Why I'm voting for Corbyn

Much has been said and written about the potential consequences of a Corbyn victory, most of which hasn't been particularly positive. From talk of Corbynites requiring heart transplants to cries of economic naiveity and inelectability - the debate has been unedifying to say the least. However in the spirit of the Corbyn campaign I won't make this post one long moan. After all I'm not a fan of deontological reasoning, and if I felt that a Corbyn vote would help destroy the party's future, resigning the country to indefinite Conservative rule in the process I certainly wouldn't be voting for him. Nevertheless I don't share this negative view, and partially for cathartic reasons I'll explain why below.

1 - His outlook exemplifies why I joined the Labour Party

As previously alluded to this isn't the be all and end all in politics, but it is definitely a positive. I don't consider my views or the views of Corbyn to be "hard left", he's not arguing to transform Britain into an anarchist commune, most of the policies he's advocating are in my view simple common sense. It probably won't help Corbyn's cause that he is being portrayed as an ideological lunatic by much of the establishment (the Labour establishment's derision is particularly damaging), but it is firmly my view that Corbyn's supposedly "hard left" platform could gain widespread public support if marketed in the right way. This isn't to say that Corbyn could definitely achieve this, I suppose he'll have to prove this if and when he's elected. Sadly at first impressions this might be quite difficult if much of the party continues to adopt a top-down authoritative stance on issues which concern the future direction of the party.  Neverthless, I hope that if Corbyn does win the rest of the party will be mature enough to accept his democratic mandate and wholeheartedly support him. I think there's a lot to be said for Tony Benn's mantra that politicians should "say what they mean and mean what they say", the public want and deserve honesty in politics and I wholeheartedly believe that being honest is the best way that we will achieve a more caring and equal society.

2 - We need to win back some of Scotland before we can win another general election
I've heard many times, and from many sources that we "let down our core support by not being elected". It is certainly the truth that no matter how many faults the Blair governments had they were infinitely better when acting on behalf of vulnerable people than the heartless government we have currently. Having said this I do wonder what the reaction of this deliberately vague mass of working class people would be to being told that their Labour politicians were formulating policy not on principle, but on what they perceived could best win elections on their behalf. My best guess would be that the general response would more closely resemble "you lying politicians are all the same, you're only in it for yourselves" than "thank you ever so much for thinking about my family's needs". Respect for politicians, and for conventional politics has reached a nadir. In this context, and without wishing to oversimplify the argument, I'm not particurly overjoyed with the idea of embracing the same old "if it goes well we can be honest in a few years' time" politics that ushered us towards this point in the first place.

Getting back to the subtitled matter in hand, even without considering what the public expect of their politicians - this is a somewhat flawed vision, if only for the reason that we'll find it very difficult if not impossible to win a majority in parliament without regaining some previously held Scottish seats. It seems quite likely that fears of an SNP coalition contributed towards Labour's 2015 defeat, and there's no indication that I can see that this won't happen again in 2020 unless the SNP can be properly challenged. I'm not trying to imply here that Scottish voters are left wing compared to English voters, and it's true that even if this were the case a Corbyn leadership could still prove to be too little too late in terms of loosening the SNP's grip on Scotland. However I would argue that the SNP and the independence movement more widely managed to utilise the anti-Westminster sentiment prevalent across that whole of the UK far more effectively than the likes of UKIP in England and Wales. Corbyn, who doesn't fit the politician stereotype and who isn't afraid to confront the establishment is in my view best placed to tap into this sentiment. Initial polling (which sadly I can't find the link to) did indeed seem to indicate that Corbyn was disproportionately favoured by UKIP voters and Scottish voters relative to the other leadership candidates. There's a large degree of cynicism about politics in Scotland and more generally across the UK, as such treating the future of the Labour party purely as a debate that can be represented on the left-right spectrum in my view overlooks many of the problems that the party faces, particularly in regards to the decreasing turnout amongst our "core vote". If the way to win in '97 was simply to "move to the right" then I certainly don't think the same applies now.

3 - Individually his policies are quite popular

It feels like the umpteenth time that I've written this, and even the staunchest critics of Corbyn by now are probably well aware that when polled the public consistently support policies such as rail nationalisation, energy nationalisation and higher taxes on the rich and big business. Critics of these sorts of tables quite sensibly point out that if the public were so overwhelming in favour of these ideas Labour, or TUSC for that matter would perpetually be in government. I agree with Corbyn's critics that perceptions of competence matter, and I will go on to discuss this in more detail along with the implications of Cruddas' recent polling in the next section. However as for integrating these specific policies into a wider perception of the party, it seems to me a stretch too far to say that these policies make our image too publicly toxic. It may be true that voters are turned off by parties that they view as overly ideological, but refusing to try and mix highly popular policies into a broader economic perception as far as I can see is nothing more than throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If someone who wants nationalised railways refuses to vote for Labour because they think that we will cause another recession through over-borrowing, this is because we haven't done a good job at constructing our more general economic arguments, not because nationalising rail is some form of electoral kryptonite.

4 - He's meaningfully addressing Labour's perceived economic incompetence

After having emphasised the importance of economic perception you may well be wondering why I'm supporting a candidate who has been persistently portrayed as insane by most of the mainstream media. The right wing press would almost certainly ramp up their efforts against a Corbyn led Labour party, even relative to their nasty smear campaign against Miliband. This would certainly be a hindrance to Labour's efforts going into 2020, perhaps terminally so if it were to be mixed with high levels of internal briefing and leaking from certain figures within the PLP. I don't however believe that the right wing press on their own can win an election, their readership is relatively small compared to the size of the overall electorate and even regular readers most likely take their judgements with a pinch of salt. The likes of the BBC on the otherhand do hold a large degree of influence when it comes to elections. I don't at all believe for one minute that the BBC ever tries to be biased in its news coverage, particularly with the hawkish gaze of the Murdoch press analyzing its every move. However I do agree with what Robert Peston (who I think it's fair to say isn't a lefty) has previously said about the BBC's preoccupation with re-reporting stories from the Mail and the Telegraph, which I would assume is a result of the BBC repeatedly being accused by certain sections of the media of lacking credibility.

In my view Labour is disproportionately inhibited by this tendency - as particularly in relation to the economy the nexus of mainstream news reporting often centres around preferred right wing narratives such as "cutting the nation's credit card bill", rather than focusing on academic macroeconomic arguments. A prime example of this would be the "Top 100 business leaders" letter featured in the Telegraph before the recent election. This story remained BBC news online's number one story for two days. Three days earlier the Centre for Macroeconomics released a survey of academic macroeconomists in which the majority of respondents supported the claim that the coalition government had damaged the economy, this story only made a brief non-headline appearance on the BBC, tucked away in Robert Peston's blog. In my view neither story should have constituted "news", the 100 business leaders letter was blatantly cherrypicked by the Telegraph and Conservative HQ whilst the CFM survey was of a small sample size and as such wasmnot particularly reliable, even if as an aside it did provide enough evidence to show that not all economists believe in "cutting the nation's credit card". Yet despite both pieces of conflicting evidence lacking any true veracity, only one was given a mainstream platform. I should at this point clarify that I didn't just mention this example in order to rant about perceived injustice within news coverage, and in a stereotypically left wing fashion. I did so because no matter how tentatively the BBC reports issues such as these it will always provide space for a counter-narrative, which then plays a part in shaping future coverage. It should have been the Labour party spearheadng the anti-austerian message on mainstream news for the last 5 years, saying regularly how the coalition cost every person in the country an equivalent of at least £1500 a year. We shouldn't have let ourselves be so easily caricatured as the party of the bottom 10% against the top 90%, or indeed as a party that didn't understand economic reality. Cruddas' polling in my view was enticing a certain response by using phrases such as "living within our means" in its questioning, however there is certainly a lot of truth in the argument that the public support cuts. But this is why it's such a great shame that we failed so horribly in arguing that the cuts were damaging to everyone in society, and more importantly that they weren't necessary. Our chosen path prior to 2015 was a mixture of staying silent and using our public platforms to send mixed messages about the effects and desirability of cuts, in the end this probably served no purpose other than to contrbute towards our own negative image. I've been glad to see many of the leadership candidates take on the myth that Labour caused the 2008-09 recession, however only Corbyn is making the positive message about the economy that we should have been making since 2010. Don't get me wrong, I'd like to hear Corbyn say more that the cuts directly damaged the wages of the middle class through lowering GDP, and that these people haven't just indirectly suffered through damage to health and welfare protection that they may one day require. But aside from this I think Corbyn's orchestrated his message very well, Labour should be maximising its public exposure to make strong moral and economic arguments against the Conservatives' deliberately oversimplified ideology, and at the minute Corbyn is the only candidate who I'm convinced is up to this task.

5 - The economy isn't in a healthy place, it needs reforming

As well as having the right approach when it comes to perception, Corbyn is also appreciating the full scale of change that the economy currently requires, this will probably necessitate a wider attitude change and as such won't be achieved in one term, but progress needs to start somwehere. I might struggle to write this paragraph without sounding depressingly pessimistic, but to be clear I'm not making a prediction that the economy will crash before the 2020 election, or at any point for that matter. I don't want to take my arguments about the need for reform too far. However on the other hand - despite all the talk from across the political spectrum of recovering growth, the economy is still in a fairly parlous state. There are fears amongst some that confidence is still too low in the financial system, which may in turn cause the present small bubble of growth, up until now financed by the inflation of asset prices - to burst in the not too distant future. Others are particularly worried about Britain's current account deficit, which could be the potential source of a future crash if the foreign investors subsidising this deficit through their contributions to the UK's capital account see this as a problem and as such refuse to continue their investments. This problem is somewhat representative of Britain's over-reliance on the finance sector, which seems to have only become apparent to many after the '08 crash. You don't have to be Minksy to see that it may not be sustainable or desirable for the UK to continue pursuing the 1980s dream that a large share of GDP and tax revenue should be based upon the financial sector. It may be an issue that doesn't fit into electoral cycles particularly well, but it's my view that the public sector should play a large part in this rebalancing through infrastructure spending and a comprehensive industrial strategy, only Corbyn is prepared to do this. So when people argue that "any Labour government is better than the current Tory government" it's worth wondering (on top of everything else I've said about this argument) whether or not they're taking for granted that another crisis such as the recent recession can't happen again, even if another crash before 2020 is unlikely I think it goes without saying that the economy needs change far beyond what much of the Labour establishment is willing to consider. It's also worth noting that while policies such as benefit sanctions are cruel and un-necessary even in today's economic conditions (the fact that Corbyn's the only candidate to unequivocally support the abolition of sanctions is one of the main reasons I'm supporting him), the fact of the matter remains that every British man, woman and child could currently be better off by £4000 a year each if the recession had not happened in the first place. I'm no fan of the Tories and I'm sure that no matter what the economic context is there will always be those who the party refuses to represent, but overall the vulnerable individuals Labour seeks to stand up for would have probably been on average better off under a 2015 Tory government had the crash not happened than a post-crash 2015 Labour government.

In dealing with crises Labour also needs to consider new methods of kickstarting growth without resorting to "deficit fetishism". The one unconvential expansionary policy which occured during the last recession was QE, and while it did help the government to borrow easier at lower interest rates it also had its flaws. QE seems to have failed in reinvigorating bank lending and economic growth in the fashion that was originally hoped. The Bank of England has injected £375bn of newly created money into the economy (equivalent to 20% of GDP), but the Bank itself predicts that these measures only boosted the economy by 3% of GDP, with evidence also suggesting that 40% of this £375bn ended up directly in the hands of the richest 5% of the population, mainly due to the fact that much of this new money manifested itself in the form of rising asset prices predominantly owned by the well off. QE may well have still been on balance a worthwhile policy for allowing the government to issue debt easier, but in my view it should in future be joined by other more equitable policies. Corbyn advocates a form of helicopter money in the event of a future crash, which in my view is a more effective and more equal form of economic stimulus than QE on its own. The only downside of this stimulus relative to regular QE is a risk of higher inflation - which unlike in regular QE can't be undone purely by selling the bonds used to create the new money. But it should be considered that in all likelihood any resultant inflation could be relatively easily offset by the BoE raising interest rates or through the government raising taxes/ issuing more debt. Although in my view this policy should manifest itself in a slightly different form than the one Corbyn suggests, it's good that he's at least talking about innovative economic policies that could help alleviate suffering in the event of another crisis, even if by his own admission they're sketchbook policies at this moment in time. Arguably even more importantly Corbyn favours a slower pace of deficit reduction than the plan Labour supported in 2015, this probably won't be particularly relevant come 2020 unless there's another recession, but if another recession does occur Labour shouldn't accept the same policies enacted by Osbourne, which as previously mentioned cost everyone in the country at least £1500 per year. On top of all of these previous issues Corbyn is tackling the issue of low productivity head on in the form of investment, workers' rights and a National Education Service. Increasing productivity is the only way to consistently raise the stagnating wages of the British workforce, and quite honestly I'm surprised that these sorts of positive supply-side ideas haven't been adopted by the centrist wing of the party, but as things stand when it comes to sustainable pro-growth policies Corbyn is the only candidate I could say I have confidence in.

So in conclusion while there's been a lot of hysteria surrounding the possibility of a Corbyn victory I would urge you to have strength in your convictions and your ideas, the future of the party is far more complicated than simplified analogies about how to beat the Tories. Of course a Corbyn vote is a bit of a risk, if for no other reason than the fact that it's a step into the unkown. However we have five years until the general election, and with Corbyn striving to make sure that the position of leader becomes more accountable to the party membership the risks involved may well be fairly minimal. On top of this, while poll data should always of course be treated with scepticism and is never definitive, but polling recently released indicates that Corbyn could be even more popular amongst the general public at this stage of the electoral cycle than even his most optimistic supporters could have imagined. Labour is a party that can't afford to stand still, this isn't a case of idealism versus pragmatism but instead a choice about how we will in the future rectify the failings of our previous leaderships and go on to provide a clear and beneficial alternative for everyone in society.

Corbyn's "economic illiteracy"

Recently Chuka Umunna made an appearance on Channel 4 news in which he revealed that he would refuse to serve in a Corbyn led shadow cabinet as a result of Corbyn's "economic illiteracy" when it comes to the deficit. Now before I go into why I don't think that Corbyn's plans are illiterate in any sense, I should first stress that I do agree with one of Umunna's much repeated statements, which is that there is "nothing progressive about paying out huge sums to the city in the form of debt interest repayments". Sadly however I suspect that this is as far as my accordance with his view on the matter extends.

Umunna of late has been keen to stress his distaste towards Osbourne's "austerity fetish" as he terms it, but on the other hand has also been in favour of Osbourne's rhetoric around "balancing the books" and "living within our means", even expressing sympathy towards Osbourne's entirely political policy of forcing the state to run a surplus in "ordinary times" - whatever this means. From this I take it that Umunnas's ideal deficit reduction plan lies somewhere in between Labour's plan before the recent election and Osbourne's projected one parliament surplus plan. Umunna certainly has a right to favour a certain pace of deficit reduction, however I think it's somewhat absurd to represent a slower reduction plan, even a dramatically slower plan as "economically illiterate", doing so without providing any proper analysis beyond platitudes is merely indulging in tabloid economics.

Umunna is keen to emphasise the desirability of surplus, however one of the main arguments behind the idea of a slower deficit reduction (which I will come onto) is that for a growing economy even a relatively large deficit can see debt as a percentage of GDP fall. All the talk of "living within our means" ignores the fact that with growth at 3% and debt at 80% of GDP, an annual deficit of under 2.4% would see the debt ratio fall. Conversely, a slightly larger deficit wouldn't see debt rising to a dangerous level. This is also why I disagree with Umunna about how it was irresponsible for Labour pre-2008 not to run a surplus, the consensus at the time was that the economy was in good health and that therefore a small deficit was sustainable. This turned out to be hideously wrong due to the financial crisis, however on the issue of regulation, which is ultimately what's required in order to prevent a similar recession in the future, all of the leadership candidates bar "economically illiterate" Corbyn are disappointingly quiet.

As previously alluded to, in my view there is much to be said for pursuing a slower pace of deficit reduction. Britain is not in the same boat as Greece, the current debt/GDP ratio of 80% is most likely too high to be sustainable, but there's also no indication that it poses any immediate danger to the economy, nor to the government's ability to borrow at reasonable interest rates. There has even been an IMF paper released suggesting that developed economies which possess independent central banks, such as the UK - aren't in any need to pursue further savings in any form. I disagree with this conclusion as I believe that a slow reduction in debt is desirable in the pursuit of long term sustainability, however I included this paper purely because it is far beyond what Corbyn's proposing, yet I rarely see the establishment calling the IMF "economically illiterate" for floating such ideas.

New Keynesians would in the short term go even further into the realms of "economic illiteracy" by arguing that because interest rates can't be lowered further than their current level, something that is desirable in order to offset some of the economic damage caused by cuts, the government's prime aim at this point in time should be to expand government spending - irrespective of the deficit in an effort to boost the economy. Thus, when the economy has reached a higher degree of stability savings can then be made, although at a much slower pace than what Osbourne follows. Crucially at this point interest rates could then be reduced to counteract the damaging economic effects of cuts, helping to avoid a lot of the hardship currently being inflicted upon ordinary people.

Nevertheless, this Leadership should really be seen as a debate about economic policy come 2020, sadly it looks as though Osbourne's economic masochism will make the debate in this last paragraph merely academic. The economy, despite suffering a lot of damage will probably limp upwards towards mediocre rates of growth, albeit at the expense of a lot of unfulfilled capacity that will never be reclaimed. Interest rates will also have risen, making large, short term debt sustained investment too expensive. The main debate about the deficit will be the pace at which it is gradually reduced, and how the debt/GDP ratio will be prioritised relative to other areas of economic policy. Certain IMF economists mightn't value debt reduction, however Corbyn and other economists have, sensibly in my view appreciated that debt should be gradually reduced, although at a slower rate and therefore with less hardship than what's being suggested by the Tories, and for that matter also what Labour proposed prior to the 2015 election.

Bearing this in mind, although Iain Dale may have accused Corbyn of wanting a permanent deficit in the LBC debate, this shouldn't be seen as anything more than lazy, evidence free journalism. So now that we've cleared up why not talking about "pragmatism" doesn't necessarily make you economically illiterate we can properly talk about the fact that there's also a government income side to this equation. The current overall budget deficit including government investment is roughly £90 billion, Corbyn has rightly pointed out that estimates of the UK's lost income through tax avoidance/evasion range between £30-£120 billion per year. Even an eternal optimist wouldn't expect for all of this to be recovered, however currently there isn't really a concerted effort within government to crack down on this lost income, a proper effort to do so could do a lot to shift the burden of any deficit reductions from the most vulnerable to those who really should be paying these large sums of money anyway. Although - as a side note the effects of Osbourne's strategy have by no means been limited to the poor, there's good reason to believe that the amount wiped off of GDP is equivalent to between £1500 and £4000 per person per year, this information might be useful to those saying that it's impossible to convince the middle classes from "the left". Corbyn is also right to talk about the prospect of tax rises, it's clear that taxes in the minds of many across all parties have gained the status of electoral kryptonite. However with inequality rising and many of the most vulnerable suffering I think that there couldn't be a better time to make a proper coherent case for a more progressive tax regime that is fully capable of funding necessary public services whilst building a more cohesive society, particularly if made clear that in reality this would only affect a minority of earners and businesses, notably large businesses with high degrees of market power.

Finally, as we're talking about economic incompetence, we shouldn't really be talking about the issue of deficits without mentioning the UK's worryingly high current account deficit. Even Peter Mandelson, hardly a standardbearer of the left's economic arguments views this as a problem that needs to be addressed through a proper industrial strategy, one which requires a degree of indicative planning. Yet despite the attention that this issue blatantly deserves, Corbyn once again seems to be the only leadership candidate prepared to address it. So much for economic incompetence.

Appealing to the Stone

Appealing to the stone is a logical fallacy named after the reported actions of pre-eminent literary critic Samuel Johnson. Johnson - who now lies within Westminster Abbey, may not be with us to act out the definition of this term, the polemic tactic of dismissing an argument as absurd without providing supporting evidence. However, luckily for him, there are still many within Westminster and beyond who are happy to do this for him.

First of all, as a proviso against accusations that I’m going to single out a single group of party supporters in the election debate, I emphasise that all hyperbole is unhelpful, and to the small minority of those on the left of the party calling Kendall or anyone else for that matter a Tory, please stop. Her political arguments are fair game, however, the left struggles as it is to be treated without disdain by the media - and sadly, by some figures within the party. So focussing ad-hominem attacks on her are damaging to the left’s cause as well as being unfair, although, notably this behaviour has by no means been exclusive to Corbyn supporters. Likewise if a fellow supporter feels that they belong within the Labour party, this shouldn't be open to question. Semantic arguments about whether others are proper socialists or not simply because they don't back the "right" candidate are also pointless, it may or may not be an objectively valid argument when compared to a single specific definition of what is in reality a very loose term, but when trying to convince sceptics of your own views any attempts to second guess their deep seated beliefs are counterproductive and rather presumptuous, particularly when many party members have given hundreds if not thousands of hours to help the party, all in the name of their self-identified beliefs. I don’t want to overemphasise this behaviour though, as in general I believe that the Corbyn campaign in particular has been very successful in achieving its originally stated goal of running a programme based upon policy, not personality. This trait in my view is probably one of the main reasons why his campaign has exceeded expectations amongst ordinary members.

The failings of a small minority of individuals who happen to hold political views similar to those of my own wasn't however what spurred me into writing this post, it was rather what I see as the false dichotomy that is arising around the idea of the Labour party adopting "Left-wing" policies. Many after the election felt that the Party fell foul of being viewed by much of the electorate as "nice but incompetent", compared to the Tories who were "ruthless but capable". As the leadership debate has heated up many of those towards the right of the party have started to panic that Corbyn could win, and in due course I've noticed a similar "socialist but incompetent" versus "centrist but realistic" dichotomy opening up in how the party should proceed. Several party figures have made their opinions clear that supporting Corbyn is irrational, and that doing so is simply a way of whinging and moaning about the fact that the public aren't as left wing as you are. This argument disappoints me, as it chooses to abandon rational debate in favour of making oversimplifications and generalisations. Sadly I suspect that this often occurs as part of a crude attempt to attract members away from Corbyn's policy agenda - as it's easier to make lots of noise about Corbyn's electability in a very tabloid-esque manner than it is to convince the Labour membership, who are often to the left of the PLP that his fundamental approach is undesirable.

Of course, in an internal election these accusations of childishness or unfeasibility might well have little impact. Labour members are highly politicised, and could react unkindly to being patronised in such a way. Nevertheless I think it's important that the Corbyn campaign does everything in its power to show that it can be the rational choice, not just the sentimental choice. Corbyn is unashamed to be a democratic socialist, however in the face of being boxed into the "socialist but incompetent" image I feel that it's important to demonstrate the merits behind Corbyn's strategy. 

In response to the idea of meeting the public where they're at, I think it would be only fair to acknowledge that many individuals of all parties support ideas such as rail/energy nationalisation and a 75% top rate of income tax, a rate far above Corbyn’s aims. Many in the party’s mainstream would view these policies as politically toxic. Of course, these ideas shouldn’t be viewed entirely in isolation, but as woven into a wider context of how the party is perceived. It is all well and good for people to support these policies on their own, however it strikes me as very clear that the reason behind our recent election defeat was that we were viewed by much of the public as economically incompetent. We weren't trusted with the country’s finances, with counterproductively fast deficit reduction being perceived by much of the public as necessary, this was often spurred on by our own rhetoric regarding the matter. This made it difficult to convince the public that these popular policies could be implemented without breaking the bank. No matter how popular our railways policy was we wouldn't have overcome these issues. We had a lot of available evidence to argue that the Tories cost all sections of society large chunks of money (at least £1500 per person per year), with many economists in agreement with the Labour party that such deep cuts took un-necessarily large amounts off of GDP and therefore tax revenues too.

We should have performed far better with the hand that we had going into the election. I - like many other party members believe that some fairly large changes to the economic system are morally ideal, as such I feel that reacting to the last election by accepting large swathes of the Tories' economic agenda is simply taking the line of least resistance as opposed to the strategy that best works towards these changes. The last parliament could only been seen as a failure, particularly for its first four years, treating the poor economic perception that resulted from this failure as an electoral certainty or a concrete example of how Britons despise "left-wing" policies - no matter how nasty and determined the media were to undermine us, is just underwhelming, not pragmatic. In this instance capitulating to the established order after defeat achieves nothing except to flatter the scale of our own failure. Many I suspect disagree with me on the need for a path leading to a different economic strategy. However if this is the case then I believe it’s important for individuals at the forefront of the party who disagree to frame any policy arguments as such, rather than through condescending members that their beliefs aren’t realistic.

In response to another commonly made argument about whether or not to oppose the welfare bill – I certainly don't view the party holding different opinions to those of the political or media mainstream as belittling to the public, but what I do view as belittling is betraying your own views in favour of basing policy upon what's ostensibly palatable for the public, as this is almost akin to claiming that the public aren't capable of rational thought to the same extent that you are personally. If you have an opinion supported by enough evidence that it’s convinced you to go into politics then you should also have confidence that it’s persuasive enough to sway the public in the same way.

In terms of our 2020 strategy I'm often taken aback at how Scotland is ignored when arguing for a rightward shift. No matter how much easier it may or may not be to win votes back from the Tories than from the SNP (although as previously stated most voters of all parties view politics in terms of issues, not in terms of left and right, as such not all "left wing" policies are toxic), we simply won't be a credible party of government unless we make an active effort to win back SNP voters. The threat of a similar implosion in our other heartlands also shouldn't be ignored, even if the ingredients for such an uprising don't seem to be in place currently, therefore targeting the more well off might not be worth the potential damage to our already diminishing working class support, even if it could help us in England overall. Something which I feel is a dubious oversimplification as it is, particularly bearing in mind that our middle class support in 2015 reclaimed roughly half of the ground lost between 2005 and 2010, whereas our support amongst poorer voters continued to plummit.

As for moving rightward simply in an effort to change the party’s perception at face value, sadly it does seem to be a feature of politics that you'll struggle to win an election when the choice is framed as helping the poor versus helping yourself and your family. Although seeing as we only lost the election by 6% this clearly isn't to say that the whole population are arch-individualists. The public aren't evil, and if we can convincingly show them that things such as changes to top end taxation, corporate taxation, a crackdown on evasion/avoidance, industrial QE while the economy is below full capacity, reducing high inequality which damages a majority of the population, increasing council house building, cutting tuition fees, giving workers more creative input and creating a strong welfare system are desirable things for everyone and not just a small few, then there's no reason why we shouldn't target election victories.

For clarity however, I don't doubt that through accepting many establishment ideas new Labour made election easier (athough importantly for me victory was still achievable by not doing so), however as far as I'm concerned it isn't sustainable as a permanent strategy, the "nowhere else to go" electoral model doesn't stand up now as it once did. What more the "we betray our support by not being in power" argument doesn't seem to have fared particularly well against the test of time in relation to the Blair era. We may have done a lot of good work in relation to tax credits and the minimum wage, however now it seems easier than ever for the Tories to undo Labour's legacy without much public opposition. In the long term the result of sacrificing principles in favour of electability can be summarised most aptly by Corbyn being asked on Channel four news whether he was "to the left of Karl Marx" for possibly wanting to raise the top rate of income tax back up to its level under Thatcher.

Perhaps this post has been a little unfair on Corbyn's opponents. After all I do understand the argument that Corbyn isn't "leadership material", as a non-identikit politician electing him would certainly be a step into the unknown. Personally I think there's something to be said for the argument that the public may find it refreshing to have a leader who openly speaks their mind. Tony Benn once said that if the public can tell that you believe in what you're saying then they're more likely to take a risk with you, and I think this is embodied quite well in politicians from Thatcher right through to Farage, politicians who managed to attract a lot of support despite favouring policies that haven’t been universally popular. However it's not for me to say that I know whether or not the party would do better or worse electorally with a Corbyn figure or with a better polished politician. However for me what sways the decision comes down to the fact that Corbyn embodies a lot of ideas that I wholeheartedly believe can be sold to the public if done so in the right way. Strategies are easily and coldly compared when in abstract form, but politics is personal, not abstract - over a million people are using food banks whilst many of Britain's most vulnerable are demonised as if they are nothing more than drains on society. I'm not willing to see the party ignore these issues out of a fear that doing otherwise would be electorally risky, after all as I previously mentioned the public aren’t spiteful, and in my view can be persuaded to Corbyn’s way of thinking on a lot of issues. I may appear to some as the epitome of the “naïve” post 2010 member who’s unwilling to do what’s necessary to win election, however I - like many others believe that those in politics have a responsibility to be honest about their views, and that doing otherwise ultimately serves to damage their cause in the long run, therefore for me Corbyn is definitely the sensible choice when it comes to the Labour leadership election.

On Economic Sensibilities and Ideology

Another article for another interview. This time however I'd like to focus a bit more on the economic arguments behind Corbyn's campaign rather than the electoral arguments I discussed earlier this week. One of the problems I often find being on the left is that people are quick to assume that your preferred approach is intrinsically moralistic, and as such that any policies following from it are going to rely on luck rather than judgement to succeed. This attitude seemed to crop up in this interview, with Murnaghan summarising Corbyn's argument as "the 2015 manifesto wasn't left-wing enough". Rarely have I seen proponents of cuts (from any party) generalised as "right wing", their arguments are often given a higher level of respect out of a tacit consensus that they're rationally driven. I don't want to come across like too much of a stereotypically bitter blog writer, however I do think that it's only fair to accept or dismiss arguments on the grounds of evidence, not upon prejudices grounded within the existing political consensus.

When it comes to evidence, Corbyn's view is one shared by many economists, and even if it's futile to try and debate what the majority opinion is, it's fair to say that the sort of argument Corbyn made is more mainstream amongst economists than it is amongst the media. In an attempt to show why Corbyn's suggestion of a restructured economy is sensible I've listed a few examples of the UK's poor economic performance below.

OBR data suggests that since 2010 austerity has lost every person in the country at least £1500 per year, although this could be as high as £4000 per year. This roughly translates as between £3000 and £8000 per year for every adult of working age. This information was undoubtedly dispersed very poorly by Labour during the last parliament, most people saw the Conservatives as good for growth - something backed up by a lot of the news agenda even if it was based upon dodgy economic assumptions.

Nevertheless even if austerity has indeed cost everyone £1500 per year, many such as Murnaghan could still argue that this is a matter of not wanting to saddle the next generation with debt. This is a half-truth, however it should also be considered that governments will indefinitely owe certain levels of debt and that this debt will never have to be fully repaid. Debt/GDP was 250% in 1945 compared to today's level of 80%, however you'd be hard pressed to find anyone in hindsight suggesting that instead of creating the NHS it would have been more prudent to cut budgets in order to save future generations from debt. This is a somewhat flippant comparison as I do feel that debt at 80% of GDP is too high to be sustainable, especially without capital controls. However the best solution should surely be to find a compromise between today's growth and tomorrow's debt rather than through following a process of economic asceticism? Interest rates are at their zero lower bound, meaning that cuts today will have a greater dampening effect on GDP than if the same savings were made at a later time in a stronger economy, this also means that the government is unnecessarily damaging its own tax income - forcing itself to borrow more to cover for lost income. On top of this, debt interest rates are still at incredibly low levels, meaning that a stimulus package could be financed without incurring punitively high levels of debt repayment. However despite this evidence to the contrary, in some ways I'm very much looking forward to the day when the political class prioritises the wellbeing of future generations above all else, as a student it seems a shame that when the Conservative party were encapsulating this notion of national altruism into policy form they accidentally overlooked the fact that most of my generation were being resigned to over £40,000 of debt by the age of 21.

Back to the national picture, even IMF papers are now suggesting that deficits don't need to be reduced in countries which aren't at risk of facing "default premiums" on any borrowing, these premiums are high interest rates which largely result from a state lacking an independent central bank to underwrite its own debt - something which the UK does have in the form of the Bank of England. What's also easily forgotten is that if the economy is growing "balanced books" aren't needed to reduce debt as a share of GDP. If the UK economy were to be growing at 4%, which sadly it isn't partially as a result of contractionary policies, then a deficit of 3.2% or less would maintain debt at 80% of GDP, considering this in our approach would probably be more sensible than the lines taken by either the Conservatves currently or by Labour in its 2015 manifesto, especiallly seeing as our current debt level doesn't pose an immediate risk to the economy (this example was taken from Simon Wren-Lewis' guide to the deficit).

As for employment, the recession and "recovery" since 2010 mightn't have been plagued with high unemployment, but this doesn't mean that the labour market is particularly successful. An extra 2.5% of the workforce are self-employed, largely out of necessity rather than through enhanced entrepreneurship, whilst underemployment has risen from 1.9% to 8% of the workforce (link). In addition GDP per capita still hasn't caught up with 2008 levels unlike in Germany and the USA (see graph below). What GDP we have managed to claw back is largely a result of the inflated housing market and central bank led quantitative easing. Wages, which for many ordinary people are the only way of making money, are still 10% behind their 2008 level. Productivity has also not caught up with its 2008 level, this hasn't been helped by the government almost explicitly promoting the creation of low pay and low regulation jobs (such as 0-hour contracts) over capital investment. This situation can hardly be viewed as an economic success story.

Deflation is also currently occurring within the UK economy, the BBC may be keen to call this "negative inflation" so as not to overplay a phenomenon driven by low oil prices, however even without considering oil, core inflation is still only at 0.8%, a symptom of low demand and low confidence in an economy damaged by heavy cuts.

Looming over this entire situation is the UK's current account deficit. Despite a devaluation of the pound since 2008 the UK has been unable to generate a trade surplus. The economy is being supported by foreign investment in the city of London, however should this investment cease then we could see yet another crisis, after all the current 6% current account deficit is comparable to that of Malaysia immediately prior to the East Asian crisis in 1997. The economy needs an industrial plan, something currently being overlooked by the mainstream parties.

There are plenty of reasons to want a restructured and more stable economy for the benefit of everyone in society, I deliberately avoided inequality in this post because it could easily have taken up the entire article, even if this is a clear area where Corbyn holds an advantage over more reticent politicians. The reasons that I have mentioned however are still often largely overlooked by many politicians and journalists, but this doesn't mean that they're not real concerns. Figures such as Corbyn may not get much of a mainstream platform, but neither did Hyman Minsky, and I can't help but feel that if he was alive in 2008 many people would have been asking him for his opinion on the economic situation. The job of the Labour party should be to confront these structural problems rather than to shy away from them, for this reason I'm very glad that Corbyn will be on the ballot in the coming leadership election.

A Belated Appraisal of Corbyn on Newsnight

Corbyn recently kicked off the public aspect of his campaign to become Labour leader by featuring in a Newsnight interview with Evan Davis. From first impressions the interview went ok, however what struck me when watching it was the extent to which Corbyn's arguments were often instantly dismissed, as if they were somehow tautologically false. Davis himself is a competent economist, having previously worked for the Institute of Fiscal Studies, and whilst I don't want to extend my remit into areas where it doesn't properly belong - I feel that I should at least point out some areas within the interview where Corbyn made good points that shouldn't be quickly written off as either utopian, deluded or damaging towards the majority of the population. Something which the political mainstream often indulges in when socialism is given a public platform.

1 - The Left Can't Win in England

After a somewhat bizarre start to the interview in which Corbyn was asked whether or not he regretted his past support for Northern Irish peace negotiations, the interview swiftly moved on to whether or not the left could ever win an election outright, particularly in England. Davis seemed to take a typically "Rational choice" approach towards the issue, which I don't feel is nuanced enough to adequately describe why many people opted not to vote for Labour.

First of all I don't view it as particularly correct to deem and entire country, in this case England, as intrinsically right wing when compared with Scoltand or Wales. There are economic and historical factors in large parts of Scotland and Wales which might lend themselves more favourably towards Labour, however this doesn't equate with individuals in these areas having an entirely unique set of political values. Different experiences of the system may lead to different voting outcomes however there still remain large consensuses on important issues. For the same reason large parts of Scotland didn't vote for the SNP simply because Scotland is a left wing country, they did so as in their eyes an SNP vote was a way of making a positive change to the established, tired political system, a phenomenon that manifested to a smaller extent elsewhere in the form of UKIP. Of course individual beliefs on issues such as austerity and immigration matter in the outcome of elections, however if this was always the case then Vote for policies wouldn't indicate that Labour and the Greens are more popular than the Conservatives and UKIP when ranked by manifesto content, nor would UKIP voters generally support nationalising the railways and utilities.

In conjunction with the above point about England I think it's also important to dispell the notion that the recent defeat was worse than expected due to middle class people rejecting the left-wing position of Labour's manifesto. The '15 manifesto may have been to the right of Blair's in '97 - yet the media still managed to successfully cultivate a consensus that Miliband's manifesto drove away hordes of Blair era voters who were deterred by punitive tax policies. This opinion doesn't however appear to be supported by the electoral data. Research published by Jon Trickett suggests that what has really been perniciously eating away at Labour's vote share since the start of Blair's first term - is the coring out of its working class support. Relative to past performances, it seems that in 2015 middle class people were relatively happy to see Miliband become prime minister, even in the face of horrified gasps from the partisan press. Unfortunately for Labour though, this was accompanied by traditional Labour supporters in many cases opting to vote for other parties such as UKIP, or indeed choosing to stay at home – something which is becoming increasingly common.

2 - The Public Support Austerity

This argument to an extent is probably true, the British public trust the Conservatives with the economy to a greater extent than they trust Labour, even if in a contradictory fashion they personally on an aggregate level aren't confident about their own economic security. Fuelled by media spin, the public often abide by the thesis that Labour crashed the economy in 2008 through fiscal profligacy, leaving the Conservatives to clean up the mess - kickstarting growth through the use of fiscal contraction, something which Davis his self has repudiated in the past. In reality OBR data suggests that the GDP lost as a result of austerity is equivalent to at least £1500 per year per person. There exists an academic debate surrounding the pros and cons of austerity both in an economic and a humanitarian sense (as a non-economist I'll let Simon Wren-lewis explain why I'm on the "against" side economically here, here, here, here and here). However, despite academic disagreements this debate was largely non-existent in the sphere of mainstream discussion prior to the election. Even without convincing everyone that austerity had lost them £1500 a year, merely invoking a sense that what constituted a sensible economic approach wasn’t a foregone conclusion could have helped convert many voters who opted for the Conservatives despite being worried about the effects of cuts. Neverthelss, through using this artificially created consensus the Conservatives successfully tapped into the self-interest aspect of many voters - by essentially conveying the message that "of course it's bad that 1 million people are using foodbanks, but this is a necessary step if the rest of the population - and eventually the foodbank users themselves are to get on in life". Labour got stuck in the no man's land of supporting the Tories' flawed "nation's credit card" analogy to the extent that it alienated many of the people the party was created to represent, whilst simultaneously fighting a losing battle to beat the Conservatives in the “responsibility” stakes, somewhat unsurprisingly seeing as this economic narrative was fundamentally drawn up by the Sun and the Daily Mail.

Corbyn is right that the Labour party needs to be proactive in setting its economic priorites. There's often a tendency within Labour to try and make do with whatever agenda the partisan press feels like setting, but whilst this may seem easy as a short term solution it often just leads to battles which the party can never win. Despite this however, in my view the reason to oppose Conservative austerity is more fundamental - aside from the deep human suffering government cuts have caused, in isolation they have also been very unpopular. Bearing in mind that there seems to be a general consensus within the party (including the centrist wing) that we lost the economic argument due to a general public misunderstanding of the disputed nature of government economic policy, rather than through anti-austerity arguments being factually incorrent - shouldn't Labour as a party set out to explain that there is a way of avoiding cuts without ruining the economy? Rather than expediently accepting a policy that many Labour MPs quietly disagree with? The public are incredibly dissatisfied with politicians as it is, as exemplified by declining election turnouts, therefore I question the long term viability of a strategy which relies on the party capriciously reassessing its core values irrespective of the actual, objective opinions held by those in charge. After all the trouble with disingenuity is that it's often very easy to read, and the public will readily judge politicians whom they deem guilty of it.

3 - State economic activity is inherently "dangerous"

As part of his political "litmus test" Davis decided to grill Corbyn on his ideal extent of state activity when measured as a percentage of GDP. Davis, despite not explicitly saying so - I gather falls into the anti-state camp, having previously advocated the privatisation of state services for efficiency purposes. Irrespective of his personal views however this strikes me as a somewhat strange and rather presumptuous question, Davis implied that the current level of state spending at 40% of GDP is approaching "dangerous" territory, which he deemed to be anything above 50%. Once again I don't feel like this is a subtle enough evaluation of the current political situation to put into percentile brackets.

Firstly, much of what the state does is important for the rest of the economy, for example state spending in the form of research and development is often needed to compensate for low levels of research conducted in the free market, something which Joseph Stiglitz has categorised as a negative externality of laissez-faire capitalism. Mariana Mazzucato in her book 'The Entrepeneurial State' outlines many examples in which state activity has led to the creation of cutting edge technologies. On top of this many of Capitalism's success stories have been prime examples of mixed economies, for example Post-War Japan, Britain, the USA, the Nordic countries and the countries of the "East Asian miracle”. Growth has slowed down and become more unstable since the dawn of deregulation and privatisation, I don’t feel like this is a strong enough context to write off state activity as dangerous.

Second of all, and the main reason why I see Davis' approach as insufficiently subtle is that it lumps state transfer in with state led physical economic activity. In the post-Piketty world even the IMF is talking about the dangers of high inequality, with the OECD also warning that high inequality has cost the UK nine percentage points of growth. Bearing in mind the fact that high inequality is generally unpopular both publicly and politically I'm not sure why increasing transfers along the lines of what Tony Atkinson has suggested should be viewed as "dangerous", even if I agree that in the long run inequality needs to be addressed by proper regulation rather than just through transfers.

To finish off this evaluation, of course socialists within Labour such as myself want to see Corbyn run a good campaign, this goes without saying. However I think what's important, and hopefully what I've managed to convey in this post - is that even if you're just a mild social democrat, or for that matter someone who simply wants to see the current system managed in a better and more ethical manner, Corbyn is most certainly worth listening to. Davis like many in the media intimated that the only people who could ever support Corbyn are those with goals driven by ideology, rather than those who have goals set through rational analysis of the status quo. In the context of this election election and of the disarray within the wider economy in general, this simply isn't the case.

The Union Relationship

One of the central talking points of the current leadership election has been the influence wielded by the affiliated trade unions over internal Labour affairs, with Unite coming under heavy scrutiny in particular. The partisan press along with the BBC seem to have put a lot of focus on "red Len" and his power within the party, presumably because until the oppurtunity to talk about "red Andy" comes along in September there needs to be a contingeny strategy in order to fill the void of anti left-wing sentiment left behind follwing Miliband's resignation. Nevertheless despite unwelcome infighting which has undoubtedly helped promote the media's agenda on the issue, I've been rather surprised by the intensity of it all, particularly in the context of the recent electoral rule changes. Watching question time on Thursday - aside from a brief mention of the rule changes by Stella Creasy and Owen Jones, you could quite easily be lead to believe that the Labour leader is decided in a back room by the general secretaries of the affiliated unions.

There also exists a strange degree of cynicism behind all media coverage of the union link, which at worst overlooks the fact that under both old and new systems it was individual union members who voted, not just union leaderships, and at best moves the goalposts after being confronted with this knowledge by pointing out that the union often sends a leaflet to each voting member detailing who the leadership believes would make the best candidate. Union members are represented as so easily swayed that this interjection instantly voids the whole process' democrati legitimacy. At this juncture I feel it's also worth highlighting that despite their "baron" status union leaders are indeed themselves democratically elected by their union members, which makes the latter of the two arguments even more tenuous to make convincingly without practically accusing union members of being incapable of rational thought. More people elected McCluskey as head of Unite than elected David Cameron as leader of the Conservative Party. As comedian David Schneider first observed on Twitter, why in a political culture which thinks nothing of newspaper party endorsements and which readily dismissed Chomskian dominant ideology theories of media are the beliefs of democratically elected union leaders seen as authoritatively binding upon ordinary union members?

What's also often sadly left out of the discussion is the fact that unions are almost universally popular within the Labour party. In fact based upon the opinions of members I've met so far in my limited experience of Labour Party politics, I'd go as far as saying that most rank and file members more often than not agree with the gist of what McCluskey and other likeminded union leaders have said regarding the party's core beliefs. I've listened to many people express discomfort at the business sources from which Progress receives its funding (Progress is a generally pro-third way pressure), while I've yet to meet a member who is uncomfortable with the existing union relationship.

Despite my previous defences however, as far as figures within the party go Len McCluskey is undoubtedly an important one. In an ideal world I'd like to see all parties funded centrally in order to reduce any possibility of financial coercion. In this ideal world the Labour party could then voluntarily enhance its union links in order to keep the unions where they should be as arguably the most important part of the Labour movement, although whether the Labour party would do so in the event of fiscal freedom is another matter... However I suspect that what really damages the unions is also what makes union funding the cleanest in politics, which is that McCluskey, like many other union leaders makes his positions clear on what he wants to see delivered by the Labour party in the future. This outspoken quality, like most other aspects of the union relationship is transparent to both party members and the general public alike. Regrettably however this also makes the unions easy targets for media accusations of coercion and bribery. The Conservatives on the other hand manage to silently dwarf Labour’s total sum of party funding through a largely surreptitious and clandestine network of powerful donors and sympathetic businesses. The media will to scrutinise this relationship seems to be lacking, and even if the desire to do so spontaneously arose, a private donor dinner with Cameron costs £50 000, which is awfully expensive when considering that revealing an equivalent union opinion requires only a weekend's camping at Tolpuddle. Which unlike David Cameron's dinners is reasonably priced at £40, and in most cases would be much more enjoyable for any investigative journalist involved…

Unions, like all organisations which contain a degree of internal and external power have their intrinsic faults. However fundamentally it should be a source of pride that the Labour Party is funded by Britain’s largest democratic movement, a movement which seeks to represent and empower millions of ordinary working people throughout their working and retired lives. The alternative model of funding, which sadly remains largely unscathed by the investigations of mainstream news media strikes me as far more undesirable.

The Labour Party Leadership Contest

The dust is starting to settle following May 7th's resounding general election defeat, and as such the Labour Party leadership contest seems to be gaining a higher degree of clarity. Shadow Health Secretary Andy Burnham is attempting to adopt a catch-all strategy in relation to Miliband's previous leadership by indicating that he seeks to carry on representing each and every section of British society, rather than just concentrating on the appeasement of small groups. This - due to to the timing of its release was an evident response to calls from neo-Blairites/neo-modernisers* (*delete where appropriate) for Labour to rediscover its ability to win over "aspirational" voters, which in the context of criticising Miliband presumably includes anyone who earns over £150,000, owns a mansion and doesn’t use the NHS/state school system/flood defences etc. Burnham appears to have successfully won the support from the Labour left, most likely as he's the only candidate who hasn't to some degree repudiated the sensibilities behind making political issues out of 0-hour contracts and low pay. However as far as long term left wing positioning goes Burnham isn’t particularly held as the candidate to make progress, more as the candidate to try and hold on to as many of the very minimal gains made under Miliband as possible.

Standing diametrically opposed to Burnham is Liz Kendall, or at least to the extent to which diametric opposition is possible in the context of what's ostensibly acceptable for the Labour Party to talk about in public. Kendall supports "modernising" the party in order to make it more electable, which is clearly in line with comments made by the likes of Mandelson immediately post-election. Kendall has also made it clear that Labour need to get more in line with the Conservatives in relation to public spending, sadly doing so by expediently capitalising on the half truth of past "Labour profligacy" which served the Conservatives so well in the electon campaign. Kendall also appears reticent to cut tuition fees and has publicly backed the free school programme, these positions were they to be enacted would almost certainly place Labour to the right of the Lib-Dems, particularly if they elect Tim Farron as their next leader.

Placed in between the two candidates is Yvette Cooper, who as far as I can tell has opted to play the motherhood and apple pie role of arguing that Labour needs to be "pro-business" without clarifying whether her "pro-business" approach would implicitly necessitate the abandonment of policies and positions designed to alleviate the struggles of society's most vunerable, both in and out of work. While this is a position I couldn't find myself aligning with, in order to save time while writing this post I will instead opt to focus more on Kendall's campaign and the arguments by those of the "moderniser" persuasion in relation to the party's future.

Since the election two weeks ago a considerable amount of column inches on left wing media has been taken up by individuals arguing for an approach more remniscent of the Blair years. However the thing I find strange about this approach, particularly when it's defined by those most closely linked to Blairism as a philosophy such as Mandelson and Kendall, is that it tends to be entirely disjointed from the realities of Blair's 1997 campaign. The first Blair government introduced the minimum wage, sought to eradicate pensioner/child poverty, introduced the Human Rights Act and brought into being a windfall tax on the privatised utilities. Whilst accepting that the political landscape is currently different due to a weak post-recession economy, the 2015 manifesto launched under supposedly "red Ed" was far more cautious than Blair's 1997 manifesto. 1 million people are currently using foodbanks, a sizeable proportion of whom are children. Yet in the wake of the election Miliband's mildly anti-poverty policy package, which aimed to "reduce" foodbank use (not even eliminate it) was written off as damaging to the aspirations of a large chunk of the British population. This is despite the fact that central to the "third way" ideology promoted by Blair is the concept of providing an equal start for all, something which is extremely unlikely to be the case for those children whose parents can't afford to feed them adequately. As Ian Lavery has said, This isn't 1997, and the "moderniser" approach towards tuition fees, poverty and working conditions is entirely different from anything enacted by the Labour government in 1997. As far as winning future elections goes we will be in untested waters whichever way the party moves, as such it’s probably sensible to think about what’s right and what we can convincingly argue for rather than reverting back into some sort of 1997 safety mode. The public are growing increasingly tired of platitudinous politics, as exemplified by the rise of minor parties and falling voter turnouts. If the Labour Party decides to pursue a morally disingenuous strategy in the pursuit of "electability" it will only be ensuring its own long term decline.

There's are also other risks of pursuing such an amoral strategy. During the lead up to the election I often found the use of “they’re all the same” by certain minor parties rather cynical, as in my opinion it knowingly overstated the power of the right within the party, painting internal Labour politics as a lost cause not worth engaging with for anyone of a leftish persuasion as well as glossing over what were still large and often life changing spending differences between us and the Conservatives. Although that's not to say that there wasn't a lot of room to do more and inspire hope more than we ultimately managed to. However with the background of our declining heartlands confronted with the dual threat of a UKIP surge and the often shockingly neglected rates of uninspired and unrepresented non-voters, I’m rather concerned about the possibility of a right wing victory in this leadership contest for the health of the party. I will wait to fully judge the next Labour leader based upon policies, but so far I’ve rather worryingly got the impression that there could be a genuine possibility in the event of a Kendall victory of adopting the rhetorical stance of the Conservatives but with the scant consolation of an added emphasis on education spending. For the millions of people suffering due to archaic welfare policies, and for those who would like to see inequality become a central political issue for the 21^st century this shouldn't be allowed to happen.