tag:theconversation.com,2011:/africa/topics/momentum-group-23631/articlesMomentum group – The Conversation2018-09-26T14:09:50Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1039352018-09-26T14:09:50Z2018-09-26T14:09:50ZThe World Transformed: is Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour ready to deliver?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/238153/original/file-20180926-48647-c5m2mb.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The World Transformed conference was held in parallel to the official Labour meeting. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Steven Fielding</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>“Socialism is the democratisation of every level of society, or it is nothing” declared the arch-Corbyn commentator and activist <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/19/labour-democracy-grassroots-selection-mps">Owen Jones</a> on the eve of Labour’s 2018 annual conference. “Simply trooping to a polling station every few years”, he continued, “is an insufficient counterweight to the behemoths of global capital”.</p>
<p>The Labour left certainly sees politics in those terms. In the 1970s and 1980s, Tony Benn advocated a massive increase of the role of the state but saw this as necessarily running in parallel with much greater popular engagement in decision-making. Benn believed democratisation would mostly occur through the trade union movement which, in 1979, had 13 million members.</p>
<p>Labour’s current leadership is building on this Bennite tradition but operates in an era when the unions represent just 6 million employees. And most of them are hardly models of mass participation: when Len McCluskey was re-elected general secretary of Unite, Britain’s biggest trade union, only <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/21/len-mccluskey-re-elected-leader-of-unite-union-jeremy-corbyn">12% of members</a> bothered to vote. Corbynites therefore look to various social movements to supply this missing counterweight to capital: indeed, Corbyn claims that under his leadership <a href="https://theconversation.com/labour-why-jeremy-corbyn-still-struggles-to-turn-his-dream-of-a-social-movement-into-reality-103315">Labour has itself become a social movement</a>. If the evidence for that assertion is patchy, the imperative is nonetheless clear: a Corbyn government that seeks to transform society needs more than a majority in the House of Commons.</p>
<p>The Labour leader’s combative ex-Communist advisor Andrew Murray sees extra-parliamentary support coming from <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45631788">“the mobilisation of the mass of people”</a> on the streets. Others however believe it will develop less dramatically, through changing how millions think about their place in society by imbuing them with a sense of agency – a confidence in their ability to contribute to their own governance. It is arguably a belief that owes more to anarchism than the kind of social democracy with which Labour has been historically associated. It would also require a cultural revolution to match the economic revolution recently outlined by <a href="https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/john-mcdonnell-unveils-labour-policies-13296997">John McDonnell</a>.</p>
<h2>Building from the ground up</h2>
<p>Few imagine this will be achieved quickly, most that it will require a generation of educative work. But if this process is to begin it has to start somewhere. And many relevant ideas sympathetic to Corbynism were mapped out at <a href="https://theworldtransformed.org/">The World Transformed</a>, which, since 2016 has existed side-by-side with Labour’s annual conference. According to social movement activist <a href="https://novaramedia.com/2018/09/11/to-transform-the-world-the-left-must-look-beyond-elections/">Luke Dukinfield</a>, The World Transformed represents “a profound break with the dispiriting orthodoxies of establishment politics”. This year it took the form of a four-day event that embraced sessions from how to decolonise yoga to destroying the power of the City. It threw together radical policy wonks with young artists and veterans of 1970s workers’ cooperatives.</p>
<p>Different strands attracted different audiences so it cannot be said The World Transformed drew up a coherent agenda but across the four days participants expressed a deep desire for a new way of doing politics, one given hope by Corbyn’s leadership and its promise of a bottom-up radical democracy. </p>
<p>Shadow chancellor John McDonnell addressed a number of sessions at which he enjoyed a hero’s welcome. But it is uncertain how far the ideas expressed at the event will see life in any government of which he is part. Even so, McDonnell appeared genuinely enthused. His ambitious <a href="https://theconversation.com/labour-and-john-mcdonnell-are-right-to-give-workers-a-stake-says-company-law-professor-103802">inclusive ownership fund</a> scheme, along with the proposal for employees to comprise one-third of company boards, suggest Labour is taking forward old Bennite ideas and merging them with more contemporary strands of radical thought so as to involve workers in their own management – an idea often reiterated at The World Transformed.</p>
<p>This is an agenda that breaks with all previous Labour governments’ ways of looking at democracy. Most of the party’s post-war parliamentary leaders have been uncomfortable with people doing anything more than voting. If New Labour devolved power to Scotland and Wales it was, in other respects, supremely managerialist. It did things for people rather than with them. Attitudes were however beginning to change under Ed Miliband’s leadership. And indeed, the former leader chaired a session at The World Transformed. One of his panellists, Lisa Nandy – who resigned from Corbyn’s Shadow Cabinet in 2016 having lost confidence in his leadership – described restoring agency to ordinary people as part of the Labour tradition that needed to be revived. You no longer have to be on the left of the party to think democracy should be more than about voting.</p>
<p>The question however remains: is this what most people want? Many ordinary voters seek the renationalisation of a range of industries promised by Labour. But is that because they just want services that are cheap and reliable? Do they also want to help manage them, as workers or consumers, as McDonnell proposes? How many millions of Britons wish to be the kind of active citizens required to sustain a radical Labour government in office beyond simply voting for one?</p>
<p>The answer might seem obvious to those few thousands who attended The World Transformed. But even a few of those sympathetic to the Corbyn project wonder. One of Owen Jones’ Twitter <a href="https://twitter.com/UnlearningEcon/status/1043802993064333312">followers</a> recently asked him how a Labour government could “get past apathy”, given that many people “are tired enough after all the elections and referendums”? “I wonder”, continued Jones’ interlocuter, “how they’d react to being expected to go to regular votes and meetings at their workplace and in their local area?” Jones’ response suggests much hard thinking remains to be done on the left. His reply was as brief as it was glib: <a href="https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1043805654069260289">“phone apps!”</a></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/103935/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Steven Fielding is a member of the Labour Party. </span></em></p>The event, which runs parallel to the official Labour conference, is the engine of Corbyn’s social movement.Steven Fielding, Professor of Political History, University of NottinghamLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/661472016-09-27T12:18:53Z2016-09-27T12:18:53ZThe educated left behinds: Corbyn supporters are smart, driven and angry<p>The idea of the “left behind” played a prominent role in explaining Britain’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/eu-referendum-2016">vote to leave the European Union</a>.</p>
<p>These are the people who have not benefited from European integration or globalisation. They are poor, often uneducated and living in deprived communities. The <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36616028">map of voting</a> in the EU referendum showed a remarkable pattern of regions of economic prosperity, such as London and parts of the south-east voting to remain, and areas of deprivation such as Tyneside and the East Midlands voting to leave.</p>
<p>This was not the whole story of the referendum of course, since other forces were at work as well, but deprivation certainly played a part. </p>
<p>Those of us who have studied party members over the years have observed a <a href="http://ppq.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/06/10/1354068810365505">long-term decline</a> in Britain and elsewhere in party membership and activism. This trend rapidly reversed itself in the case of the Labour Party since the general election of 2015. With more than 600,000 members, the party is now one of the largest mass membership parties in the democratic world. What explains this remarkable change? Is it a one-off or does it herald a resurgence of grassroots party membership and activism?</p>
<p>Clearly, there are factors that are unique to the Labour party when it comes to explaining this development. The loss of the 2015 general election triggered a desire for a change among existing supporters. Equally, the chance event in which some Labour MPs nominated Corbyn for the leadership contest last year (even though they did not vote for him) played a role. A flood of new people signed up as party members and supporters as a result of his surprise election victory, and subsequently they have helped to deliver a decisive win for him in the latest leadership contest. </p>
<p>This kind of insurgency politics is not confined to the Labour party or to Britain, however. In the US, the campaign by Bernie Sanders for the Democratic nomination for the presidency was another example of an insurgency movement. It was astonishing to see a socialist – indeed the only <a href="https://theconversation.com/socialism-is-not-a-dirty-word-bernie-sanders-really-is-changing-us-democracy-49245">self-declared socialist</a> in the US Congress – come so close to winning the nomination. Something is going on in contemporary party politics. Something bigger than any single party. </p>
<h2>Brainy and drained</h2>
<p>There is one possible explanation for the rise of the Labour membership that transcends British politics and has implications for grassroots party activity across the democratic world. This is the idea that many educated people have been left behind by changes in the economy. This has generated a sense of relative deprivation which has contributed to making them politically active. </p>
<p>Relative deprivation has been used to explain political participation (and <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/589189?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents">particularly protesting</a>) in the past. The basic idea is that people make comparisons between what they expect out of life and what they actually experience. When forming these expectations they compare themselves with people who are rather similar to themselves. So blue collar workers will make comparisons with other workers in occupations rather like their own, and will not, as a rule, compare themselves with middle class professionals or rich football stars. The latter are seen as being too remote from their circumstances to make a valid comparison.</p>
<p>If this exercise produces a large gap between their expectation and their actual experiences of life, this will lead to frustration and anger. It can <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/relative-deprivation/4F053B58667D3FDF0DB80DD1FD62372C">trigger political action</a> in the form of protests and demonstrations.</p>
<p>A close look at the British Election Study survey, conducted in May just before the EU referendum, showed that there were a lot of low-paid graduates who joined the Labour party in recent times. The survey has more than 20,000 respondents altogether, and some 679 of them were Labour party members. In April 2016 the average salary in Britain was <a href="http://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/bulletins/annualsurveyofhoursandearnings/2015provisionalresults">£27,600</a>. This figure includes both graduates and non-graduates.</p>
<p>Of the Labour party members included in the election survey, 39% were graduates, but 52% of these graduates earned less than £25,000, and 30% of them earned less than £10,000 a year. Compared with the working population in general, let alone other graduates, they are clearly the left behind.</p>
<p>The left behind can, in general, become apathetic and withdraw from politics, but this is less likely to affect graduates because education gives them the skills and motivation to get involved.</p>
<p>That’s perhaps why we are seeing a revolt of the educated left behind in Britain. Many people with graduate qualifications lack traditional graduate jobs and graduate incomes. Not everyone in this group gets involved in politics of course, and those that do might well participate in parties other than Labour. But the fate of this group is a key factor in explaining the rapid increase in Labour membership over the last year.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/66147/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Paul Whiteley receives funding from the ESRC. </span></em></p>When you educate people and then take their opportunities away, they do have a bit of a tendency to revolt.Paul Whiteley, Professor, Department of Government, University of EssexLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/659942016-09-27T09:05:26Z2016-09-27T09:05:26ZMomentum’s first conference season will test its ability to turn protest into power<p>The British Labour Party’s annual conference in Liverpool finds it at a political and ideological crossroads. Yet a <a href="http://labourlist.org/2016/08/momentum-organise-political-festival-alongside-labour-party-conference/">conference</a> happening at the same time in the same city could be just as historically significant. The event – <a href="http://theworldtransformed.org/">The World Transformed</a> – is being organised by Momentum, the campaign group formed in 2015 to support newly elected leader Jeremy Corbyn. </p>
<p>Momentum claims its event <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/aug/18/momentum-jeremy-corbyn-john-mcdonnell-labour-party-conference-rival">is not a rival</a> to the Labour conference but the fact that it is happening at the same time clearly shows what a force it has become.</p>
<p>The Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) has sought to downplay the influence of Momentum, portraying it as a collection of fringe radicals who will make the party unelectable to the more mainstream voter. It is viewed as an idealistic mirage that will come crashing down to political reality by the time the general election rolls around.</p>
<p>For its part, Momentum is trying to promote what it calls a “different type of politics”. It denounces the centrist legacy of New Labour and, as a result, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/momentum-conference-stuffed-with-anti-labour-speakers_uk_57b5da4ce4b0c5667a0768cb">has been accused</a> of being “stuffed with anti-Labour speakers”.</p>
<p>This exposes Momentum’s precarious and ambiguous position. It is both resisting Labour and seeking to dramatically reshape it from the inside. It remains to be seen if this leftist challenge can move beyond movement politics to become a credible progressive opposition or government.</p>
<h2>Team Corbyn</h2>
<p>Like Corbyn, Momentum is simultaneously committed to Labour while fundamentally opposing many of its recent policies and beliefs. It is thus both on the outside looking in while trying to help lead the party.</p>
<p>Its popular appeal largely stems from being against the existing status quo. However, its larger goal is to use this <a href="http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/elections/2015/10/meet-momentum-next-step-transformation-our-politics">anti-establishment platform</a> to create its own progressive establishment.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"779635909696315392"}"></div></p>
<p>The aim is not <a href="https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/news/77165/momentum-chief-says-winning-elections-matters">just to win elections</a> against the Conservatives – it’s to take on the entire economic and political oligarchy – the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/18/momentum-activists-labour-jeremy-corbyn-feature">powerful corporations and the politicians</a> that supposedly control both parties.</p>
<h2>Building a new New Labour</h2>
<p>Corbyn’s re-election signals a profound departure from the party’s recent past. If his initial victory could be chalked up to a mere protest vote, another landslide triumph shows the PLP that there is an increasing public appetite for a progressive alternative.</p>
<p>On top of their stark ideological differences, Momentum objects to the entire politics of the PLP. Yet while it so often rails against New Labour, Momentum’s rhetoric often echoes the very sentiments that originally made Tony Blair so popular in the first place. Both trumpet the need to remake the party and break free from the orthodoxies of the past. Each claimed they were giving voice to alienated voters who felt ignored by mainstream politics.</p>
<p>Blairism grew in direct response to the perceived failures of Old Labour. The enduring influence of the party’s socialist roots was seen as a political albatross and economically backward looking. What was urgently needed, it was argued, was a party in tune to the concerns of the time, with real answers for contemporary problems.</p>
<p>Momentum must make a similar case now. It has to show that New Labour’s third way no longer makes sense in a post-crisis world. It has to offer a better way to address the devastating consequences of financial excess and the looming global threat of climate change. It has to show that New Labour’s big nation foreign policy should be updated to reflect a multilateral world that demands development and diplomacy rather than free trade and Western militarism.</p>
<h2>From movement to power</h2>
<p>The mere existence of Momentum’s separate conference in Liverpool has already sparked controversy. Its detractors claim that it is just the latest example of disloyalty. Its organisers counter that it is a fringe event meant to complement, not challenge, the official Labour party conference.</p>
<p>However, if Momentum wants to ever become more than part of the fringe, it can learn important political lessons from its much derided predecessors of Thatcherism and New Labour. Doing so does not imply ideological compromise or a capitulation. Rather it is a recognition that political success depends on turning today’s revolution into tomorrow’s normal.</p>
<p>Momentum has to move beyond protest mentality to forge a popular image of its leftist politics as pragmatic and responsive. It has to show convincingly that the PLP and Tories are irresponsible and not to be trusted with the economy and international affairs. It means reaching out to other groups such as the Greens and the SNP as part of a united progressive front that can competently solve the real problems of the British public through public investment and a modernised welfare state. The challenge is to highlight the electoral advantages of a progressive platform not just its ideological correctness.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31426488">rise of UKIP</a> and the result of the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/07/angry-remain-voter-working-class-division-britain">EU referendum</a> show that the political landscape is rapidly evolving. The disaffected and angry voter is increasingly gaining prominence as a political force. The Middle England that was so central to New Labour’s victory has moved on. Decades of rising inequality and political elitism has made it hungry for genuine change.</p>
<p>The future belongs to the party that can best and most productively channel this rage. Prime Minister Theresa May has already sought to do just that through linking her Conservative values to a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/16/theresa-may-doctrine-grammar-schools">populist commitment</a> to addressing chronic social and economic ills. Momentum must take the lead in helping the Labour Party do the same, through a message of anti-austerity, anti-racism, social democracy and the prospect of a more democratic political establishment.</p>
<p>Momentum is undeniably a political phenomenon. It has attracted hundreds of thousands of new voters with claims to be practising a “different type of politics”. Now it is time to see if it can turn a movement into real power for good.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/65994/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Peter Bloom does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Jeremy Corbyn’s supporters are holding a parallel event to the official Labour summit. Can these protestors ever come in from the fringe?Peter Bloom, Senior Lecturer in Organisation Studies, Department of People and Organisation, The Open UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/659742016-09-24T11:24:18Z2016-09-24T11:24:18ZWhy Labour Party members still back Jeremy Corbyn as their leader<p>So Labour members (and £25 supporters) still want Jeremy Corbyn to be their leader, even after the turmoil of the past year. Our <a href="https://esrcpartymembersproject.org/">extensive survey of members</a> helps explain why he scored such a significant win over Owen Smith.</p>
<p>We spoke to members just after the party’s 2015 general election loss and again in May 2016, after Corbyn won the 2015 leadership election. By that time, Labour’s membership had <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jan/13/revealed-how-jeremy-corbyn-has-reshaped-the-labour-party">almost doubled</a> from 201,293 in May 2015 to more than 388,000. </p>
<p>This second survey means we can <a href="http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/07/middle-class-university-graduates-will-decide-future-labour-party">separate out</a> the new full members that joined before January 2016 – the members who were still allowed to vote in the latest leadership contest. It shows just how wide the gap is between old and new members on several key issues. </p>
<h2>Leadership as a driver for membership</h2>
<p>Labour members had been <a href="http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/54068-2/">longing for someone like Corbyn</a> before he was even on the ballot paper. A good deal of latent dissatisfaction, as well as demand for a leader who was more socially liberal and economically left wing than Ed Miliband was already bubbling under in May 2015.</p>
<p>But old members and new members take a very different view of how important the party leadership is. Fewer than half (42.5%) of old members said they had been driven to join because they believed in the party leadership. More than three quarters (76.5%) of the post-May 2015 members said this had been a driving factor. This number goes up further to eight out of ten (82%) among those who joined during the 2015 leadership election and to virtually everyone who joined after September 2015 (95.6%) when Corbyn had already become leader.</p>
<p>Since the party’s leadership is such a core factor for them, it’s clear that the new members were never very likely to vote for Smith. Their belief in Corbyn is the very reason many of them joined.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/139055/original/image-20160924-29886-lli4ex.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/139055/original/image-20160924-29886-lli4ex.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/139055/original/image-20160924-29886-lli4ex.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=267&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/139055/original/image-20160924-29886-lli4ex.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=267&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/139055/original/image-20160924-29886-lli4ex.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=267&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/139055/original/image-20160924-29886-lli4ex.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=336&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/139055/original/image-20160924-29886-lli4ex.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=336&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/139055/original/image-20160924-29886-lli4ex.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=336&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Monica Poletti</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This “Corbynmania” can perhaps be partially explained by how estranged many new members feel from the political elite. A significantly higher proportion (almost 11 percentage points more than older members) feel politicians don’t care what people like them think. They are also less likely to feel as though they can influence political affairs. While 82% of old members felt positive about this, only 69% of new members felt the same way.</p>
<p>The large increase of like-minded members, the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/27/mass-membership-labour-social-movement-community?CMP=share_btn_tw">social movement-like</a> euphoria and the social media hype that have developed around Corbyn’s leadership may well have addressed the perceived divide between members and leaders, and given hope to many of new members of bridging a gap which is otherwise perceived as unbearably wide.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/139056/original/image-20160924-29912-1418wzy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/139056/original/image-20160924-29912-1418wzy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/139056/original/image-20160924-29912-1418wzy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=217&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/139056/original/image-20160924-29912-1418wzy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=217&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/139056/original/image-20160924-29912-1418wzy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=217&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/139056/original/image-20160924-29912-1418wzy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=272&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/139056/original/image-20160924-29912-1418wzy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=272&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/139056/original/image-20160924-29912-1418wzy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=272&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Screen Shot at.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Monica Poletti</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Ideological shift</h2>
<p>Older and newer members also take different views of where the Labour Party sits on the political spectrum. On a scale from 0 (extreme left) to 10 (extreme right), in May 2015 older members position the Labour party at 3.5 and place themselves at 2.4. On the other hand, in May 2016 new members position the Labour party at 2.8 and place themselves at 1.9. Of the new members, one in ten (10.4%) consider themselves a member of Momentum, the association supporting Corbyn’s leadership, and (at 1.38) they are even further to the left than others.</p>
<p>Moreover, a third (31.4%) of the new members are not completely new to the party, since they had been Labour members in the past. When asked (in an open question) why they had left the party and then rejoined, two thirds of them explicitly mentioned either Tony Blair, the Iraq War or New Labour policies being too far to the right as the main reason they left in the first place. Corbyn offers the opportunity to shift the ideological balance of the party back to its pre-New Labour era.</p>
<p>However, Corbyn is also well liked because he is perceived by new members as better understanding the importance of the voice of the people than previous leaders – something they rate as extremely important.</p>
<p>In fact, some 40% of the new members think that the current Labour leadership respects ordinary members “a lot”. Only 16% of older members believed that was the case in May 2015. The difference is striking, and this may be another reason why the membership was keen to stick with Corbyn.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/139057/original/image-20160924-29886-1ojix5v.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/139057/original/image-20160924-29886-1ojix5v.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/139057/original/image-20160924-29886-1ojix5v.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=269&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/139057/original/image-20160924-29886-1ojix5v.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=269&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/139057/original/image-20160924-29886-1ojix5v.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=269&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/139057/original/image-20160924-29886-1ojix5v.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/139057/original/image-20160924-29886-1ojix5v.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/139057/original/image-20160924-29886-1ojix5v.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Monica Poletti</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>New members also don’t seem fussed about having a leader who is good at communicating. Only 35.2% rated it as the most important quality in a leader, compared with 49.5% of old members. Owen Smith’s strengths in this regard, then, probably did him little good.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/139058/original/image-20160924-29886-vq1udm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/139058/original/image-20160924-29886-vq1udm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/139058/original/image-20160924-29886-vq1udm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=404&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/139058/original/image-20160924-29886-vq1udm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=404&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/139058/original/image-20160924-29886-vq1udm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=404&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/139058/original/image-20160924-29886-vq1udm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=508&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/139058/original/image-20160924-29886-vq1udm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=508&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/139058/original/image-20160924-29886-vq1udm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=508&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Monica Poletti</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>But what about the voters?</h2>
<p>The ability to unite the party and to appeal to the average voter – qualities Smith supporters claimed their man had – do not seem to be tremendously relevant for either old or new members, although they were more important for the former than the latter.</p>
<p>Yet, it is precisely the need to appeal beyond the membership to the electorate itself that presents the biggest challenge for the Labour Party under Corbyn’s continued leadership.</p>
<p>Our data show that there is an <a href="http://www.smf.co.uk/%EF%BB%BFask-the-expert-revolting-peasants-labours-changing-membership-who-they-are-and-what-they-want/">obvious gap</a> between the views of Labour members and previous Labour voters when it comes to social and moral (as opposed to economic) issues, such as immigration or law and order.</p>
<p>In principle, this divide is not unbridgeable. But the bridge can only be built if new members will accord as much weight to the opinion of ordinary voters as the new leader has accorded to the opinion of grassroots members.</p>
<p>This need not mean abandoning social media campaigning, which pro-Corbyn new members are particularly <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/tim-bale/jeremy-corbyn-labour-membership_b_10713634.html">keen in pursuing</a> even if it too often tends to preach the converted. It would imply, however, investing more time and effort in the old-fashioned, time-consuming (and at times nerve-racking) activity of talking on the doorstep to ordinary citizens.</p>
<p>It might be boring old politics but it this is still the best way to carry on a genuine two-way conversation with those who hold different views. And it will decide Labour’s fate at the next election.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/65974/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Monica Poletti receives funding from Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC). </span></em></p>An extensive survey shows just how much the party has changed over the past year.Monica Poletti, ESRC Postdoctoral Research Assistant, Queen Mary University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/656802016-09-22T15:02:48Z2016-09-22T15:02:48ZWhy do we treat political party members as oddballs and zealots?<blockquote>
<p>It’s all very well enthusing party members, but what about the wider public? </p>
</blockquote>
<p>If any question can summarise the Labour leadership contest, this is surely a decent candidate.</p>
<p>For many, the two contenders in this election have had their eyes on different constituencies. Leader Jeremy Corbyn, it is said, revels in his bond with the <a href="https://theconversation.com/poll-says-66-of-labour-members-support-corbyn-but-its-hard-to-find-a-friend-in-parliament-51002">party membership</a> and struggles to speak beyond it. He is more concerned with denouncing austerity than addressing the aspirations of ordinary voters.</p>
<p>Corbyn’s challenger <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/owen-smith-29294">Owen Smith</a>, on the other hand, is seen as aiming to connect with the larger population. They are battling to decide who the party will speak for – members first and voters second, or vice versa.</p>
<p>This distinction between voters and members reflects a long-term suspicion of the latter. They are typically seen as a different species from the ordinary citizen. They have their own concerns and a set of passions that others do not share – hence comparisons with <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/26/jeremy-corbyns-labour-party-is-a-cult-even-losing-his-shadow-cab/">religious sects</a>. </p>
<p>Members’ attachment to the party tends to be presented as an identity – the expression of a personality type rather than the outcome of a reasoned decision. Voters choose, whereas members just are. Their views are an extension of their characters: well they would say that wouldn’t they?</p>
<h2>A conscious choice</h2>
<p>But what were members before they were members? They were ordinary citizens of course. No-one in modern Britain is born into a political party: it is a status chosen by the previously unaligned. The category is inherently elastic. A story like Labour’s, of expanding membership, is already a story about the larger population.</p>
<p>The habit of dividing up the electoral universe is a longstanding part of our political culture. Democracy has always tended to be accompanied by efforts to discern laws of behaviour. The idea is to divide people into separate and largely stable groups – voters, elites, members and so on – in order to chart patterns and make predictions.</p>
<p>Each has a distinct personality type, each their own set of attitudes. Those we attribute to the party member can be traced to a broader suspicion of political commitment. Viewed as those who stick relentlessly to their cause, members are those who stand for the intrusion of passions on civilised society. They are the kind of people who do not know how to compromise – probably mad, possibly bad. </p>
<h2>Rising numbers</h2>
<p>But if it was ever possible to view party members as a world unto themselves, it is unfeasible at a time when levels of membership are fluid. When large numbers are joining Labour – and in recent years also the <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/green-party-5002">Greens</a> and the <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/snp-3033">SNP</a> – there can be no denying that plenty are members by choice, not identity. And given we cannot know what the ceiling to these numbers will be, and what factors genuinely limit them, we can hardly mark sharp boundaries between party members and ordinary citizens.</p>
<p>Nor should we want to. Even the detached observer must surely baulk at the negative way party members are being portrayed in this contest. Joining a party is one way to seek to improve society. It means taking a stand on important issues, in a measured and rule-bound way. To join a party is a classic way to exercise the rights and responsibilities of a citizen.</p>
<p>Rather than rising numbers, it is party decline that has been more commonly observed in recent years, in Britain and well beyond. Revealingly, when a party is abandoned by its members, this tends to be read as a valid judgement cast – a sign of the party’s irrelevance or folly. We are comfortable attributing reflection to those who leave a party: those who join one tend to be viewed more sceptically.</p>
<p>But as long as one is broadly committed to some notion of party democracy, the decision of individuals to join parties demands to be seen as no less reasoned than the decision of others to abstain or to leave.</p>
<p>Indeed, rather than see members as the oddity, perhaps it is time we saw non-aligned citizens simply as people who are yet to find their party.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/65680/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The Meaning of Partisanship, by Jonathan White and Lea Ypi, will appear with Oxford University Press in early October 2016. Jonathan is a member of the Labour Party.</span></em></p>The Labour leadership contest is discussed as though people inside and outside the party were a different species.Jonathan White, Associate Professor (Reader) of European Politics, London School of Economics and Political ScienceLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/564082016-09-19T13:14:24Z2016-09-19T13:14:24ZExplainer: what is Momentum and what does it want?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/115619/original/image-20160318-4443-1r5zfhi.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=388%2C4%2C840%2C407&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Momentum's facebook page.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Facebook</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The campaign group <a href="http://www.peoplesmomentum.com/">Momentum</a> was born out of Jeremy Corbyn’s decision to run for the Labour leadership. The group, which sat outside of the party, garnered its supporters from organisations and individuals which had campaigned against Labour in the preceding general election.</p>
<p><a href="http://leftunity.org/">Left Unity</a>, The Green Party, and the remnants of the old <a href="http://www.clpd.org.uk/">Campaign for Labour Party Democracy</a> group threw their weight behind <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/jeremy-corbyn">Corbyn</a>. They saw his leadership as an opportunity to reverse the direction the party had taken under Neil Kinnock, John Smith, Tony Blair and <a href="https://theconversation.com/was-the-gordon-brown-government-really-that-bad-34821">Gordon Brown</a>. His would be a leadership more likely to reflect their own political views.</p>
<p>Comparisons have been made between Momentum and groups such as <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jul/16/militant-derek-hatton-labour-party-1991">Militant Tendency</a>, which gained a stranglehold of sections of the Labour Party in the 1970s and half of the 1980s.</p>
<p>Militant, which was formed in 1964, owed its philosophical basis to a literal interpretation of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky. It functioned outside mainstream politics, pushing up through the rank and file and through the constituency Labour parties.</p>
<p>But comparisons between Momentum and Militant are inadequate. Militant was simmering in the background of left-wing politics for a number of years before making a substantial impact; Momentum appeared as a result of a democratic Labour election. Indeed, the creation of Momentum was enabled by the new Labour leadership. Militant was created to present a new left interpretation of the decline of capitalism ahead of the emergence of a new socialist utopia. The two are very different.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"709077507618807808"}"></div></p>
<p>Momentum is also less about promoting a socialist society (although that is a belief) and more about changing the Labour Party into a new left-wing force in British politics. It organises events, provides platforms for speakers in universities and argues it is supportive of the Labour Party electorally.</p>
<p>It also strives to promote the interests of minority groups in British society as a means of increasing their representation within the Labour Party. Unlike the Militant Tendency, Momentum does not revolve its objectives exclusively around critiquing capitalism. Rather, its conception of socialism is more about bringing it about through grassroots activism.</p>
<h2>Looking to 2020</h2>
<p>Momentum is, at heart, a campaign to unite the left around the Labour Party. The response from moderates has been to establish counter-campaigns such as <a href="http://openlabour.org/">Open Labour</a>, which aim to protect the gains Labour made during the years before Corbyn became leader.</p>
<p>Groups such as these argue Corbyn and Momentum detach Labour from the vital centre ground, where, they argue the majority of the electorate resides. By seeking to prevent Momentum from pushing for a more left-wing Labour Party, the moderates want to continue appealing to those voters who are disengaged from the political process yet vote based on a range of real world issues. These include employment, stability of the economy, and a convincing and credible leadership. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"710139605023064064"}"></div></p>
<p>Moderates argue Momentum shows a disregard for these issues. Momentum and its supporters point to the mandate secured by Corbyn in August 2015 when he was elected party leader. They argue his significant majority shows that he does appeal to voters and can win elections.</p>
<p>Momentum has certainly changed the dynamic within the Labour Party. Coming from the result of Corbyn’s election as leader of the Labour Party, it is hard to compare it to Militant Tendency or the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy. The controversies surrounding it, however come from its appeal to those that rest within the Militant tradition, such as Left Unity, which have little or nothing in common with the Labour Party.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/56408/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew S. Roe-Crines does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Founded to support Jeremy Corbyn when he became Labour leader, the campaign group has ruffled a few feathers since.Andrew S. Roe-Crines, British Politics Lecturer, University of LiverpoolLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/639562016-08-18T15:40:42Z2016-08-18T15:40:42ZThe battle for Labour: MPs must surrender to Corbyn or leave<p>Labour party representatives have been accusing the hard left of “<a href="http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/08/hard-lefts-secret-plan-infiltrate-labour-making-meetings-boring-possible">entryism</a>” in the run up to the leadership election next month.</p>
<p>The party’s deputy leader, Tom Watson says he has evidence that members of the Socialist Party and the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty are signing up as Labour members. Watson claims that these groups – previously known as Militant and Socialist Organiser – are using the methods used by Militant in the 1980s to take control of local constituency Labour parties (CLPs).</p>
<p>Militant’s tactics were to take over moribund constituency parties by the simple expedient of joining the party, getting themselves elected to local committees and then boring and antagonising more moderate members into resigning. This so-called “entryism” was how local parties fell under Militant control. </p>
<p>The story of Labour in the 1980s is the story of how the hard left was <a href="http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/elections/2016/08/how-tony-benn-s-deputy-leadership-campaign-was-defeated">beaten back</a> in the party apparatus at both the local and national level. The hard left was defeated back then with the support of <a href="http://www.spectator.co.uk/2004/03/labours-forgotten-army/">right-wing trade unionists</a>, who manoeuvred within party committees to “fix” votes – most notably in the ruling NEC. Militant was then proscribed and its members gradually expelled.</p>
<p>“Moderates” on the soft left and right of the party are looking back to this time for lessons in how to drive out the “entryist” hard left today. But they shouldn’t get their hopes up. Labour today is not the party it was in the 1980s.</p>
<p>For one thing, the unions have changed. Surprisingly few (just 14) are affiliated to Labour – and many are of only minor importance because of their size. Anyway, the leaderships of the two largest and most powerful unions, though they may have some reservations, are <a href="http://labourlist.org/2016/08/which-unions-have-backed-corbyn-or-smith-in-the-labour-leadership-contest/">backing Corbyn</a>.</p>
<p>The process for electing a leader is different too. In 1983, leader Neil Kinnock was elected by an electoral college in which the unions (wielding their “fixable” block votes) accounted for 40% of the overall vote. The membership made up 30% and the Parliamentary Labour Party 30% (although it also controlled the nominations process). That, to the disappointment of the hard left, put the membership very much in the back seat.</p>
<p>The electoral college was <a href="http://action.labour.org.uk/page/-/Collins_Report_Party_Reform.pdf">swept away</a> in 2014 to be replaced by a one-member-one-vote system. Power in the leadership election now resides entirely with the party members. There were 515,000 in July but there are now estimated to be around <a href="http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/07/labour-membership-hit-600000">600,000</a> paid-up supporters. It’s not clear how many will be entitled to vote this time, but more than <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-labour-leadership-crisis-labour-party-membership-surge-100000-new-members-a7122271.html">100,000 people are reported to have paid £3 to join and vote for Corbyn in 2015</a>. Union members also get a vote but, on past experience, we can expect fewer than 100,000 and perhaps as few as 70,000 to vote.</p>
<p>This has dramatically limited the power of the PLP, which now only really controls the initial nomination process. That was why the PLP cared so much about the recent ruling that the leader <a href="http://labourlist.org/2016/07/jeremy-corbyn-wins-high-court-battle-to-be-on-ballot/">automatically goes on the ballot</a>. The influence of the unions has been diminished in the leadership election process as well (although they are still powerful in the NEC) and their only real power now lies in the influence that their nomination of a candidate has on the votes of their members.</p>
<p>So even though our only <a href="http://election-data.co.uk/poll-of-trade-union-members">survey</a> of the contest so far (we expect a new survey in a few days) indicated that just one-third of the members of Unite, Unison and GMB thought Corbyn was doing a good job, that lack of support is highly unlikely to be reflected in actual voting on the day. Many of that large majority will not vote and of those who do, it is worth noting that in the last two <a href="http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/elections/2015/09/why-did-labour-use-system-elect-its-leader">leadership elections</a> they have voted for candidates not supported by the majority of the PLP.</p>
<h2>Grassroots growth</h2>
<p>Moderate MPs complaining about hard-left <a href="http://labourlist.org/2016/08/tom-watson-sends-corbyn-dossier-as-proof-of-far-left-entryism-into-labour/">entryism</a> should also recognise that many local parties were ripe for “take over”. A large number were small (in 2012, the last year for which we have data, more than one-third had less than 200 members, only 9% had over 500) and engagement with party democracy was generally low. Moderates in the party had themselves to blame for that state of affairs.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/134250/original/image-20160816-13025-188v3m2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/134250/original/image-20160816-13025-188v3m2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/134250/original/image-20160816-13025-188v3m2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=364&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/134250/original/image-20160816-13025-188v3m2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=364&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/134250/original/image-20160816-13025-188v3m2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=364&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/134250/original/image-20160816-13025-188v3m2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=457&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/134250/original/image-20160816-13025-188v3m2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=457&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/134250/original/image-20160816-13025-188v3m2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=457&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Local parties don’t often turn out to vote.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Labour party data</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Since the 2015 general election the situation has been transformed – the <a href="http://labourlist.org/2016/08/what-did-we-learn-from-the-nec-results/">high turnout and shift to the left within this month’s membership votes for the NEC</a> plainly show that. An energetic mass membership has been reinvented.</p>
<p>Labour has always had a <a href="http://bit.ly/2b22t6q">large amount of churn in the membership</a> but the <a href="http://election-data.co.uk/labour-membership-poll">recent influx</a> of new members is enormous. So many new members have joined the party that it throws the accusation of entryism into doubt.</p>
<p>Plainly some people far to the left of “traditional” Labour have joined the party. Plainly they are active and vocal – as anyone on Twitter will be only too aware. Plainly, too, they hope to use their membership as a lever to shift the party to the far left. But the fact is that the party membership had already moved left by 2015, and it has continued to do so as new members have joined in large numbers.</p>
<p>Though the leadership’s lacklustre performance on the EU referendum campaign trail annoyed many new members, support for Corbyn amongst members was at <a href="https://esrcpartymembersproject.org/pmp-related-news/data-labour-members/">55%</a> in mid-July, nearly a month after the result. With a membership of more than half a million, it is hard to see that as the product of “entryism” (at least in the traditional sense of that word).</p>
<h2>How the far left wins</h2>
<p>Though Corbyn’s polling is <a href="https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/10/20/analysis-could-corbyn-become-prime-minister/">diabolical</a> and the likelihood of Labour winning an election under his leadership is slim, that does not mean Smith will defeat him in the leadership election.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/134251/original/image-20160816-13007-qj1qgu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/134251/original/image-20160816-13007-qj1qgu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/134251/original/image-20160816-13007-qj1qgu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=273&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/134251/original/image-20160816-13007-qj1qgu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=273&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/134251/original/image-20160816-13007-qj1qgu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=273&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/134251/original/image-20160816-13007-qj1qgu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=343&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/134251/original/image-20160816-13007-qj1qgu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=343&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/134251/original/image-20160816-13007-qj1qgu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=343&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Few think Corbyn would make a good PM.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">YouGov</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>If Corbyn does win, hopes among “moderates” that they can still manoeuvre within the party machine (and particularly in its NEC) on the model of the 1980s to drive back the left are then likely to founder because the party is so changed. Corbyn’s supporters will quickly seek to strengthen their position within the party apparatus at national and local level. And they will have a great deal of support within the membership.</p>
<p>In handing the leadership of the party to Jeremy Corbyn in 2015 the “moderate” element of the PLP made a catastrophic mistake that almost certainly secured the party for the Corbynite left for the foreseeable future. That leaves MPs with little option but to surrender or leave.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/63956/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Hugh Pemberton does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The party’s centre ground won’t be able to shut out the far left like it did in the 1980s.Hugh Pemberton, Reader in Contemporary British History, University of BristolLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/627432016-07-21T13:11:36Z2016-07-21T13:11:36ZIt’s Roundheads and Cavaliers as Labour battle lines are drawn<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/131125/original/image-20160719-7906-1dqr32m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/anguskirk/4956237853/in/photolist-7t9QiC-8xhgJw-8wWcbC-o1FESM-8xY1QM-8xif9m-nJufP2-egoBCD-o1Tbom-o3LeGB-nJuotS-oz9xtT-iRwomE-PZxtZ-o4ee1X-pqKmbp-o1FAfa-8xcSiT-8wwq2P-8Gqcnx-6GNyzK-8x9AjS-8xapkj">Anguskirk</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Last September, I wrote apropos of Jeremy Corbyn’s election as Labour Party leader: <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/20/jeremy-corbyn-first-week-easy-charming-backbencher">“The drum beat towards civil war within Labour gets louder”</a>. And so it has proved. For a party that once danced to the tune of <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gi5j7jjhm4M">Things Can Only Get Better</a>, it is difficult to see how they can get any worse. And yet they can. Will Labour now split?</p>
<p>The National Executive Committee’s <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/12/labour-leadership-angela-eagle-crying-jeremy-corbyn-nec-ballot/">decision</a> to allow Corbyn to be automatically included on the ballot for the leadership may have given the party a breather. Had the decision gone the other way, Corbyn’s support group Momentum would have refused to acknowledge whoever replaced him as Leader. A civil war would have ensued with Corbyn and his followers as Roundheads and the majority of the Parliamentary Labour Party as unlikely Cavaliers – though their tragedy is that they lack the dash and sparkle of <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/rupert_prince.shtml">Prince Rupert of the Rhine</a>.</p>
<p>Corbyn’s Cromwellian leadership embodies the puritan determination to seek out evil. His virtue-signalling aim is a bonfire of modern vanities. Trident and hedge fund managers will be shown the door.</p>
<p>Labour’s Cavaliers agree with some of this but cheerfulness keeps breaking through. This sunnier outlook has been their creed ever since the 1950s, when party member Tony Crosland wrote in criticism of Labour puritans:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Total abstinence and a good filing-system are not now the right sign-posts to the socialist Utopia; or at least if they are, some of us will fall by the wayside.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Despite opposition from the parliamentary party, the likelihood is that Corbyn will win another resounding victory in this leadership election (which is why he emerged from the NEC meeting looking so chipper). The grassroots have made it clear that Corbyn needs more time to do the job. The best the Parliamentary Labour Party can hope for is that the Roundhead majority in the membership gets a bit reduced.</p>
<h2>After the vote</h2>
<p>So what happens if Corbyn wins? Possibly nothing. Labour’s Roundheads and Cavaliers may just co-exist in an uncomfortable truce.</p>
<p>Alternatively, Momentum may decide to press ahead with a programme of <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/deselection-what-is-labour-get-how-rid-mp-syria-air-strikes-vote-a6758921.html">deselection</a>. It has been <a href="http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/stella-creasy-in-stinging-attack-on-momentum-group-over-deselection-row-a3210926.html">threatening</a> for some time to pressure local Labour parties to withdraw their support for certain candidates ahead of the next election. It will now no doubt cite the alleged treachery of the recent coup attempt as a reason to take out MPs who do not represent its views.</p>
<p>If that starts to happen – and if high profile figures such as Hilary Benn and Angela Eagle get turfed out – it is difficult to see how there will not be a split followed by an unedifying and pointless battle over who owns the “Labour Party” name.</p>
<p>Where history makes a difference is that most protagonists look back to the experience of Labour in the 1980s. Labour split and a new centrist party, the Social Democratic Party, came into being. But the SDP did not turn out too well. Its main achievement was to split the opposition vote and maintain the Conservatives in power for a generation.</p>
<p>What defeated the SDP was not so much Thatcherism as the first-past-the-post electoral system. As it currently stands, the electoral system really only has room for two parties – as the Lib Dems, Greens and UKIP know to their cost. Corbynistas should look on the experience of the SDP and recall that the right wing of the Labour Party (and its supporters) does have somewhere else to go. History suggests both sides need to dial it back.</p>
<p>Labour can only be run effectively if it is a genuine coalition of the left and the centre or if the Roundheads find a way of working with Cavaliers.</p>
<p>Labour has always been prone to factionalism because politics on the left always has to mean something. People are judged by what they represent. But while the party has had bad moments, this is truly its darkest hour.</p>
<p>The truth is that only two things can defeat Corbyn. The first is the power of alternative ideas. The Cavaliers have not been exactly overflowing with these (though the Roundheads aren’t doing too well either). The second is Corbyn’s real nemesis: the British electorate. Nine months in and he has not come up with a single reason to make a Tory vote Labour. Has anyone even mentioned the words “Middle England” to him?</p>
<p>The current coup seems to have been sparked by the belief, following the referendum, that a general election was on the cards and Corbyn needed to be ditched. The truth is that a quick election is the Cavaliers’s best hope. Defeat might prompt Corbyn’s departure.</p>
<p>What to do? Labour bickers while food banks proliferate (there are 200 families using food banks in Theresa May’s Maidenhead constituency, <a href="http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21702217-understand-britains-new-prime-minister-visit-her-constituency-travels-theresa-may-country">according to The Economist</a>). The two sides might be advised to turn to one of the most insightful guides to British politics, <a href="http://www.historyextra.com/blog/1066-and-all">1066 and All That</a>. There, they will discover that the Cavaliers were “wrong but wromantic” and the Roundheads were “right but repulsive”.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/62743/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rohan McWilliam is a member of the Labour Party. He is also co-director of the Labour History research Unit at Anglia Ruskin University.</span></em></p>The party has quarelled before – but this is surely its darkest hour.Rohan McWilliam, Professor of Modern British History, Anglia Ruskin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/627282016-07-19T16:35:50Z2016-07-19T16:35:50ZHere’s what we know about Labour’s £3 supporters – and whether they’ll pay £25 to help Corbyn again<p>Forces on both sides of the Jeremy Corbyn debate are apparently trying to make the most of the 48-hour window within which anyone can register as a supporter of the Labour Party and have a vote in the impending leadership election. Both pro and <a href="http://labourlist.org/2016/07/saving-labour-tells-supporters-it-is-last-chance-to-sign-up-and-topple-corbyn/">anti-Corbyn campaigners</a> are hitting the phones and the streets to convince people to pay £25, either to get the current leader out, or keep him in. </p>
<p>The committed Corbynistas of Momentum are apparently doing their best to <a href="http://labourlist.org/2016/07/dont-be-silenced-momentums-anger-over-reforms-to-labour-leadership-election/">re-establish contact</a> with people who joined as registered supporters during the last leadership contest at the bargain price of just £3. The aim is to get as many Corbyn backers as possible to pay the increased fee of £25. That way, Momentum hopes, they will deliver another victory for Labour’s sitting leader. </p>
<p>The battle for these £3 supporters is so intense because so little is known about who they are and why they signed up last time. Were they hardline Corbynistas, hard-up party loyalists, or simply troublemakers willing to fork out a few quid to troll Labour? And, just as importantly, what might they do this time?</p>
<p>We surveyed nearly 900 of them a couple of months ago in May 2016, so we thought it would be interesting to take a look at what sort of people they are. Why did they take that cheaper, lower-commitment option rather than going the whole hog and becoming full members of the Labour Party? The answer to this question may, perhaps, tell us something about the £25 supporters who might be clamouring to sign up for a vote now – and whether their interest is good or bad news for Corbyn.</p>
<h2>The three quidders</h2>
<p>The first thing to say about the £3 supporters is that they weren’t very different from those who joined Labour as full members after the 2015 general election. Although they were slightly more likely to be male rather than female than those who went the whole hog, some 74% fell into the ABC1 category (roughly middle or upper class) and 56% of them were graduates. That’s very similar proportions to full members.</p>
<p>Since they were, on average, 51-years-old, they were also around the same age as the full members. In other words, although high social grade does not necessarily always equate with high social income, the majority of those people are not going to find it too difficult to pay the £25 required to express their support and vote for the leader again.</p>
<p>Interestingly, those who joined as supporters (and remained as such without upgrading, as it were) were slightly less likely to belong to a trade union (17%) than those who joined as members (23%). They were also less likely, ironically enough, to consider themselves members of Momentum (3%) than those who joined as full members (9%). That suggests that Momentum’s ability to get them to pay up again to save Corbyn may be rather more limited than some imagine.</p>
<p>Another difference between those who registered as supporters after the general election and those who joined as full members is that the former were less likely to have voted Labour in 2015 (64% vs 72%) and more likely to have voted Green (19% vs 13%). One reason why they chose a lower level of commitment may well have been because, quite simply, they felt less partisan loyalty toward Labour in the first place. Or maybe they just felt less politically engaged than those who chose to join as full members. Whether Corbyn has upped that level of engagement enough to see them take up the same offer but at a much higher price will be interesting to see.</p>
<p>It is also true – although here we are talking about very fine differences of degree – that those who registered as £3 supporters were ever so slightly less left wing, socially liberal and pro-immigration than those who joined the party as full members.</p>
<p>But, like those full members, this means they were still very left-wing, very socially liberal and very pro-immigration compared with most voters – even most Labour voters. So all in all, if they can be persuaded to re-register to vote in this election – or if the people who register for the first time today and tomorrow are anything like them – that’s likely to favour those hoping to keep Corbyn rather than ditch him.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/62728/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tim Bale receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Monica Poletti receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Paul Webb receives funding from The Economic & Social Research Council.</span></em></p>They signed up in their droves to vote in the last leadership election, but will they back Corbyn again?Tim Bale, Professor of Politics, Queen Mary University of LondonMonica Poletti, ESRC Postdoctoral Research Assistant, Queen Mary University of LondonPaul Webb, Professor of Politics, University of SussexLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/625682016-07-18T12:05:40Z2016-07-18T12:05:40ZTwo strong potential Labour leaders who might not be on your radar<p>It would be an understatement to say that the Parliamentary Labour Party has been guilty of oversharing in recent weeks. While the Conservatives do much of their backstabbing in private, the Labour Party prefer to do it live on the BBC. Right or wrong, those in the PLP who regard Jeremy Corbyn as unelectable have – by attacking him so publicly – made their judgement a self-fulfilling prophecy.</p>
<p>So what does Labour do now? For those who would like to see a strong opposition, the current scenario looks grim.</p>
<p>The problem is a fairly simple one. After years of Blair and Brown, most of the leading figures in the Labour Party who might be strong candidates – David Miliband being the most obvious example – are too Blairite/Brownite to appeal to an electorate that backed Corbyn in such overwhelming numbers.</p>
<p>The lists of runners and riders doing the <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/26/future-labour-leadership-runners-and-riders/">rounds</a> are dominated by the centre and right wing of the party, few of whom can claim to appeal to a younger, more idealistic membership. Indeed, even those with more left-wing credentials, such as <a href="https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/10182/angela_eagle/wallasey">Angela Eagle</a>, are now saddled with a voting record that ties them to the more ignominious parts of Labour’s past, including the <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/chilcot-inquiry">Iraq War</a>.</p>
<p>The solution is more difficult to identify than the problem. Labour needs someone to capture the energy of the new young members who voted for Corbyn while appealing to a broader electorate. This is no easy task: it involves embracing a different kind of politics, and it certainly means finding someone who can capture the public’s imagination.</p>
<p>The current list of candidates – Jeremy Corbyn, Angela Eagle and Owen Smith – all have fine qualities, but none of them is likely to pull off the difficult task of winning over Labour members, a majority of the PLP <em>and</em> the electorate. Two are acceptable to the PLP, but less likely to win over the public or the party. The other, Corbyn, is popular with the party members but has <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-labours-gang-of-172-should-seek-an-alliance-with-the-liberal-democrats-62075">lost the support</a> of his fellow parliamentarians. </p>
<h2>Seeking a fresh face</h2>
<p>Something has to give. If ever there was a time to take a risk on a younger, less experienced (in parliamentary terms) new leader, it is at precisely this turbulent, post-Brexit moment.</p>
<p>Indeed, the tragic death of Jo Cox was a reminder that within Labour’s ranks there are many younger MPs who, if thrust into the spotlight, might inspire the party, the public and fellow politicians. Let me mention just two.</p>
<p>The first is <a href="http://www.clivelewis.org/">Clive Lewis</a>, MP for Norwich South and currently shadow defence secretary. He is on the left of the party and still loyal to Corbyn, but without the baggage of some of Corbyn’s inner circle. He grew up on a council estate in Northampton, was the first member of his family to go to university, and was one of a small group chosen by the Labour government under Gordon Brown to stand as national <a href="http://www.reachsociety.com/pageview.php?page=about">role models</a> for young black men. </p>
<p>Lewis is a likeable performer and, as might be expected from as a former BBC political correspondent, comfortable in front of a camera. One of his more controversial positions – opposition to the Trident nuclear weapons system – is given credibility by his military background as an army reservist infantry officer, serving a tour of duty in Afghanistan in 2009.</p>
<p>He might not be inclined to run against Corbyn, but the shrewdest move Corbyn could make would be to drop out of the race and endorse Lewis. While some members of the PLP might be unhappy with Lewis’s left-wing politics, his overall appeal would make him difficult to oppose.</p>
<h2>A Northern powerhouse?</h2>
<p>The second potential candidate is Lisa Nandy, the MP for Wigan. Like Jo Cox, she is a northerner with a background working for charities (the homelessness charity <a href="http://centrepoint.org.uk/">Centrepoint</a> and <a href="http://www.childrenssociety.org.uk/">The Children’s Society</a>.</p>
<p>Seen as a rising star, she was until recently shadow secretary of state for energy and climate change in Corbyn’s shadow cabinet. Much like Owen Smith, she is on the centre-left of the party and, like him, recently <a href="http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2462897/lisa-nandy-resigns-from-labour-front-bench-amid-leadership-bid-speculation">resigned</a>.</p>
<p>As a “unity candidate”, she is more plausible than Eagle and more personable than Smith (who may be a skilled political operator, but comes across like one, too). She is in an excellent position to speak for young people who feel shafted by Brexit.</p>
<p>Either one of them would give the Labour Party a fresh new look. Both have had careers outside parliament and thus a much better chance of appealing to a politically cynical electorate. Their entry to the leadership contest might just invigorate the whole process. Without them – or young MPs like them – the current contest looks distinctly uninspiring.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/62568/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Justin Lewis does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Clive Lewis and Lisa Nandy could appeal to both parliamentarians and party members.Justin Lewis, Professor of Communication, Cardiff UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/520562015-12-21T15:39:00Z2015-12-21T15:39:00ZIs Momentum a return to the bad old days of Labour’s militant tendency?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/106686/original/image-20151218-27884-1awnx5k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Where do they stand?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Momentum</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Among Labour MPs there is a growing wave of concern about the activities of <a href="http://labourlist.org/2015/10/jeremy-corbyn-campaigners-set-up-new-momentum-group/">Momentum</a>, a recently established organisation of Corbyn supporters. Former frontbencher <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-pressure-group-momentum-could-destroy-labour-party-says-senior-mp-caroline-flint-a6761046.html">Caroline Flint warned</a> that it was being used by “far-left parties” seeking to penetrate the Labour party, adding: “That is exactly what far-left groups like Militant did in the 1980s. They act as a separate party operating within the Labour Party but with no real loyalty to the party.” </p>
<p>Is history repeating itself? This is a difficult question to answer since we know so little about Momentum’s organisation, membership, leadership and priorities. Media coverage, including in the broadsheets, has been highly partisan – most reports have been less interested in dispassionate analysis than in <a href="https://theconversation.com/little-red-joke-corbyn-labours-most-pressing-problem-is-with-media-51332">pejorative portrayals</a> of “Corbynistas”.</p>
<p>Momentum itself blandly describes its aims as to “encourage those inspired by Jeremy Corbyn’s campaign to get involved with the Labour Party” and to help “create a mass movement for real progressive change”. Its supporters insist that it wants to transform Labour into an outward-looking, mass campaigning party that can tap the energy and idealism of social movements and pressure groups to promote a more equal and socially just society.</p>
<p>For its critics – very numerous among Labour MPs – Momentum’s real objective is, through a mixture of intimidation, abuse and factional manoeuvring, to seize control of the party. It is, they claim, spearheading a drive to deselect MPs who disagree with the new leadership (over Syria, for example, or Trident) or use the threat of deselection to bludgeon them into backing Corbyn. </p>
<p>In addition, the “hard left” (or “Bennite” – followers of Tony rather than Hilary) Momentum has also become a vehicle for infiltration by far-left revolutionary organisations (such as the Socialist Workers Party and the Militant Tendency’s latest incarnation, the <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3176699/Successors-Militant-Tendency-Corbyn-say-wish-Labour-leadership-battle.html">Socialist Party</a>).</p>
<p>So is this a replay of the late 1970s/early 1980s? There are undoubted similarities. The leadership race released polarising impulses within the party, to which the palpable sense of alienation between the parliamentary party and the rank and file has also contributed. The discourse to which these rival factions are increasingly resorting – abusive, ill-tempered and acrimonious – is beginning to lend intra-party debate a similar tone and temper to that of the earlier period. </p>
<p>The disinclination to compromise and to accept the legitimacy of the other side’s point of view, so much a feature of that period, is reappearing. Not least, they contend, we are seeing a revival of the practice of entryism – a strategy by which members of an outside group are encouraged to join a larger party for the purposes of manipulating that party for its own ends. It is something that plagued the party a generation ago, and is reportedly being employed again by some far-left organisations heartened by Corbyn’s triumph.</p>
<h2>Bad old days</h2>
<p>But in history events rarely quite replicate themselves. For a start, however acute Labour’s fractures are today they pale in comparison with the early 1980s, when rival factions tore into each other with gusto, virulence and venom. </p>
<p>Equally, the comparison with Militant is misleading. <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-32913465">Militant</a> was a Trotskyist organisation, with its own organisation, discipline and ideology, that’s aim was to burrow deeply into the Labour Party in order to subvert it from within. Its adherents, though never very numerous, were dedicated, boundlessly energetic and highly disciplined. Further in a few places, notably in Liverpool, Militant had powerfully embedded itself to the degree that it could <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/27/newsid_2528000/2528725.stm">only be eradicated by expulsion</a>. By comparison the various contemporary far-left sects, distracting, exasperating and divisive as they may be, do not pose a comparable threat.</p>
<p>Further, the late-1970s/early-1980s was a period of severe and unprecedented polarisation which featured rival, solidly-structured blocs of left and right releasing salvos at each other with little regard for the party’s popular standing. This simple binary distinction does not begin to do justice to the complexities, subtleties and nuances of modern Labour politics. </p>
<p>We have space only to enumerate a few of these strands: the Blairite right, the centre right (once called “Brownites”), the hard left associated with the <a href="http://www.leftfutures.org/2010/05/the-campaign-group-time-to-move-on/">Campaign Group of MPs</a> (of which both Corbyn and McDonnell were members), the mainly Trotskyist revolutionary (or far) left, plus the large numbers who would align themselves with the soft left (for example, Jon Cruddas) or the centre. </p>
<p>To complicate matters further, in contrast to the earlier period, the boundaries between these various strands of opinion are porous, factional attachments are weaker, and their organisational expression less formalised.</p>
<p>So far, we have also ignored one major power bloc in the Labour alliance – the trade unions. Historically, the role of the larger unions – such as the TGWU, the various engineering unions (now incorporated in Unite) and the GMB – has been as stabilisers, restraining oscillations both to the left and to the right, urging a more pragmatic approach to politics and providing ideological “ballast”. This is the role they eventually came to play in the 1980s as recorded in detail in Lewis Minkin’s classic study: <a href="https://www.questia.com/library/7833038/the-contentious-alliance-trade-unions-and-the-labour">The Contentious Alliance</a>. Will they resume this role if things threaten to get out of hand?</p>
<p>Of course, much depends on the new leadership’s management of internal party affairs. Will it use the levers at its disposal to entrench the power of its own supporters, thereby fostering polarisation? Or will it opt for a more conciliatory, accommodating and inclusive strategy? It appears, at the moment, to be uncertain and undecided, veering from one to the other leaving the party rudderless. But on its eventual decision may depend not only the future of the Corbyn leadership, but that of Labour as serious competitor for power in 2020, too.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/52056/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Eric Shaw receives funding from the ESRC. He is a member of the Labour party. His book: Discipline and Discord in the Labour party (Manchester University Press, 1988) discusses conflict and reform within the Labour Party in the late 1970s and 1980s.</span></em></p>The new left-wing Labour group brings back memories of turbulent times for the party in the late 1970s and early 1980s.Eric Shaw, Senior Lecturer in Politics, University of StirlingLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.