Who doesn’t want a unified Labour party? It is obvious that civil war costs us dearly. Following Jeremy Corbyn’s decisive victory in the leadership election, calls for unity came thick and fast at Labour’s conference in Liverpool. But, given the depths of the divisions within the party, this will not be an easy task.
The schism has been crudely portrayed as a battle between a membership supportive of Corbyn on one side, and hostile members of parliament on the other. This ignores the fact that the membership is also divided – particularly between those who joined the party before the 2015 general election, 63 per cent of whom voted for Owen Smith, and those who joined afterwards, who overwhelmingly backed Corbyn. At the conference, where I was proud to represent my constituency as a delegate, anyone watching the television footage could witness the split between the two tribes for themselves. When one set of people on the conference floor stood up to applaud and cheer a speaker, another group would remain seated, arms folded or ostentatiously checking their Twitter feed. A different speaker with an opposing message would tip the see-saw and rouse the sitters into a standing ovation and force the standers back to their seats and their mobile phones. Conference turned into a game of trying to identify which side each delegate was on, there were glances at badges pinned to lapels, at leaflets tucked under arms, at which delegate briefings had been accepted on the way into the hall. Fortunately there was little outright confrontation, as an uneasy compromise of completely ignoring the other side was largely observed.
While this level of enmity is dysfunctional, having different tribes within the Labour party is not. Every major political party needs to have a diversity of opinion within it. Winning a general election means appealing to around 40 per cent of voters – tens of millions of individuals who will each hold slightly different political views. A party which only tolerates one narrow ideological position cannot possibly speak to all of those people. In this respect, Labour is no different to the Tories, which historically saw divisions between Thatcherites and Wets in the 1980s and early 1990s, and which is still divided today. As they go into their own conference many liberal, ‘Remain’-supporting Tories are dismayed by the prime minister’s lurch to the right. But Brighton will not play host to the scenes witnessed in Liverpool. As Theresa May remains on course to deliver a three-figure majority for the Tories at the next election there will be no serious attempts to undermine her.
And therein lies the lesson for Labour. In any large organisation there will be people who are sceptical about the direction that organisation is heading in. Dealing with that scepticism is what a leader principally is there for (after all, there is barely any need for leadership if everyone already agrees on what needs to be done). A leader should reach out to the doubters, understand their concerns, attempt to win them over through persuasion, try to inspire them with their vision. If dissent still remains then a more practical deal must be struck, an offer of something tangible in return for support – three general election victories, for instance.
As Wes Streeting pointed out at the Progress rally in Liverpool, in the absence of positive incentives (the offer of shadow cabinet elections would be a start), too many of the calls for unity are in reality commands to be silent, with the implicit threat of deselection as motivation to obey. This kind of enforced silence is not healthy. We should not forget that Corbyn would never have been Labour leader without nominations from members of parliament who believed that all views in the party deserved a proper hearing. Now that the leadership election is over, the 172 ‘rebel’ MPs must each come to an individual decision about how they proceed. Some will feel that they have a duty to return to the shadow cabinet. Others will hang back, reserving the right to voice concerns when they feel the party’s interests are being seriously damaged. MPs that choose the latter option must be respected, as Corbyn’s right to criticise Labour’s leadership was respected when he was a backbencher.
Nevertheless, now that the drama of conference is over, all of us should get back to our primary mission of taking the fight to the Tories. I doubt there is a single Labour member who does not believe that bringing back grammar schools is a shockingly bad policy, or that the NHS is heading towards collapse without more funding, or that the government’s prevarication on child refugees is not a disgrace. We have concentrated too much on what divides us rather than the greater number of issues that unite us. But shifting the focus will not eliminate the disagreements that we do have. Only positive leadership, a willingness to reach out to those with different opinions, and the conviction that Labour is on course for electoral success, can achieve true unity.
———————————
Christabel Cooper writes a regular column on the Progress website. She tweets at @ChristabelCoops
———————————
Credit: ACC
Ms Cooper is totally wrong.
“…all of us should get back to our primary mission of taking the fight to the Tories.”
An MP’s job is to represent his/her constituency. People are sick and tired of this tribal nonsense.
Can we stop with the single minded focus on grammar schools? It was a throwaway policy with no timescale that the lovely Theresa put out to deflect from the fact the Tories don’t have a direction for Brexit.
And we bought it. So we’re talking about that as if its the only thing that matters – yet we continue to give the Tories free rides on Europe.
Schools are important obviously and this mad idea needs to be stopped. But to ignore everything else is just naive. Brexit is the headline and only show in town long term – lets figure out how we respond to that.
I think the Tory-lite wing of the party should get back to representing their constituencies. They lost the election and the fact is the socialists are in charge now. Get over it!
You on the right of the party do realise that it is ten years since Tony Blair won an election and that none of the team that lead the party to those victories is left in the parliamentary party don’t you? Jeremy Corbyn has as much right to claim credit for those victories as anyone still in the PLP.
You also realise that if the party behaved towards Blair the way it is towards Corbyn then none of those victories would have happened?
If Wes Streeting wants there to see shadow cabinet elections he should argue his case like a grown up instead of stamping his feet and making demands. Just as the rest of us should.
After a hugely damaging leadership election that was brought about by a selfish faction of party members demanding that the left had to be brought into line behind a “unity” candidate the premise of this piece is a bit rich. The right of the party has just been engaged in the most destructive behaviour that I have ever seen in this party and it justified doing so by saying that unity had to be enforced on their terms. It is time each of you showed a bit of self awareness and contrition for the actions that have left the people who need the Labour Party without representation for nearly a year. Do you think that you would be making any of the concessions you demand of Corbyn if smith had won? I don’t. The evidence from the campaign showed me that their was arrogant contempt from the right towards those who thought that Corbyn offers the best hope for the party. I think that the right would be engaging in a process of expelling their opponents from within the party if they had won.
Unity is not in anyone’s gift and it cannot be demanded, but wilful disruption is not the consequence of disunity it is the consequence of individuals deciding to act on their ideals. If your ideals are right then you should continue to act. I think your ideals and motives for this rebellion were wrong. It is time to call a halt to these actions. That includes making demands and then crying foul when they are not met, or as has been the case, crying foul just as much when they are.
Hear hear. Agree totally…
Those that disagreed with Jeremy Corbyn had every right to challenge his leadership. However, rather than do that they chose to trash him personally as incapable of leading – thereby seriously damaging the Party in the event that he won. (It was an all or nothing strategy – and they lost!) I have never known a leadership or any contest in the Labour Party where the opponent set out to personal to attack the other candidate in this manner. Always the issue was policies – the personalities the voters could take their own view on. When I see some of these people who have so harmed our Party recant and apologise for their disgraceful behaviour then maybe there can be some reciprocal concessions. But the notion that people who have divided the Party have to be given a significant say in order to get them back on board is unthinkable. (You might demand that as an alternative to a leadership challenge – but not after losing one.) Those that walked away from Shadow Cabinet positions saying they couldn’t work with Jeremy – and leaving the Party to cope against the Tories – have no right to anything. If they want to be considered for some more junior posts in the future – well let them show their loyalty over the coming months. Jeremy gave people from all sides of the Party a role in the shadow cabinet – and many chose to use that position to plot to undermine and remove the leader. They can whistle for their positions now. When they show their loyalty they may earn the right to serve the Party again. There is no question of their making demands for their agreeing to unity. The membership voted – that’s democracy. Those that think they can play silly beggars – or continue to undermine the democratically elected leader can answer to their party membership.
Wilful plotting against the overwhelming vote of party members, for one whole year, by a group of Labour MPs who have a record of support for right-wing, pro-privatisation, pro-war policies was specifically mounted to unseat the Leader and create massive disunity in the party.
It is those people who must now back the Leader, or leave the party.
Christabel, unity must also be willing to be given not rationed on the basis of how far Corbyn goes to adopt progresses agenda. He did win after a series of debates. The possibility that the members from before 2015 voted for Smith is irrelevant. Who knows how many of the post 2015 members are rejoiners who left over wars, privatisation, PFIs, academies, marketization of the NHS and so on.
I left the LP after years of dismay at the opportunities offered by the 1997 landslide victory lost by the Blair governments carelessness and wilful disregard of what a Labour government should be about. Instead of changing the UK for the better, Tony Blair and his governments built the bridges that the Tories have gleefully crossed since 2010. I rejoined the LP earlier this year, when I thought Labour was about to return to its core values, but too late to have a vote in the 2016 leadership election and had to pay the late joiner fee of £25.
On the substantive issue about unity and the right of the dissenting voices of the PLP to be heard, I would gladly welcome them to join the Front Bench, if they had policies they wish to develop and advocate. But I’ve yet to see Mr Streeling and his colleagues put forward any thing of substance. Owen Smith’s campaign as the supposedly unity candidate was heavy on smears and personal attacks on the leadership and supporters, signed off with refusal to service the Party. I am sorry but if this is what their and (Progress) idea of unity looks like, it just won’t wash.
Why do those who opposed Jeremy Corbyn always insist on his “reaching out” to those who disagree with him?How much reaching out has been done by those in the PLP who spent a year criticising and undermining him,running to the Right-wing press ?Since his re-election,the campaign of vilification does notseem to have stopped….