Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership of the UK Labour Party continues to be highly divisive because he does not command the support of the Parliamentary Labour Party. He has, despite his arguments to the contrary, made little attempt to court this support as seen throughout his style of leadership since September 2015. He further lost the confidence of his MPs and other sections of the Party during the EU referendum, in which he gave only lacklustre support to the campaign to Remain and, indeed, to the EU itself. A third major instance of his failure to lead came with his decision to ignore the Shadow Cabinet resignation and the subsequent vote of no confidence in which 80% of MPs delivered a damning verdict on his leadership. In these circumstances, any other Party leader would have resigned. Indeed, Thatcher’s resignation was brought about by a number much smaller than has expressed doubts about Corbyn’s leadership.
Of course, Corbyn points to his mandate during the 2015 leadership election. On a wave of entryists paying £3, he was able to snatch the leadership by using the support of those who only months before had campaigned against the Labour Party in the general election. He points to this mandate to cover all manner of weaknesses, be they his failures to perform at PMQs, or his inability to understand the basics of Parliamentary democracy. This may sound harsh, but Corbyn has shown little interest in the powers of the PLP, historically seeing the institution as secondary to the Party outside Parliament. This is, of course, the main point of discontent.
The Labour constitution is clear that the leader needs to foster a party in Parliament and in the country. Arguably Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, and Ed Miliband took the Party in the country for granted. But they didn’t actively undermine it in the way Corbyn has done with the PLP. In terms of policy very little separates Corbyn from Owen Smith. Both want a strong public sector, with nationalised services, to preserve the NHS, and social welfare. But the things that separate them are massive and cut straight to the type of party Labour needs to be.
The Labour Party needs to be in Parliament, but the problem with the entryists is that they prefer the politics of protest because it is familiar, safe, and easier than taking the big decisions to improve lives. With Labour now dominated by Corbyn’s followers drawn from the Green Party, STW and former Respect supporters, amongst others, it is hard to see the Party membership understanding why Parliament is more important than a rally. Put simply, the government can ignore a rally whereas a Labour government can introduce legislation. To form a government, Labour needs to compromise on its ideological principles in order to look credible to non-aligned voters who take no interest in the writings of long-dead economists. These are the centre-ground voters who at the moment are looking very favourably upon May’s new government.
But here is my greatest fear. It is very likely that Corbyn will win the leadership election. When he does, the Corbynites will tighten their grip, and in so doing the Party will look increasingly like an unelectable protest movement with little or no interest in seeking office. In that event, moderate social democrats will simply have little or no prospect of securing the office that is so important if they are to seek a fairer and more egalitarian society. It is a terrible prospect, but with Corbyn saying there is nothing inevitable to him resigning in the event of a major general election defeat, the Labour Party may well have no choice but to split. As part of that split, Momentum’s alternative conference is symptomatic of how that split may look if Labour allow this to continue. Put simply, the Party will be assimilated with the name lost to all but the history books.
A split is the last thing I’d ever want to see happen. But given Corbyn’s indifference to securing office, attitude towards the PLP, sympathies with groups that seek to harm Labour, approach to serious issues like Brexit and Article 50, audacity in remaining after 80% of MPs voted against his leadership, dismissiveness towards threats of violence towards MPs, lack of self-awareness, or indeed understanding of the problems facing the UK today, it surely would be foolish of the PLP to sit tight and hope things will turn out for the best. Put simply, doing nothing is not an option.
Ironically, I would like to conclude by reminding the PLP of the popular quote from Leon Trotsky: “You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you”. Momentum’s tanks are more than sitting on Labour’s lawn – they are facing down Labour’s foot soldiers. Labour is occupied by the hard left and its Generals are sitting in key positions. Labour’s own leaders are now in exile, powerless to defend.
At this point, Labour’s social democratic heritage can only be saved in a new Labour Party. If not, then deselections followed by the general election will kill Labour once and for all, reducing it to a mere 1931-style rump of Corbynites, ensuring that this is yet another Tory century. This will suit Corbyn well. He is, after all, only there for the protests. Who needs a large PLP when he has a mass movement to protest against eternal Tory rule?
Andrew Crines is Lecturer in British Politics at the University of Liverpool. He tweets @AndrewCrines.
Image: Sophie Brown
