Skip to main content

Perhaps we should give disunity a go?

All the calls for unity after Corbyn’s election victory are completely understandable. It is a truism that divided parties can’t win elections.  The trouble is that united parties with the wrong policies and the wrong leader can’t win elections either.

Unity under Corbyn is a complete charade, particularly within the Parliamentary Labour Party. While the Labour church is notoriously broad, it’s difficult to imagine Presbyterian elders being particularly happy when told the new members of the congregation have chosen to follow the Pope. Pull together, they’re told. We’re all Christians, after all.

Here’s a controversial thought. Might it be that disunity and division are exactly what Labour needs right now?

Let’s cast our minds back to the early 1980s. The left, with its figurehead of Tony Benn, was in the ascendancy in the Labour Party. A conference in January 1981 endorsed the policies of withdrawal from the European Economic Community and unilateral nuclear disarmament. By the end of March, a new party – the SDP – was founded by Roy Jenkins, David Owen, Shirley Williams and Bill Rodgers. In 1983, as part of an alliance with the Liberals, they received 25% of the vote - just three points fewer than Labour under the leadership of Michael Foot.

Of course, the first-past-the-post system wasn’t kind to the SDP-Liberal Alliance in terms of seats in Parliament, but they had made their mark. The break from the old model of politics had very clearly demonstrated  the limits of left-wing Labour’s appeal in a system when people had a proper choice. 70% of the electorate opted for political platforms to the right of those advocated by the Party under Foot.

The result of this was the election of Neil Kinnock and a process of modernisation and reform throughout the remainder of the 1980s. It was a long, arduous struggle, as Kinnock had to fight on two fronts. As well as dealing with the new left politics represented by the likes of Corbyn and other Campaign Group MPs, he also had to confront systematic and organised infiltration by Trotskyists.

Kinnock made gradual, incremental change. Although he was never destined to be Prime Minister, the Labour Party owes him a huge debt. While he knew that unity was important, he also realised that there are some important prerequisites for that unity.  What’s more, he understood the compromises that had to be made in order to win the trust of the electorate.

So let’s consider two different scenarios in 2015.

In the first, sullen and resentful Labour MPs sit timidly on the backbenches while Corbyn, the confrontational McDonnell and the completely discredited Burnham pursue an agenda that will lead the Party into electoral oblivion.  Seeing Chris Bryant, the MP for Rhondda, claim on camera a couple of days ago that he could actually imagine Corbyn winning a general election was one of the most embarrassing pieces of TV I’ve seen in a very long time. It’s amazing how one ludicrously mismanaged election process has managed to rob people of their common sense and sense of irony.

Maybe the centre-ground Labour MPs believe they’ll be able to take pot shots once in a while.  But if they do choose to stick their heads above the parapet at any point, they stand the risk of being deselected by an ever-increasing army of activists and leftists drawn to the Party. (It’s as if the location of a permanent illegal rave has been announced on Facebook. The headbangers will keep on arriving for the next few months, I expect.)

A second scenario is that a handful of brave Parliamentarians forge a new identity and stand up to the Corbynistas. Clearly the core group should include those who have refused to serve in his Shadow Cabinet.  There should be a clear and unequivocal statement of intent: that Labour must remain a party in the political mainstream, committed to Europe, NATO and economic credibility. Now is the time to face down Corbyn and explain that the real Labour Party is rooted in the communities that elect its councillors and MPs, rather than in a self-selected base of leftist activists.

One thing is absolutely certain. The attack on Corbyn must be substantive.  Far too much of the commentary about him so far has been about his unelectability.  While it’s evident that it would take an extraordinary set of circumstances to see him make it to Downing Street – probably a complete implosion of the Tory Party over Europe and a full-blown economic crisis of the scale of 2008 – we must defeat him intellectually.  As Tony Blair made clear, even if Corbynism were electorally popular, we wouldn’t support it.

Yvette Cooper, to her credit, made an impressive effort at the end of the leadership contest to explain why Corbyn’s economic policies are so misguided.  Quantitative easing is a desperate measure reserved for times of extreme peril, not a policy that can be used when an economy is growing. The costs of renationalising the rail and energy sectors would be crippling, unless we failed to compensate shareholders. And if that happened, the stock market collapse that would follow would put in danger the pensions of the very people Labour tries to represent.

So we must tackle him over the economy, confront him over defence and point out just how out of touch he is with the electorate. What does he really think about EU membership? How is he going to protect us from the terrorist and state threats that menace us around the world?

If we receive no satisfactory response, then the time will have arrived to go our separate ways. In the short-term, Labour will be weakened. But in the long-term, it’s only a vocal challenge from the mainstream left that will pull the Party back once more from the brink.


  1. You are not the first to draw the comparison between the formation of the SDP after the 1981 Wembley conference and what happened last week. You also mention that the 'Gang of Four' left the Party because they opposed the policies endorsed at that conference (EEC withdrawal and a commitment to unilateral nuclear disarmament). You fail to mention that another policy was agreed at the January conference, the formation of an electoral college to elect the Leader and Deputy Leader. For Jenkins/Owen etc this was the straw that broke the camels back (so to speak). The extension of democracy for the 2015 Party election may also bring about a realignment of the Party with the possible centre-left breakaway. I await developments with interest.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

I was sad when I quit Labour a year ago. Now, I feel a sense of relief.

What motivates decent people to stay as members of the Labour Party?
It’s a question I’ve been pondering intensely over the past year, which I’ve spent in self-imposed exile. I resigned the moment Jeremy Corbyn was re-elected as leader after the contest with Owen Smith.
When I quit, it was with a very heavy heart.
As far back as the late 1980s, I’d served as Labour General Secretary of the London NUS. By the early 90s, I was chairing Frank Dobson’s constituency party in inner London. On two occasions, I stood as a Labour parliamentary candidate.
If you make that kind of commitment, you assume it’s a relationship that will last for life. And even though I hadn’t been an activist in recent years, it never occurred to me that I’d be forced to rip up my party card. 
Today, as Labour’s 2017 conference looms, I wonder how anyone with a moderate viewpoint can kid themselves the party is even worth rescuing.
One group of centre-ground survivors falls into the category of the bloody minded. Like …

What if the whole Corbyn project is based on a lie?

If there’s one thing that scares the Corbyn movement more than anything else, it’s the emergence of a new centre-ground party.
Supporters know very well that once it arrives, the alleged ‘popularity’ of Labour’s far-left leadership would be badly exposed – in just the same way that Michael Foot’s good poll ratings disintegrated with the emergence of the SDP in the early 1980s.
When people are given a choice, many will opt for moderation.
When they lack choice – a particularly stark problem in the UK’s indefensible first-past-the-post electoral system – they tend to polarise to left and right.
For supporters of today’s Labour leadership, it’s therefore critically important to dismiss the centre ground as something which no one wants any more. As a failed ‘neo-liberal’ project, which has no relevance to 2018.
But consider the facts.
A recent BMG Research poll for The Independent found that millions of voters currently find themselves without a political home.
Many feel that the main parties …

Cult of personality? The writing's on the wall.

Nothing makes Corbynistas more angry than the suggestion there are cult-like qualities to their movement and their veneration of the man they affectionately label ‘JC’. This accusation is viewed as such a slur, in fact, that on some social media channels moderated by the far left, anyone using the term ‘cult’ is deemed to be abusive and is in danger of finding themselves banned.
The evidence – specifically a cult of personality - is, however, now so strong as to be incontrovertible.
The madness reached some kind of apogee this week with the unveiling of a mural of Corbyn on his home turf of Islington.  
Let’s be clear. Murals celebrating political figures are not a part of British culture, unless of course you count the streets of West Belfast, where the Labour Leader has built up a strong network of contacts over the years. I’m sure they are de rigueur in parts of Gaza City, where the veteran socialist MP counts yet more friends.
It’s difficult to establish who is the more idiotic.…