The Labour party had to change. Not just that thirteen years of government had seen us appear uncertain about new policy ideas, but also that those engaged in the party – and I count myself in this – were sometimes too focused on influencing those at the top of our movement, rather than listening to the views of of the many.
In fact, when I heard Jeremy at a leadership hustings last summer talk about the kind of leader he would be, even I, deeply sceptical of what I took to be nothing more than an old fashioned lefty campaign, sat up and paid attention. At the Co-op party meeting, I remember clearly Jeremy saying that leadership should not be about one person. He said it should be about all of us coming together, and being the best we can be.
That is why I hope Labour does not now change the new voting system that elected Jeremy. Let us be open to people. Let us help more people express their views and have a say. Let us be the best we can be.
I voted for Liz Kendall, and proudly so. But Jeremy’s words that day hit home. They spoke of a Labour party that I would be proud to be a member of, where leadership does not mean direction from the centre, but rather lots of people having a chance to be heard. And where solidarity with our fellow human beings is at the heart of all we do.
That is what is so painful about this current situation. We could be so much better than this.
Jeremy has been shown to be right about another too. There are far too many people left out in Britain, economically speaking.
Whilst I may feel deeply frustrated about the debate and other aspects of the European Union referendum campaign, and find it hard to accept that we could not have done better, I know that the recent campaign is the proximate, not the long term cause. The underlying problem is global markets that need to be made not more free, but more fair. We do need to focus on the expanding influence of markets which national governments cannot control, mean that those without skills or wealth are impacted, often negatively, by decisions made company boards far away.
Towns in our country were left out of the gains of growth. It is no wonder they expressed a protest, loud and clear. People do lack power and control over their own lives and that of their community.
And the austerity heaped on councils by George Osborne has made this situation worse, not better. A choice Labour should always oppose. We ought to be reviving local government and public services because these are the best means for tackling the inequality that globalisation can exacerbate. As I have written, the Labour party has given my family everything. Long-term economic trends, catalysed by Osborne’s austerity, created the perfect storm leading up to the referendum. Now Brexit is upon us, we cannot afford to wait any longer to help today’s families escape poverty and inequality.
I would like to think, when we look back on this period of the Labour movement we see it not just as a crisis that caused us great discomfort. Rather, we should also see this time as a moment in which we learnt to do politics differently. I would like to think that whilst we may have changes of personnel, it is the ideas that really matter.
The values that we hold and the ideas we share are greater than all of us. Surely it is a good thing, from time to time, to stop and listen to others, and to hear what people in our movement and our country have to say. Those who voted for Jeremy asked us to think again, and I believe moderate Labour has listened and changed. As we ask Jeremy to think again, we hope he listens. Recent weeks have been so very painful. Now is the time for all to say ‘lessons learnt’ and try to build a Labour party fit for the future.
———————————–
Alison McGovern MP is chair of Progress. She tweets @Alison_McGovern
———————————–
If self-defining ‘moderate’ Labour had really changed then we would hardly be where we are now! Emma Reynolds has lost the plot (no pun intended) and has sent a formal complaint, regarding John Mcdonnel, to Iain McNichol about unauthorised committees calling expert witnesses, who are not members of the Labour Party:
http://labourlist.org/2016/06/reynolds-issues-complaint-to-labour-hq-over-claims-of-a-secret-group-of-mcdonnell-advisors/
The complaint appears entirely specious but if one were to play devil’s advocate and assume it had some validity then this could backfire spectacularly! Didn’t a certain John Woodcock set up an independent and unauthorised defence review and then call on expert witnesses, including an ex-Lib Dem minister? If Emma’s complaint has any merit then John Woodcock and all MPs participating in this unauthorised review could potentially face disciplinary action, if the same rules were being applied. How many Progress MPs would be impacted in such a scenario?
The latest YouGov poll shows that 60% of Labour members (full membership) believe that Shadow Cabinet members were wrong to resign to attempt to force the Leader out. The same poll also shows Jeremy Corbyn would win, against any of the potential contenders suggested.
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/eprogs4gmc/TimesResults_160630_LabourMembers.pdf
Stalemate, unless the mutineers are prepared to accept the renewed mandate of Any candidate winning the leadership election. Why did the plotters attempt to bypass the normal democratic procedure for changing a Leader and suddenly embrace revolutionary bolshevism?
To falsely deny, as 3 MPs have already done in TV interviews, that the resignations were coordinated, even after Sophie Ridge (Sky News) had named the coordinator, just makes the plotting look even more farcical. The alternative explanation: that All these MPs are like particularly dim-witted sheep, who only notice the movement of a fellow after a considerable time but somehow manage to release their resignation letters at hourly intervals, during the daytime news cycle over several days – the odds are lower than winning the jackpot on the National Lottery!
Are Progress and Fabian MPs prepared to re-engage with their own democratic procedures, or is a split inevitable. Under the current party rules, the splitters would have to have a decide on a new party name (SDP2 perhaps?) and write a new constitution. All property assets, historic archives and cash/debt would remain with the existing party. Would some of the Unions transfer their allegiance to any new party, or would they remain and help rebuild the traditional one?
We live in interesting times.
The FT writer Philip Stevens (FT 1/7/16 ) wants it …
..”.the space is opening up for a new , pro-European, economically liberal and socially compassionate alternative to pinched nationalism and hard left socialism”
Corbyn won. You lost. Go away.
You are not helping! Unless you actually really want the Party to fragment. John Major had his ‘Bastards’ and Jeremy Corbyn has his ‘Shits’.
It might be tolerable, perhaps even desirable if some of those most avidly opposed to internal Party democracy, who also tend to regard themselves as an elite guard, broke away and formed their own party. However, numbers do matter. If it was a total of 30-50 irreconcilables then there would probably be a net long-term benefit to the Party, were they to leave. On the other hand, it would probably be disadvantageous to lose one hundred or more.
Respectfully Progress has been so compromising its fallen backwards and our party has become divided despite compromise on our part. I feel like Peter Kellner and Peter Hyman in their previous analyses last year this party is inevitably going to divide into Social Democrat and Corbynite Socialist parts. The unions are unable to be adaptive and reflect their members interests. A rerun of a Corbyn victory will put a new political agenda on the table and will demand of the progressive centre left a new start not another retreat.
Leslie48 you have not even a Labour member, so why bother posting here?
Of ourse I am a member Of both Progress and Labour and the vast majority of people want to see JC go as polls of the public and Unite members showed. To lose 80% of your MPs and then your shadow cabinet including shadow ministers who themselves are leftists indicates melt down. Polling now indicates that Corbyn would lose vast numbers of working class voters and deeply reduce the number of our MPs in parliament.
Oh Alison, if only you on the Right of the party would accept the leader the membership want and work with it we could have won. As it is the actions of the right have discredited the party and added to the alienation of people from politics.
I would ask you to think again about your actions and those of your fellow thinkers. the co-ordinated attempts to undermine our leader have been heart breaking. you have given the Tories their script for the next election. Why don’t you listen to the membership and support the leader.
The article has a lovely tone. Unfortunately trust (or lack of trust) goes deeper. Alison wrote:
“… leadership does not mean direction from the centre, but rather lots of people having a chance to be heard”.
I agree, so surely if you wish to reverse a recent democratic decision then you have to present for election rather than try the old politics of manoeuvre and shoulder nudging. Let’s have an election and stand up to the membership. Surely this is the only way that the remaining body (bodies) have some democratic credibility. As the recent referendum shows, no ‘experts’ have a monopoly on the wisdom of the best way forward, neither do MPs – sometimes ‘ordinary folk’ have the better instincts for their interests.
Restore democracy, ‘bring it on’. Then let’s what Labour can salvage from amongst the remaining’guardians’ of our interests.
The election of Jeremy Corbyn was the worst disaster the Labour Party could have suffered. Corbyn is a bigot and he is not a Labour supporter, he is an entryist, a Marx-Leninist, who is not interested in Labour gaining power. It is hardly surprising that the mob voted for him, they voted for Hitler in 1933.
This is a welcome change of tone, and acknowledgement that we have a big problem with the empoverishment and alienation of a lot of the working people we claim to represent, and that actually Corbyn was broadly right on these things. I’ll make no comment on the dissonance with the unending and vicious anti-Corbyn campaign that Progress & Progress supporters have waging – other replies make the point. But I am interested in your comments that we need to do our politics differently, and that “moderate”!! Labour has changed. If this indicates you are trying to think differently, I’d welcome some greater indication / explanation, rather than a so far unsubstantiated claim?
Progress MPs, indeed MPs in general, have a major problem. They claim to listen but almost never respond to any constructive criticism or suggestions that may occasionally appear in the comments section of a bulletin board. Indeed there is no obvious indication that they ever bother to read any replies to their published articles! Labour councillors, on the other hand, do sometimes choose to engage with these debate so perhaps are less insulated?
The usual process at Progress appears to be:
1. Article is published
2. Progress tweets about article
3. Author tweets about article
4. Other Progress members or sympathisers/supporters tweet to say how great the article was, or just retweet each other.
This is an echo chamber by definition, that essentially keeps the MPs in their bubble, without any obvious feedback mechanism that could help shape and refine the debate.In theory, if the comments section was moderated by someone interested in politics then they could sift any comments that they found thought-provoking or significant and then bring these to the attention of the contributing author.
On most bulletin boards the signal-to-noise ratio is rather low and responses can easily become dominated by trolling and insults. On the Progress website the volume of responses are relatively low and a feedback process therefore would be easy to implement, if there were an actual desire to do so. A novel suggestion would be for MPs to occasionally interact with their readership, as long as their debate remains fruitful and civilised.
This would help prevent self-imposed ignorance, that often results if communication is largely confined to those who agree with you. John Mann and Richard Angell might actually learn something and not repeatedly insist on impractical demands but perhaps this is too much to hope for? There is of course the other worrying possibility that they occasionally do read replies but find themselves unable or unwilling to counter the argument advanced.