What problems do Labour face after the Brexit vote?

Brexit has split the nation in many ways. It has exposed significant divisions between the North and South, young and old, the degree-havers and have-nots. One of the strangest is the division it has exposed the political left. There was certainly an anti-immigration, racially charged aspect to the Brexit voter. However, there were also many people who had been ignored by the left and right for decades giving two fingers up to the establishment. The fact that the Brexit vote is both of these things has confused those of us on the left.

There is certainly a class element to this debate, a debate mainly being had by middle class people. It is important to remember that Leave would not have won had it only been supported by poor people in economically deprived areas. More scrutiny is needed of middle class hostility to immigration. The people who have something to defend are the ones most incensed by change, as they feel the most threatened.

There is also a racial element to this debate. White people are removed from the consequences of racism and thus approach it as an academic question. There has been a 58% year on year increase in racist incidents in the weeks following the EU referendum. Middle class white people are not aware of the impact this is having on the lives of ethnic minorities. While we are debating our response to Brexit, people are suffering.

There are two distinct interpretations of the Brexit vote: either it was an expression of anger directed at the political elite motivated by the decline in living standards experienced by vast areas of the country, or it was an expression of racism by people who are unhappy about how Britain is changing. The former means that we need to address the economic circumstances of some people to fight racism. The later needs to be directly confronted to stop racism and make this a more harmonious society. The fact that Brexit can actually be both is frequently overlooked.

There are those on the right of the Labour Party who want to connect with alienated voters by taking a tough stance on immigration. Chuka Umunna wants to leave the single market to end freedom of movement. This is an example of centrists wanting to move to where voters are, rather than showing leadership. Aside from the possibility that, as an electoral strategy it may not work, if the Labour Party adopted more aggressively anti-immigration rhetoric, it is only likely to fan the flames of hatred, not extinguish them. Merely putting “progressive” on the front of something does not stop it being racially or ethnically divisive. 

My inclination, as a middle class white person, is that state spending can address the problem of the Two Britains. If we can genuinely tackle the issues of affordable housing, school places and access to GPs, then we can help everyone and tackle the problem of our increasingly divided society. Re-establishing the immigration impact fund - set up Gordon Brown and abolished by David Cameron - would help to alleviate the pressures caused by new arrivals. Steps to redistribute wealth, to ensure that more people benefit from economic growth (itself partly fuelled by immigration), would also help reduce tension.

The problem with this is that this will require more taxes and middle class people are unwilling to pay them. I have lost count of the number of times I have been told by middle class people in London’s craft beer and pulled pork establishments that they cannot afford to pay more taxes. It is the role of the left to convince people to be altruistic and accept higher taxes so that we can create a more harmonious and equally prosperous society. Middle class selfishness, and economic policy that has redistributed wealth away from poor towards the middle class, is one of the key reasons why we are such a divided nation.

There is a cultural gulf opening up on the left: a gulf between those who worry about the cost of commuting and those who have no jobs to commute to; between those who criticise austerity and those who are victims of it; between those who cannot afford to buy a house and those without a roof over their heads; between those who are worried about the statistics showing a rise in racist incidents and those who experience them as part of everyday life.

In a recent Guardian long read, John Harris tells a story about an argument between young Labour activists and a UKIP voter in Broadstairs. It illustrates how divided the left is and makes the point that in the past these two people would be allies in a common cause and now they are diametrically opposed. The division Harris illustrates seem too big to gulf and thus there are many middle class lefties who do not want to bother trying. “They’ll never listen.” I have heard a lot recently, accompanied by a shrug. “They” usually refers to anyone who disagrees with the speaker.

The EU referendum vote was many things and we cannot pigeonhole it as either an anti-elitist uprising or a knee jerk nationalism. The left needs to make it a project to address the issues of poverty, lack of opportunity and racism wherever it is found. Neither of these goals is more or less important than the other.

Responding to the Brexit vote is huge challenge for the Labour Party and the left as a whole. With Theresa May pushing on towards a ‘hard’ Brexit that is heavy on rhetoric but short on specifics, it is imperative that the left finds ways to bridge the gap Brexit has opened up.

If the Labour Party cannot reach the people who voted Leave it will suffer and may be reduced to being an irrelevant political force. Political debates are changing and lines are being redrawn and if the left cannot make itself relevant to people’s daily struggles then UKIP and Tories will eat into their support from both ends and leave only a new right-leaning political spectrum, divided between racist nativism and neoliberal globalisation.

Exit sign picture taken by Paul Wilkinson and used under creative commons.

The emergence of a new political spectrue

The strangest Tory Party conference in living memory just finished. We had the absurd situation of a Tory Prime Minister, who has been in government as Home Secretary for six years, railing against “elites”. Stranger than that was the sight of the Conservative Party - the party of free enterprise - picking a fight with business over Brexit. Theresa May broke with over 40 years of Tory neoliberalism that goes back to Margaret Thatcher becoming party leader in 1975.

The Conservatives are changing to focus on controlling immigration instead of growing the economy. They had pledges to phase out foreign doctors, cut down on the numbers of foreign students, put landlords in jail for not checking their tenants' residency status and to “name and shame”' companies for hiring foreign workers. May also says she will take the centre ground of politics, which is odd because it sounded like she is moving to the right of previous Conservative leaders. The scary thing is I think she is right. She is taking the Tory party to the centre ground. Not the centre of a left/right political axis, but the centre of a new nativist/globalist political axis.

Politics is in flux now and positions that would have been unthinkable five years ago are now being debated. A recent study has shown that, in Britain, authoritarian populist attitudes are held by 48% of adults - despite less than 20% of the population identifying itself as right wing. People are no longer divided by left or right, but by their views on our globalised, multicultural society.

Joe Twyman, YouGov’s head of political and social research for EMEA, said: “These results show that the old days of left-versus-right have been replaced by a much more complicated, nuanced mix of political groupings,” he also said: “Any political party or movement that can successfully appeal to those of an authoritarian populist leaning could benefit hugely when it comes to elections.” This means we are moving towards a new political spectrum where we are divided between nativists (socially conservative and economically protectionist) and globalists (socially liberal and economically liberal). This will be the important political divide of the future. Put simply by Twyman: “We need to understand that the battle between racist nationalism and liberal cosmopolitanism will be one of the defining ideological struggles of the 21st century.”

Brexit and the US election already show this divide. The EU referendum tore up existing party political lines, made strange allies and turned party member against party member. The division was simple: do you like the way Britain is going or do you not? Do you vote for the status quo or to smash it? The US election shows the same process: Donald Trump has broken with 35 years of Republican free-market orthodoxy to bring back the divisive politics of race. He is winning over blue collar Democrats while alienating metropolitan Republicans.

This new political axis has been partly created by the crisis in neoliberalism that has been slowly playing out since the 2008 financial crash. Deregulation and free market economics has failed to improve everyone’s standard of living, as was promised. It turns out that voters do not care about the huge inequality that emerged in the 1990s and 2000s, but they do care that they are materially worse off, as many people are now. People are angry at the system and want someone to blame.

This crisis has been exploited by the populist nativists. Free market economics - once so widely accepted that no other political idea could threaten it - is vulnerable to a challenge from socially conservative nativism, because it speaks to those who have been left behind by the last 30 years of unequally distributed economic growth. This is why nativists like Trump and UKIP are taking votes from the left and right. The left behind cut across the current political spectrum.

It is not just economic factors that are tearing up established politics. A major cause is the social changes caused by immigration. Neoliberalism has brought down borders and multiculturalism has led to far greater mixing of different communities than in the past. This has changed established social orders, mainly the status of white people within western society. In the past, being born white came with certain privileges that were nothing to do with what the state provided. In classically liberal Edwardian England and the Butskellist 1950s, white people were socially set above people of colour. This has been questioned over the last 30 years, and the social status granted to someone for being white has declined.

The nativist rebellion against the status quo is as much as about race and culture as it is about economics. Zack Beauchamp makes a strong case that change to the status of the white community in the West is the main cause of the rise of populist nativisim. Nativism predominantly appeals to the lower middle class. They are threatened by immigration and relative decline in status of being white because they feel they have something to lose. There has not been enough scrutiny of the racism spreading amongst middle class whites. It is clear that some whites are very resistant to the loss of this implicit superiority and that is why they are embracing nativism.

There is no space on this new spectrum for traditional left wing views. The Labour Party is caught between the statist nativists and the socially liberal globalists. Left wing values do not sit easily next to nativists concerns about immigration; however, they are not the natural ally of the free market globalists. It is possible that the Labour Party could move to the middle of this spectrum by borrowing the protectionism of nativists and the social liberalism of globalists but this risks drawing fire from both sides.

The Tories can see the way the wind is blowing and they are moving to the centre ground of this new spectrum. They are becoming more anti-immigration to appeal to nativists while still being the natural home of globalist business elites. May might have picked a fight with business, but they are unlikely to defect to Labour or UKIP.

If Labour does not do something it will be left behind. A fairer tax system, protecting the welfare state and well-funded public services will be secondary considerations in the future compared to the question of whether we are an open outward facing society or whether our primary concern is looking after our own people. The Labour Party needs to think about how it will fit into this new political spectrum.

If the left keeps speaking the old language of the past political divide then we will become increasingly irrelevant. I can see a future where British politics is divided between the Tories (a globalist party) and UKIP (a nativist party). Traditional left wing policies will be a fringe interest. This must be prevented if we care about our left wing values. There is no rule that there must always be a Labour Party. The Liberals have declined from the party of David Lloyd-George to the party of Tim Farron. If the Labour Party cannot find out how it fits into this new political spectrum, then it may vanish forever.

Nigel Farage picture taken by Gage Skidmore and used under creative commons.

Who are the Corbynistas?

The greatest achievement of Jeremy Corbyn is the way he has grown the Labour Party. He has brought many people into Labour and this is why he increased his majority in the recent leadership election. However, some Corbynistas are causing harm to the party, by bullying other members and refusing to accept the compromises that have allowed Labour’s broad church to function. Labour Party member Ruth Dee wrote a powerful piece about the problems caused by some of the new members.

There are several ways these Corbynistas are viewed. They are either:

●      A radical, far left group of SWP and SPBG infiltrators intent on destroying the party or dragging it somewhere to the left of Che Guevara.

●      Or, hate filled, social media thugs who will not tolerate any opposition and accuse anyone who disagrees with them of being a “Blairite”.

●      Or, deluded idiots who live in a bubble fed by the Canary, who cannot see anything wrong with Corbyn and are unaware of how bleak the future of the party is.

●      Or, ordinary people whose opinions have been left out of an increasingly right-leaning political debate, people who have been dismissed or taken for granted by Labour leaders for years.

Some people from the far left have joined the Labour Party, but they are a minority of the new members. There are not that many Trotskyists in the UK, so talk of an extreme left take-over is ridiculous. A lot of former Green Party members have joined Labour, but being concerned about the environment is hardly an extreme position. Surely one of Labour’s aims should be to convince supporters of other parties that Labour is the party you should be supporting?

The worst aspect of the increase in membership has been a rise in in anti-Semitic rhetoric and bullying from Labour Party members. This bullying (usually on social media) has especially targeted women and is laced with misogyny. On pro-Corbyn Facebook groups, anti-Semitism passes without comment, and anyone with a different opinion is pilloried as a Blairite. On these groups there is even support for George Galloway, a rape apologist and hate merchant who set up a political party with the express intention of stealing votes from Labour. There can be no tolerance of anti-Semitism, sexism and bigotry. Members caught engaging in such activities should be purged without hesitation.

It would be wrong to characterise all of the Corbynistas in this way. However many are willing to overlook the fact that their fellow travellers preach hate and intolerance. The worst arguments for Corbyn are made by his most passionate supporters, who ignore the massive looming electoral defeat in Labour’s near future and peddle conspiracy theories found on sites like the Canary. They talk of Labour providing a “genuine opposition” but there will be nothing genuine about a Labour opposition if the party loses 100 seats and the Tories have complete authority to do whatever they want.

Many of the new Labour members may deny the reality of Corbyn’s leadership, but that does not mean that they do not have valid criticisms of the current state of politics. Over the last 20 years Labour and the Tories have converged on a very narrow strip of the centre ground of the electorate. Opposing privatisation of public services, growing inequality or poorly planned foreign military interventions are considered to be extreme positions by much of the political establishment. These views are widespread, held by many reasonable people, and supported by recent events. Those who hold these views are looking for a political home.

Reading the comments in pro-Corbyn Facebook groups reveals huge numbers of people who were alienated from politics but are now excited by Corbyn. Underneath comments about a Blairite coup, there are peer-to-peer discussions about disability, mental health, benefits and the impact of Tory cuts. These are people frequently overlooked in our political discourse, not represented by politicians or journalists. These are people who have been politicised by austerity, but were put off Labour because of the party’s support of it. These are the people worried about the increasingly racist anti-immigrant rhetoric. These people want their objections to be heard and feel that Corbyn is the man who will do it.

Corbyn-sceptic party members also want to help people suffering under the Tory government, but they do not want to talk to them. An argument is being made by the Corbyn-sceptic side of the party that it is in the best interests of these people to be silenced so that the Labour Party can become electable again. I cannot agree that the future of the party is in ignoring people who are passionately arguing for social change and are suffering under a Tory government.

To win an election Labour must clearly reach out to people it is currently not appealing to. However it also needs to keep its activists on board and represent their views. Passionate and inspired people joining the Labour Party is clearly a good thing. However we cannot tolerate misogyny or anti-Semitism to any degree. Labour members must also be able to accept criticism of their leader and not blame the party’s poor recent performance on an elitist MSM conspiracy.

The root back to electability is by inspiring people - many people. Labour is currently inspiring a few people - many of whom have been ignored for a long time - which is a start. This is why I feel that this influx of Corbynistas is a good thing. However, we must be watchful for anyone engaging in bullying, spreading conspiracy theories or fuelling hatred. Together, new members and old, we can make the Labour Party stronger and more effective. So long as we work together.

The photo of Corbyn at a CND event was taken by Garry Knight and is used under creative commons.

Labour needs compromise and unity

Less than a week has passed since Jeremy Corbyn was re-elected to the Labour leadership and the party is fighting amongst itself again. Pro-Corbyn activists are flinging abuse at Corbyn-sceptic party members on social media, while supporters of Owen Smith’s failed leadership bid are tearing up their membership cards. There is a lot of anger in the party right now and although anger can energise campaigners, some of it is not constitutive. Bristol West CLP member Ruth Dee has written eloquently about the problems anger directed at fellow party members has caused.

This level of anger has stopped Labour from functioning properly as a party. Brexit presents the biggest challenge of a generation but the Labour Party is stuck in the middle of an “existential crisis”. This is not helpful for the people who need a Labour government.

A lot of the tension has arisen because people angry at the current political consensus have joined the Labour Party. In the past, members were either in support of, or reluctantly accepted, the free market ideology of the 80s and 90s. Now those alienated by centrist politics are getting involved with a mainstream party and are trying to change it to represent their views. Views they feel have been ignored for a long time.

This is creating conflict between new and existing members. It is not always conducted in the form of a gentlemanly disagreement, showing respect for your political opponents. It is hard to have respect for your political opponent or engage in calm debate when their views devastated your community, threaten to dehumanise you as a person, further impoverish you or cut the support network you depended on. Make no mistake that this has been the result of neoliberalism, fanning the flames of anti-immigration rhetoric, talking tough on benefits and austerity. All of which the Labour Party vocally supported in last year’s general election. People have a right to be angry, as Abi Wilkinson expressed much better than I can.

Not being angry about the current state of politics is a privileged position, a fact that Corbyn-sceptics would do well to bear in mind. Not wanting a radical alternative to the current political consensus is a privileged position; it shows that your community has not been systematically pummelled by 30 years of neoliberalism. It is a privileged position because it shows that Tory austerity is not grinding away your livelihood.

Contempt for those who are angry about being oppressed by the last 20 years of timid centrism, technocratic managerial politics and blind acceptance of the free market is damaging the party. These are people who remember the New Labour years not as a period of bountiful economic growth, but of continuing decline. There are those on the right of the Labour Party who would really like all the people concerned about work insecurity and the scapegoating of immigrants to shut up so that the party can get back to winning the support of Daily Mail-reading homeowners in Surrey. These members believe that the best way to help benefit claimants and immigrants is to silence them while we pander to people who actively hate them.

Labour cannot function while we have contempt for the people who are angry at the way they are being treated by a Tory government. The people who have found hope in Corbyn need to be listed to if we are to find a way to reach out to others suffering under the current government. However, the way to help the people left behind by neoliberalism and suffering under Tory cuts is not for the Labour Party to self-destruct because metropolitan Corbynistas refuse to compromise in any way, and would apparently rather suffer a crushing defeat to the Tories than make peace with the rest of the party.

People have a right to be angry. That does not mean that they get what they want all the time. It does not mean that they can ignore political reality and the looming crushing defeat to the Tories. Anger from the left is tearing the Labour Party apart and is preventing a compromise that could restore the party to stability. If we want a genuine opposition to the Tories then we need to unite and oppose. Simply taking a principled stand in the face of electoral suicide is not enough. Remember the 1980s? When the Tories completely dominated politics? They are not remembered as a decade of egalitarianism and social cohesion. The goals of socialists and social democrats are not served by badly losing an election.

Now Corbyn has won again we all need compromise and unify to make the party work. The anger of people who suffered during the Thatcher, New Labour and Cameron years needs to be recognised. There are people who do not see 13 years of Labour rule as substantially different to decade that came before it or the half decade since. Labour needs to acknowledge this if it going to move forwards and win back these people’s support.

However, anger needs to be channelled at our opponents and not at each other. Angrily stamping your feet and demanding that the party change to perfectly embrace your views is not being a good Labour member. It is fair enough to feel aggrieved that the party’s left was marginalised for so long, but that doesn’t make shouting down other wings of the party any more acceptable now. It is not respecting the broad church that allows the Labour movement to function.

We need solidarity now and not petty Twitter insults. The party needs compromise and unity if it is to survive. It needs to find a way to come to terms with its past and look towards the future. As a movement we are stronger together when everyone is pulling it the same direction. Achieving compromise and unity will not be easy. Some hate-spreading members need to go. Some members on the right, used to having their way for so long, will need to acknowledge the broad range of opinions in the party. Members from the left and new members will need to compromise with people who think differently to them.

Together we can and have achieve great things. This is the point of the Labour Party, not to be a small pressure group influencing politics in one direction from the edge but an alliance of people with common concerns to act together to change things for the better.

Labour Party image created by David Holt and used under creative commons.

Who should be Labour leader?

Labour’s poll ratings are awful. The Tories currently have an 11 point lead in the polls and a significant number of 2015 Labour voters prefer Theresa May to Jeremy Corbyn. Labour are heading for a major election defeat. Some of Corbyn’s supporters are relaxed about this, but I cannot see how any of the goals of the left are served by giving the Tories a huge majority in parliament. The party membership is growing, but we must not confuse a large party with wide electoral support. We should look at the council elections from earlier this year, where Labour failed to make substantial gains. At this point in the electoral cycle, Ed Miliband was way ahead of the Tories and he still went on to lose.

Jeremy Corbyn, the current Labour leader, is ultimately responsible for the poor state of the party. However, I doubt that Owen Smith, the current challenger for Labour leader, would do any better because Labour’s problems go beyond who is leader and have causes that stretch back decades (this has been the point of my recent posts). Party members are currently faced with the choice between two leaders, both of whom would be defeated in the next general election.

Just because Labour cannot win the next election, does not mean the choice of leader is insignificant. Party members need to ask themselves what do we want from a leader who is bound to fail? Do we want someone who can build a broader social movement? Do we want someone who can make Labour stronger in the long term? Do we want someone who can unite the party?

The strongest case for Smith is that he could be a stepping stone towards electability. A vote for Smith is a vote to move away from the disastrous present and towards a better future. My main concern with Smith is that this more electable Labour Party that he would lead us towards is likely to be vehemently an anti-immigration and anti-benefits. The best case scenario for what follows Smith is a step back to the Miliband/Brown vision of social democracy that has been rejected twice by the voters.

If there is one political lesson of 2016 it is that lots of people are fed up with the status quo. We see that in Brexit and the rise of Donald Trump. Labour cannot win by offering more of the same. Corbyn is an alternative to the status quo, a break with the neoliberalism that as been the political consensus for the past 30 years. The Labour Party needs to offer something different from reheated free market economics with some social liberalism if it is to win again. Corbyn himself is different to most politicians and this inspires people. Smith is anything but inspiring.

There is much to dislike about Corbyn. He is indifferent to the bullying from some of his supporters. Over the last 30 years he has aligned himself with every anti-western cause. This includes calling Hamas and Hezbollah “friends” and appearing on the Iranian government’s propaganda channel Press TV, which has been banned by Ofcom and regular hosts anti-semites. I do not want a Labour Party leader with links to Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah. I do not want a Labour leader who at best turns a blind eye to the anti-semitism, homophobia and sexism of these groups.

With Smith in charge, Labour would escape the problems of having a serial rebel as leader. The party would not have a leader who has been linked to some awful organisations and who mistrusts the media to the point where he cannot get his message out. Labour would become a more efficiently run operation with a clear communication strategy under Smith.

What would the message behind Smith’s well-run communication strategy be? That is anything but clear. I do not think that he has a concrete plan to tackle the historic problems that have created Labour’s dismal present. Neither does Corbyn, but he does at least inspire some people. I do not think Smith would be any better at inspiring people to vote Labour. Smith can put out as many well-phrased press releases as he likes, but he needs to address the fundamental issue that people want something different from politicians.

There has to be acknowledgement of the fact that Corbyn has become very popular and Labour needs to learn from how he has inspired so many people alienated from politics. Corbyn has been able to cut through people’s cynicism with politics. Inspiring voters and offering hope is the only way that Labour can win a general election and exploiting the success that Corbyn has had needs to be a part of Labour strategy. A winning strategy may not inspire people in the exact way that Corbyn has, but Labour cannot afford to dismiss the fact that a throwback to the 1980s has become more popular than seasoned politicians who are supposed to be experts in winning public support.

Smith does not inspire any wing of the party; very few of the big beasts on the right of the party publicly support him. He is unlikely to grow the electoral support of the party in places where Labour is not already strong. If the party is getting rid of Corbyn then it must be to appoint a leader who can appeal to the voters Labour need to win over. This candidate is not Owen Smith. I am sure that he will be a competent Labour leader if he wins, but I do not see him winning over voters whom Ed Miliband did not convince.

There are many things to dislike about both candidates, and not a lot to inspire anyone who wants a Labour government anytime soon. Corbyn’s record of supporting unpleasant groups and his inability to tackle the abuse from some of his supports is a major strike against him. I am also frightened that the Labour Party will become rabidly anti-benefits and anti-immigration in order to become “electable” in the future. Smith’s rhetoric on immigration has only encouraged this fear. This is why I cannot support him for Labour leader.

This leaves me with no opinion other than to return a spoiled ballot paper as a gesture of protest against both candidates. This is not a decision I make lightly or one I am proud of. If there is one thing that this leadership contest has shown it is that Labour needs to change soon or face destruction.

Picture of Jeremy Corbyn taken by Garry Knight and used under creative commons.

The left is suffering because of its lack of vision

A recent article in the Guardian has data showing that even if had Labour won 100% of the 2015 Green vote, the Tories would still be the largest party in parliament. Green voters are switching to Labour, but other voters are deserting it. This, combined with the expected boundary changes, means the outlook for Labour in the 2020 general election is not good.

The takeaway from this is that Labour need to win over some Conservative voters to regain power. The simplest way to achieve this would be to move to the right, but will Labour ever have credibility with Tory voters on benefits and immigration? Not every Tory voter is a right wing ideologue, many can be convinced to vote Labour, but the party must have something to offer. Labour need a coherent vision of what they would do with power.

Across the world the left has become very good at describing problems of contemporary capitalism. In Britain much of the criticism of Tory austerity have turned out to be true: healthcare is suffering, junior doctors are on strike, students have rioted, inequality has widened, the cost of living has gone up, wages are stagnant, economic growth is lacklustre. However voters are less likely to vote Labour now than in 2010. This is because, as Ed Miliband discovered, criticising the government is not enough. Labour need to offer an alternative vision for society and not just a list of grievances, even if those grievances are valid. We need to answer the question: what exactly would we do in government?

The most obvious instance of having valid criticisms but no alternative is also the largest issue facing global capitalism: the failures of neoliberalism. The left has been criticising neoliberalism, privatisation and deregulation years before the 2008 financial crash exposed to the world the problems of anything goes capitalism. However the left had no economic model to replace neoliberalism. The best we could offer was a reheated socialism or a return to Keynesianism. Going back rarely inspires voters and thus neoliberalism survived the greatest economic crisis since the Wall Street Crash. A crisis it had directly caused.

Neoliberalism emerged to replace the post war consensus in the 1970s because it offered an alternative to the dominant Keynesian economic framework. Neoliberalism offered solutions to the economic problems of the time as well as having politicians and academics to champion it. In other words, when the post-war consensus stopped being a consensus, an alternative was ready. Now that alternative has run its course, but when the best possible opportunity to replace neoliberalism came along there was no economic model to replace it. Little has changed in the eight years since the financial crash. The left still needs an economic system to replace neoliberalism. This will be the core of the alternative the left offers the voters to get re-elected.

Related to neoliberalism is the issue of globalisation, an economic problem the left has many criticisms of, without any prescription for. Many politicians and thinkers recognise the problems of globalisation: the entrenched poverty caused by moving jobs overseas, the downward pressure on wages, the increase in inequality. The only alternative to globalisation are the disastrous suggestions of the far right. The likes of Donald Trump and Nigel Farage want to put up barriers (in the former case literally) to keep the rest of the world out. Trump has also suggested a 45% tax on Chinese imports to America, which would trigger a tariff war between the world's two largest economies.

Trying to keep the rest of the world out will only make us poorer and will not help us tackle our economic problems. However, the falling living standards and entrenched poverty caused by globalisation is fuelling support for reactionaries like Farage and Trump. The left need to find a way to mitigate the negative effects of globalisation without shutting the world out to neutralise the appeal of dangerously devise figures like Farage and Trump.

Linked to the backlash against globalisation is the wave of nationalism and nativism that is sweeping across the western world. From Trump to the True Fins to Jobbik and Marine Le Pen, nationalism is picking up the support of those left behind by neoliberal globalisation. The threat they pose is obvious, but aside from criticism, the left has no response. Without an alternative to neoliberalism, those who lose out from globalisation will turn to increasingly reactionary political movements. If the left cannot offer a credible alternative then the nationalists will.

The appalling lack of policy, and reliance on criticism without vision, applies equally to both the far left and centre left. It also applies to most left wing parties of all stripes across the western world. The centre left is still wrapped in the embrace of neoliberalism and believes that any deviation from the doctrine of free market capitalism is poison to the electorate. Their faith in a failed and widely unpopular economic system has meant that centre left leaders have lost support from the electorate and members of their own parties. If there is any political certainty in 2016, it is that voters are not want happy with the status quo. If the centre left want to regain power they need to rethink their relationship with neoliberalism.

Jeremy Corbyn and the far left are little better at offering a coherent alternative to neoliberalism. Corbyn, Sanders and assorted others who are attacking the political establishment from the left offer many criticisms but no practical alternative system. In some cases they show no inclination to do so. Corbyn has led the Labour Party for over a year but has outlined very little of an alternative vision. Corbyn’s shadow chancellor John McDonnell, has even signed George Osborne's fiscal charter, committing a Corbyn-led Labour government to austerity.

I supported Corbyn for Labour leader because I wanted him to articulate a left wing alternative to the neoliberal status quo that has existed since 1979. So far, Corbyn has shown more interest in fighting other members of Labour Party than presenting the convincing left wing alternative vision that the country desperately needs.

Across the western world left wing political parties are suffering a crisis of identity. The centre left has nothing new to offer alienated voters. Faced with radical - often disastrous - right wing alternatives, voters are deserting the left. This can be seen in the Brexit vote, a reaction to the painful pro status quo Remain campaign. This can be seen in Hilary Clinton's poor performance in the US presidential campaign so far. If she gets to be president it will only be because Trump is so vile. It can be seen in how Corbyn - a man who offers little more than 80s nostalgia - easily defeated three seasoned centre left politicians, because they had nothing more to offer than the status quo. Across the western world the centre left has run out of ideas but still clings to neoliberalism and thus bleeds support.

The far left should seize this opportunity for real social change. However, they offer many valid criticisms of the status quo and the centre left but little in terms of a concrete alternative. Corbyn offers something different, which is encouraging, but being different is not enough. The left need to offer a concrete vision, a plan, policies, an indication of what we would do with power, if we are to convince the electorate to support us.

Labour Party picture taken by Andrew Skudder and used under creative commons.

The case for making a case

Changing voters’ minds is a severely underrated skill in contemporary politics. Politicians instead prefer to talk in terms of positioning themselves; hence the rush to the right on immigration post EU referendum. The Remain campaign is the most obvious instance of positioning over conviction. The strategy of the Remain campaign was not to change anyone's mind about the EU; it was only to align a Remain vote with voters’ primary concerns, jobs and the economy. This approach seemed smart, but it failed.

Being aligned with economic stability allowed the Conservative Party to win a surprise majority in the 2015 election. Most rational voters support the party with the most economic credibility, or the party that is seen to have the most economic credibility. Why did the majority not vote Remain when the Stronger in Campaign had worked so hard to align a Remain vote with economic stability?

A narrative is forming in our public discourse (at least on the left) as to why Remain lost. That narrative states that it was the poor, Northerners, the left behind, the losers of globalisation that caused Brexit. It assumes that these voters could never have convinced of the merits of immigration and EU membership. The Stronger In campaign aligned Remain with economic stability but these people simply would not listen. Their minds were made up and there was nothing to be done.

This narrative falls down because there is evidence that Brexit was not caused only by voters in the former industrial North. They do not make up 52% of the population. So if angry, poor Northerners did not cause Brexit, what did?

The Stronger In campaign failed to win over many people with good jobs, or a degree, or who own a house, or live in the South voted for Brexit. These people care about economic stability (many voted Tory in 2015) but did not care that it was aligned with a Remain vote. These people do not like immigration or how the country has changed over the last 30 years and they want to stop it. Could they have been convinced to vote Remain with the right argument?

This argument would involve the fact that pressure on public services has been caused by government cuts and not by immigration. It would involve the fact that cuts to ESOL services has made it harder for recent immigrants to integrate. It could involve arguing for the establishment of a fund that invests in areas with high levels of immigration to alleviate the pressure - as Jo Cox argued. It could involve convince people that we have a humanitarian duty to help refugees. Or that unemployment and high costs of living are not caused by immigration but by our deregulated labour and housing markets. It would involve arguing that there is a different way of doing politics.

Who will make these arguments? Which politician or party will pick up the mantel of convincing people that we can collectively tackle our problems? Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party are not doing this. Corbyn has shown more interest in fighting other party members than convincing voters to support Labour. He has had a hostile media and unsupportive PLP to deal with, but he could have done more. He could make Labour a broader church instead of a divided one.

If Corbyn will not try to convince the electorate to vote Labour, then who will? Certainly not the most vocally Corbyn-sceptic wing. They only understand the tactic of repositioning the party and have no desire to convince anyone. Given control, they will shift the platform to anti-immigration and anti-benefits in an attempt to chase the centre ground. Even Owen Smith and Yvette Cooper (who are certainly to the left of the party) seem to be against making a pro-immigration argument and convincing voters.

The problem with re-positioning Labour towards the centre of British politics is the Tories have shifted the centre ground on benefits, public services and immigration substantially to the right. To chase this would fundamentally change what Labour stands for.

This what I most dislike in the Corbyn-sceptics: they do not want to change people's minds and convince them to vote Labour. This is evident in how they present the case for Owen Smith to become party leader. They do not argue for why the Labour Party should embrace centre left politics, they simply say the voters will never embrace socialism so we will water it down until it is something they will accept.

This approach has sustained the drift to the right on economic issues since 1979. Thatcher moved the economic centre ground to the right, then Blair repositioned Labour to match. Now we are seeing an increase in right wing rhetoric on immigration. Labour can either convince people this new racially charged streak to our politics is wrong, or re-position itself to match the new centre ground. My biggest worry about Owen Smith is that if he becomes Labour leader he will do the latter.

The folly of re-positioning your politics is shown in the EU referendum result. Attempts to align Remain with voters’ current beliefs failed to inspire enough people to vote Remain. Remain lost because they did not make the case for remain. Labour will lose if it tries to re-position itself in line with the new rightward centre ground. They need to convince people that they offer an alternative.

If you are against the racism of the Brexit campaign, the solution is to fight the narrative that Brexit was won by Northern idiots who will not change their mind. The solution is to convince people that an inclusive and accepting society is in all our best interests. If you want Labour to win an election again then we need to convince people that Labour offers a genuine alternative to the current government, not a slightly softer version. The left needs to argue from a certain position for change and not just re-position itself.

The main issue with this what alternative does the left offer? What exactly do we try and convince people to support? This will be the subject of the next article.

House of commons image created by Herry Lawford and used under creative commons.

Positioning and perception

"The British electorate will never elect a socialist government," a friend told me recently. I have heard this argument in varying forms over the last year: Labour under Jeremy Corbyn has moved to the left and although this pleases some people alienated during the Blair/Brown era, it means they have lost touch with the centre ground of British politics that decides elections.

This argument presents the Labour Party's problems as simply one of positioning: shift to the centre and win an election. This argument is closely aligned to the argument that all Labour needs to do is to replace Corbyn as leader and their problems will be solved. Labour's troubles are not just limited to the leader. They are complex, deep rooted and have causes that stretch back decades. In these recent articles I have been exploring the many factors behind Labour's current woes.

There is arrogance on the Corbyn-skeptic side of the party that paints Corbyn as the only problem. They forget that Ed Miliband lost a general election because of the way that Labour was perceived by the voters. Miliband had policies that were popular- energy price freeze, a mansion tax to fund the NHS - but the public viewed the Labour Party as too much of a risk with the recovery so fragile. Labour needs to ask why there were not trusted if they want to win power anytime in the next decade.

Miliband’s foremost perception problem was economic competence. The accusation that the last Labour government recklessly borrowed and overspent has stuck, because the Tories relentlessly hammered it home. Labour tried to address this negative perception by promising a balanced budget and getting the OBR to sign off on their manifesto commitments. It made little difference and Labour still lost because the voters did not want Miliband to turn on the money taps.

The belief that they would be economically irresponsible is linked to another perception problem for Labour: they were seen as too generous with benefits. Public support for welfare spending is at an all time low. Even voters who rely on benefits believe spending on benefits is too high and that a lot of the money is going to people who do not need support. Labour have also tried to address this but have so far been successful. Any future Labour leader will have to deal with this perception problem.

Another problem is that Labour was seen as being too soft on immigration. Blair and Brown massively increased migration to the UK but failed to make the case for why this was a good thing. This vacuum was filled by the far right and now racist anti-immigration rhetoric has become part of our accepted political discourse. Again Labour have tried to tackle this perception problem by adopting a watered down version of this rhetoric, most notably with Owen Smith saying that immigration was too high in some areas of the country and his claim of a "progressive case against freedom of movement". Putting the word “progressive” in front of something does not stop it being right wing rhetoric. The view that Labour is too relaxed about immigration is still solid and the Brexit vote shows that a substantial part of the population wants immigration to come down. Any post-Corbyn Labour leader will have to deal with how hostile to immigration the electorate have become.

These perceptions are tied to the fact that Labour is seen as not on the side of the ordinary voter, David Cameron's oft-mentioned "hard working people". Political reality has little to do with this. Remember it was Cameron who wanted to cut in work benefits whilst passing on a billion pound subsidy to the finance industry in the form of discounted shares when RBS was fully privatised. These facts do not matter. Labour is seen as on the side of scroungers, the work shy and the recent immigrant by many a swing voter in places like Nuneaton. It this perception that preventing Labour from rebuilding its election winning coalition.

This is linked to the view that Labour is not seen as very patriotic, a perception that the Tories are eager to encourage. While this is a problem for Labour I am doubtful whether a sudden burst of flag waving would help the party much. No one will believe that Corbyn is patriotic, and it is unlikely that Owen Smith, Tristram Hunt or Chuka Umunna would be more believable. The only thing more toxic than being seen as unpatriotic would be insincere patriotism, or to be seen as cynically exploiting it for electoral gain. Miliband's clumsy attempts to address voters "concerns" about immigration came across as patronising to some, driving them to UKIP, while it made others uncomfortable and drove them to the Greens. I remain unconvinced that the British public want more American style flag waving in their politics.

Taken together this all looks very bad for Labour. It is part of a narrative of the wider decline of social democratic parties across the western world. Unable to provide new ideas to response to our current challenges they have fallen back on the 1990's combination of economic and social liberalism that is not conceiving voters anymore. Assailed from the left on economic issues and the right on social ones (mainly immigration) social democracy across Europe is in poor health.

Labour are currently positioned very poorly in the eye of the voters and this will cost them the next election. Getting rid of Corbyn would not change this. There is no front line Labour politician who can convince the public that Labour is strong on the economy and immigration. Labour can adopt all the policies on border control and cutting benefits they like but it will not change their positions problem.

This means that Labour need stop thinking in terms of positioning themselves and start thinking in terms of convincing voting of the merits of voting Labour. More on that in my next post.

Chess image taken by Eigenberg Fotografie and used under Creative Commons.

The collapse of Labour's broad base of support

If a general election was called tomorrow Labour – once an election winning machine - would lose. A result similar to the one that Gordon Brown achieved in 2010 is very unlikely. The collapse of its broad base of support is the biggest problem the party is facing. Tony Blair was good at winning elections, but he had a booming economy and faced weak opposition leaders. Labour cannot repeat the strategy of the 1990s in the 2010s; they need to engage with why they have lost their electoral coalition if the party is to win an election in the future.

The Labour Party typically wins general elections when it has the support of 3 groups: industrial workers (or people living in former industrial areas); metropolitan liberals (Guardian readers); and aspirational centrists (people who think that a Labour government is in their best interests). In 2015 UKIP ate into Labour's support in the first group, the Greens took some of the second, and the Tories took a huge bite out of the third. Despite once dominating these groups, today the prospect of uniting this coalition is distant.

The Labour Party does have some support, mainly amongst middle class, metropolitan, liberals. Many of these are long standing Labour voters, who support Labour because they are the main left wing party. Others are voters who defected to the Greens or Lib Dems and have now been won back by Jeremy Corbyn. These are all voters who are happy with the leftward movement of Labour.

Many of these Labour supporters are people who are put off by politics in general, but are now inspired by Corbyn. Voters who complained that New Labour and the Tories were too similar and like Corbyn because he is different to most politicians. The problem is there are not enough of these people - even if they formed a progressive alliance - to unseat the Tories from power in Westminster.

The collapse of Labour's broad base of support is in part because Labour has become a party of middle class, metropolitan, liberals. Support amongst this demographic has increased under Corbyn, but they do not hold the balance of power in important swing seats like Nuneaton. For Labour to win a general election they need to appeal to a wider group of people. Unfortunately, as support amongst middle class, metropolitan liberals increases, support amongst aspirational centrist voters is decreasing.

The lack of support from centrist aspirational voters is a key reason why Labour lost the 2010 and 2015 general elections. These people blame Labour for the recession and for the stagnant economy that we are still experiencing. They were convinced by Tory rhetoric about balancing the budget and Labour's over spending. Unlike metropolitan liberals, this demographic tends to be less engaged with politics, so the personality of leaders is important to them. Crucially they did not like Ed Miliband and they do not like Corbyn. This is a large voting block that Labour has lost.

The loss of this demographic did not occur under Corbyn. It mainly happened under Miliband's leadership - although Corbyn is not winning them back. Miliband had policies aimed at aspirational centrists - who tend to be more concerned with what a party can do for them than metropolitan liberals – such as gas price freezes, housing market reform, balanced budgets and controls on immigration. However the message was not particularly well delivered, while the Tories’ simple message about economic responsibility, backed up with recent memories of a recession that began under Labour, connected with this group. The 2015 defeat was mainly because Labour could not speak to aspirational centrists anymore.

Is the lesson from this that Labour should move to the centre to win power? Labour could try and win back this group by opposing Brexit, or being tougher on benefits. However this would risk alienating industrial workers. Labour cannot win power with only the support of metropolitan liberals and aspirational centrists.

Industrial workers (or those who live in former industrial areas) are the other key group Labour need, and whose support has been bleeding away before Corbyn was chosen as leader. The main explanation is rising immigration in the Blair/Brown years. Miliband tried to address these voters "concerns" but failed to convince - whilst simultaneously driving more metropolitan liberals towards the Greens. These voters are more likely to have supported Brexit and a reduction in immigration is their key demand. They perceived Miliband as weak (easily portrayed as in the pocket of the SNP) and Corbyn as unpatriotic. Labour is losing these voters to UKIP.

These voters have been characterised as the “left behind”. They are the ones who are losing out from globalisation as industrial jobs are moved overseas to be replaced by low paid and insecure work. These voters have been traditionally represented by the Labour Party, but they have seen a marked decline in their living standards since Labour embraced neoliberal globalisation. UKIP has been successful at winning these voters by blaming their economic problems on the EU and immigration.

Miliband was unable to win them back, and Corbyn does not speak to them, but nor does the right of the Labour Party who still refuse to acknowledge the role of the globalisation they encouraged in eroding living standards.

Tristram Hunt has argued that repositioning on immigration and a more patriotic image would win back these voters, but there are risks of the party alienating voters more if they are seen as being insincere in their patriotism. Cynically exploiting the patriotism of industrial workers for electoral gains will feed the fire of anti-politics, much like Miliband’s statements on immigration drove metropolitan liberals to the Greens and industrial workers to UKIP.

To win over the support of industrial workers Labour needs a means of protecting the living standards of those disadvantaged by globalisation without resorting to UKIP’s tactic of putting up walls and trying to keep the rest of the world out. This is the key challenge facing parties of the left worldwide, from Hillary Clinton to François Hollande. No faction of Labour has a convincing answer to this problem and until someone does, Labour will struggle to win back the support of industrial workers without losing the metropolitan liberals or aspirational centrists.

Labour needs to try and win over from these three electoral groups, but they want different things. This is encapsulated in the question of how Labour should respond to the vote to leave the EU. If it embraces Brexit and controls on immigration to win back industrial workers it is likely to alienate metropolitan liberals (who voted remain) and a significant number of aspirational centrists (who want the economy protected and are were generally in favour of the stability of remain). By opposing Brexit or attempting to limit the degree of Brexit, Labour risk alienating industrial workers who typically voted to leave.

Brexit is just one issues where the views of the three groups differ. Blair was able win huge majorities, but it was much easier for him 20 years ago when the country was less divided and the economy was in Labour’s favour. I am not sure what platform Labour could stand on - with or without Corbyn - that could win back the support of enough voters. There is clearly no easy option and all run the risk of worsening Labour’s predicament. Labour needs to engage with issue head on if they are ever to win an election again. The first issue they need to engage with the wide negative perception of the Labour Party.

Polling station image taken by Rachel H and used under creative commons.