The new leader may compromise on policy, but he will not do so on party reform, writes Conor Pope
The reappointment of Pat McFadden as shadow minister for Europe was seen as the first victory for Labour moderates under Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership. The announcement that McFadden would stay in post came with the commitment that the party would be campaigning to stay in the European Union during the forthcoming referendum. This had not been a given.
Corbyn spent much of the leadership campaign dropping hints that he could give his support to an ‘Out’ vote. He said he had ‘not closed his mind’ to leaving the EU, and did not want to hand David Cameron a ‘blank cheque’, suggesting he wanted to see what the prime minister’s renegotiation of membership yielded before making up his mind.
His scepticism of the EU is longstanding, but has gained greater traction on the left over the past year, following the Greek debt crisis and travails over Syria. He realised that he had much greater scope for reliable support among the anti-TTIPers of this world than those devoted to the EU’s progressive politics and, as he did so often this summer, played his hand deftly.
When Chuka Umunna left the shadow cabinet, a day after Corbyn became leader, he cited the failure to get a pro-EU pledge as the catalyst for his departure. Shadow foreign secretary Hilary Benn appeared on the radio the next morning to say that Labour would campaign for an ‘In’ vote ‘under all circumstances’. The true position remained unclear until McFadden’s appointment, four days after Umunna’s departure, when Benn’s line appeared to triumph.
And like that it has stayed. There has been little suggestion since that favouring an ‘Out’ vote, or even adopting a neutral position, will be possible for Labour. The latest news suggests that the party’s pro-EU campaign, headed up by Alan Johnson, will even be based out of Labour headquarters.
This position was hard fought-for during that week, and centrist shadow ministers saw it as vindication of the decision to work on a Corbyn frontbench, while others had slunk off to the backbenches. This early success gave Corbyn-sceptic shadow cabinet members hope, and courage; they calculated that they could still play a large role in policy formation, and would be able to argue for positions in the media they knew were not held by the leader. As much as practical, it felt symbolic.
This was just the initial tussle, and it appeared to show that the battle for power in the party was not over. The first months of Corbyn’s leadership have been notable largely for his reluctance to stamp his authority on policy issues. The surprising move to support the fiscal charter was only reversed when it was clear the parliamentary Labour party would happily vote against it, while Corbyn appears to want the issue of Trident pushed into the long grass, making clear the distinction between his own view and the party’s position. In Maria Eagle, he has appointed a shadow secretary of state for defence who supports the renewal of Trident, while he simultaneously accepted a role as vice-president of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. Even abolishing tuition fees, the creation of which he has apologised for on the behalf of the Labour party, has been quietly shuffled to the bottom of the to‑do list.
If a vote comes to the House of Commons on military intervention in Syria – something Corbyn could not possibly support – a free vote for Labour members of parliament is looking increasingly likely, despite even Ed Miliband whipping against intervening in the conflict. There is now the possibility too, that he will commit to the Nato commitment of two per cent of GDP on defence spending. Considering that Corbyn has not just opposed membership of Nato in the past, but also wants the money currently spent on Trident to be redistributed in areas other than defence, that is a fairly remarkable position to come to.
So how has it come to this? With the overwhelming mandate he enjoys, why has Corbyn been so quick to accommodate others’ policy positions rather than seek to quickly push through his own agenda?
Primarily, it is because he would be unsuccessful. It is no great insight that Corbyn’s support comes from outside the PLP, and not within it. He cannot simply rule by decree, and his own voting record would be brought up by rebelling MPs if he tried to. This would lead to more stories of Labour splits than there are currently, as his policy pronouncements would be perceived as antagonistic, and encourage open insubordination. Corbyn knows the limits of his strength, and realises that pushing too far, too fast could leave him with the appearance of a man encouraging a bloody civil war.
Policy is fleeting; values are eternal, as Yves Saint Laurent never quite said. It could be a mantra for the new leader’s office. Corbyn can rely on the huge majority he won in September to give him a stay of execution in the face of a constant threat of mutiny. Should a mutiny prove successful sooner rather than later (unlikely though that threat seems), Corbyn will have wasted his time if he has spent his short stint pushing through his own niche policy obsessions. A new leader, with greater PLP support, could fairly easily reverse any of those decisions with the help of the shadow cabinet. If that happened, Labour’s left would be back to square one, marginalised and with the weight of another unsuccessful leader hung around their neck.
Which is exactly why it is Labour party culture – and the wider rules and rulebook itself – that the left is seeking to reform first. Not only is it difficult to argue against the triumph of Corbyn’s ability to attract new members, but it can use that enthusiastic support as an opportunity to enact long-term changes to how the party works – the formation of Momentum in October being an early case in point. On the rules he is also making ground. Allowing more motions to Labour party conference seem inconsequential now, but has been coveted by the hard left for some time now for a reason. They have given members of the European parliament full nominating rights for future leadership elections and have, in a genuine first, given them a say in whether the current leader continues. During Labour party conference the leadership moved to replace shadow cabinet representative on the National Executive Committee Hilary Benn with new MP Rebecca Long-Bailey, and provoked ire when their biggest backers ensured the steelworkers’ union representative from Community Union was replaced by the Bakers’ Union just as the plant at Redcar was closing down. Each change seems small, even positive, but little by little the party rules will be altered to ensure the parliamentary party can be reformed in Corbyn’s image and that his successor is more likely to come from the hard left.
This is not to say the left is resigned to losing Corbyn – far from it. Some of the Labour party rules outlining how to challenge an incumbent leader are conspicuously vague, leading to alternative interpretations behind the scenes. Unsurprisingly enough, these divisions tend to fall along the lines of whether you think it should be easier or harder to remove the leader. If the disagreements continue, we could see efforts made to ‘clarify’ the rulebook. This is just one instance in which next summer’s NEC elections begin to look like a crucial chapter in future Labour party history books.
How policy is formed will also become a major task in the Corbyn plan. He has made no secret of his desire to reassert the supremacy of conference, which would remove the roadblocks that the shadow cabinet and PLP have so far managed to throw in his way. If he can mobilise his tens of thousands of supporters in the party to attend constituency meetings and become conference delegates, he would wield great policy power – and that reform, once made, would not be easily reversed. Subsequent leaders could be mouthpieces for conference’s manifesto.
Those close to Corbyn (not least the leader himself) claim that his victory was the triumph of ideas over personality. While that may be a stretch, their project can never truly be described as ‘Corbynite’ because it is about much more than just him. They are not simply planning what they can achieve with him as leader or prime minister, but about what comes after that. It seems ironic that while Labour’s modernisers must still deal with the moniker associated with a long since departed leader, those derided as stuck in the past not only control the present, but are making plans for the next leader too.
———————————-
Conor Pope is a staff writer at LabourList
———————————-
It is this incessant need for factions of the Labour Party to stab each other in the back that has destroyed our support .
The party is at its strongest as a broad church ,and I know that Progress members in the main would like to see the Party memberships choice Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister than another Tory .Anyone who does not think that ,might well be in the wrong party . Lets work together in a respectful and comradely manner . we will always do what is right for our country .
Sorry ,John, Labour moderates have been too compromising and many like me are on the verge of leaving ( so far I have only withdrawn my monthly voluntary extra subs) and I hang on by my teeth. Its a bloody shambles- look at the Times (Monday) headlines and leader which irrespective of the paper’s politics is correct to expose the weekend farce of the Scottish party trident vote and conclude that given the Government’s first duty -defence of the nation and future protection from rogue and extreme states – we fall at the first post.
Sadly too many moderates have bent over backwards and are legitimising and colluding with this crazy left-wing shift which mirrors the Foot years of disappearing voters, crumbling voter confidence and having no creditable party of the centre Left for the British voter. Have no illusions too that this current crowd are gaining working class voters; evidence shows lower than ever leader ratings and a loss of some of our core traditional voters. Its very grim and no amount of calls for loyalty can disguise the need for a proper centre left party.
Leslie . On the other hand the party did poorly in the last General Election . My local party has a strong seemingly Thatcherite contingent and I dont think that did us favours with the electorate , as they appeared more right wing than the Tories ..I support Trident fleet Renewal . I also disagree with Corbyn on some other important matters. However I will still support Corbyn ,and gladly ,because I have more in common with the party he leads than any other , and he was truly elected and not appointed by MPs . The Tories will be bringing Trident in regardless of what the Labour party wants ,and that is because the Labour party ,dominated by its right wing , lost the last election .Please do not leave the party . All Progress members should stay and allow us to keep our diversity in which lies our strength ,in my opinion .
Yes, and you and others who feel the same way have caused far more damage by slagging off your own party and leader. Even Miliband was considered too left wing because he was going to control fuel bills, or was he in the wrong gang? He was slagged off by Blair and Mandelson, his own side, and he lost. Surprise.
He was not popular with many voters. Nothing to do with internal policies. Anyone canvancing in marginals met two things on doorstep his unelectability as UKPM and lower middle class fears about his policies and Leftist fear of him and SNP. The Unions need to stop voting in a leader who is unelectable to our voters.
Mr Corbyn believes he is in the wrong party.
Sorry John, I can’t agree. Corbyn as PM would be utterly hideous. But of course it can’t conceivably happen.
Let me be clear. I’m against the ghastly agenda the Tories have already set out for this Parliament. Doubtless, the longer they are in power, the worse they will get.
And it’s because of that I’m so mad at having such a useless fool in charge of our party. We are condemning ourselves to irrelevance whilst the Old Etonians have once again convinced themselves they are the natural party of Government.
Which of Corbyns ideas are you so mad at? Or is it just the fact you see him as unelectable? Genuinely curious. Im not a rabid Corbyn supporter but it’s hard as a labour supporter not to appreciate at least some of his ideas and I don’t really get why some others are so rabidly against him.
If you seriously believe the party will be elected with Red Jez as Leader you are, at best, deluded Comrade
Andy,
I assure you that I am the least deluded or deludable man you are likely to communicate with . I am logical and realistic . Ed Milaband was thought by most to be electable and lost ,as with Ed Miliband and Neil Kinnock . .I did not think so ,but supported them . No leader will win for Labour without sufficient support from the party . Lack of support could split the party ,and judging by things being said here that might be the best thing to happen . Its your party ,I am sure that you will do what you like .,and I hope you have the courage of your convictions rather than sniping on the sidelines . I will follow my own judgement .
Jeremy Corbyn was [only] elected leader 12/8. I didn’t vote for him I voted for [agnostic] Liz Kendall. Just before that date TB said as reported in Catholic Herald he would *eat his hats* if a Catholic ever lead the Labour party. Whether JC is agnostic, atheist or a fervent religious buffer is his business, I am not interested what he does on his days off. What I want to see from a leader is a person who is not an actor who plays his part to suit the popular vote of the moment. So let him *put his foot in his mouth* now and then, acceptable. Don’t forget even though people are agnostic/atheist its surprising how many turn to God in times of need or stress.
At least Mr Corbyn is not a hypocrite and you know exactly where you stand with him. [DV]
Penny for the Guy, guv?
Corbyn is the leader we have elected. He may well not stay the 5 year course of this Parliament just on age grounds (not an ageist remark – I am older than he and know what it’s like) but so far he has done a remarkable job of quietly putting back together a party that was very despondent and rowdily divided after the election, so let’s give him a break. There’s too much rushing to judge, not enough “kinder politics” here and on Labour List
Regarding the EU.
I think that we should have a mature debate about the EU. It is not just about whether we stay or go – it is about various aspects of the union which need reform.
The Euro for instance has taken away the right of governments to issue their own currency – they are effectively borrowing in a foreign currency which makes it impossible to monetise debt or have Keynesian recovery. The Greeks have 25% unemployment because of this. We need to consider – would staying in the EU lead us down this road eventually?
This brings me to the Maastrict Treaty, which limits government deficit spending. Deficits are automatic stabilisers which go up when we have trade deficits, recessions, and bank bailouts. They are not serious and should not be limited when we have unemployment and poverty.
Equally, the Lisbo Treaty is undemocratic because it dictates that Government cannot issue a bond to its own central bank, to create money. This forces governments to issue private debt, which provides profit to banks etc.
The EU commission itself is unelected, the EU parliament is not in control of policy.
The TTIP treaty is a case in point. Molly Scot Cato described being lead into a room to look at the papers regarding the TTIP, and was sworn to secrecy, watched, and forbidden to remove a copy anything. This is just plain sinister.
Whether we opt to leave the EU is not the most important issue.
What we need is some grown up and courageous statesmen (and I believe that Corbyn would be one of them given the chance) to question all of these anti democratic treaties which no one voted for and very few understand.
The fact that Corbyn wants to re-asssert the supremecy of conference is a very goos thing.
If we had had collective responsibility and debate and listened to people who knew what they were talking about we would not have had an illegal war in Iraq.
This should be celebrated – democracy is the basis of a good and equal society.