Labour’s story of diminishing returns
In a local Sunderland council ward election, there was shock when the Liberal Democrat took a stunning victory. It was a strong Labour seat, and the Liberal Democrats had only been predicted to come in at third. Much was made of the rejection of Labour, but most of it was simply down to the dynamics of local politics; people felt Labour weren’t listening and so they went with someone who might.
It’s a pattern that has been repeated. Strong Labour seast have been taken by the opposition or threatened, and the media narrative looks to pin the blame on Corbyn — but how accurate is this?
A lot of sneering has been conducted at Momentum’s tweet that the result was due to a rejection of the establishment, because if anyone represents the establishment in a national sense then it is the Conservative Party. However, the problem with decrying that view is that to many Northerners (and particularly those in Stoke and Copeland), is that Labour are the ones in power and have held power for a very long time. If they feel little has been done to improve things in their area then they’re going to show that at the ballot box. Yes, the Conservatives nationally are the party of the establishment but voting is often as much an emotional process as it is a logical one. For those who are tired of Labour, then choosing a Conservative Party candidate is the ultimate rejection of what has frustrated constituents for possibly years now.
Such a position then, is not a rejection of Corbyn, but of Labour as a whole. It also ignores the fact that the Conservative Party have handed out the cuts from Central Government, but many parts of the North felt little boom in the good times and a disproportionate amount of the bust. In desperate times, people make desperate decisions.
Corbyn however, did not help the cause. When his strong suit is meant to be galvanizing people who never cared about politics before or those who feel disempowered, that factor was absent from the two by elections. Voter turn out was particularly low at Copeland. But why would voters should up for Labour when Corbyn might not show up for them in Parliament?
An anti nuclear stance is always controversial (and we must remember the difference between nuclear energy and nuclear arms) but there’s always going to be pain at the polls in any area where nuclear energy provides jobs. To call for disarmament and an end to nuclear requires a thorough and deliverable plan to support those who are facing losing their livelihoods. Corbyn didn’t have one. His message was lost about whether he was anti nuclear as a whole or just anti nuclear war. He was caught with no tangible or translatable plan for the nuclear industry when Douglas-Mann resigned and triggered the by-election. The voters needed confirmation that the Labour Party would be behind them, and they didn’t get it. The election was hinged on a local issue but it symbolised one major problem: if Corbyn cannot come up with a detailed plan of how to support those who he wants to represent then he isn’t going to win votes.
The initial admiration of Corbyn is starting to wane. In two contests when people were needed to rally behind him, they didn’t even though that was his original core strength. Corbyn was supposed to represent working people and stay in touch with local people and they failed, to the extent that the Conservatives and UKIP managed to capitalise. If it had not been for UKIP’s implosion, Labour could have easily lost both seats. That is the state of Labour now: UKIP have to self destruct for Labour to secure a win.
The local strategy choices were also concerning. The General Secretary of the Communication Workers Union used language from the Brexit play-book of “take back control”.
It’s clear that the message was intended to be against privitisation (and this was not tweeted from an official Labour account), but to use language that was word-for-word what was used in the Brexit debate about migration was crass at best and at worst, downright reckless. That phrase about taking back control is too heavily associated now with debates over borders, sovereignty and migration. It panders to a nationalist sentiment and when Labour are already in murky water over their stance on Brexit, it gives an impression of Labour’s inconsistency and strength to stand on their own two feet. A message from a third party can often risk doing more damage than any tweet from a party account and this should certainly draw criticisms over what exactly Labour stand for.
Corbyn too has attracted criticism in recent months. His initial response to Trump’s victory was to herald it as a win against the establishment — when many marginalised people pointed out Trump represented keeping power among white cis straight men. He has since come out strongly against Trump but it has left certain questions around how committed he is to equality or whether he’s another white, cis straight socialist that sees equality and diversity as an afterthought to the wider class struggle. A lot of people on the left may ask why that’s a bad thing but then look at America and ask why people of colour and LGBT people overwhelmingly voted for HRC (even over Bernie) and yet white straight people of all classes voted for Trump.
Corbyn has also recently insulted Scotland by saying that they could not pay for themselves, and Labour have no chance of ever winning a general election if they can’t win back support in Scotland. There was the painful and easily preventable gaffe at an LGBT History Month event where Corbyn implied being LGBT was a choice. A few slips of the tongue wouldn’t matter, but Corbyn keeps offending the people who had backed him and often just by not being properly prepared or briefed on the topics at hand. People shouldn’t mind if someone isn’t media savvy, but they should care if someone doesn’t seem bothered enough to take care with language on important issues of identity.
Yet Labour are in a stalemate. While Corbyn is even beginning to lose support in his own corners, with even union bodies seemingly tiring of the constant fight to support him, Labour members will simply vote for him again if there is another challenge. It’s a shame because Labour do have immensely talented and competent people who could replace him, such as: Abbott, Rayner, Smith, Thornberry, Khan (to name a few). The PLP are out of touch by constantly pining for the days of Tony Blair when the a significant proportion of the country view him as a man that lied to take us to war which means they can’t come up with a coherent or workable plan to move forward.
So Labour will carry on from bruising fight to fight until the next general election when it should be a time of hope. The Conservative Party should not even be doing well right now. People are paying a lot more for far fewer services, and this is completely counter to Conservative Party doctrine. The NHS is in a crisis. May won’t even hold an election, and the issue of Brexit is still deeply dividing the country. The Conservative Party are in their own state of turmoil as they try to hold the country together but it’s easy to miss it when they’re in the shadow of Labour’s crisis.
