We are living through dramatic, dangerous and historic times. Last night’s vote to extend airstrikes to terrorist Daesh targets in Syria means Britain is now involved – rightly in my opinion – in one of our world’s most painful and difficult conflicts. It is that prevalent threat of terrorism, the heart of which that will soon be assaulted by the RAF that is one of the key drivers of new instability that pervades our society today. Add in to that the largest movement of people in recent memory, fractures in the European Union and an increasing distrust of political elites across the west all collectively feed in to an ever more structural instability that seems to permeate both national and international politics.
Our own party has of course not escaped the tumult of 2015. Jeremy Corbyn, elevated unexpectedly to the leadership in September, had among his long CV a number of pronouncements on foreign policy and defence that have compelled some to question his commitment to national security. And his declarations since have only added to that uncertainty.
Drone strikes, ‘shoot to kill’, Trident and now most recently airstrikes in Syria at every point highlight a new phenomenon that one might christen the ‘Corbyn Catch-22’ – namely that type of position that solidifies his support within his primary audience at the expense of other audiences inexplicably deemed to be less important (such as the general public and Labour MPs). That is not to say that the principles he stands by are unequivocally wrong. On airstrikes in Syria, for example, though I was of the opinion that a vote in favour is the right thing to do by our allies and our own security, I can understand completely the misgivings that led many a Labour member of parliament to vote against the move.
It does, however, point to a startling malaise that will strike at the heart of Labour’s effectiveness in the years to come – not just as an alternative government or an effective opposition but as a cohesive organisation that seeks to get anything done. It is a malaise born of a hyperactive hysteria wherein any judgement for MPs, councillors or any other Labour decision-maker will be clouded with threats of deselection, expulsion and accusations of betrayal to the party’s leadership, electability or core values.
This malaise is terminal for any hope of good decision-making in the near future. At a time of international crises and great national challenges a failure to build any strategic narrative on what – if anything – a cohesive Labour party stands for will fail to convince all but the most committed Labour supporters that the party deserves their vote in 2020.
A practical way out of this quagmire will vex greater minds than mine in the near future. This is not even an issue of pragmatism versus principle as some might try and argue – for both pragmatism and principle are resident on both sides of the debate about our country’s future position in the world.
Instead, this is a call for competence, consistence, maturity and relevance in the party’s debate on these vitally important issues. Anything less is a trifold failure – first, of our party and its stated aim to win and use power in the interest of the many and not the few. Second, a failure for the people we claim to represent and the views they hold. And, third, it is a failure for our country and its security and prosperity in the years and decades to come.
———————————
Harry Booty is a member of Progress. He tweets @HarryWBooty
———————————
Photo: UK Parliament
The simplest, if not the easiest way to deal with this issue, would be, for the time being at least, to have two leaders – an overall leader of the Party as a whole, and a leader of the PLP, who would become the leader of HM’s loyal opposition. This would be a really new form of politics, combining the extra-parliamentary campaigning skills of Jeremy Corbyn with the sharp acumen in debates of Hilary Benn. As shadow Foreign Secretary, Benn would then attend security briefings and Privy Council. At the same time, there are precedents for combining the roles of Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister, were Labour to get elected on this ‘ticket’. All this could be done within existing rules.
The writer and other Progress contributors do not understand (or perhaps do not wish to do
so) the immense anger and dissatisfaction that has built up in the Grassroots Labour Party over the years. But then, the complacent [arrogant?] leadership became disconnected from the members and the general public, especially Career Politicians swimming in the Westminster bubble and wine bars. The “Corbyn Revolution” is a rejection of the so-called Blairite agenda which lost us two General elections. So, we need more of the same? The author’s last paragraph is an epitaph for New Labour. Over the decades it failed to achieve these aims. I tried
to warn Progress but the editorial team ignored me…but then, Progress appears to hold us in the Grey Vote with contempt [one young MP, Progress Career Politician chairing a conference platform described me as “Medallion Man” {a putdown, an insult?}].
The “Bright Young (not now so young) Things” at the top of Progress appear to be scratching their heads as to what sort of aims it ought to have!!! I understand their difficulty. Having been brought up in Thatcher’s Britain and socialised into her “norms, mores and values” – the resultant conventional wisdom – universal truths (e.g. the Market God) – it will be a hard journey for many of them!!!!”
It took the Tribune editor to acknowledge the validity of my arguments. If the reader wants to look beyond Progress propaganda, then look at my article’s analysis in the current edition of Tribune:
http://www.tribunemagazine.org/2015/11/labour-party-a-co-operative-revolution/
Vic Parks
It is true that there are some major problems being caused by certain Progress MPs and their associates/co-conspirators, both within and outside the Party. They act like crazed crack addicts; running from studio to studio and spewing bile in the right-wing press – is this now their major source of income?
The levels of paranoia seem to have reached epic proportions and many suspect that these stories of alleged intimidation may actually be figments of their imagination, or perhaps even invented to maintain media interest? Unless there is evidence, including referrals to the police and prosecutions, if appropriate, then this may just be a fantasy but one continuously blogged and tweeted about, by certain well known individuals.
A mapping of their social networks, but principally on twitter, is illuminating. There appear to be circular chains, of a fairly limited set of individuals, who each follow and consistently retweet each others posts. The Westminster-Bubble is bad enough but these denizens often appear as a tiny sect within it, who appear to huddle together and spread rumours and Chinese whispers.
It is amusing, when the UK political media are collectively fooled, as has happened twice since September 2015! Is this the twitter effect, where people mistakenly believe that mere replication equates to truth? Broadcast media now have to caveat many sources because it is embarrassing when a news story is based on false information but they occasionally forget to check the original source, as the BBC have discovered to its cost, on several occasions.
Hi Trebor
I am sort of writing to you personally since I believe very few people actually read these comments, especially articles written by “nobodys.” “Big Guns” may generate a bigger response.
Progress has been accused of being an organisation within an organisation. Indeed, one trade union wanted it expelled! In a way, it is akin to the expelled Militant but because it is Labour Right, centralist and “mainstream” it is not seen as “extreme.” However, its tentacles extend into many organisations and NGOs affecting (infecting?) their internal cultures with Progress’s philosophical aims, norms, etc. There are many Progress members/sympathisers in positions of power [e.g. General Secretaries, CEOs, etc.] and I call these “Parallel Careers.” They may have started out as Career Politicians but, if failed, they have these whilst waiting to cross over to a political path at some later stage. It is the rise of the cult of “Thrusting HE Youth” in the last few decades. Many are promoted beyond their age and experience – thus incompetent. New Labour is littered with failed policies and bandwagons that went nowhere. There is a lot to say for
“dead men’s/women’s shoes”! The Co-op Party is stuffed full of Progress members/sympathisers but I doubt that many of them are true Co-operators, as implied/stated in my Tribune article. [The recently elected General Secretary is an obvious Career Politician.] Once they move into an
organisation they vote for each other on some sort of “slate.” Social media is the main artery.
I am thus curious about your third paragraph and I would like you to expand upon it. If you wish, you could contact me privately [email protected].
Thanks
Vic