LOGICAL FALLACIES IN RESPONSE TO STARMER’S ELECTION

There is naturally a big debate raging between Corbyn supporters right now as to whether to leave the party.

Those who want to stay fall into several camps: 1) those who think Starmer shares their values 2) Those who prioritise getting rid of the Tories above all else and would rather see any Labour government than a Tory one 3) Those who have a tribal, lifetime loyalty to Labour that transcends any considerations of policy 4) Those who want to stay in Labour to try and ensure it retains a Corbynite ethos regardless of who the new leader is.

I can see the logic in this last position, although personally I won’t be able to summon up the energy to join in party activities if the words and actions of the leadership is pissing me off. I mean can genuine Corbynistas really see themselves working for a party where this sort of attitude is predominant and celebrated?:

Personally I will give Starmer a chance as leader. The simple fact of his election is not going to make me leave. Nevertheless my expectation is that he will very soon do something outrageously right wing, perhaps in the realm of foreign policy, causing me not to renew.

Regardless of that I resent the hectoring tone of many of those Corbynites who think we should stay in the party, and their attempts to shame those who do not want to do so.

Corbyn’s opponents have long been accustomed to mindlessly mouthing off clichés about him which make no logical sense but to which everyone seems to nod along sagely without applying much thought. This dynamic now seems to have spread out to some of Corbyn’s own supporters in their arguments that we should stay in the party. Let’s examine some of these logical fallacies:

1) If you stay you’re prioritising your own ideology/purity over the party’s success

This “prioritising ideology” accusation is often used by the left’s opponents as well and it is total bunkum. It is based on the false assumption that ideology is some meaningless object, a toy that we cling on to like possessive children.

In fact ideology is very meaningful. It’s a set of beliefs and values which politically minded people think will make the world and country a better place. What’s the point in being involved in politics if not to try and put a set of beliefs into practice? If not to try and implement a set of policies with an ideology behind them?

So if your political party is no longer in line with your ideology then of course you should leave it, because it will be campaigning for policies you don’t believe in — a set of policies which you think will cause harm to the country and its people.

So unless your interest in Labour is purely tribal, like supporting a football team, then why on earth would you want to campaign to implement policies that do not reflect your beliefs? That would be completely absurd.

As for “purity” yes, again, of course you will want to be in a party that matches your beliefs and no one should have to apologise for that. Otherwise you may as well just pick a party at random regardless of its policies.

2) Don’t throw your toys out of the pram/sulk

We’re not. We just no longer believe in what the party is doing and saying. Again there seems to be a lack of awareness here about how central policy is to our politics. Speaking for myself I am totally uninterested in tribes, factions and personalities. I am not sulking because “my” candidate did not win or because the party did not back “my” team. I am just not going to campaign or donate to a party that does not reflect my values.

3) We should all work together for a Labour win!

Well, no, not if we have a different set of values and policy goals. Again, I am not interested in the success of the Labour Party for tribal reasons, only in as far as it will implement a set of policies I think will help people. Also who is included in the “we”? Blairites? Because as they have shown multiple times over the last five years they have no interest in working with us.

4) The Blairites want us to leave

I’m not at all sure that’s true, first of all. I think they want to be in total control of a party that retains Corbynite levels of membership and member subscriptions. It would be highly embarrassing for them if a centrist takeover was met by a dramatic drop in membership, and by the party going back into debt. Such outcomes would actually be a very strong statement by the party’s base that they do not accept a right wing takeover of the party and the corrupt policies that would go along with it.

Remember Peter Mandelson’s statement during the Blair years that “the left will continue to vote for us because they have nowhere else to go”? That sums up the contemptuous, dismissive attitude of the Blairites towards the left, and we’d have to be mugs to go along with it.

CONCLUSION

I never agreed with the idea of voting Labour during the Blair years just “coz Tory”. I think such an attitude has extremely harmful long term effects as it legitimises the idea of a Labour Party that is a pale copy of the Tories. It maintains forever the status quo, which is an oligarchy where all parties have to accept the same set of pro-corporate policies. Too often left-wingers allow themselves to gaslit into shoring up this system by having some right-wing bogeyman waved in front of them.

Since I started writing this article has smugly installed a right-wing shadow cabinet, in the process sacking many of the leading lights of the Corbyn era. What better way to demonstrate to him that such behaviour is not acceptable, that it has consequences than a mass exodus from the party? I always hesitate to use the analogy of an abused spouse when discussing those docile lefties who returning a Labour Party that does things like this. Nevertheless I think it is an apt one.

*****

If you have enjoyed this article please share it.