The battle for the Labour party’s heart and soul

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/23/the-battle-for-the-labour-partys-heart-and-soul

Version 0 of 1.

No leader, not even Jeremy Corbyn, could make Labour “a credible party of government” now (Corbyn has the Blairesque quality the Blairites don’t get, 20 July). For the last five years Labour has simply been running scared. Scared of the media, scared of the Tories – not brave enough to rebut the lies that won the election. Worst of all, scared of the voters, not even brave enough to hint they might sometimes get things wrong. People don’t mind being argued with, but nobody will vote for a party that lacks courage.

So Labour needs to elect the leader who can best build that courage in opposition over the next decade. Start by focusing on those many areas where Labour is already in charge. Learn from them, and help them to do more of what they’re doing right. Develop a programme to offset the more negative aspects of globalised capitalism – the loss of identity and social cohesion, the corroding insecurity (Ukip, SNP and the Greens won support basically because they set out to do that). Project a sharp critique of the EU, tell us clearly why it’s so bad and what needs changing. Start taking rural areas seriously. Build a close alliance with the other progressive parties – Labour won’t ever win without them. Commit to PR, our democracy makes no sense without it.

These are early days, and a larger Conservative majority in 1992 hardly stopped the Major government from unravelling

Labour need not seek power until it’s ready – the Tories will run the country perfectly well in the meantime. Above all, Labour must stop demonising the Tories. They are a competent, decent bunch. Their values may be different, but are perfectly worthy and make sense to many people – Labour has no monopoly on hope, in spite of what Zoe Williams says. Rather than meekly but resentfully aping the Tories, the left must show them calm respect, while catching our imagination with a narrative that speaks warmly and boldly to other aspects of our common humanity.Robert Bunting Bishops Castle, Shropshire

• It would be just as well in the current Labour party leadership campaign to realise what a huge task confronts the successful candidate, whether considered to be on the left or right. With almost 100 fewer MPs than the Tories, to become the largest party in a hung parliament next time would require a swing of just over 5%; for an overall majority, it would be 9.5%.

Even this does not take into account boundary changes, and particularly if there is a reduction in the number of MPs, which the Tories were unable to push through last time; this would be favourable to them, otherwise it wouldn’t be attempted. These are indeed early days, and a larger Conservative majority in 1992 hardly stopped the Major government from unravelling throughout most of that parliament; there are a number of issues, not least the EU referendum, that are likely to cause serious internal problems for the cabinet.

On the few occasions the party has won decisively, we have managed to draw support from large numbers who had never voted Labour before, or a long time previously. Unless we can do this again, the chances of government remain remote.David Winnick MPLabour, Walsall North

• Michael White’s piece (Labour’s welfare confusion mirrors society’s wider dilemmas, theguardian.com, 21 July) sums up the hopelessness at the heart of the Labour project. And all because of one era-shaping error after the global financial meltdown: in a crisis, you don’t reflect on the nuances of public opinion, you shape it. Something austerity zealots wasted no time in doing.

From 2008, aided and abetted by their self-serving friends in the rightwing press, unthinking captains of industry and an obsequious BBC, they have firmly established not only the narrative, but also the language we use to talk about it. Their most audacious move of all though has been to turn the clearly unattainable economic outcomes (hardly a dent in the deficit, spiralling national debt, flatlining productivity etc) of this ideological coup into unassailable truths; the hard choices Michael speaks of as gospel are nothing of the sort, they’ve been presented to us as such.

Inevitably, the party faces civil war. The left’s role under New Labour was at best emblematic

Fighting such well-drilled and well-motivated opponents with simple but boring facts is hard enough. But when your ranks are mostly made up of well-meaning wonks, cowed career politicians and those who have already accepted the “official” version of events, well, the game is well and truly up.Colin Montgomery Edinburgh

• As someone who wants to see a radical alternative to Conservative austerity policies, the potential victory of Jeremy Corbyn reflects a fatal schism that may actually harm the prospects of the left (Rancour intensifies as Blair enters the fray, 23 July). Labour is now in the bizarre position whereby someone whose politics are totally marginalised in the parliamentary party, and wouldn’t be on the ballot paper without the nomination of a handful of MPs who had no intention of voting for him, is now the favourite to become the next leader.

Inevitably, the party faces civil war. The left’s role under New Labour was at best emblematic, to reassure the broader Labour movement that its traditional values were still represented, without ever influencing policy, and at worst, demonised as the remnants of a class politics that leave Labour unelectable. A Corbyn leadership will be met with virulent opposition by the social-democratic majority of the parliamentary group and by the New Labour grandees, making any normal policy development and campaigning impossible.

The really courageous course of action would be for Corbyn and his supporters to resign en-masse from Labour and help create a new party, unambiguously and enthusiastically committed to a left agenda and that can draw together a broad coalition. The alternative is to spend the next five years fighting over the corpse of a social-democratic party where the left is blamed for everything.Steven SchofieldBradford

• I think the Labour leadership contenders are missing the point about Jeremy Corbyn’s popularity in the constituencies (Kendall team tells Labour rivals to stop cosying up to Corbyn, 20 July). What Labour supporters want the party to do is to oppose this appalling government’s divisive and unfair policies. Instead, what do we get? Just more of the same, Tory Lite. We need a real opposition party, so never mind “electability” – that’s five years away (and, anyway, who cares if you’re all just the same?) – stop leaving it all to the Scottish Nationalists, just get on and oppose.Janet PhillipsChorley, Lancashire

The leadership contenders are nice people but lack the vibrancy and ruthlessness necessary to win the next election

• In the wake of the YouGov analysis (Cooper team rejects poll predicting Corbyn win, 22 July) there are calls for two of the three non-Corbyn candidates to withdraw, to unify the anti-Corbyn vote. At first sight, however, the YouGov analysis reveals even this to be futile, in projecting that after the successive elimination of Kendall and Cooper, under AV, Corbyn would win the final vote against Burnham.

But what the published analysis/data doesn’t reveal is what would happen if Burnham were to withdraw. By my calculation, if 83% of those whose votes YouGov projects as going to Burnham at the second round (ie after Kendall’s elimination) had Cooper rather than Corbyn as their next preference, then Cooper would beat Corbyn in a straight two-way vote. AV would not provide that opportunity, of course, on this projection. So it would require Burnham’s withdrawal.John BoneYork

• As a past, present and future Labour voter, it is hard to enumerate the many mistakes Labour has made in the past five years. The present leadership contenders are nice people but lack the incisive vibrancy and ruthlessness necessary to win the next election. Corbyn would be the fastest-working suicide pill since the party swallowed Michael Foot. Blair is dead right! Liam Byrne – he of the “Treasury letter” – has the necessary skills and talents. With skilful PR he could lead Labour and defeat the Tories. Alas, all see him as an ugly duckling and not the swan that he really is.Angus AllanNewcastle upon Tyne

• Retreat, to appealing only to its radical core and to old socialist roots, was what Labour chose in 1983, following on from the defeat by Thatcher four years earlier. This made us unelectable for 15 years. The calls of today’s world certainly need radical transformation. Notably to tackle Islamic State, global warming and polarisation of wealth across Europe. But, please, not ancient ideas that have been well tried and failed dismally.Mark ReaderCambridge

• Even those most critical of Tony Blair generally applaud his commitment to end child poverty in this country. He said it, he meant it and he did something about it. It is strange therefore that Blair himself, and people describing themselves as Blairites, now regard the continuation of this policy as an extreme leftwing position and support for the proposals in the current welfare bill, which are designed to reverse all the progress made under Blair and Brown and to increase levels of child poverty, as “centrist”.Rory O’KellyBeckenham, Kent

Thank you, Tony Blair, for your past achievements in letting the SNP become so influential

• Tony Blair calls on Labour “not to repeat the mistakes of the 1980s by adopting a traditional leftist platform” (Blair urges Labour not to wrap itself in a Jeremy Corbyn comfort blanket, 22 July). I think he should be more concerned by the mistakes of the last two decades. As Paul Mason pointed out in your paper last week (The end of capitalism has begun, 17 July), “the 2008 crash wiped 13% off global production and 20% off global trade”. This was the result of the failures of unfettered capitalism, which the Blair governments enthusiastically promoted – not any form of socialism, 1980s or otherwise. The acceptance of continuing austerity, as Mason also points out, will mean “driving the wages, social wages and living standards in the west down for decades until they meet those of the middle class in China and India on the way up”. Is it any wonder that many people are looking for an alternative?Declan O’NeillOldham

• We were told in 1999 that the Scottish devolution settlement would prevent the Scottish National party from ever wielding power. Well, that has proved to be untrue as we are now discovering. Now Tony Blair goes on the offensive against these nationalists who are enjoying the generous benefits flowing from the Barnett financial formula that has continued unchanged for the last 36 years. This was a measure introduced in 1979 to prevent the Scottish Nationalists becoming too influential.

Labour’s defeat at the last election is being analysed from a number of angles but I suggest that it was the Scottish Nationalists “who done it”. Conservatives’ well-tuned political machine promoted the idea of Labour-SNP cooperation to form a government. This was anathema to the majority of electors in England who regarded it as a step too far.

Thank you, Tony Blair, for your past achievements in letting the SNP become so influential. We look forward to your further achievements when the Iraq inquiry sees the light of day.Tom JacksonStockport