I’m writing this at the end of what’s been a very busy week
for the Labour Party. The start of the week, like the entire week
previous, was marked by the seemingly interminable sage regarding antisemitism on the left. While the
last few days as far as the Party is concerned have largely revolved around campaigning for, and commenting on, Thursday’s election results, which, despite not being as positive as Party
members would have liked moving towards 2020, certainly had their positives. Labour
supporting journalists are certainly justified in asserting that a collective sense
of pleasant surprise ought not
to cloud any critical appraisal of Labour’s performance, however, such arguments
work both ways, and I think it’s fair to say that many Labour supporters in
Wales, if offered Thursday’s results on the 8th of
May last year, irrespective of who was to win the leadership contest, would
have been happy to take them. After all, we have gained 29 seats and held all 4
marginals we conceded to the Conservatives in 2015.
So in this context, while no one should be getting carried away with what we’ve achieved, the constant sniping at Corbyn by a certain band of MPs is getting increasingly grating. Not only because of the damage it causes to the party and its electoral prospects, but also due to its tactical ineptness. I may disagree with proponents of such a view, but I can fully appreciate the argument that Corbyn being in charge is of such moral detriment that he ought to be deposed at all costs. However, the process through which Corbyn's PLP critics are trying to carry out this coup seems to be entirely reliant on almost weekly pretexts along the lines of 'X has happened, this shows that Corbyn must go', and the longer time has gone on the more it has become painfully obvious that their plan is totally unresponsive to changes in political context, changes in Corbyn's personal performance, and more importantly, to the mood of the general membership. They've only really had one job to do, to gain support for deposing Corbyn by fooling members into believing that their discontent is in response to real world events, not because it's what they've been planning for since the day Corbyn was elected. Needless to say, neither their acting skills nor their sense of timing have as of yet been up to this task, the anti-Corbyn campaign has lacked even the smallest semblance of Machiavellian elegance, so it should probably come as no surprise that their own campaigns failed to succeed in last year's leadership contest. This is somewhat of a harsh message, but I think it's fair to say that Corbyn looks set to remain leader for at least two years, and if his critics want to change the party in their own vision they should focus their efforts on retreating and trying to build a coherent message and policy package that they can sell to the membership and the public in the future, because the status quo seems to be doing no one any good.
So in this context, while no one should be getting carried away with what we’ve achieved, the constant sniping at Corbyn by a certain band of MPs is getting increasingly grating. Not only because of the damage it causes to the party and its electoral prospects, but also due to its tactical ineptness. I may disagree with proponents of such a view, but I can fully appreciate the argument that Corbyn being in charge is of such moral detriment that he ought to be deposed at all costs. However, the process through which Corbyn's PLP critics are trying to carry out this coup seems to be entirely reliant on almost weekly pretexts along the lines of 'X has happened, this shows that Corbyn must go', and the longer time has gone on the more it has become painfully obvious that their plan is totally unresponsive to changes in political context, changes in Corbyn's personal performance, and more importantly, to the mood of the general membership. They've only really had one job to do, to gain support for deposing Corbyn by fooling members into believing that their discontent is in response to real world events, not because it's what they've been planning for since the day Corbyn was elected. Needless to say, neither their acting skills nor their sense of timing have as of yet been up to this task, the anti-Corbyn campaign has lacked even the smallest semblance of Machiavellian elegance, so it should probably come as no surprise that their own campaigns failed to succeed in last year's leadership contest. This is somewhat of a harsh message, but I think it's fair to say that Corbyn looks set to remain leader for at least two years, and if his critics want to change the party in their own vision they should focus their efforts on retreating and trying to build a coherent message and policy package that they can sell to the membership and the public in the future, because the status quo seems to be doing no one any good.
Moving on, the main reason I wrote this post was to address an issue which has been alluded
to on various occasions during internal policy ‘debates’ since last
summer, even if it is rarely mentioned explicitly, which is where ‘red
lines’ ought to be drawn, below which policy substance ought not to be diluted in search of ‘electability’.
I am, as I suspect most other party members are, a consequentialist when it
comes to evaluating policy and formulating manifestos. For all of the
occasional despair from some quarters that many Labour members seem to prioritise beliefs over
election victories, I don’t think such a summary is particularly accurate.
Clearly, Corbyn himself isn’t of this disposition, otherwise he wouldn’t be so
equivocal over the trident review, nor would he push the issues of republicanism and NATO under the rug. Likewise, Liz Kendall in her campaign for the leadership
held back on certain issues which could have on face value gained her support
from the general public, such as reintroducing the death penalty (arguably), or
drastically reducing JSA payments below their current austere levels, which, as
an aside seemingly rely on public misconceptions for their popular support. But she chose not to, so the
issue here doesn’t seem to be ‘principles vs electability’, but rather where
different people draw the line between the two, and where politicians personally deem policies to fundamentally contradict their own moral outlooks.
Now, it's worth stating that I don’t want to oversimplify the important differences between
moral positions, or overlook whether some doctrines are more sensible than others, and for that matter I don't want to seem like I’m using simplifications to justify Corbyn’s victory either.
For how these red lines are drawn clearly depend on the calculations which
conclude them, what’s included in the ‘weighing up’ process, what’s omitted etc.
As it could of course be argued that the death penalty being reintroduced would
be unjustifiable even if it enabled more progressive policies to be implemented
elsewhere. However, these issues, which I can't really elaborate on here ought not to provide any excuse for inconsistencies in judgements made by the same people using the same moral criteria, and it is once such potential example of moraly inconsistency, between the cases of 'austerity' and the 'EU debate' which I'll discuss below.
Austerity
In last summer's leadership election, fiscal contraction was a clear dividing line between Corbyn
and the other three candidates. They differed in extent,
however, Burnham, Cooper, and Kendall all supported fiscal
contraction, and all three cited the need to appear ‘fiscally responsible’ to
the electorate as a justification for doing so. Corbyn disagreed with this
approach and instead supported fiscal expansion, with this approach being the
one I, and presumably many other members, align with the most closely, even if I didn’tagree with everything he suggested from the outset of his campaign.
There are of course potential situations in which I'd abandon this plan if I believed that doing so could achieve a better overall outcome, and indeed, one reason why I supported Corbyn's stance on fiscal contrction was a pragmatic one, I was uncertain that towing the line regarding ‘fiscal sensibility’ would produce a result any different from 2015 unless we committed to more savings than the Conservatives themselves, which would be pointless, seeing as I don't believe that they're good for the economy. But there was an important second reason too, being that the cuts since 2010 may have cost an amount of GDP equivalent to £1500 per UK resident (potentially up to £4000), something I thought at the time we ought to oppose if for no other reason than for how large a sum of money was at stake, in addition to a slightly more vague sense that parties ought to be honest on issues of such large importance so as to help the democratic system produce effective results.
There are of course potential situations in which I'd abandon this plan if I believed that doing so could achieve a better overall outcome, and indeed, one reason why I supported Corbyn's stance on fiscal contrction was a pragmatic one, I was uncertain that towing the line regarding ‘fiscal sensibility’ would produce a result any different from 2015 unless we committed to more savings than the Conservatives themselves, which would be pointless, seeing as I don't believe that they're good for the economy. But there was an important second reason too, being that the cuts since 2010 may have cost an amount of GDP equivalent to £1500 per UK resident (potentially up to £4000), something I thought at the time we ought to oppose if for no other reason than for how large a sum of money was at stake, in addition to a slightly more vague sense that parties ought to be honest on issues of such large importance so as to help the democratic system produce effective results.
Similar thoughts about rawing red lines shaped my views on our benefits levels and sanctions policies. Low levels of benefit payments in Britain, alongside the pernicious presence of benefit sanctions have quite clearly played an instrumental role in food bank usage rising to over 1 million people per year. Frankly, it is injustices like these, as personified by heartbreaking cases such as this LBC phone-in, which demonstrate why the Labour party ought to exist. And it was this which made me so disappointed when even Andy Burnham, who I was overall quite happy to give my second preference to after supporting him at the outset of his campaign, refused to offer anything regarding sanctions beyond a ‘review’. This, to me, without trying to sound pious, was a sort of red line, in that I believed that the myth perpetuated by various Labour and Tory Governments about an army of scroungers was having a massively detrimental effect on the lives of the UK’s most vulnerable, and as such I decided that I ought to vote for the candidate who opposed this view, even in the face of popular opposition for ‘pro-welfare’ policies. This isn’t to say that anyone who disagreed with me was decisively wrong on the issue, they simply decided that this wasn’t an appropriate place to draw a red line. However, I believe consistency is important in this, which brings us onto another polcy debate.
Europe
Before I start regarding inconsistencies in approach, I ought
to be clear that I’m supporting the In campaign. I’ve never been particularly
enthusiastic about Europe, there are many flaws in how it’s currently
organised, and for all the messages of hope regarding its reform by some on the
left, I am less hopeful. I’d love to see
a Europe which was less bureaucratic and more directly accountable to the
European people, however, currently, even the European Parliament, which is the
most accountable aspect of the EU’s Governance, lacks any real semblance of a
system which would allow real Governmental competition, partly due to institutional design and partly because the public do not care enough about EU democracy. This isn’t to say that the EU doesn’t achieve a lot of good,
it does, regarding a lot of policy areas where the UK parliament couldn't act sufficiently, but it's still safe to say I'm not a Europhile.
Nevertheless, I am supporting In as I a) don’t personally
disapprove of intra-EU migration, and b) think a No vote would put the economy
at risk in the short-medium term. Again, for me, the prospect of damage to the economy (although
notably, forecasts of economic damage aren’t on anywhere near the same scale as Simon Wren-Lewis’/The
OBR’s regarding austerity) wasn’t worth the risk of supporting Leave.
However, despite myself agreeing
with Labour’s current position, I do believe it possible to construct an ‘electability’
argument in favour of Labour supporting Leave. For one, many of our working
class supporters, UKIP voting ex-supporters, and Tory swing voters back Brexit.
What’s more, polling last year suggested that Labour backing Brexit could in fact tip the balance in favour of a Leave vote, something which could
in of itself be portrayed as a personal victory for Corbyn over Cameron and
Osbourne. This is certainly an argument that could be made fairly reasonably,
although I have doubts as to whether it’s conclusive, seeing as it relies on
numerous events transpiring in certain ways, while as always there’s a danger
of oversimplifying factors which attract electoral support. But this isn’t to
say that this debate shouldn’t happen, just as austerity and/or benefit cuts could be seen as a necessary compromise on the path to election victory, perhaps backing Brexit could be
considered as a beneficial policy compromise which could enable us to make gains elsewhere? Even if in isolation leaving the EU would leave the UK worse off.
Such debate about our EU position clearly hasn't happened in recent months,
however. Some might respond by stating the argument I've outlined above is so far fetched that it isn't worth discussing, and I might agree that backing Brexit is surrounded by too much uncertainty to make it worth a gamble, even if 'electabilty' were to be prioritised above other considerations. But equally, I don't think this argument adequately explains the sheer extent of unanimity on Europe amongst those who oppose Corbyn on electability grounds. In reality, I think such unanimity resides with a much simplier explanation, which is that ever since Delors’ speech to the TUC in 1989 the Party has been ideologically wedded to the EU as an institution, and this has been reflected in the
personal ‘red lines’ drawn by many incumbent MPs on the issue. It's probably fair to say that, quite simply, many Labour MPs evaluate issues surrounding benefits/austerity in a morally different fashion than issues surrounding the EU, with 'red lines' based on personal views seemingly playing a disproportionately greater influence in the latter debate than the former. So bering this in mind, perhaps instead of bandying about accusations of 'protest politics' and 'self-indulgence' on the left, members of the Party across all of its ideological persuasions ought to take a greater appreciation of the fact that drawing red lines always has been, and always will be, an important aspect of determining the content of Labour's moral crusade.
