Labour: a cause for disappointment??

I recently received a communication from a good friend which included an aside that professed disappointment with Labour at the moment; that they are trailing in the polls when we have the worst and most incompetent government in living memory.

I mulled uneasily over this for a few days …. of course I am disappointed, but that doesn’t do anywhere near justice to how I feel – I am in fact very, very pissed off – bordering on furious when I can summon up the appropriate level of indignation.

In the context of a government led by the right wing of the Tory party, hounded and pressurised by its far right, maintained by the most cynical of alliances with the DUP and with apparently no purpose other than to spin things out and hope that the Labour Party runs into difficulties of its own – we have a Labour Party …… well running into difficulties of its own.

Labour is split into warring factions and antagonistic camps: Parliamentary Party v Activists, Leavers v Remainers (60% of Labour voters), Liberals v Socialists, Metropolitans v Smalltons, North v South, Semites v Anti-Semites. It is little wonder that the leadership is unable to provide a strong steer on such crucial matters as Brexit and Labour has now become the new nasty party. So there you are: unfit to govern (with, note, hardly a mention of economic policies) and dangerously discriminatory.

On the other hand the Tories are ……. er ….  split into warring factions and antagonistic camps: The Centre Right v Members (you could barely call them activists), Leavers (60% of Tory voters) v Remainers, Liberals v Far Righters, Metropolitans v Ruraltons, North v South, Islamophobics v …… well not many apparently. So it is not surprising that the Tory leadership, with decades of Europhobic toys out of the pram behaviours to deal with and lacking the necessary votes in parliament is unable to sort the Brexit stuff out whilst at the same time showing a complete lack of competence in managing a disastrous turn in domestic affairs. So there you are: they may be an absolute shambles ……….. but at least they are not the Labour Party.

So what is happening to Labour? Why is it not far ahead in the polls, waiting to pounce as the Tories collapse into the debacle of their own making? I think 5 factors are important here:

1) Brexit.

This is not a mess of Labour’s making and very much one of the Tories’. Labour was the only party to oppose a referendum in the 2015 general election. Ed Miliband argued that it would prove a monumental distraction to the priorities of economic growth, ending austerity and working towards a more equitable society. He also thought it would be divisive.

Jeremy Corbyn is criticised for not undertaking a more proactive stance on campaigning to Remain (and, tellingly, much more criticised than David Cameron who not only kicked the whole thing off but who also mounted such a lacklustre campaign to Remain). Jeremy Corbyn did campaign to Remain in line with Labour Party policy – but refused to share a platform with Cameron, Osborne and the rest of that sorry shower as they sought to paper over the cracks of Tory Party disunity. I understand that this decision was made in the light of the perceived impact on the subsequent general election defeat of Ed Miliband’s involvement on a shared platform in the Scottish referendum.

Labour is criticised for not seeking to corral and develop those forces seeking a second referendum – when the difficulties that would entail are plain to see: a number of key Labour constituencies had large Leave majorities, the numbers in the Commons just don’t add up, and there is no guarantee that a second vote would produce a different result – never mind the decisive vote for Remain that would be necessary to legitimise the whole carry-on and go some way to ameliorate the tensions and divides that would ensue. There is a very good chance that a second referendum would result in a ‘no deal’ rupture with the EU –about which there seems to be a rare consensus – that this would be the worst of all worlds. Moreover, at best we would be faced with a significant proportion of the population who would return to non-participation in politics and at worst increased recruitment for the Hard Right.

Instead Labour has sought to pick its way through a democratic and political minefield using a step by step process agreed at its annual conference: to oppose and defeat Theresa May’s deal if it failed key tests; to prevent a default ‘no deal’; to seek consensus for an alternative deal (e.g. Norway plus); to force a general election and negotiate a better deal; and finally, if the democratic processes of the Commons cannot sort the mess out – to put it back to the public for a second vote.

Messy and complicated though this maybe (with a real risk of no-one ending up feeling OK about it), it doesn’t, to me at any rate, look anywhere near as dangerous and destructive as the approach currently taken by the Tories. The Tory Party is a past master at retaining unity – it is the party’s bottom line in the face of the ever present threat of socialism (if only!). The Tory leadership’s only motive in holding a referendum was to clip the wings of those troublesome eurosceptics – and now that the whole thing has backfired, it is overly committed to keeping its emboldened right wing on board – with an inevitable lurch rightwards. For the last 2 years we, our partners in the EU and the on-looking world have been treated to the lunacy of government ministers and spokespeople putting forward ideas and proposals about how Brexit should be actioned which have little basis in reality. The best the Tory leadership can come up with would result in a 4% economic hit to the economy, the worst – the 8% cut that would result from the no deal being viewed as acceptable by the European Research Group.

It is a little reported thing (strangely) that Michel Barnier has told Theresa May that the proposals developed by the Labour Party for Brexit would provide a much more fruitful starting point for negotiations that could ameliorate many aspects of the divorce and help to build a mutually positive and effective relationship in the future.

2) Anti-Semitism.

I do not doubt that there is anti-Semitic behaviour within the Party but struggle to see why this should be more virulent in the Labour Party than in other political parties, or indeed in society in general. I was going to say ‘needless to say’ but sadly I have to make my position very clear: Any instance of anti-Semitic behaviour by a Labour Party member must be addressed and dealt with, and support provided to those victimised – as would be the case for instances of racism, sexism, homophobia etc. My understanding is that the Labour Party is doing just that – actively investigating a large number of allegations of antisemitism and seeking to learn from the outcomes. Its most recent review of the investigations suggested that whilst present in the Party, the prevalence of members holding anti-Semitic views is small (0.08%) and that there is no evidence that the party is institutionally anti-Semitic. It has also become clear that where allegations have been made it is difficult to determine how much of the abuse is actually emanating from Labour Party members. This is a particular issue when the abuse is communicated through social media (and much of it is) which provides anonymity for offensive remarks and anonymity for the sender.

It is often helpful to move from the particular to the wider context when seeking to understand a phenomenon – and there is certainly a wider context here! Israel’s treatment of the Palestinian people has come under increasing scrutiny and criticism over recent years. The very visible violence meted out to the inhabitants of Gaza is complemented by continued expansion of illegal settlements in Palestinian territory and the recent constitutional move to reduce the status of Palestinians living in Israel is of very real concern.

The Israeli response is to go on the offensive – to conflate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism in order to delegitimise criticism of its policies and practices towards the Palestinians and to promote legal challenge to organised boycotts of its exports and disinvestment in its economy.

So how does this end up having particular traction in the Labour Party? Jeremy Corbyn is unique in being the leader of a western mainstream political party who unambiguously supports the Palestinian cause. The foreign policy of a prospective Labour government would therefore be an understandable concern for the Israeli Knesset and for supporters around the world of Israel’s current policies. Britain may not be the world player that it was, but it still sits as a permanent member on the UN Security Council and a Labour ambassador may be minded to push for the implementation of UN resolutions that are already in place (but not actioned) seeking to curb Israeli expansion and entrenchment.

But there is another thread here. Since Jeremy Corbyn’s election (twice!) as leader of the Labour Party and particularly since the party’s unexpectedly strong showing in the last general election, efforts have been made to discredit him – as a person fit to lead the Party – or the country. He has been disingenuously connected with terrorists, portrayed as unpatriotic and now as anti-Semitic. It doesn’t matter that many allegations have been disproved or the lack of context exposed, mud thrown tends to stick – especially when repeated ad nauseum by the mainstream media (a basic tenet of the propagandist). It also may shed some light on the provenance of many anti-Semitic messages on social media being investigated (with huge resource and time implications) by the Labour Party. I cannot rule out the possibility (or even likelihood) that many of these have not been posted by Labour members at all (an internal labour review suggests that over 80% of posts investigated fall into this category) – and that they may be false flags from groups who are determined to prevent a left of centre government.

If this sounds a bit fantastical and conspiracy theoryist I urge you to view ‘Witch hunt’ (available on you tube) which documents the hounding of Jacqueline Wilson (vice chair of Momentum) resulting in her being suspended (twice) from the Labour Party.

3) The Parliamentary Labour Party.

Jeremy Corbyn’s election (twice, I need to point out again) has caused enormous difficulties for many Labour MPs, who are well embedded in the neo liberal consensus that brought us the Blair years and the global economic crash of 2007. Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband were only able to offer a slight softening of austerity and the realisation that even that was not acceptable to the establishment (NB the general election result of 2015), emboldened many Labour Party members to seek to move the party back to a left of centre position. From the outside it does look as though many Labour MPs, resenting the relative transfer of power from themselves to the membership, have kicked back against this, castigating Momentum as ‘entryist’ and trying to undermine the leadership and the development of more radical policies. I do get the impression that managing and leading the PLP is not Jeremy Corbyn’s strongest suit – and this is perhaps to be expected given his years as ‘a difficult back bencher’, but the Party’s will is clear; it wants its MPs to be accountable to the party as a whole, not just to their own group. That rather sounds like democracy to me – and an approach that can and has been tested out in general elections.

The Labour leadership has been careful in its management of its MP’s voting patterns, acknowledging the difficulties that Brexit in particular has placed many in and thus whipping lightly. Although this has caused anger amongst many liberal supporters of the party it does seem like a genuine attempt to hold the party together so as to be able to retain agency for the future. If you compare this with the free for all chaos of the Tory party which appears to have lost all discipline (shame!) the Labour approach looks thoughtful and considered.

4) A fracturing of the broad church.

The Labour Party’s much valued ‘broad church’, traditionally encapsulating cooperation between left leaning people across the middle / working class continuum has come under increasing strain since the post WW2 social democratic consensus developed into the full blown neo liberalism we have in the West today. The ‘trickle down’ mechanism of economic growth from rich to poor is well and truly discredited and there is a new consensus that what we have is increasing inequality and insecurity. Those in unskilled employment have lost out most in this, facing falling standards of living, reduced benefits and more precarious employment. Since the 1970s the Labour party has increasingly been led by middle class career politicians – a far cry from the Trades Union led party of previous years. For many this disjunction between economically disadvantaged people and the party that represents them was fine whilst economic growth and standards of living were maintained. However, this is the case no longer and it has become increasingly questionable whether a left of centre party which had become right of centre could protect and promote the rights and material conditions of those in low paid precarious jobs – never mind those of the most disadvantaged and marginalised in our society.

Managing this fault line is a huge challenge for the party as without both groups on board its chances of forming a government are non-existent. A similar challenge confronts the Tories, who have the added problem of being the clear cheerleaders for a social and economic system that is unravelling before everyone’s eyes.

5) Economic Policies.

This is the curious one – the Tories portrayal of Labour’s economic proposals as being self-evidently extreme, unrealistic and dangerous gained only marginal traction at the last general election. It helps that John McDonnell is a calm and thoughtful politician – and that the proposals themselves are very modest indeed (representing only a partial roll back of the austerity measures implemented since 2007). But they do contain some radical proposals about taxation, re-nationalisation, support for industry, increased participation of workers in companies and better welfare benefits – all of which are an anathema to free market neo liberals. They may be modest, but they signal a different direction of travel, a different approach to the economic mess and seem to have considerable public support – a clear danger signal for the established status quo.

The Tories and their establishment sponsors have tried to rubbish Labour’s economic proposals without significant success, so maybe there has been a change of tactic – to exploit (if not create)  internal difficulties within the Labour Party, to present it and its leader as incompetent and unfit to govern.

So I am feeling a bit more than disappointed.

An easy response to all this is ‘a plague on both your houses’ – or the more contemporary nuanced form – that this state of affairs is the result of the final fraying of the post WW2 consensus and the political divides that were then established and entrenched. We have moved from centrist social / liberal democracy to right of centre neo liberalism in the context of rampant globalisation (or as the Marxists would see it imperialism on steroids) …… and it’s just not working for enough people anymore. So we have populism, of the Left and the Right, in a world heading towards global conflict between superpowers and environmental catastrophe.

Both the established parties of the Left and the Right are struggling to manage and hold together internal contradictions ……. but why does the Right still emerge as the least worst option? That’s an easy one ….. because it almost always does  …… because the owners of capital always prefer to deal with the Right and the hard Right (even Fascism) in the knowledge that private property rights (and those of wealth holding) will be respected. The Left usually only gets a look in when the Right has run out of steam and has created such a mess that it will be handy for a (soft) Left to come in, deal with the challenges and take a good deal of responsibility for the pain (of ordinary people) that will be required to sort things out.

Clearly a Jeremy Corbyn led Labour Party is not viewed as a suitable contender for this patsy role and in fact seems to be considered as a genuine threat to a visibly fraying neo Liberal western world order. As a result the party is being steadily undermined on a number of fronts, all of which are being amplified and promoted by our mainstream media – and this is why I am very, very pissed off (although not surprised) at the widespread criticism of and derision aimed at a party with a modestly radical agenda that will always be susceptible to being put on the back foot by those resisting change. Yes I am pissed off and not a little wearied by it all, but when I summon up the appropriate level of indignation I begin to feel furious – because the undermining is succeeding yet again!