In a recent article on the Guardian's 'Comment is Free' section, comedian Frankie Boyle suggested that following the decision to abstain in the recent welfare bill vote the Labour party was now so passive it could be "led by an out-of-office email".
It was indeed, a pathetic move by Labour. Even if you agree with the tactics that Labour should attempt to fight the 'middle ground' with the Tories, this was still spectacularly unnecessary. That bill will hurt the worst off in society, exactly the kind of people that you expect the Labour Party to want to protect as part of it's DNA.
This is the background to which the Labour Party leadership election is being fought. And, I get to vote.
I'm not a member of the Labour Party for many reasons - I'm a revolutionary Socialist rather than a reformist. However my Trade Union, the GMB, is a major backer of the party. Personally my belief is that the political fund should be democratised, and MPs should be given backing on an individual basis, irrespective of party.
However, that is not an argument that has been won within the union, so whilst it continues to give part of my subs to the Labour party, I believe that I have a right to exercise my democratic rights in voting in this election.
Don't get me wrong, I understand why people do become members of the Labour Party, despite everything that it has done wrong. People are pragmatic. They don't expect perfection, but they know they have to fight for what they can.
When I lived in Bolton I knew a group of trade union activists who worked within the council who collectively joined the Labour Party because they were tired of being 100% ignored by the elected councillors. Now they are only ignored 90%.
Why do people bother with Labour, when it is so 'top down' in it's 'democracy'?
I was talking to two Labour Party members on the TUC anti-austerity demo in October 2012. Both were ordinary trade unionists who had joined Labour to continue the struggle from beyond their workplaces out in to the wider world. Both had voted for Ed Milliband because he had been the only mainstream candidate who spoke about the need to correct Labour's mistakes (and he wasn't vague about those mistakes - he attacked the New Labour ethos and said that the invasion of Iraq was clearly wrong), and both now wished they had voted for David Milliband instead.
That wasn't because in hindsight they decided that the political agenda he put forward was now the correct one. No, it was for one reason - they were frightened that the Tories would get re-elected.
Everything was driven by that fear. That's why ordinary party members may look towards Yvette Cooper or Andy Burnham (or the sadistic towards Liz Kendall).
But now we have a candidate worth voting for in Jeremy Corbyn. He is pretty much spotless. Not only has he always stood up for the right causes throughout his political career, he has also managed to do so without being a crazed ego maniac (oh George Galloway, I remember the hope we had only for you to smash that to smithereens).
The Daily Mirror has reported that Jeremy Corbyn is way ahead in the leadership contest so far with a 42% poll rating (Yvette Cooper currently second with 22.6%). Hardly surprising, this is what the ordinary activists, both inside and outside of the Labour Party, actually want in a leader.
Who is voting against Corbyn? Well, some activists who still have that 'pragmatic' fear of losing to the Tories, but also the 'professional' political figures within the party.
MP's make a good living from their position. As such, it is a position they want to protect. I'm not saying that none of them care about politics, but it makes a big difference when your income depends on winning elections. In that position, you are desperate to keep your seat. This is not a gravy train they wish to disembark from.
It certainly explains the tendency to lean to the right in such arguments. The same goes for full time, unelected trade union officials. They don't want to rock the boat with employers any more than they have to, because they have their own income to protect. Again, it's not to say that none of them care about the workers they represent, it's just that it does explain the tendency to want to avoid fighting for what is right.
All union officials should be workplace based and elected by the members. That way, if the members do not agree with their actions they can be removed from the post and go back to their job. If that job is there, and their income doesn't change when elected, they will be a lot less likely to take the side of the bosses.
But still, is there any point in striving to elect a leader like Jeremy Corbyn if no-one will vote for Labour in a general election? Well, it turns out that the general public actually agree with most of his policies, with a significant majority willing to support moves to renationalise the railways, bring in rent controls, etc.
There have been a number within the Labour Party who have complained about 'Communists' and members of other left wing groups 'infiltrating' the party. Well, I'm a member of the SWP and I've not joined, nor has there been any call to do so. Has it occurred to them that Corbyn might simply be attracting activists to join?
And that's the thing that could make a real difference. When Tony Blair was elected with a massive majority one of the reasons he was able to do so was because he had over 60,000 activists campaigning on the streets. He offered a vision that was clearly different to what the Tories had to offer.
Yes, he was a fucking abomination, but beyond that, this was why he was able to win so convincingly. In the years that followed, the more he moved the party to the right, the more it appeared to be similar to the Tories, the more his majority fell.
Jeremy Corbyn stands up for policies that are right, and are what the mass majority of Labour members and supporters actually believe in, but have been too afraid to express in fear of losing the 'middle ground' to the Tories.
He is also someone who can carry forward arguments with the general public in a convincing fashion, and can attract a mass activist base to the Labour Party. Yes, they are up against the right wing press, and that is the biggest problem by far. Who gets to control the arguments for our political future, that which becomes seen as 'common sense'?
It will be a huge battle, and one that may well be lost in a coming election, but by God I'd rather it was lead by someone actually trying to fight than a party simply resigning itself to perpetual defeat.
I won't be joining the Labour Party, but I am part of the wider labour movement. As such, I will be voting for Jeremy Corbyn, I'll be voting for hope. But I won't be leaving it to him to do, I'll keep working with everyone in the movements from below to try and bring about real change.
 |
| Hell yeah! |
To be honest, I'm not really in the mood for an election right now, in the same way that when I last contracted the noro virus I didn't fancy visiting a carvery. I feel uncomfortable, know there is nothing I can do about it and it means I will have to face a lot of shit.
Comparing the Tories to diarrhea? Always a good start to a blog.
But now I have the opportunity to vote for the future leader of the Labour party. Didn't see that one coming. Mainly because I am not, nor have I ever been, a member of the Labour party.
As well as sounding like a statement from McCarthy era America, it also doesn't make much sense. How can I vote for the Labour party leader if I'm not a member of the Labour party? Well, that's because I'm a member of a Trade Union that is affiliated to the Labour party, and as such have the option to vote.
As a Socialist to the left of Labour, I argue that Unions should not be affiliated to the Labour party. Instead, they should democratise their political funds, and then back indivdual MPs who back the work the Union do. Most will be from the Labour party, but not all.
However, whilst I argue this is the right position it is not one that has been won within my Union at this time. As such, if money is going from the Union to the Labour party, I am happy to exercise my right to have a say in this election. After all, in a tiny way, I'm helping to pay for it!
The leadership debate, coming as it does immediately after the crushing general election defeat of Labour, is centred around the question "what went wrong?" Unsurprisingly the core of leadership candidates all seem to think that Labour did not appear right wing enough to connect with a core of the electorate who can decide an election.
Needless to say, I don't agree. The main problem they had is that what they presented just was not inspiring - they didn't seem to offer an alternative at all. Really, they campaigned to say they would do the same as the Tories, just slightly nicer and slightly better.
Austerity lite, it has been referred to.
But that's just not good enough. As is often the case, they lost right wing votes to Tories and UKIP, and left wing votes to Greens, SNP and the other big party in this election - Non of the above!
In some areas, such as the North East, I think there are still working class ties to the Labour Party. Young people voting for the first time still have an understanding from their families as to why you vote against the Tories. But elsewhere, it is evaporating.
The right wing in the Labour Party are worried by the emergence of the UK Independence Party (UKIP). Ostensibly a party that campaigns for Britain to withdraw it's membership of the European Union, it is broadly speaking a nasty, populist, hard right, racist organisation.
They have taken votes away from the Tories, that's for certain, but it appears they have also taken votes from Labour. Most concerning about this is that they appear to have taken young peoples votes from Labour.
Is this because they are racist? I don't think so, although a majority of the population are taken in by the mainstream lie that immigration is a major problem. What you can say though, is that this is a section who will consider voting away from the big two mainstream parties.
UKIP may seem unpleasant, and they are, but they at least represented an alternative. It was the youth vote that meant the Lib Dems won two previous terms in an area of Manchester with a large student population. Needless to say, as happened nationally, that vote evaporated.
What also happened though, is that it became clear that left wing, anti-austerity politics did have an audience. In Scotland the Scottish National Party (SNP) wiped the floor with their opponents winning 56 from a possible 59 seats.
If anything, you have to feel sorry for the 3 SNP candidates who didn't win. I mean, seriously, they must have been rubbish!
The SNP stood on a clear platform against austerity, and they clearly found their audience. Mind you, there is more to this than meets the eye.
I would love to say this means that if a party stood with the same message across the UK they would also win a landslide, but that's not the case. In England the biggest player in disseminating political ideas is the media. The bulk of the media barons who own the newspapers support the Tories. They control the editorial line of their newspapers, so the only stories that are printed are those that harmonise with that individuals viewpoint.
Of course, that is true throughout the UK, and indeed the world. However, in Scotland, they recently had a process which meant that anti-austerity politics had a very real platform to break beyond that stranggle hold - The Independance referendum.
It was such a massively significant question being asked of the Scottish people that the vast majority had no choice but to engage. The 'Yes' campaign lost in the end, only gaining 45%. However, translate that percentage into mostly just one party standing in a 'first past the post' system election, and you get a landslide.
Great if you're Scottish, although it means that now you are still ruled by Tories from England. Also, the SNP is not really that radical a party, with no traditional roots in the organised labour movement, so ultimately are unlikely to deliver real change. But still, way to get your voices heard!
As part of the election campaign I saw a lot of videos online from celebrities such as Steve Coogan and Martin Freeman discussing why they were going to vote Labour. They went to great pains to show they were being genuine, even in the filming of the ads themselves (showing make up being applied, etc, so you didn't get the idea that you were being fooled by a flashy campaign. "Of course this is being filmed by a professional crew, and we know you know that").
One thing they, and many others said, was "I trust Labour with the NHS". All politicians know that the NHS is sacrosanct to the British public, and is a very real concern to them that it is protected.
Many don't necesarily know recent immigrants to this country, so they can more readily believe lies about them. However, everyone gets sick, so the NHS is not something you play with quite as easily.
One of the leasdership candidates, Andy Burnham, spent the last government as shadow health Secretary. He has spoken very well on the issue, including against aspects of privitisation brought through by the Tories. However, when Labour were in power he was involved in the awarding of the very first PFI contract. He was there when Labour started the rot.
So do I trust Labour with the NHS? No.
Don't get me wrong, I certainly trust them a hell of a lot more than the Tories. But then that's a bit like needing a child minder last minute and having to chose between a drunk you found in the gutter outside LIDL, or Freddy Kreuger.
And that also highlights another problem - if I do vote in the leadership contest, who would I vote for?
All the candidates seem so similar, determind to drag Labour further to the right. That is, until Jeremy Corbyn announced his intention to stand.
 |
| Jeremy Corbyn |
There are a number of good MPs in the Labour party, but it's fair to say that no one is better than Jeremy Corbyn. He's been an MP since 1983 and has consistently been right on everything.
No, really. He was campaigning against Saddam Hussein before anyone in the West cared about him, but then was a passionate advocate against the invasion of Iraq in 2003. He knew that Saddam was bad, and that the UK should not back him, but he wasn't suckered in to thinking that the invasion would bring anything than what it has - death, turmoil and terror.
So I'm not intending on joining the Labour party anytime soon, but as a member of a Trade Union that does give funding to the Labour I know who I will be voting for!
