The threat of various eagles
It seems as though the experiment of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership of the Labour Party is coming to an end. However, the left wing of party supporters are fighting to the end for his survival as leader, despite the fact that any prolonging of the infighting the party has become famed for in the past year will only make the struggle harder. What remains to be seen is what the next leader of the Labour Party needs to hold close when it comes to their values, policies and ideology in order to maintain what the labour movement stands for, whilst simultaneously appealing to the voters that are by and large turning to populist movements such as UKIP and away from the values Corbyn’s Labour stands for, as evidenced by recent elections in the North and the EU referendum: “if you haven’t got money, you vote out”.
We must be prepared to admit that Corbyn has made multiple mistakes in his time in office. His heavy anti-Zionist bias, for example, has created division amongst Labour’s Jewish supporters, and risked presenting the Labour party as racist. Trident has been another sticking point. Corbyn’s inability to find common ground within the PLP and sticking to his line that he wouldn’t press the button has made Labour seem weak-willed. Finally, Corbyn’s ill commitment to Remain in the debate over the UK’s membership of the EU has been, for many (the majority of the PLP included), the nail in the coffin when it comes to showing that Corbyn isn’t fit to lead. A leadership challenge, then, would not be overbearing. Challenging Jeremy is the best way to recognise his mistakes and punish his shadowy defenders such as the stalwart Seumas Milne. Jeremy’s latest mistake at the antisemitism inquiry is only the latest incident of bad leadership.
We must begin with an admission: while foolhardy, Corbyn’s politics are not illogical. We have known for a time that a majority of voters support a nationalised rail service and energy service, policies Corbyn would decisively back. On a wider scale, it seems apparent that the majority of less controversial left-wing ideas espoused by Corbyn (disregarding unpopular outliers such as Trident and refusing to engage on any level with terrorism) are ideas that would sell well. The next Labour leader risks forgetting these popular ideas, as in 2015, then plumping for an “aspiration”-centred campaign instead. Additionally, a result in the inevitable upcoming leadership election that favours a leader with no policies springing at least in part from Corbyn’s legacy will almost certainly prompt anger (and possibly a split) from his nascent internet campaign groups and Momentum.
Given that Corbyn’s policy is full of popular ideas, what, then, needs to change for the next leader? That seems more than obvious from the way in which said policy was perceived and sold: in a word, incredibly poorly. Actually, that’s two words, but “poorly” alone just doesn’t do justice to how unknowable the Labour Party’s ideals have been throughout the past year. The percentage of members of the public that could actually name one of Corbyn’s policy is likely very low indeed. When the Junior Doctors’ Strike and ESA cuts were creating catastrophe for the Conservatives, Labour should have been putting them down at every turn. With Jeremy Hunt as a public persona non grata, Labour could have been pushing a ten point lead, but it wasn’t. It just didn’t make its point with enough vigour.
The next leader needs to be a powerful presence, not only questioning, like Corbyn’s carefully manicured speeches at PMQs, but lambasting, heavily criticising the government’s mistakes, and touting what Labour policy would be, to make ever so clear what the alternative is.
The mistake made by Labour hard-hitters such as Chuka Umunna and Yvette Cooper last year was an attempt to return to Blairism when it was the vestiges of that very same ideology (and accusations of causing the economic crisis) that made Labour lose. To win in 2020 (or, perhaps, sooner) the next leader needs to espouse anti-austerity politics, but with a polemic that stays closer to the party line. The most important thing at the next election may not even be politics, but personality - combined with a rigorous intellect and a fierce debating style, to give the media something to hold onto. We only need look at a figure such as Ruth Davidson, a woman that many (myself included) would credit with all the responsibility for making the Conservatives the official opposition in Scotland, to see what a strong personality combined with resonant, critical political dialogue can do for a party that no one expected to storm to victory.
Following a challenge to Corbyn’s leadership, the Labour Party needs to look for much the same as the Scottish Tories. Someone that can offer a “new politics” for Labour not dissimilar to that of Davidson, or other great reformers like Cameron or Blair, but someone who also has the strength to stand up and get angry. Corbyn’s old blood has stopped the Labour Party from making the headlines, except for all the wrong reasons. The party needs reunification between the monoliths of Momentum and Progress. It needs to drill its potential policy into minds across the country. Above all, it needs invigoration. All this can only come from a leader that understands these needs; otherwise, off to electoral oblivion we go.
We must be prepared to admit that Corbyn has made multiple mistakes in his time in office. His heavy anti-Zionist bias, for example, has created division amongst Labour’s Jewish supporters, and risked presenting the Labour party as racist. Trident has been another sticking point. Corbyn’s inability to find common ground within the PLP and sticking to his line that he wouldn’t press the button has made Labour seem weak-willed. Finally, Corbyn’s ill commitment to Remain in the debate over the UK’s membership of the EU has been, for many (the majority of the PLP included), the nail in the coffin when it comes to showing that Corbyn isn’t fit to lead. A leadership challenge, then, would not be overbearing. Challenging Jeremy is the best way to recognise his mistakes and punish his shadowy defenders such as the stalwart Seumas Milne. Jeremy’s latest mistake at the antisemitism inquiry is only the latest incident of bad leadership.
We must begin with an admission: while foolhardy, Corbyn’s politics are not illogical. We have known for a time that a majority of voters support a nationalised rail service and energy service, policies Corbyn would decisively back. On a wider scale, it seems apparent that the majority of less controversial left-wing ideas espoused by Corbyn (disregarding unpopular outliers such as Trident and refusing to engage on any level with terrorism) are ideas that would sell well. The next Labour leader risks forgetting these popular ideas, as in 2015, then plumping for an “aspiration”-centred campaign instead. Additionally, a result in the inevitable upcoming leadership election that favours a leader with no policies springing at least in part from Corbyn’s legacy will almost certainly prompt anger (and possibly a split) from his nascent internet campaign groups and Momentum.
The next leader needs to be a powerful presence, not only questioning, like Corbyn’s carefully manicured speeches at PMQs, but lambasting, heavily criticising the government’s mistakes, and touting what Labour policy would be, to make ever so clear what the alternative is.
Following a challenge to Corbyn’s leadership, the Labour Party needs to look for much the same as the Scottish Tories. Someone that can offer a “new politics” for Labour not dissimilar to that of Davidson, or other great reformers like Cameron or Blair, but someone who also has the strength to stand up and get angry. Corbyn’s old blood has stopped the Labour Party from making the headlines, except for all the wrong reasons. The party needs reunification between the monoliths of Momentum and Progress. It needs to drill its potential policy into minds across the country. Above all, it needs invigoration. All this can only come from a leader that understands these needs; otherwise, off to electoral oblivion we go.
Comments
Post a Comment