The Guardian view on Labour’s troubles: dividing not ruling
|
Version 0 of 1. History teaches that commentators write the Labour party off at their peril. This newspaper has been in the left-liberal game for too long to make that mistake. Nevertheless, Labour’s future as a potential party of government in the foreseeable future is at genuine risk, partly because of the softness of the Labour vote exposed in the Brexit referendum, partly because of its own internal arguments, partly because of its lack of a credible programme, and partly because of the current Conservative poll lead, which has led to talk of an early general election. Two weeks before the ballot papers go out in Labour’s 2016 leadership election, the party’s condition should be a matter of concern to all who wish it well. Responsibility for this predicament is widely shared. But solving it can only be achieved by openness, compromise and conciliation. That seems far off. On Tuesday, two substantial senior figures, the former leader Ed Miliband and the current deputy leader Tom Watson – neither of whom can remotely be dismissed simply as Blairites – became the latest to go public with their doubts about Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership. Meanwhile another senior figure, Andy Burnham, confirmed he will walk away from Westminster if he is elected mayor of Greater Manchester next May. Any one of these events would normally sound a warning for Labour’s hopes. All three together set the alarm bells ringing loudly. Messrs Burnham, Miliband and Watson come from very different parts of the Labour tradition. They have different political stances and records. They are not acting in concert. Yet, like Mr Corbyn, they are all entitled to have their views and arguments taken seriously and discussed with respect, without threats of any kind. In his interview with the Guardian Mr Watson expresses puzzlement and exasperation with the kind of Labour party over which Mr Corbyn presides. He does so in mostly emollient language, but his underlying dismay is impossible to conceal. He sees a party turned in against itself and where opponents no longer listen to one another. He fears that Labour’s Miliband-era rule changes are allowing entryists to take advantage of well-meaning leftwing members to drive a wedge between the membership and the MPs. He cannot understand how a leader who has lost support in parliament can continue. Mr Watson yearns for a return to a more stable Labour party, with a leader chosen by the old electoral college that existed after 1981 and a shadow cabinet elected by MPs. He is right in some ways, but he is spitting into the wind, as the dismissive response from Mr Corbyn’s supporters confirmed on Tuesday. Mr Miliband’s intervention is not as outspoken as Mr Watson’s, but it carries special weight in the light of his own traumas. Mr Miliband withdrew quickly from the arena after the election defeat in 2015 and has avoided controversy – and any hint of disloyalty to Mr Corbyn – until the start of Labour’s post-Brexit leadership crisis. His endorsement of Owen Smith on Tuesday was that of a Labour politician who fears that Theresa May talks to the left while governing to the right – and who fears an early general election. Courteous as ever, Mr Miliband avoided any mention of Mr Corbyn’s leadership. But he evidently believes that Mr Corbyn is not up to the job as he himself understands it. Mr Burnham has also avoided explicit criticism of Mr Corbyn. Instead he has decided to seek attainable real power in Greater Manchester (Labour also chose the former MP Siôn Simon as its Birmingham mayoral candidate on Tuesday). Mr Burnham’s decision is both positive and negative for Labour: positive in that it recognises the importance of local politics, negative in that it suggests he believes a Labour government is now too remote a prospect to be worth waiting around for in Westminster. None of these three messages to Labour is beyond criticism. Mr Watson expressed himself unguardedly. Mr Miliband is the author of some of Labour’s current difficulties. Mr Burnham has lost two leadership elections he might have won. But these are all serious figures, steeped in modern politics, whose commitment to the Labour cause is lifelong and beyond dispute. This does not, in itself, make them right. But it entitles them to be listened to in good faith. The dangers for Labour in its current mood are that neither side is listening any longer to the other and that both have become too simplistic about the immense task Labour currently faces if it is to govern again. |