Monday, 25 July 2016

Which "Leader of the (Labour) pack?"

Members of Parliament naturally think they are very important and deserving people.  They have worked hard to gain their parties' selection for one of the 80% of seats that are "safe", or to win and retain one of the marginals.  Until recently both Labour and Conservative MPs had the exclusive right to determine who would be their Leader - who would, if and when the party gained a majority,  become prime minister and dole out the plum jobs of government.

MPs feel themselves at the very centre of  the political maelstrom.  They make and listen to speeches in the Commons Chamber,  they get invited, presumably for a fee, to appear in or write for the media; and serve on committees which can grill government departments on their activities.  They vote to make or change our laws, though on the whole according to the strict instructions of their party managers.

It is an accepted part of our unwritten and sometimes vague constitution that the Queen must choose as her prime minister the person who can command a majority in the House of Commons.  In the bad old days when the choice of this person was solely a matter for the MPs there was little prospect of dissent about who should be called.  There might have been in the Tory party because their leader "emerged" as a result of  result of "soundings" by senior party figures rather than a vote of MPs, but Tories have a thirst for power and know to do as they're told rather than rock the boat.

The Labour Party's current problem arises because the choice of leader is now open to the party membership rather than just the MPs, and 80% of the MPs have, in my view shamefully, voted to say they have no confidence in the Jeremy Corbyn, the leader the members have chosen (overwhelmingly, by just short of 60% of the vote - the nearest challenger, Andy Burnham, received only 19% of the vote.)

Frankly, if I were a Labour Party member I would rejoice  to have a leader who can not only command such support from existing party members, but can also inspire people to come forward in droves to join the party and participate in the political process.

Labour's MPs appear to have two criticisms of Corbyn: that he is a poor organiser and is unelectable.

Being a poor organiser, if true, should be no problem -just appoint a competent chief of staff.  There should be plenty around.

I fail to understand why they think he is unelectable, though it is true that even the sympathetic media go along with this.  Yet the facts suggest quite the opposite.

No one in on the British political scene, not Theresa May, not David Cameron, not Boris Johnson, not  Nick Clegg, (though we did have a brief period of Cleggmania)and certainly not David Miliband, has persuaded hundreds of thousands to flock to join a political party.  And, if you prefer to count hard votes, Labour has won every parliamentary by-election, mostly with increased majorities, along with the London mayoralty, since Corbyn became leader. And the predicted meltdown in this year's s local government elections, which followed a previous exceptionally good year, simply did not happen.

In short, the party under his leadership is a winner.

Let us consider for a moment the alternative possibility - that Labour's membership is persuaded to choose another leader.

 The present contender, Owen Smith, is relatively unknown.  Maybe he will prove to have Corbyn-like charisma.  But the omens are not good.  His "hinterland" is typical of of the career politicians whose limited experience is coming so  much into question: producer in the media, special adviser (Spad) for a Labour government minister, lobbyist for one drug company, in charge for "corporate affairs" for another with a tarnished reputation for "pursuing profits at the risk of patient safely."

I strongly suspect that, if he wins, although Labour's parliamentary party may be cheered up and continue busily to "hold the government to account,"  the Labour Party outside parliament will  flat-line while the Tories, buoyed up by their media mates, continue with what they see as  their God-given right to rule for another couple of decades.

 It is absolutely extraordinary that, after a self-engineered calamity which has been compared to the worst political debacle since Lord North lost the American colonies over a row about the tax on tea, the Tories should have successfully regrouped whilst the leading members of largest opposition party fight each other like rats in a sack.
Mr Corbyn is the breath of fresh-air that could change things.  Our hope for the immediate future is that, after his re-election his MPs will recognise the need to work with him and he and they will recognise the need to work with other progressive parties (Liberal Democrats, the Greens, and, yes, the SNP and perhaps the other nationalists) to create the rainbow coalition necessary to begin the repair of our battered society


  1. This is good on why Labour MPs are fighting Corbyn:

    (It was hilarious to hear Jeremy Corbyn, Jeremy Corbyn insisting that it was the duty of every Labour MP to support the leadership. Really, Jeremy? Support the leadership? That's what you think the duty of a Labour MP is, is it?)

    1. Yes, I appreciate the irony of Corbyn's calling for loyalty to the leader. As my Uncle Joe used to quote:

      Circumstances alters cases
      Just as noazes alters faces.

      Thanks for the link to the article, which I have read with interest. It may be right: I just don't know enough about Labour Party history to comment.

      I suspect, or rather hope, that whereas Militant was a determined minority group, the supporters Corbyn has recruited are, by and large, an enthusiastic majority without sinister intent.

      I take the accusations of vandalism and bullying with a pinch of salt.

      I am pretty convinced that a Smith-led "mixture as before" will inspire very few and lead to years of Tory hegemony.

  2. I suspect, or rather hope, that whereas Militant was a determined minority group, the supporters Corbyn has recruited are, by and large, an enthusiastic majority without sinister intent

    Yes, I'm sure the actual Trots are just the ones in the middle whipping it up, and numerically the majority of them are… what is term… oh, yes, 'useful idiots'.

    Which also brings to mind:

    just appoint a competent chief of staff. There should be plenty around

    If so, then why hasn't he done it already? Why, instead, recruit and rely on people just as unpleasant and incompetent as he is, like John McDonnell and Milne who can't even spell his Christian name correctly?

    Answer: because he's not interested in competence, he's interested in loyalty, ideological purity, and commitment to the Revolutionary Cause.

    1. A quote from an article by David Wearing in today's Guardian:

      "Conspiracy theories about mass Trotskyist entryism,. while (unintentionally) entertaining, are of little help in explaining the huge and enduring support for Corbyn among Labour's ballooning membership. The real reasons are simple enough - Corbyn represents a head-on challenge to a status quo that a broad swathe of left-progressive opinion now considers intolerable."

      The whole article is worth a read.

  3. Stephen Sadler27 July 2016 at 08:49

    An excellent article, Peter - I fully concur.

    1. Thanks for your support, Steve. You more than most know how difficult it has been to work with Labour, but we have to realise that our only hope of breaking the Tory hold on the system is working with what Wearing, above, has called "left-progressive opinion." This means we have to be polite about Corbyn, not laugh, sneer or rejoice in his discomforts, but actively support the causes he supports, and there are many where our views overlap.

  4. Hai, thanks for your blog. If any body want to develop your political skills, political career path, consulting services for your political party, I think should visit our website.
    Best Political Election Campaign Management Company in India
    political digital marketing agency
    political scientist salary in india