For years, Labour has failed to define its purpose in society and to engage effectively with the public. It is naïve even to pretend that Labour can win a General Election in 2020, when it has, at least for a period, lost Scotland and stands to lose dozens of English seats through boundary changes. It devotes the time it should be opposing Brexit and the destruction of public services and trade unions to internecine warfare. Little wonder that voters crave new stars to follow, be these apparently perverse: UKIP; nationalists; egomaniacs.
Even if the reborn socialism of Corbyn can take root beyond its long-standing adherents, it is impossible, surely, that it can gain sufficient ground for electoral success in under 4 years, let alone any "snap" election Tories may try to call to further damage Labour's credibility. So what options are we left with? A united party would seem to be the priority for most. Corbynistas claim that this is within their grasp if only all MPs and party members will loyally come behind their leader; deaf to the reality that the former have already refused in droves to do so. Owen Smith, whether a short-term stalking horse expected to be removed once Corbyn is out of the way, in favour of some as yet unnamed centrist; or a genuine long-term prospect, is the only other show in town. He is unknown to most but may just be seen as having the potential to re-build both party and popular engagement beyond the mere faithful.
Whichever prevails, there will remain that group of once-big hitters from Brown and Miliband's teams, waiting to stab the new Caesar or to lead a split and a new party. This could leave a true red Labour Party of under 50 MPs and a new Opposition Party of arund150, until each suffers the judgement of the electorate. Neither could do anything in the lobbies without he support of the other but also of the nationalists, LibDems, Unionists and even Caroline Lucas. And here lies the silver lining: the birth of a new politics, requiring cooperation instead of unity; alliances rather than a broad church. A progressive alliance no longer "what-if" idea but a necessity. Maybe the unthinkable split can be a good thing in the longer term. Even the Right may try it eventually.
Showing posts with label schism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label schism. Show all posts
Thursday, 28 July 2016
Thursday, 30 June 2016
Why is schism a dirty word?
Both Labour and Conservative parties have claimed to be "broad churches", providing the political homes for voters with widely differing viewpoints, under a vague banner of common values. This has been sustained extraordinarily well considering the diversity of views contained and occasional outbursts of factionalism, not least concerning the country's membership of the EEC/EU. Holding the party together has tested leaders of both parties, notably Harold Wilson, Michael Foot, John Major and David Cameron. Now Labour is undergoing the supreme and perhaps final test.
For decades a small rump of dedicated socialists survived in both country and parliament, putting forward its critique and alternative point of view. Jeremy Corbyn has been a consistent player in this, eventually reaping his reward(?) by being voted party leader at the end of a long period of imagination-failure and lack of vision on the part of the majority, mainstream group in the House of Commons. This leadership inspired and was instigated by a hunger on the part of a public craving values-driven politics. It has led to the situation where the leadership has a sort of Praetorian Guard of both MPs and voters, for whom he can do no ill. His term of office has, though, failed to engage the wider public nor, crucially, the majority of Labour MPs, meaning that he cannot hope to win Labour power.
Within the Conservative Party too exists a faction, set on removing UK from the EU. In effect its followers should be in UKIP but, as with the left-wing within Labour, they want to convert the majority rather than form a separate party with no prospect of power. Thus both left and right factions prefer to live within the broad churches which have a chance of power. Watching the shenanigans party leaders are forced to engage in to bring all their troops behind them for votes is akin to watching the agonies of successive archbishops trying to unify the Anglican church when there are issues on which it quite simply cannot agree. But to church leaders, schism is unthinkable. Why? Because it looks like failure? Because size matters?
In parliament, numbers do matter. Majorities get their way. As the referendum has shown, sometimes even minorities get their way, when the Prime Minister is threatened with losing votes. This has led to parliamentary democracy: being sacrificed to a faction, on the altar of party unity; the denial of the function of MPs; and the country being damaged irreparably. Would it not have been better for us all had the Tory Inners and Outers been separate parties? Would it not now be better were Labour to divide into socialists and centrists? Lets get away from the 2-party system and open UK up to honest representation and coalition politics, with a voting system fair to all viewpoints.
For decades a small rump of dedicated socialists survived in both country and parliament, putting forward its critique and alternative point of view. Jeremy Corbyn has been a consistent player in this, eventually reaping his reward(?) by being voted party leader at the end of a long period of imagination-failure and lack of vision on the part of the majority, mainstream group in the House of Commons. This leadership inspired and was instigated by a hunger on the part of a public craving values-driven politics. It has led to the situation where the leadership has a sort of Praetorian Guard of both MPs and voters, for whom he can do no ill. His term of office has, though, failed to engage the wider public nor, crucially, the majority of Labour MPs, meaning that he cannot hope to win Labour power.
Within the Conservative Party too exists a faction, set on removing UK from the EU. In effect its followers should be in UKIP but, as with the left-wing within Labour, they want to convert the majority rather than form a separate party with no prospect of power. Thus both left and right factions prefer to live within the broad churches which have a chance of power. Watching the shenanigans party leaders are forced to engage in to bring all their troops behind them for votes is akin to watching the agonies of successive archbishops trying to unify the Anglican church when there are issues on which it quite simply cannot agree. But to church leaders, schism is unthinkable. Why? Because it looks like failure? Because size matters?
In parliament, numbers do matter. Majorities get their way. As the referendum has shown, sometimes even minorities get their way, when the Prime Minister is threatened with losing votes. This has led to parliamentary democracy: being sacrificed to a faction, on the altar of party unity; the denial of the function of MPs; and the country being damaged irreparably. Would it not have been better for us all had the Tory Inners and Outers been separate parties? Would it not now be better were Labour to divide into socialists and centrists? Lets get away from the 2-party system and open UK up to honest representation and coalition politics, with a voting system fair to all viewpoints.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)