Why Corbyn Must Stay For Now - New Labour created the Iraq war and the seeds of Labour's defeat in the banking crisis - and Corbyn's challengers are New Labour

Jeremy Corbyn is certainly not particularly eloquent or charismatic, and his performance at Prime Ministers’ Questions has sometimes been poor.

There probably are people who would do a better job in terms of presentation.

But there are more important issues at stake than which party wins the next election, or which person would help Labour do that.

The MPs moving against Corbyn are the core of New Labour.

Tony Blair and New Labour, who were great at winning elections until the banking crisis hit, also created many of the problems that the country faces today.

New Labour’s strategy of just adopting most of the Conservative party’s policies and rhetoric had disastrous effects in the long run, both for the Labour party and for the country.

Iraq

By adopting the Conservative policy of following the US on foreign policy it got large numbers of people killed in the Iraq war, others tortured and left far more grieving. And the only people to benefit were some oil and arms companies and firms like KBR – a subsidiary of Cheney’s Halliburton – which were allowed to overcharge the US military for supplies (1) – (2).

Polls in the US showed that a majority only backed an invasion if US allies took part. So Blair and his acolytes could have not only prevented British troops dying in it, but stopped it happening at all (3).

Instead Al Qa’ida was handed a boost – and from al Qa’ida came Islamic State.

Some want to “draw a line” under Iraq. Not so easy for families who lost loved ones in it, but let’s look at other issues.

Deregulation and the banking crisis – and “welfare reform”

Thatcher began deregulation of the financial sector with her 1986 “Big Bang” deregulation of the City of London. New labour adopted the Conservative policy of deregulation, euphemistically renaming it “light touch regulation”, or the oxymoron “self-regulation”.

That led to the banking crisis and subsequent recession which destroyed voters’ trust in Labour’s economic competence and led to it losing power in 2010.

Some will try and claim it was a global crisis. It was not. Countries like Norway, Demark, Sweden and Canada, which had regulated their banks properly after earlier banking crises in the 1980s and 90s, did not suffer any banking crisis. Countries like the UK and US which had deregulated most, suffered most (4) – (5).

Blairites try to pin the blame for the 2010 election loss entirely on Brown’s personality, or him not being right wing enough. Any Labour leader would have lost that election, and Brown, while his rhetoric was slightly more left wing, maintained just as many policies adopted from the tories.

For instance “welfare reform”. ATOS first got its contract to strip disabled people of their benefits under New Labour. And the Bedroom Tax was piloted for tenants in privately rented accommodation under New Labour too.

“Welfare reform” ensured that when the recession caused by the banking crisis hit, people had less of a safety net.

The Housing shortage and PFIs /PPPs

The housing shortage is largely the result of governments from Thatcher’s on selling off council houses without providing councils with any budget to buy or build anything like enough replacements. New Labour guilty too, again.

PFIs – another Conservative policy – were expanded massively under new Labour, renamed PPPs, because it sounded nicer. They result in new hospitals at lower initial cost, but cripplingly high annual charges, lasting up to 80 years, paid by NHS trusts and local councils to consortia of private companies. That results in less beds and staff in PFI built hospitals compared to those they replace (6).

The centre moved right by New Labour adopting tory policies

Another result of New Labour adopting so many Conservative policies was that the Conservative party moved even further right. So today we have a Conservative party whose “moderate” wing (Cameron and Osborne) have done things Thatcher would never have dared to do – cutting benefits for the genuinely disabled, and privatising the Royal Mail for instance.

New Labour did make progress in a few areas – the National Minimum Wage, which was vital, had been opposed by the Conservatives, and has since been maintained and increased even by Conservative governments – and devolution.

But in so many other areas the political centre was moved right – a long term strategic defeat.

Same old New Labour today

The MPs who are trying to make Corbyn resign today are led by the same people who voted for the Iraq war, who nodded through deregulation, privatisation, PFIs, council house sales without replacements. Like Angela Eagle MP for instance, who voted for the Iraq war and served as a minister under Blair.

And they showed before Corbyn was elected that they hadn’t changed.

 In July 2015 acting Labour leader Harriet Harman MP and 183 of her colleagues voted to abstain on and so basically accept Conservative benefit cuts. Harman also pretty much apologised to voters for not being more like the tories (7).

Their only idea remains adopting Conservative policies, and to hell with the effects on ordinary people , and the long term consequences.

48 Labour rebels including Jeremy Corbyn actually did the job of an opposition and voted against the cuts to child tax credits, unemployment benefit, housing benefit for under 25s and the abolition of legally binding child poverty targets.

Democracy In the Labour Party

The other issue involved in the stand-off between Corbyn and New Labour MPs is democracy in the party.

Before the leadership election which Corbyn won, Labour leadership elections had an “electoral college” which made each Labour MP or trade union leader’s vote equivalent to those of tens of thousands of other party members.

Ed Miliband finally brought in the One Member One Vote system for electing party leaders which New Labour had pushed for, but for motives other than democracy.

They believed that this and the “supporter” category of associate member would make Labour leadership elections more like US Democratic party style "primaries” in which voters who are not party members can take part. They expected this to mean more ‘New Labour’ candidates would be elected and less left wingers.

When it became clear that the result was the exact opposite, with Corbyn elected, they were horrified by the results of greater democracy.

And the figures showed Corbyn would have won even if the vote had been restricted to full party members, even without the now “controversial” supporter category (8).

He’d only even got enough nominations from MPs to get on the ballot by getting nominations from some MPs who didn’t want him as leader but thought he should be in the campaign debate.

From Kinnock through to Blair the “modernising” party leaders had mostly ended any internal democracy on making party policy. Even votes by party conference became “non-binding” on the leadership – i.e they could ignore them if they wanted to and have a different policy.

Corbyn began changing this, giving ordinary members more say.

What we have now is a stand off between the majority party members, and the majority of Labour MPs . Mostly ‘New Labour’ MPs, some of who, like Angela Eagle, have never had to face an challenge from other candidates to replace them since they were selected as candidates in 1992.

The New Labour MPs ridiculously claim they have a mandate from the 9.5 million voters in their constituencies to tell Corbyn to go, despite the fact that they have not asked these voters whether they want Corbyn to go - and many of them won't have voted Labour

Corbyn said that if he won a second leadership election he would bring in mandatory re-selection for MPs – meaning sitting MPs would have to face votes by their constituency party on whether to keep them as the candidate before every election. (9).

The MPs decided to try to avoid the risk of party members re-electing Corbyn.

They’re pushing for a change in the rules through the National Executive Committee requiring the sitting leader to be nominated by 50 MPs the same as any other candidate for leader (10).

They hope Corbyn wouldn’t be able to get 50 MPs to back him, so wouldn’t get to take part in the leadership election.

Not only this, but they’ve said they may not even do this till the party conference in September, creating paralysis in the party, and trying to blame it on Corbyn’s refusal to resign.

This shows that New Labour don’t really believe that Corbyn has lost the support of a majority of party members.

Under the existing party rules MPs can only be deselected by a majority vote of their Constituency Labour party and replaced with a different candidate in the run up to a General Election.

So there is no way for ordinary members in Constituency parties to deselect MPs who refuse to accept Corbyn as leader, until another election is called, unless the party rules are changed through the National Executive Committee (which is also deadlocked in the civil war currently).

The best solution would be to get a left wing , or at least non New Labour, MP who has represents the views of ordinary members and will let policy be made by majority votes of members, but is more charismatic and a better speaker than Corbyn.

But no such MP seems to exist currently and sitting MPS can’t be deselected or replaced till a General Election.

 So Corbyn seems a better alternative than handing control of the party back to New Labour MPs who will ignore members .

Conclusion

If there was a candidate standing against Corbyn who was both more charismatic, a better speaker, and had shown the same commitment to democracy within the party and ensuring policy is decided by the majority of party members, it would be better for Corbyn to be replaced by them.

But while the only candidates standing against Corbyn are New Labour careerists who are responsible for the Iraq war and banking crisis that lost so many lives, caused so much hardship and lost Labour voters’ trust, and whose only policy idea is to adopt more disastrous Conservative policies, he must stay for now.

 

(1) = Observer 31 Jul 2011 ‘BP 'has gained stranglehold over Iraq' after oilfield deal is rewritten’, https://www.theguardian.com/business/2011/jul/31/bp-stranglehold-iraq-oilfield-contract

(2) = BBC News 13 Dec 2013 ‘Bush warns 'oil overcharge' firm’, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3312015.stm

(3) = Gallup 08 Oct 2002 ‘Top Ten Findings About Public Opinion and Iraq’, http://www.gallup.com/poll/6964/top-ten-findings-about-public-opinion-iraq.aspx ; under bolded sub-heading ‘5. Allied, U.N. Backing are Prerequisites of Public Support’ says only 38% of Americans polled would support sending in ground troops if allies didn’t take part

(4) = The National (UAE) 08 Dec 2012 ‘Scandinavia avoids the financial crisis’,http://www.thenational.ae/business/industry-insights/economics/scandinavia-avoids-the-financial-crisis

(5) = Financial Post 10 Oct 2012 ‘Canada’s banks shake off global sector crisis’, http://business.financialpost.com/news/fp-street/canadas-banks-shake-off-global-sector-crisis

(6) = www.theguardian.com 29 Jun 2012 ‘How PFI is crippling the NHS’, by Professor Allyson Pollock, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jun/29/pfi-crippling-nhs

(7) = www.independent.co.uk 21 Jul 2015 ‘Welfare bill: These are the 184 Labour MPs who didn’t vote against the Tories' cuts’, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/these-are-the-184-labour-mps-who-didn-t-vote-against-the-tories-welfare-bill-10404831.html

(8) = www.independent.co.uk 12 Sep 2015 ‘Jeremy Corbyn won a landslide with full Labour party members, not just £3 supporters’, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-won-a-landslide-with-full-labour-party-members-not-just-3-supporters-10498221.html

(9) = Huffington Post 28 Jun 2016 ‘Jeremy Corbyn Plans ‘Mandatory Reselection Of MPs’ If He Wins Fresh Leadership Mandate’, http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/jeremy-corbyn-mandatory-reselection-of-labour-mps-leadership-contest_uk_5772b097e4b0d257114a9487

(10) = www.theguardian.com 30 Jun 2016 ‘MPs divided over Corbyn as Eagle delays leadership challenge’, http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/30/labour-mps-divided-over-how-to-depose-jeremy-corbyn ; 2^nd last paragraph ‘Meanwhile, the party’s national executive committee is expected to meet soon to vote on whether Corbyn ought to be placed on the ballot automatically or if he will have to collect the nominations of MPs.’

McCann, Straw and Miliband’s Labour party – not for Trots, but too Stalinist, too Thatcherite, too British nationalist, and undoing much of what Atlee and Bevan Achieved

Summary : Michael McCann, the Labour MP for East Kilbride, denounced last week’s Radical Independence Convention in Glasgow as “trots” and “extremists”. Yet he comes from a party with more than a bit of Stalinism and Leninism in its leadership’s dismissal of the views of ordinary members, and lack of internal democracy. Some senior Labour MPs actually started out in politics as actual Stalinists and Leninists. Despite being a bit over the top sometimes, RIC stands for clear progressive policies, the way the first post-war Labour government of Atlee and Bevan did. In just 5 years Atlee and Bevan created the NHS, a comprehensive welfare state and universal access to education. The last Labour government under Blair and Brown, given 13 years, managed only a handful of progressive policies while adopting many Conservative ones, including covert privatisation and PFIs in the NHS  and “welfare reform”, both of which actually continued eroding the Atlee government’s creations. Ed Miliband’s leadership continues lack of democracy within the party and caving in to the agendas of the Conservative party and right wing elements in the media. Despite some decent people still being in the party, Labour has in practice long since ceased to be a party of progress and has become mostly about getting Labour representatives re-elected. As such it no longer deserves support – and polls suggest it will be almost wiped out in the 2015 General election in Scotland, even under an electoral system which favours it.

Labour MP Michael McCann denounced the Radical Independence convention in Glasgow as “trots” and “extremists”. His own party’s senior levels have mostly been purged of Trotskyists. Those would be far too close to democrats for the party leadership and machine’s liking. Instead Labour’s senior levels have been full of former Stalinists and Leninists for decades, with the party leader’s dominance in practice only exceeded in actual dictatorships like Stalin’s (1).

Jack Straw MP wrote in a letter to The Independent in 2004 that he had never been a “trot”, recommending a piece by Lenin denouncing trotskyists. As a student he frequently quoted Stalin. He’s had no problem with a Labour party in which votes by members on policy at conference have been considered “non-binding” – i.e ignorable by the leadership - since Kinnock in the 80s (2) – (3).

While Straw’s Stalin  and Lenin quotes may have been intended as a joke, he extended an apparently genuine lack of concern for democracy after the Scottish independence referendum, by suggesting  a US style law banning any part of the UK from seceding. His colleague John Reid (now retired) also began his career in student politics as a Leninist and Stalinist (4) – (5).

Some might object that Labour is not Communist. Stalin was more of a right wing Russian authoritarian nationalist from Georgia, dressed up in socialist rhetoric though.

Many Labour MPs seem, like Stalin, to be incapable of understanding democracy, whether inside their party or outside it. Or that their lack of democracy is the reason their party is losing more and more voters and members to the SNP, the Greens and others. Some Scottish Labour MPs also seem so obsessed with beating “the nats”, that they have become strident British nationalists themselves.

And many of them seem blind to the fact that many supporters of devo max, federalism or independence aren’t nationalists but former Labour voters sick of a Labour party which has adopted most of the policies of the Conservative party, from PFIs to “light touch regulation”

I was there when McCann was elected and ended a long tirade by quoting Tony Blair’s ludicrous final speech as PM about politics sometimes being about “noble purpose” .

In March this year McCann condemned the Scottish Labour party’s proposals to devolve income tax powers to the Scottish government as he was “ a member of the British Labour party”. So he’s one of the “dinosaurs” that Johann Lamont referred to when she resigned over London Labour’s refusal to give the Scottish party any autonomy (6) – (7).

Polls suggest their political extinction might happen soon (8). In 2010 many Scottish voters voted Labour “to keep the tories out”, and the tories still got in, so in 2015 that line is not going to carry the same weight.

I’m not denouncing all Labour party voters and members. Many of them are genuinely good people pushing for democracy , less inequality and for help for those in poverty.  There are even a minority of MPs who still put their constituents’ interests above those of elected representatives of the party and donors to party funds. The party leadership, most candidate selections, and the way party policy has been formulated for decades, are anything but democratic though.

Add party leaders who, as soon as there’s any criticism of the party in the media, cave in to it immediately, the way Ed Miliband did when Emily Thornberry MP tweeted a photo of a house in Rochester with three English flags on it. After wild claims in the media that Thornberry’s tweet was “snobbishness” against the working class,  Miliband immediately raised a single white flag and sacked her as a spokesperson. Labour MPs declared Miliband “the angriest I’ve ever seen him”, while MPs of the three main UK parties competed to show the greatest respect for Johnny three Flags– sorry, I mean, white van man – as if the two were always identical (9) – (11).

Thornberry actually grew up from the age of 7 in a council house, and her brother has worked as a builder (12).

A more reasonable interpretation might have been “Rochester has a fair number of right wing nationalists in it”, given the widespread adoption of England flags by the English nationalist right.

As one commenter asked, why did he need three England flags? Was there a house down the road that had two and he had to go one better? Was there a guy further down the street with four England flags who thought the other two guys were a couple of snobs?

Add party leaders who make policy not by even making any serious effort to influence public opinion through debate, but who let the tories and the newspapers and TV stations create public opinion almost unchallenged. They then relying on polls and focus groups to decide policy,  adopting the agenda their opponents have set.

Add party leaders and MPs who think their members and voters job is to support whatever line the party leadership takes unquestioningly, with any dissent being “disloyalty” or “betrayal”. Who think greater devolution has to be stopped because the SNP have a majority in the Scottish parliament. Who don’t  realise that devolving all domestic policy, and the revenues for it, is about the only way they might manage to slow or halt the rising support for independence in Scotland.

You have a recipe for a party whose senior ranks have mostly lost sight of any distinction between what’s good for them - the easiest way for them to get re-elected with the least effort - and what’s in the interests of the people they’re meant to represent.

You have a recipe for the Labour party to keep on slowly dying in Scotland as more supporters switch to the SNP, Greens and others ; and likely end up losing votes to both UKIP on the right and the Greens on the left in England.

And it’s not because of “indiscipline”, or “disloyalty” or “snobbishness”. It’s because of a Stalinist attitude towards internal democracy in their party; and Labour’s adoption of most of the Conservative party’s policies and rhetoric.

The Radical Independence Convention’s ‘people’s vow’ was more than a bit over the top with its claim to be “eternal” and on behalf of all future generations,  but at least RIC have some clear policy aims in clear opposition to Thatcherite – and beyond Thatcherite - policies. What has the Labour party stood for from Kinnock on? What does it aim at in practice?

Atlee and Bevan Versus Blair, Brown and Miliband

To me it seems to stand mostly for getting Labour representatives elected and re-elected and disciplining or expelling anyone who opposes leadership policies which most of the party’s members have had no input into.

There are exceptions, but compare the achievements of the first post-war Labour government under Atlee, with those of the last Labour government under Blair and Brown.

The first, in just 5 years, created the NHS from scratch, universal access to education and a comprehensive welfare. The last, given 13 years, brought in a national minimum wage, tax credits, some devolution, a peace process in Northern Ireland, and that’s about it for anything progressive. Most of the rest was adoption of Conservative policies .

The most glaring difference from Atlee’s government was Labour eroding the NHS through covert privatisation. PFIs draining the NHS and schools of funding and trained staff. Labour Health Secretaries contracting out as many NHS Services as possible in England to private firms  ;  and in the cases of Alan Milburn and Patricia Hewitt taking paid adviser-ships with some of those same firms when they left government (13) – (15).

 Privatised railways publicly subsidised at higher levels than British Rail got. A level of continued “light touch” regulation that ensured Britain and Scotland got the full force of a banking crisis which Norway and Canada avoided by regulating their banks and hedge funds more strictly.

An immigration policy of “detention centres” surrounded by barbed wire and deporting people who faced torture or death –  including Afghans back to the Taliban, and black Zimbabweans fleeing Mugabe’s dictatorship.

A foreign policy of doing whatever whoever is President of the US at the time wanted them to do.

Are the Conservatives’ policies in government still worse than Labour’s? Absolutely. But from Kinnock on Labour has always chosen the easiest route, mostly adopting Conservative policies and rhetoric rather than challenging them, so in the long run the tories still win even when “New Labour” wins some elections.

Even half the most notorious policies of the Conservative led coalition were already planned or begun under Labour – for instance many of the “welfare reforms” (including the ATOS contract) – again eroding Atlee and Bevan’s achievements.

And Miliband shows no signs of either allowing greater internal democracy in his party, or of caving in to the Conservative (and now UKIP) agendas any less.

Sadly Labour has long since ceased to be a party of progress and most of its elected representatives have become mostly focused just on winning elections the easiest way possible – by adopting most of their opponents’ rhetoric, policies and ideology.

 It looks to me like the SNP jibe that Labour are the “red tories”, while not true of everyone in the Labour party, nor all its policies, has far too much truth in it, at least for its leadership, many of its MPs and their policies.

Michael, McCann, MP, MPs, Labour, trots, Stalinist, Straw, internal, democracy, Scottish, party,
Leninist, Thornberry, snob, England, flags, Miliband, Atlee, Bevan

Sources

(1) = Herald 25 Nov 2014 ‘New home for those who feel left behind’,
http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/new-home-for-those-who-feel-left-behind.25934988

(2) = Independent letters 16 Nov 2004 ‘Not a Trot’, http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/letters/bbc-fights-for-the-arts-celebrity-help-for-starving-people-and-others-6157963.html

(3) = Observer 25 July 1999 ‘Jack Straw: Jack of all tirades’,
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/1999/jul/24/labour.jackstraw ; 18^th paragraph, 3^rd sentence ‘His election slogan was 'respect, but not respectability', and his favourite quotation was Stalin's dry epigram: 'Once the political line has been settled, organisation counts for all.'’ (paragraph begins ‘He was no long-haired hippy leftie’)

(4) = Times 20 Sep 2014 ‘Let’s preserve our Union in law to stop the SNP pulling it apart’,
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article4212654.ece

(5) = Guardian 23 Sep 2006 ‘The dark horse’,
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2006/sep/23/labour.uk ; 12^th paragraph, 4^th sentence ‘Approaching Jim White, the secretary of the Young Communist League, Reid professed to be a convert seeking membership. "He told us he was a Leninist and Stalinist," White recalls.’ (paragraph begins ‘One year’s exposure’)

(6) = Herald 09 Mar 2014 ‘Labour split deepens as MP blasts Lamont's bid to devolve tax powers’, http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/labour-split-deepens-as-mp-blasts-lamonts-bid-to-devolve-tax-powers.23643212

(7) = Herald 25 Oct 2014 ‘The inside story of Lamont's downfall’,
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/the-inside-story-of-lamonts-downfall.25688852

(8) = Guardian 30 Oct 2014 ‘Labour faces massive losses to SNP at UK general election, poll shows’,
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/30/scottish-labour-snp-general-election-poll

(9) = Guardian 21 Nov 2014 ‘Emily Thornberry feels full force of Miliband’s ire after Rochester tweet’, http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/21/emily-thornberry-ed-miliband-rochester-tweet

(10) = ITV 20 Nov 2014 ‘Miliband 'absolutely furious' over Labour MP's England flag tweet’,
http://www.itv.com/news/2014-11-20/miliband-absolutely-furious-over-labour-mps-england-flag-tweet/

(11) = Independent 26 Nov 2014 ‘Donald Macintyre's Sketch: This blessed plot, this realm, this White Van Man...’, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/donald-macintyres-sketch-this-blessed-plot-this-realm-this-white-van-man-9885775.html

(12) = Guardian 28 Nov 2014 ‘Emily Thornberry a snob? Don’t be daft, says van driver brother’, http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/28/emily-thornberry--van-driver-brother-ben

(13) =  Colin Leys & Stewart Player (2011) ‘The Plot Against the NHS’ Merlin Press Ltd, Pontypool, Wales

(14) = Guardian 17 May 2011 ‘Former Labour ministers rushing to take private sector jobs, report finds’, http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2011/may/17/labour-ministers-consultancy-private-sector

(15) = Telegraph 12 Jun 2012 ‘Social mobility man Alan Milburn is on the way to a million’,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9324145/Social-mobility-man-Alan-Milburn-is-on-the-way-to-a-million.html

Hundreds of MPs and Lords with financial interests in private healthcare firms revealed showing conflict of interest on NHS ' reforms'

The excellent Social Investigations blog  has found hundreds of conflicts of interest and financial interests of MPs and Lords who have voted for the Coalition government’s NHS reforms , relating to private healthcare firms (plus there are some among the right of the Labour party who are supporters of PFIs or PPPs ).

This post on Conservative members of the House of Lords’ links to private healthcare firms is particularly eye-opening.

I’d already posted reports from the Guardian on some of the private healthcare firms whose executives donated money to the Conservative party – and on one adviser to the current government moving to the healthcare division of a major accountancy firm, but from Social Investigations’ work, this seems to have been only the tip of the ice-berg.

Things are almost as bad as in America where many of both main parties’ members of congress are in the pockets of private healthcare firms, though some Democrats remain above board in this respect and so do many Labour MPs.