit to nominate Corbyn – a notoriously rebellious MP with no previous experience in a senior position. The parochialism of British politics also contributed. Labour MPs assumed that they were immune from the populism of left and right sweeping Europe, while they cogitated grandly about ‘broadening the debate’.
A move that was designed to be nothing more than tokenistic has backfired so spectacularly that the very future of the party has been called into question. And as the debate has broadened, it revealed how Labour truly does not know itself.
____
Artemis Photiadou is Research Associate in the LSE Public Policy Group and a PhD candidate in the Department of International History.
Sean Kippin is a PhD student at the University of the West of Scotland. He was previously the Managing Editor of the LSE’s Democratic Audit blog, a researcher for two Labour MPs, and is a Research Associate of the LSE Public Policy Group.
Regarding KimSpence-Jones Comment:
I wonder if he has actually listened to the core of Corbyn’s economic policies, to effect recovery. These involve quantitative easing, not on behalf of the banks, but to supply money to stimulate the economy in more concrete, social terms. Money would go to the building industry to build affordable social housing, creating jobs and sorting out the housing crisis/homelessness at the same time. Corbyn has provided other examples where the money would go to the NHS, or other social structure, bolstering jobs, society’s needs and the economy. The media consistently ignore these policies, harking back to old Labour policies.
The industries that Corbyn has talked about renationalising have been the NHS and the railways. The piecemeal privatisation of the NHS has increased bureaucracy, funding and in certain cases, such as ambulances, has resulted in chaos. Most peopl in the country are against this hidden privatisation and would like to see it reversed. Concerning the railways: Southern Railways recently announced increased profits whilst the service is rated appalling. Virgin Railways consistently are givin bad reviews. On the Continent, most countries own or partly own their railways and the service is better than ours. The case for privatisation is strong. Corbyn has not advocate further privatisation or massive strikes although he does believe in Unions and workers’ rights.
Corbyn has been consistently referred to in the media as far left. As someone who has been on the left of politics for 36 years I can say Corbyn reflects what was soft left, 25 years ago. He is nowhere near the far left of the Socialist Workers Party.
Kitty:
I agree that there are some situations where privatisation makes little sense; essentially the areas where a natural monopoly exists. It indeed makes no sense to have ambulances from multiple providers “competing” to attend an emergency, and it can make little sense to switch providers of such critical services from time to time either since as you say this usually results in transitional chaos.
To be honest, I’m not sure there is a good answer for natural monopoly cases. Nationalised services usually end up squeezed of investment (think NHS) by short-sighted politicians who care little about future improvements of service or efficiency. Private companies can be similarly squeezed by investors short-termism, though at least investors will be attracted by a rational case for investing for future returns.Part of the answer lies in a much more professional and tougher negotiating team in the public sector — penalties for non-performance should be far more draconian than is currently the norm. My belief is that in general all the profit for delivering a privatised service should come as a bonus for delivering at or above 100%. We need a mindset from the service providers of over-delivering to ensure they get that profit, as opposed to the “how much under-delivering can we get away with?” approach seen in cases like Southern Rail. Looking at more radical approaches, maybe worker cooperatives are an answer; certainly this is a direction which is under-explored.
Incidentally, I don’t see Corbyn as particularly left-wing, but he seems to be supported by amongst others a bunch of very left wing members, which is creating a PR problem for him. And for his personal campaign, it’s not Corbyn’s policies that are the problem, it’s his dreadful man-management and PR abilities. (I remember John Major similarly moaning that he always got a bad press; it’s nothing to do with policies, it’s about charisma and political skills. But at least John Major seemed to retain the backing of his parliamentary colleagues for a while.)
The problem with the Labour far-left is its massive inflexibility, and insistence on support for policies that the rest of us acknowledge have been proven not to work. Extreme socialists have for a long time harboured a deep confusion of objectives with methods. The aims are laudable, the proposed solutions are laughable.
To put this in more concrete terms: the fundamental starting point of the left is something that many of the electorate agree with: that society is deeply, possibly dangerously, unequal, and that this needs fixing in some way, and as soon as possible. The problem is that the far left then goes on to propose old and hackneyed solutions such as nationalisation, strikes, etc. They seem completely unable to think innovatively and creatively to find answers which can actually make some headway.
Let’s look first at the call for nationalisation. No economy in the world has made a success of nationalisation beyond certain narrow cases. In the UK, de-nationalised industries have mostly delivered far better service than their nationalised predecessors. (Counter-examples such as coal and steel have been in areas where international conditions, environmental concerns and similar factors have made decline inevitable.) Even if the distrust of nationalisation is ill-founded, it is accepted wisdom by most of the electorate, and no advocate will find traction. So, another way must be found.
Now consider strikes. Strikes are a deeply irrational form of negotiation, except in extreme situations. For a start, they take value out of the very system from which the strikers are hoping to get more value. They also damage the national economy more widely, leading to job losses, slowed growth, etc. Further, they are based on a very old-fashioned model of society: that “workers” and “bosses” are two different breeds, whose interests are diametrically opposed. There are better ways: mediation, pendulum arbitration, and so on.
Another shibboleth with no foundation in reality is the “lump of labour” fallacy: that there are a fixed number of jobs, and these jobs are always under threat, from automation, from immigration, from offshoring, even just from “management” being bloody-minded. The reality is that yes, some people may lose out, but society as a whole gains far more. Instead of fighting to prevent such changes, we need to embrace them, and find some way of ensuring that those who do lose out are fairly compensated.
There are many other irrational aspects of far left policy, but the final and deepest problem with left-Labour views is that using any tactic which is built on capitalist methodology is “selling out”. As an example, if you are in dispute with a company whose management you think incompetent (think Southern Rail as a current example), instead of striking, why not purchase shares and build up enough power to kick out the board and install a better one? If you’re right and you can do a better job, you’ll make a nice profit as a side-effect of fixing the company, which can be added to the fighting fund for the next target, or distributed to the workers as a bonus. Perhaps the far left is scared that it will be hard to prove that they are right, even with the total cooperation of the workforce. It is so much easier to break things apart than to make them work better.
In short, until the far left abandons the sacred cows that make it the laughing stock of almost everyone else, it is doomed to be nothing more than an irritating thorn which makes it much harder for the rest of us to actually fix the very problems they — and many of the rest of us — most care about.
I dont see how Owen Smith is electable with his neoliberal eu apologist viewpoints and his support for mass immigration. Automatically he is alienating Labour from the Brexit working class and his only appeal is to metropoles despite his left-leaning rhetoric which he has plagiarized from Labour policy anyway.
Corbyn on the other hand has a creative understanding of both the pitfalls of eu membership and corporate liberalism. His needs-based programme is what you would expect any reasonable left-leaning opposition leader to promote, that being demand-side economic growth and a curtailment of inequality. Nothing particularly radical here other than how to pay for all this.
The future of British politics will be won and lost within the sphere of how best to achieve the common good. Theresa May has already made inroads from a conservative perspective. The gap is how Labour intends to achieve this both ideologically and practically. Neither Corbyn or Smith provide a convincing platform to achieve either and as such need to take explain a deeper interpretation of a needs-based system and how British society should be contributing towards that. Distributism and ecologicalism provide a good theoretical platform. This can be also supported by a deeper articulation of what Corbyn means by decentralisation. If it is about giving local people a vote on local licensing, planning and development decisions then what is there not to like.