Purism v pragmatism: Labour’s dilemma

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/05/purism-v-pragmatism-labours-dilemma

Version 0 of 1.

Alan Johnson is right to cite Keir Hardie’s pragmatism in seeking voters from the centre to make the Labour party electable (Opinion, 5 August). After winning West Ham in 1892 and then losing it in 1895 and securing only two MPs for the new Labour representation committee in 1900, he had no illusions about what had to be done. This is best shown by the secret agreement he and Herbert Gladstone, son of the former Liberal leader, made in 1903. Gladstone, having seen the Liberals lose heavily in 1900 to the Tories and Liberal Unionists, wanted a deal where the Liberals could gain support in working-class seats, and Keir Hardie wanted Liberal voters to vote for LRC candidates. Both got what they wanted, the Liberals stood down in a number of seats and their voters were encouraged to vote Labour, which many did. When Labour made its breakthrough in 1906, only 29 of the 53 MPs who took the Labour whip had been elected on a Labour ticket in a three-party contest. The rest were Lib Labs who had been voted for by Labour and Liberal supporters.

It is the 110th anniversary of the parliamentary Labour party next January, and people like Dave Ward of the CWU who want a party that eschews the pursuit of power for principle should recall the secret deal of 1903. Neither leader who signed it made it public, fearing a backlash from the purists in their respective parties. As Labour again struggles to get votes, purism is as unwelcome in 2015 as in 1903 and the Corbynistas should acknowledge the fact.Trevor FisherStafford

• Supporters of Mr Corbyn’s campaign need not despair. The question to which the pollsters required an answer, “We must live within our means so cutting the deficit is a top priority”, is a classic (Anti-austerity agenda a vote loser, poll reveals, 5 August). Not only is it a non sequitur but it conflates two completely separate issues. We all agree personally with the first part but the second part presents a very complex economic issue that few will fully understand. It is intended to elicit the answer yes.

I’ve supported Labour since 1945. I live in Scotland and have seen young people and many traditional Labour supporters vote SNP, not because of nationalism but because the Westminster party seems not to understand the issues surrounding the second part of the question. The young, facing a bleak future as wealth is filtered from the average and poorest individuals to the wealthiest, as the NHS crumbles, and as private investors and multinational companies take control of Britain’s infrastructure, see the consequences of neoliberal economics and neglect of the issues surrounding climate change, and look for hope. The surge in support for Mr Corbyn mirrors that for the SNP. Senior figures in the Labour party need to understand this; the young are our future.Anthony SeatonEmeritus professor of environmental medicine, Aberdeen University

• Jeremy Corbyn has indeed voted against the party on many occasions, as Alan Johnson points out. But Johnson’s claim that “it’s the loyalty and discipline of the rest of us” that created achievements such as the NHS and the Open University is disingenuous. He might like to remember a past member of the Labour party who was frequently a thorn in the side of the leadership and, like Corbyn, felt that his first loyalty was to his socialist values and the people he represented rather than the Labour party whips. His name? Nye Bevan, the founder of the NHS. As that other great Labour rebel Tony Benn said: “Very often the boat-rockers turn out to be the people who are building the craft.”Jane MiddletonBath

• I am reassured that Chris Leslie, the shadow chancellor, does not want to serve under Jeremy Corbyn (Report, 4 August). His comments reveal a poor grasp of economics. In his haste to demonise Corbyn, he throws out a whole catalogue of inconsistent negative consequences. Boosting public investment by printing money, as Jeremy Corbyn proposes, has quite different economic and financial consequences to borrowing in order to finance government current spending. It is illogical to believe that it should necessarily “squeeze out money for schools and hospitals”. The Labour establishment has adopted the Tory mantra that private investment is always preferable to public investment. Each time they vent their collective spleen against Corbyn, they put their own credibility to lead further in doubt.John Whitley(Ex-Bank of England economist), Lymington, Hampshire

• Could we have some perspective over the disunity in the Labour party? I was a member in Merseyside in the 80s when things were really fractious from bottom to top. From what I can see, the top is all flustered now and promoting disunity and Armageddon through the media (not dissimilar from that time). However, the rank and file appears to be having a pretty informed discussion without shouting. I’m no longer a member, but are CLP meetings currently being disrupted by accusations of class traitor, student bourgeois idealist or Trotskyite infiltrator? Maybe now the members are mature, but the leaders, having little anchorage in the real world, are ill-informed, like in Scotland last year.Simon P MackayGlasgow