|
A weekend with
Ken & Jeanette with many political discussions has, I think, helped me clarify my views on the Labour Party and
its leadership. The commentariat, a dreadful word but quite an apt one, has
declared that Jeremy Corbyn is unelectable as Prime
Minister. These are the people that told us the general election would be
tied, that Scotland would never vote for independence and that Labour would
dominate Scotland for the foreseeable future. It has not been a good year for
pundits. However in this case they are probably right. For Jeremy to surmount
the indignant Tory press would indeed by an achievement. Though given the
extraordinary rhetoric directed at barely-left Ed, what on earth is there
left to say about someone who is genuinely from the socialist wing? But I
accept, Jeremy is an unlikely prime minister even if elected. On the other
hand, I think Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper and Liz Kendall are equally
unelectable so I can’t see that it is worse to opt for one potentially
unelectable leader over another. The point is that electing Jeremey sparks
debate, discussion and serious reflection on where Labour is and what it is
for. Frankly, a somnolent 5 years of Andy or Yvette before another miserable
defeat will shift Labour nowhere. I am not being
original in noting that Jeremy has been successful because he come across as
honest and having a clear point of view. Not having a point of view has been
very fashionable since Blair; if you have a belief then someone will dislike
it, so better to ‘triangulate’, hover in the middle, not commit
yourself. This is the true philosophy of the Blairite centre ground
irrelevancies. But times have changed. Farage’s four million votes
didn’t come from equivocating, neither did the SNP landslide. And
now, shock horror, we have a Tory Government which, to its credit, is open
and honest about its vision for the future. I abhor it, but they are honestly
espousing a far right set of policies which will transform this country,
certainly for a long time and possibly for ever. In response Labour supports
the government, but perhaps not as much, or a bit more humanely or in
moderation. What Labour and every person who is appalled by the
Government’s ambition need is an alternative vision. Corbyn’s may not be ‘right’ –
though it is not entirely ‘wrong’ either - but an alternative
vision is now a necessity not a luxury. And there are
plenty of serious issues the Labour Party needs to address, starting with the
economy. Corbyn is clearly anti-austerity.
Irresponsible, fume the right, but these days he probably has the majority of
academic thinking on his side, Certainly if we want to learn from the US, it
is stimulus that has made the difference not cutting. But what do Andy &
Yvette think about Austerity? As I understood it (and I may be wrong because,
well it was a bit vague) at the election Labour supported austerity, but a
bit less of it. Is this their view now? And have Andy & Yvette noticed
that the government has used austerity as a cover for their main aim,
reducing the size of the state? It is pure conflation to suggest that
austerity leads to a massively reduced state. It is clever politics, but not
clever economics. What is the Labour view on the Tory’s preferred model
of government as a commissioning body, one that simply hands out the money to
private contractors? These are important, possibly the most important
questions and only Corbyn has answers. What about
the benefits system? Again, we have no doubt where the Tory’s stand or
where Corbyn does, but Andy & Yvette? Do they
support the contributory principle and if not do they plan to scrap National
Insurance? Are benefits a right or something earned, or something to be
scrapped? And in the same area, what does ‘moderate’ Labour think
about the government remorselessly leading the country into a third world
model of employment, one where almost everyone is on short term contracts
without benefits and on minimum wages? Aside from a tiny number of
economically vital jobs, the Tory’s want total casualization. Do Andy
& Yvette? We could go on, but one more area has to be raised.
Immigration. Everyone would dearly love to know the Labour party’s
position on immigration. Again I think (I should know, wasn’t it carved
in stone?) it is like the Tories but more humane, but I could well be wrong. Labour needs
clear broad policy agreement on these topics, and it then needs to sell those
view to the public. Where Labour has held progressive views, they have tried
not to talk about them embarrassed and scared that the Daily Mail will
ridicule them. None of this is good enough. Labour needs to believe again,
and it certainly has enough policy areas where it can make a difference. Ed
was not a left wing leader, he was barely across the centre line. How else
could most people see little difference between this radical and rampant right
wing government and the Labour Party three months ago? So unless we
can get some clear vision from the rest of the leadership candidates it has
to be Jeremy. He may well be unelectable but he will revive and refresh a
depressed, dispirited and pointless Labour Party. Shuffling along looking for
a middle that hurtles rightwards is no longer an option. Actually the
best response is probably to open the process to more candidates on the
grounds the current set are just not good enough! |
|
|
Blog #26 |
|
|
|
|
|
Comments |
|
|
|
If you
would like to comment on any of these Blog pieces please email me on: bjc@briancreese.co.uk