tag:theconversation.com,2011:/fr/topics/labour-party-conference-2018-59888/articlesLabour Party conference 2018 – The Conversation2022-09-26T15:19:42Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1913242022-09-26T15:19:42Z2022-09-26T15:19:42ZKeir Starmer needs to tell a bolder story about Britain’s future to convince voters to back him<p>Leadership in any group, whether it’s a team, an organisation, a community or a country, always requires the skill and insight to tell what <a href="https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/30760283">Marshall Ganz</a> of Harvard University calls a “story of us”.</p>
<p>A story of us uses the raw material of our shared experiences to remind us of what we really care about and what we really value. It constructs not just a sense of who we are, but a sense of who we could be, and in so doing, it creates the necessary motivation for shared action. For Labour leader Keir Starmer, articulating a compelling story of us is a pre-requisite for his success at the next general election.</p>
<p>In times of uncertainty, a story of us can show how remaining true to our shared values requires us to change our behaviour. Starmer’s challenge is to tell the country a convincing and compelling story – and it must be a story with a plot twist that involves enough people making a different choice at the ballot box. The good news for those who wish to see Starmer lead a new government is that he has shown signs of understanding this and even being quite good at it. The bad news is that he hasn’t done it nearly enough.</p>
<h2>The successes</h2>
<p>Following his election as Labour leader in April 2020, Starmer gave an <a href="https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/read-in-full-sir-keir-starmers-victory-speech-after-being-named-new-labour-leader">acceptance speech</a> in the form of a story of us. The pandemic, he said, had reminded people of what really matters: “the love we have for one another … connections with those we don’t know”. Isolation had made us value anew “a greeting from a stranger … a kind word from a neighbour” and reminded us “that we share our lives together”. And on these shared values that “have been lying dormant too long” could be built a hopeful and different future: “we can now see who the key workers really are … they were last and now they should be first”. This was political argument as <a href="https://youtu.be/3UrkCoybYPg">story of us</a>.</p>
<p>More recently, Starmer audaciously drew on the life of Queen Elizabeth II for similar purposes. She was, he said, “a thread between the history we cherish and the present” and her connection to the victory over fascism a “reminder that the prospect of a better future still burns brightly”. Summoning “this moment of uncertainty where our country feels caught between a past it cannot relive and a future yet to be revealed”, he asked what would she want from us. His answer? “To redouble our efforts. To turn our collar up and face the storm. To carry on. Most of all she would want us to remember that it is in these moments that we must pull together … to focus on the things that unite us rather than divide us.”</p>
<p>Without ever naming them, Starmer’s tribute-cum-story of us sought to connect the country to a set of shared experiences and values foundational to his political project. Who are we? We are the people who emulate the virtues of the Queen we are mourning, “the same love of country and of one another … the same empathy and compassion…” What could we achieve if we act on these shared values? It’s simple: we can “bring Britain through this dark night and into the dawn as she did”.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Rx3yQJ09YYQ?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Starmer successfully telling a ‘story of us’</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The struggles</h2>
<p>Why haven’t Starmer’s stories of us been more successful so far? I think there are two main reasons. First, Starmer’s principal opponent has been Boris Johnson. One of Johnson’s strengths is his ability to tell stories – often ones that were entirely fictional. “Get Brexit Done” was an effective campaign slogan precisely because it encapsulated a story of us – Britain’s shared values led the people to free themselves from the EU and why they have experienced the trauma of being held in limbo, they can and will experience the sunlit uplands on the other side of Brexit.</p>
<p>Second, Starmer has never made the creation of a story of us central to his leadership; his storytelling is an occasional practice. When he brings it out, his instincts are spot on, but so far he has lacked the courage of his convictions. Johnson, by contrast, was not only able to tell the “Get Brexit Done” story compellingly, he understood the need to do so repeatedly.</p>
<p>What might the elements of an effective story of us look like? They might remind the country of the shared experience of sacrifice and mutual support demonstrated during the pandemic. They might build a picture that shows this was not an aberration but an example of unchanging shared values in action – that the nation faces a moment of equal if not greater shared peril now as the cost of living crisis threatens every home, every family and every community. </p>
<p>At times like these, Starmer might say, our shared story shows that we have always understood that the health, safety and prosperity of each of us is bound inextricably with the health, safety and prosperity of all of us. This story suitably amplified and repeated could provide the narrative grounding from which the clear political choices it implies can grow. If the British people can be enabled to feel these shared values, the choice at the ballot box becomes clear.<br>
Liz Truss is no storyteller, but in her actions, she is communicating a powerful (if damaging and divisive) story about “who we are” and what the future could hold. If Starmer does not now find the courage and determination to consistently and unstintingly confront this with an alternative story of us based on the values and hopes he believes the people of the UK share, he should not be surprised if No.10 eludes him.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/191324/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Christopher Pietroni 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 Labour leader is actually quite good at building a narrative but he needs to be more consistent in his efforts.Christopher Pietroni, Professor of Leadership Practice Director of the Birmingham Leadership Institute, University of BirminghamLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1040522018-10-04T10:46:17Z2018-10-04T10:46:17ZLabour’s low-carbon plan is a good start – but a ‘green transformation’ must go further<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/238445/original/file-20180928-48647-8qmbke.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Dominic Dudley / shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The Labour Party’s new <a href="https://www.labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Achieving-6025-by-2030-final-version.pdf">plan for a low-carbon Britain</a> breaks new ground. It could offer a lifeline to a clean energy sector hit by the withdrawal of subsidies and, in a radical move, it proposes to put control over energy back in public hands. </p>
<p>It is also timely. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is about to release a special report on the transformative, systemic action needed to keep warming below 1.5°C (the stated aspiration of the 2015 Paris Agreement), so bold moves are welcome. The report will reinforce the fact that the strategies governments currently have on the table are wholly inadequate and will leave the world on course for warming of 3°C-4°C with <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/26/global-warming-climate-change-targets-un-report?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other">catastrophic consequences</a>.</p>
<p>The Labour plan, outlined by the shadow business and energy secretary, Rebecca Long-Bailey, states that by 2030 the party would ensure that 85% of electricity demand is met from renewable and low-carbon sources. The eventual goal is for the UK to get to zero net emissions <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/sep/24/labour-wants-green-energy-to-power-most-uk-homes-by-2030-greenhouse-gas-emissions?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other">by 2050</a>. </p>
<p>In his leader’s speech at the party’s recent conference, Jeremy Corbyn said Labour would “kickstart a green jobs revolution” involving 400,000 skilled jobs created by investments in wind, solar, and energy efficiency. Home insulation efforts will be paid for by £12.8 billion set aside from a <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45655310">national transformation fund</a>, in order to address fuel poverty and conserve energy. </p>
<p>These expressions of “green Keynesianism” mark a break with the failure of neoliberal approaches which assume that market and price signals alone can deliver the required changes to the UK’s energy system. In many ways they resuscitate proposals for a <a href="https://www.greennewdealgroup.org/">Green New Deal</a> that emerged in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. They send a strong signal to investors about the direction of change – that in future the only viable energy system will be one which is <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-45082416">low-carbon</a>.</p>
<h2>Going nuclear?</h2>
<p>There are ambiguities and potential contradictions here though. The phrase “renewable or low-carbon energy” keeps the door open for the expansion of nuclear, for instance. Trade unions often support an expansion of the nuclear industry because of its potential to generate new jobs and, since becoming leader, Jeremy Corbyn has <a href="https://labourlist.org/2017/01/nuclear-power-will-have-a-place-in-britains-future-corbyn-tells-copeland-members/">lent his support</a> to nuclear power. Such proposals remain unpopular with many in the environmental movement, however. </p>
<p>It is also unclear how Labour’s strategy sits with support for other high-carbon infrastructural investments such as the <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-mps-will-try-to-sidestep-jeremy-corbyn-to-back-heathrow-third-runway-a7334316.html">Heathrow airport expansion</a>. Achieving its goals may well also require a suite of other measures including taxes on pollution rather than labour, sharp reductions in fossil fuel subsidies, much stiffer building regulations and fuel efficiency standards for cars, and stronger efforts to drive behavioural change among businesses and citizens – which are not yet on the table.</p>
<p>Labour has called its environment policy the “<a href="https://www.labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/The-Green-Transformation-.pdf">Green Transformation</a>”. Having studied <a href="https://steps-centre.org/publication/green-transformations/">such transformations</a>, I feel that, despite its promise, there is a sense of a missed opportunity with the plan to be more imaginative about energy futures. This might include bolder thinking about decentralised, off-grid, community-owned models of energy provision as well as much more effective strategies to reduce energy demand in the first place. </p>
<p>And there are even greater challenges for the Labour Party. Can it go beyond a paradigm in which, whatever the question, state-led growth is the answer? Could the embrace of the need for green transformations extend to questioning an unflinching commitment to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/26/economic-growth-fossil-fuels-habit-oil-industry">economic growth at all costs</a>? This would mean engaging with ideas which place well-being and prosperity – not GDP or growth – as the goals to be achieved. This might open the way to seeing radical reductions in the production and consumption of energy as possible and desirable, as well as necessary, to prolong life on a finite planet.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/104052/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Peter Newell is an ISRF Political Economy Research Fellow, co-founder of the Rapid Transition Alliance and sits on the board of directors of Greenpeace UK. The views expressed here are personal. </span></em></p>The party will eventually have to look beyond economic growth.Peter Newell, Professor of International Relations, University of SussexLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1040802018-09-28T15:46:01Z2018-09-28T15:46:01ZJeremy Corbyn was once a high-profile opponent of nuclear power – what happened?<p>The <a href="http://www.ukpol.co.uk/rebecca-long-bailey-2018-speech-at-labour-party-conference/">announcement</a> by the shadow business and energy secretary, Rebecca Long-Bailey, that Labour will target “net zero” emissions by 2050 is of course welcome for anyone interested in achieving a low-carbon economy. But the party is plugging in to an existing and growing movement, rather than leading the way.</p>
<p>Indeed, several governments, including those of of <a href="http://www.climatechangenews.com/2017/10/20/jacinda-ardern-commits-new-zealand-zero-carbon-2050/">New Zealand</a> and <a href="https://unfccc.int/news/sweden-plans-to-be-carbon-neutral-by-2045">Sweden</a> have already endorsed zero emissions, along with companies such as <a href="https://www.unilever.com/sustainable-living/reducing-environmental-impact/greenhouse-gases/how-were-becoming-carbon-positive-in-our-operations/">Unilever</a> and <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/536fb55a-374e-11e7-bce4-9023f8c0fd2e">Tesco</a>, as well as a <a href="https://www.theclimatecoalition.org/joint-letter/">cross-party group of British MPs</a>. Even the prime minister, Theresa May, recently <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-expertise-to-help-developing-countries-tackle-climate-change-and-move-to-cleaner-energy">announced</a> that the UK will join the Carbon Neutral Coalition, hopefully signalling a step towards a net zero target.</p>
<p>So, the pledge itself might not be radical, but it will still be difficult for the UK to achieve. Transforming energy systems is technically, socially, economically and politically complex and Labour’s announcement was backed up a <a href="https://www.labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Achieving-6025-by-2030-final-version.pdf">briefing</a> on aspects of how it might be achieved. It foresees rapid growth of both offshore and onshore wind, as well as solar power. It will also require a much-needed concerted effort to improve domestic energy efficiency, particularly in the use of heat in our homes.</p>
<p>But the briefing only gives a partial picture and the scope and feasibility of the plan is yet to be established, as full details will only be revealed later in the year.</p>
<h2>Labour is split over nuclear power</h2>
<p>The lack of detail raises lots of questions, but one of the most politically interesting is what role new nuclear energy might play in Labour’s vision of a net zero future. Long-Bailey’s speech did not mention it. The <a href="https://www.labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Achieving-6025-by-2030-final-version.pdf">background briefing</a> does, but only in passing. And the final, complete report is not yet out. So how much of Labour’s renewables pledge and net zero target depends on new nuclear stations being built?</p>
<p>At the heart of this lack of clarity is the split in the Labour Party about nuclear power – and at the heart of that is Jeremy Corbyn. Back in the day – pre-leadership – Corbyn was a <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/8f051c78-4ef3-11e8-a7a9-37318e776bab">high-profile opponent</a> of the nuclear issue on both environmental and proliferation grounds. None of the problems with nuclear waste and plutonium which so concerned him then have been solved, but his approach has shifted, leading to some awkward exchanges as people seek to understand what his views are now.</p>
<p>Most notable among these was the painful <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/in-nuclear-copeland-its-jeremy-corbyn-thats-radioactive-a7586266.html">Copeland by-election</a> in 2017. Copeland is home to Sellafield, the heart of the UK’s nuclear waste industry, and the seat was solidly Labour for decades.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/238470/original/file-20180928-48650-tugewe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/238470/original/file-20180928-48650-tugewe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/238470/original/file-20180928-48650-tugewe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=262&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/238470/original/file-20180928-48650-tugewe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=262&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/238470/original/file-20180928-48650-tugewe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=262&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/238470/original/file-20180928-48650-tugewe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=329&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/238470/original/file-20180928-48650-tugewe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=329&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/238470/original/file-20180928-48650-tugewe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=329&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Sellafield, Cumbria.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/ashleycoates/8022929287/">Ashley Coates</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Corbyn’s nuclear position was a key focus of by-election campaigning, with the Conservatives highlighting his statements opposing the nuclear industry generally and new nuclear power in particular. Despite a last-minute <a href="https://labourlist.org/2017/01/nuclear-power-will-have-a-place-in-britains-future-corbyn-tells-copeland-members/">endorsement</a> from Corbyn for a new nuclear station at Moorside near Sellafield, Labour lost the seat, with a <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39075061">lack of belief</a> from voters on this new nuclear stance widely identified as a reason.</p>
<p>Elsewhere in the party, though, nuclear power is seen as an intrinsic part of the UK’s energy future. Long-Bailey is <a href="https://www.prospect.org.uk/news/id/2017/September/18/Labour-commits-future-nuclear-industry">very keen</a> on it, for instance. This side of the debate reflects the accepted political paradigm that achieving climate targets won’t be possible without nuclear power.</p>
<p>This view, though, is a paradigm – a recognised and unquestioned way of thinking about what is “acceptable”. It hasn’t really been challenged since new nuclear power was endorsed in the 2008 <a href="http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.berr.gov.uk/files/file43006.pdf">Nuclear White Paper</a>. Since then the energy world has changed. The cost of renewables has plummeted, storage has emerged as an increasingly viable option for managing the fluctuations in solar and wind power, and increased interconnection between the electricity systems in the UK and Europe are providing new opportunities for balancing power.</p>
<p>Coupled with this, the UK’s nuclear plans are floundering because of the high costs associated with new stations. Hinkley Point C requires much higher subsidies than was envisaged in 2008 – and financing of other new projects such as Wylfa and Moorside have led the government to think about measures such as <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/statement-to-parliament-on-horizon-project-at-wylfa-newydd">partial nationalisation</a> as a way of managing the construction and financial risks. This isn’t what the White Paper promised.</p>
<p>So, when Labour’s energy plan is finally published, the issue will be one of the most fascinating. Will the party endorse new nuclear plants, despite their ever present financial problems? It seems likely that it will, because there has been no detailed examination of the case for new nuclear power for ten years – instead, both the Conservative and Labour have generally accepted that nuclear is necessary in a world of climate change.</p>
<p>This is a real shame. One of the opportunities that putting forward a new vision of the UK’s energy systems offered was a new way of thinking about things. From this perspective, just accepting that nuclear power is an inevitable part of the energy future is lazy thinking which fails to recognise the changing energy world. If Labour really want a new, radical energy plan, it needs to reassess the nuclear paradigm.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/104080/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Bridget Woodman 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>Labour should not accept nuclear power as an inevitable part of its climate policies.Bridget Woodman, Course Director, MSc Energy Policy, University of ExeterLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1038992018-09-26T12:19:44Z2018-09-26T12:19:44ZBehind the Brexit vote, Labour remains dangerously divided<p>One of the ironies of Brexit is that, while the Conservatives were long seen as divided over Europe, it is Labour’s internal divisions that could play a vital role on the road ahead. Labour’s conference was the scene for a tug-of-war over whether the party should endorse a second referendum on a Brexit deal. It has put the party leader, Jeremy Corbyn, in the uncomfortable position of being out of step with his most ardent supporters. It all throws up important questions about power in the party and the Corbyn project, as well as Brexit.</p>
<p>Since the 1980s, Labour has adopted a strongly pro-European stance. A pocket of eurosceptics remained in the party, but they were politically insignificant. Some were maverick centrist MPs, like Frank Field and Kate Hoey. The old Bennite left was also hostile to European integration, seeing the EEC (later the EU) as a “capitalist club” that would make it difficult for a left-wing Labour government to manage the commanding heights of the economy.</p>
<p>Today, Labour’s MPs, individual members and affiliated trade unions are overwhelmingly pro-EU and hostile to Brexit. All but about ten Labour MPs voted “Remain” in the referendum. A <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/22/corbyn-under-pressure-from-labour-members-over-brexit">recent poll</a> of party members found 90% would now vote for Britain to remain in the EU. The problem is that the party leader doesn’t always seem to share their enthusiasm.</p>
<h2>Beyond left and right</h2>
<p>Labour’s internal dispute over Brexit cuts across the left-right division. In the figure below, the four quadrants represent four factional positions. In the top-right quadrant are centrist pro-Europeans, including most “moderate” Labour MPs – no friends of Corbyn. In the top-left quadrant are pro-EU left-wingers, a category that comprises almost the entire party membership and most trade unions, the bedrock of Corbyn’s support.</p>
<p>However, Corbyn and his shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, hail from the Bennite left and are found in the bottom-left quadrant. Corbyn voted to leave the Common Market in 1975, he opposed the Maastricht Treaty, and although he campaigned for Remain in 2016, his efforts looked distinctly half-hearted. Finally, in the bottom-right quadrant are a handful of pro-Brexit MPs, who have voted with the government on Brexit.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/238094/original/file-20180926-48650-10gkzpq.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/238094/original/file-20180926-48650-10gkzpq.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/238094/original/file-20180926-48650-10gkzpq.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=327&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/238094/original/file-20180926-48650-10gkzpq.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=327&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/238094/original/file-20180926-48650-10gkzpq.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=327&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/238094/original/file-20180926-48650-10gkzpq.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=410&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/238094/original/file-20180926-48650-10gkzpq.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=410&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/238094/original/file-20180926-48650-10gkzpq.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=410&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">How Labour divides on Brexit.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Most factional infighting in the Labour Party since Corbyn’s election as leader in 2015 has pitted the leader, the membership and the unions against centrist MPs. As long as calls for a second Brexit referendum were confined to these MPs, Corbyn could safely dismiss them. But as Britain’s departure from the EU draws nearer, the grassroots have increasingly mobilised. This year’s conference saw members calling for a second referendum, to the consternation of the leader’s inner circle. Brexit is a genuine fissure within the Corbynite coalition.</p>
<p>With most of the party opposed to Brexit, Corbyn has had to tread carefully. He allowed his shadow Brexit secretary, Keir Starmer, to devise <a href="https://labourlist.org/2017/03/keir-starmer-labour-has-six-tests-for-brexit-if-theyre-not-met-we-wont-back-the-final-deal-in-parliament/">six tests</a> that Labour would demand of a Brexit deal. On a second referendum, Corbyn has opted for the holding pattern of preferring a general election to enable a Labour government to negotiate its own Brexit goals. But there is little thought about how to trigger an election, beyond hoping for the government to collapse. Critics suspect that Corbyn hopes Brexit will take care of itself.</p>
<p>Several interesting points arise from Labour’s Brexit divisions. First, despite the party’s internal debate about <a href="https://theconversation.com/labour-deselection-and-reselection-rules-explained-102938">democratisation</a>, considerable power lies in the leader’s hands. If Labour had a leader in favour of a second referendum, that would already be party policy. Its membership wants it (<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/22/corbyn-under-pressure-from-labour-members-over-brexit">86%</a>) and most MPs probably do likewise. </p>
<p>Corbyn has acted as a brake on adopting this policy. Shifts towards a second vote are quickly followed by retreats, as with McDonnell’s suggestion that any second referendum should not include remaining in the EU as an option. The resolution backed by the party committed it to seeking a general election in the event of no Brexit deal, and failing that, keeping all options open, including a second referendum. It’s not the most decisive statement of intent.</p>
<p>Second, Brexit is a problem the leadership needs to manage because of the danger it poses to the Corbynite project. There is no prospect of members suddenly allying with “moderate” MPs: pro-EU activists sported “Love Corbyn, Hate Brexit” t-shirts and bags at conference, signalling their continued commitment to the leader. But the standing ovation they gave Starmer, who insisted that Remain should be an option, was a shot across Corbyn’s bows.</p>
<p>Third, Labour’s position on Brexit matters because the minority Conservative government has problems controlling its own pro-EU rebel MPs. Outright support from Labour for single-market membership, for instance, could have caused the government problems. But Corbyn instructed his MPs to abstain on an amendment to the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2018/jun/13/eu-withdrawal-bill-which-labour-mps-rebelled-over-the-eea-amendment">EU withdrawal bill</a> prioritising European Economic Area membership (which entails single-market membership).</p>
<p>Fourth, Corbyn’s caution is arguably more in step with Labour voters as a whole. While two thirds of Labour supporters backed Remain in the referendum, one third voted to leave – but few in the party are representing them. To dismiss their significance, as Remainers sometimes do, is astonishingly complacent. Corbyn’s middle-way position of accepting the referendum result but criticising the government’s Brexit goals, was the key to defusing Brexit during the 2017 general election and holding on to numerous seats in the North and Midlands.</p>
<p>Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the small band of pro-Brexit Labour rebels (bottom-right quadrant above) have been vital in giving the government its slim majority on Brexit votes. Five Labour MPs (Field, Hoey, John Mann, Graham Stringer and the suspended Kelvin Hopkins) voted against an <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/17/theresa-may-sees-off-rebellion-customs-union-amendment-defeated">amendment to the trade bill</a> seeking customs union membership. The government won by six votes. Field and Hoey subsequently lost no-confidence votes in their local parties and Field now sits as an independent MP.</p>
<p>Eurosceptics may comprise a small part of the Labour Party, but events have made them disproportionately influential. They control the party leadership and, in the case of the centrist Brexiteers, they are pivotal in steering Brexit through the hung parliament. Against all expectations, Labour Euroscepticism looks set to play a key role in Britain’s departure from the EU.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/103899/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tom Quinn 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>Conference has voted to keep all options on the table – but is the leadership really committed?Tom Quinn, Senior Lecturer, Department of Government, University of EssexLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1035662018-09-25T16:46:51Z2018-09-25T16:46:51ZLabour’s vote changes the Brexit debate – here’s how<p>Even in the topsy-turvey world of Brexit politics, the first few days of the Labour Party conference were quite something: volatile hardly captures it. First, a group of party representatives spent six hours in a “compositing” meeting to produce <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-brexit-corbyn-motion-referendum-peoples-vote-final-say-a8551736.html">a motion</a> that the Labour Party would commit to a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/23/brexit-corbyn-under-pressure-from-all-sides-over-peoples-vote">people’s vote</a> on Brexit or an election. Just hours later, shadow chancellor John McDonnell clarified that a second referendum would focus only on deal or no deal – not providing an option to remain in the EU. Then, entirely contradicting that, shadow Brexit secretary Keir Stammer declared from the floor of conference that “no one is ruling out the option to remain”. It’s hard to remember a time when so much has rested on the speeches of various players at a party conference.</p>
<p>Delegates then went on to vote overwhelmingly in favour of the motion, giving the leadership the signal that they wish to keep “all options remaining on the table including a public vote”.</p>
<p>Let’s not underestimate just how important these discussions are. If the Labour Party finishes this week openly and unitedly committed to a second referendum, and to the option to remain, then the debate of the last two-and-half years has shifted beyond recognition. And if it does manage to reach this position – not by any stretch of the imagination a done deal as yet, despite the conference vote – then it would have done so with considerable political skill.</p>
<p>This time in 2017, as Labour held its conference in Brighton, I <a href="https://theconversation.com/corbyn-in-brighton-this-is-a-seismic-shift-in-two-ways-84800">wrote</a> that its dual focus on the radical changes needed in the economy alongside its commitment to deliver on Brexit – thereby respecting the result of the referendum – could come to be seen as a skillful political endgame by the Labour Party. All it needed to do was to stand back and let the government continue to mishandle Brexit, and then step in as the adults in the room when necessary.</p>
<p>Skip forward 12 months and we can see that this claim may well be being borne out before our eyes. The Conservative Party, led by the tin ear of Theresa May, has made a mess of <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/eu-referendum-2016">Brexit</a> on every front, not just with the negotiators of the EU, but also with every possible domestic group (including of course the members of their own party). The Labour Party, meanwhile, has stayed out of the fray and kept focus on the things it promised in its 2017 election manifesto. </p>
<p>Indeed, it is remarkable that, as a nation suffered a paroxysm over Brexit, as Brexit swallowed every waking minute of this government’s agenda, and also swallowed almost all column inches, that Labour has kept these other policy ideas on the agenda. It has steadfastly stuck to the narrative of redistribution, of building a society for the many and not the few. Even alongside its lamentable handling of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/antisemitism-8903">antisemitism</a> debacle, it has shown an impressive and dogged commitment to its vision of society.</p>
<p>However, the most skillful element of the past 12 months of Labour leadership may well be what has unfolded at the 2018 conference – a party leadership that has promised for two years to respect the democratic will of the people as expressed in the EU referendum has been brave enough to both discuss and vote on what to do about the mess that is May’s handling of Brexit. Effectively, the leaders have said: “OK, we left you to get on with it, as this is what the British people had voted for. However, now we are so worried, that we need to discuss it again, and think about it again.”</p>
<p>They are now also in a position to do this as a point of principle. As Corbyn <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/23/jeremy-corbyn-grassroots-support-will-help-him-become-pm">has stressed</a>, he was elected by the members of the Labour Party on a ticket of increasing the democratic participation of the Labour Party. If they want to pass a motion on Brexit and a people’s vote, then, despite his own position on the EU, his commitment to the party membership means he would not stop them.</p>
<p>Despite the constant negative press around Jeremy Corbyn in some sections of the media, he shows time and again a skillful grasp of political positioning. We shouldn’t be surprised: no matter whether you agree with his politics, what matters is his commitment to them. This is a man who has spent four decades fighting for what he believes; what he appears to genuinely, truly believe. Compare that to May. Are we actually sure what she believes, what she stands for? Or worse, to <a href="https://theconversation.com/boris-johnsons-record-as-foreign-secretary-is-stained-by-litany-of-blunders-and-poor-diplomacy-99649">Boris Johnson</a>, who believes only in himself.</p>
<p>The difference between these two approaches to politics – one utterly principled, and one impossible to discern – are often what determines the mark of a great politician. Irrespective of where they stand on the political spectrum, transformative politicians have believed in what they were doing: Churchill, Thatcher, Blair. Spending your entire life fighting for principles you believe in does not actually teach you to just ramrod your way to your own position, turning a deaf ear to everything else. It teaches you that things take time, should not be rushed, and ultimately, whatever course you decide on reflects the principles you believe in.</p>
<p>Labour’s turn toward a people’s vote, in whichever final form it may emerge, is the very definition of that kind of approach; and this may well prove to be the most electorally attractive to a nation tired of Brexit and the division it has caused.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/103566/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andy Price 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 opposition has shown what happens when principled politics takes charge.Andy Price, Head of Politics, Sheffield Hallam UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1038022018-09-24T16:08:59Z2018-09-24T16:08:59ZLabour and John McDonnell are right to give workers a stake, says company law professor<p>The shadow chancellor’s <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45621361">conference speech</a> on September 24 set out the Labour Party’s radical new economic policies to tackle inequality and increase industrial democracy. John McDonnell paid tribute to the “brilliant” work of the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) think tank and its recent report <a href="https://www.ippr.org/files/2018-08/1535639099_prosperity-and-justice-ippr-2018.pdf">Prosperity and Justice</a>, upon which much of Labour’s polices are based. His speech included striking proposals on employee ownership and employee representation on the board.</p>
<p>Under the proposals, all UK listed companies with more than 250 staff would be legally required to transfer 1% of their ownership into an “inclusive ownership fund” of collectively held shares. Employees would have the same voting rights as shareholders but, unlike shareholders, their dividends would be capped at £500 a year. Any surplus – estimated at £2.1 billion – would be transferred back to social services as a “social dividend”. </p>
<p>Companies, McDonnell rightly stated, benefit from the vast investments made by society, so they should contribute to its upkeep. The inclusive ownership fund would be locked into the company, non-transferable and administered by a board of employee trustees. </p>
<p>In respect of corporate governance, all companies with over 250 employees would be required to have one third of its board peopled by employee representatives.</p>
<p>For the many corporate law and governance scholars who have argued for similar changes, there is much to be celebrated in these bold proposals. But, as they stand, they are not without issues that need teasing out. Here are a few.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1044193469432913921"}"></div></p>
<h2>Unclear effects</h2>
<p>It is not clear how employee share ownership will reduce the social, economic and environmental problems caused by the way that companies are currently run for shareholders. This has long been an issue highlighted <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/gb/academic/subjects/politics-international-relations/political-economy/rethinking-society-21st-century-report-international-panel-social-progress?format=WX&isbn=9781108399579">by corporate law scholars</a>.</p>
<p>The IPPR report itself argues that the shareholder value focus of UK companies prioritises short-term returns over long-term investment, in which dividends trump investment in production. It notes that 55% of cash flow is devoted to dividends today, compared with 39% in 1990. And this is regardless of actual profits, which have been much lower since the 2007-08 financial crisis.</p>
<p>Indeed, the short-term goals of shareholders are further amplified today because the majority of FTSE shares are owned by foreign investment funds whose management are rewarded for short-term returns. Giving employees the same shareholder voting rights as shareholders would only act as a counter to these powerful interests if the numbers were comparable – which seems unlikely.</p>
<h2>Failure to protect employees</h2>
<p>Both McDonnell and the IPPR say worker ownership and control will enhance company efficiency, pointing to the success of European economies. McDonnell points out that employee ownership is four to five times higher in Germany and encourages productivity and long-term thinking. Similarly, the IPPR report states: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Countries which adopt stakeholder models of corporate governance with formal means of employee representation have stronger R&D investment performance, higher productivity and lower inequality than shareholder centric models.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>But these stakeholder systems have consistently failed to protect employees. The legally mandated representation of employees on the supervisory boards of large companies (but not the management board) current in Germany has not protected employees from the huge inroads into their rights as workers in such legislation as the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/01/germany-hartz-reforms-inequality">Hartz reforms</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/237781/original/file-20180924-85785-fbq42j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/237781/original/file-20180924-85785-fbq42j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=437&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/237781/original/file-20180924-85785-fbq42j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=437&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/237781/original/file-20180924-85785-fbq42j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=437&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/237781/original/file-20180924-85785-fbq42j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=549&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/237781/original/file-20180924-85785-fbq42j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=549&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/237781/original/file-20180924-85785-fbq42j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=549&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Board representation might not be enough to protect worker rights.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/business-people-meeting-discussion-corporate-team-335173421">Rawpixel/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Supervisory boards are designed to protect the company, and its profitability, rather than its employees. This is one reason for the longstanding rejection of this model by UK trade unions <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/1409733?seq=6#metadata_info_tab_contents">in the past</a>. As UK companies are currently structured to have a single board of directors (unitary boards), McDonnell’s proposals would increase the areas in which employee representatives could participate. </p>
<p>But, to be effective, Labour’s proposal would need to be clear about employee roles on boards – is it for the protection of shareholder value (in which employees would participate) or the protection of jobs and investment? And, if it’s the latter, how they would realistically achieve this.</p>
<h2>Problematic details</h2>
<p>It is also worth noting that the EU has dramatically shifted away from the idea of stakeholder governance to shareholder empowerment. So, when espousing the benefits of the EU’s approach to corporate governance (as both McDonnell and the IPPR do), the UK should proceed with caution.</p>
<p>Over the last ten years, the EU has launched and spread “stewardship codes”, which encourage more shareholder involvement in governance. Plus, the EU’s <a href="https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/9b871b38-3d20-11e7-a08e-01aa75ed71a1/language-en">Shareholder Rights Directive 2017</a>, which gives more powers to shareholders to dictate company policy, was adopted in spite of the <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/company/docs/modern/com2010_284_en.pdf">EU’s own</a> <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/company/docs/modern/com2011-164_en.pdf">reports</a> showing that shareholder primacy drove the destructive short-termism and risk taking that caused the global financial crisis. </p>
<p>Finally, the claim that employee engagement enhances efficiency is highly problematic as it collates what is good for employees with what is good for shareholders. Yet, what has produced good returns for shareholders is a low paid, flexible domestic workforce and offshore workers that are highly exploited, as well as huge corporate debt to fund share buy backs <a href="https://www.bis.org/review/r150811a.pdf">and speculative financial investments</a>. </p>
<p>So, there is a lot of detail to iron out. But what remains heartening in McDonnell’s speech was Labour’s mission to treat workers – and to make companies treat workers – not as costs or welfare burdens, but as the creators of value who are entitled to the “full fruits of their industry”. Or, at least, to some of it.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/103802/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Lorraine Talbot is affiliated with the International Panel for Social Progress.</span></em></p>All companies with over 250 employees would be required to have one third of its board comprised of employee representatives.Lorraine Talbot, Professor of Company Law in Context, University of BirminghamLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1037822018-09-24T13:13:56Z2018-09-24T13:13:56ZWhat Labour’s Brexit motion means in practice<p>As Labour delegates <a href="https://theconversation.com/labour-conference-a-major-stress-test-for-the-broad-church-103540">gathered in Liverpool</a>, it was impossible to avoid mentions of Brexit. There are 25 separate fringe meetings listed on the conference agenda and there are certain to be more meetings arranged on the fly.</p>
<p>The challenge Labour faces, whether at conference or immediately afterwards, is that it is simply impossible to satisfy all the strands of opinion among members and Labour-leaning voters. While the party’s position has been made clear on some policies (with rail renationalisation an obvious example), Brexit is one of those areas where it is all a bit vague.</p>
<p>This has not necessarily been a problem to date. With doubt surrounding the government’s Chequers proposal, it would be difficult to have a hard and fast position that is not total opposition or total support. Of course Labour can do neither. It has instead drawn up a list of <a href="https://labourlist.org/2017/03/keir-starmer-labour-has-six-tests-for-brexit-if-theyre-not-met-we-wont-back-the-final-deal-in-parliament/">six tests</a> it says the final deal must pass in order to be acceptable. But these are carefully drafted to be general enough not to frighten the horses.</p>
<p>But conferences have a habit of throwing a spotlight on what is missing on party platforms, and there has been a build up of pressure on Labour to be more precise and to commit to a stronger statement of opposition.</p>
<p>Ahead of conference, more than <a href="https://labourlist.org/2018/09/will-labour-conference-change-the-partys-brexit-policy/">100 motions</a> on Brexit had been proposed for debate. Under Labour’s processes, this meant a lot of stitching together and compromising had to happen to produce one motion to put to a vote at conference. Late on Sunday night the wording emerged ready for a debate on the Tuesday (September 25).</p>
<p>The words agreed won’t please everybody. But they do move Labour in the direction of supporting a people’s vote – a referendum on the final Brexit deal. The key phrase, which campaigners will fix on is “if we cannot get a general election Labour must support all options remaining on the table, including campaigning for a public vote.”</p>
<p>This immediately raises two questions. First, how likely is another early general election? It is good campaigning fare for Labour to keep calling for it, but under the <a href="https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN06111">Fixed Term Parliaments Act</a> (2011) there either has to be a large House of Commons vote in favour (which is what happened last time) or a successful motion of no confidence in the government, which is not then reversed by a second vote. At the moment there is no parliamentary arithmetic showing such a vote can be won. An early election is simply not in the interests of either the Conservatives or the DUP, so crucial votes are not available to make it happen.</p>
<p>The second question is about the logistics of another referendum. The UK is due to leave the EU on March 29 2019. Referendums don’t just happen. Parliament has to agree to one, the wording has to be sorted out, there have to be official campaigns designated, expense limits need to be agreed and there has to be a campaign period. Some argue that there simply isn’t time. However <a href="https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/in/pages/15721/attachments/original/1537354181/roadmap_pv_final.pdf?1537354181">the roadmap</a> published by the People’s Vote campaign argues that the logistics can work. The Article 50 letter can be withdrawn, the campaign argues, to make this possible.</p>
<p>The motion also includes the line “conference believes we need a relationship with the EU that guarantees full participation in the single market”. Shadow Brexit minister Keir Starmer had in fact <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/global/2017/aug/26/labour-calls-for-lengthy-transitional-period-post-brexit">already highlighted this aspiration</a> by proposing in 2017 a lengthy transition period with single market membership. This could also be a reference to future membership of the European Economic Area, something that is <a href="https://labourlist.org/2018/06/gareth-snell-the-eea-isnt-the-answer-we-cant-lose-the-trust-of-leave-voters/">controversial in Labour circles</a>.</p>
<h2>The question of a question</h2>
<p>This is only part of the story for Labour however. There is ambiguity among anti-Brexit campaigners (or pro-second vote campaigners) both inside and outside the party about what form of words a public vote would use. </p>
<p>Some believe it should offer the option of remaining in the EU. Others say it should simply be about accepting the government’s deal or not. It is not even clear if it would be a binary choice. Some, including the Conservative’s Justine Greening, are <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/16/back-second-brexit-vote-says-conservative-mp-justine-greening">advocating a three choice ballot</a>, which would presumably offer the choice of accepting the deal, rejecting it and remaining in the EU or rejecting it and leaving without a deal. (A linked problem arises here over the form of vote. A first past the post approach to the three options would cause an almightly row.) Of course some of this ambiguity is deliberate. Campaigns wanting to establish the principle of something need to avoid too many early details as that usually derails momentum.</p>
<p>The task for Labour, as an opposition party wanting to get into government, is to adopt a position which is clearer than it has been while not offering up hostages to fortune by being overly specific. The position also needs to be maintainable during those tense weeks between the return of parliament on October 9 and the vote on the government’s deal. No small task.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/103782/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Paula Keaveney is a member of the Liberal Democrats and was a supporter of the Remain Campaign.</span></em></p>After stitching more than 100 proposed motions into one, what’s left will disappoint some members.Paula Keaveney, Senior Lecturer in Public Relations and Politics, Edge Hill UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1033152018-09-23T11:31:24Z2018-09-23T11:31:24ZLabour: why Jeremy Corbyn still struggles to turn his dream of a social movement into reality<p>During his 2016 leadership campaign Jeremy Corbyn spoke to a packed meeting of supporters. <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36872411">“We are a social movement,”</a> he said.</p>
<p>Corbyn has certainly overseen a transformation of the Labour Party. From fewer than 200,000 members prior to the 2015 election, he is largely responsible for its rise to more than 550,000 by the end of 2017. By some distance, Labour is now the largest UK political party.</p>
<p>But, Corbyn claims, Labour is more than a conventional party. If it is, that is thanks to Momentum, to which 40,000 Labour members belong – an organisation which styles itself as <a href="https://peoplesmomentum.com/about/">“people-powered”</a> and is fired by the ambition to “transform the Labour Party, our communities and Britain”. Growing out of Corbyn’s 2015 leadership campaign, Momentum employs methods associated with those social movements in which many of its leading figures cut their teeth. Many believe these new ways of doing politics helped Labour do unexpectedly well in the 2017 election by mobilising once disengaged younger voters.</p>
<p>On closer inspection, however, Labour looks little like a social movement. And Momentum’s activities are more conventional than its leaders would have you believe. But if Corbyn is to achieve in government the radical changes for which the left has campaigned since the 1970s, a social movement is precisely what Labour has to become.</p>
<p>The Labour left always <a href="https://theconversation.com/new-labour-20-years-on-assessing-the-legacy-of-the-tony-blair-years-76884">criticised</a> the party’s established parliamentary focus and strategy of winning over floating voters by promising modest reforms because – they believed – it meant Labour would never achieve transformative change. To do that, generations of leftists argued, the party needed to look beyond Westminster and mobilise the active participation of millions behind a full-blooded socialist programme. For the left, looking beyond parliament would offset the timidity of their own leaders and the awesome power of capitalism.</p>
<h2>Enter, Corbyn</h2>
<p>When elected as an MP in the 1980s, Corbyn urged Labour to focus less on the parliamentary game and build a campaigning organisation. Instead the Labour leadership pursued the parliamentary road – a process that culminated in Tony Blair’s 1997 landslide.</p>
<p>Two successive election defeats propelled Corbyn into the Labour leadership, still with an unchanged desire to transform society but now armed with the power to achieve it. And a large number of innovative social movements – most notably <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/occupy-movement-1734">Occupy</a> – were now emerging to challenge capitalism from the ground up, fired by a politics <a href="http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/impact-of-occupy-movement/">echoing many of Corbyn’s preoccupations</a>.</p>
<p>Corbyn encouraged some social movement activists to join the party. But as astute <a href="https://muse.jhu.edu/chapter/2034724">Corbyn sympathisers</a> have pointed out, a social movement has aims and methods very different to that of a political party. The latter aims to win votes based on the policies it proposes and to then apply them in government. But the former seeks something more profound: to challenge established ways of thinking and help ordinary people re-imagine their political capacities so they can become active agents in their own liberation. Merging the two approaches into one organisation capable of entering government would be unprecedented.</p>
<p>Pro-Corbyn journalist Paul Mason nonetheless believes Labour <a href="https://medium.com/mosquito-ridge/why-i-joined-momentum-e2e8311ea05c">can do this by</a> becoming “a horizontal, consensus-based organisation, directly accountable to its mass of members” – and indeed it must do this if Corbyn is to win power. The shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, argues that Labour needs to go even further once in government so as to unlock the peoples’ potential – especially as its radical economic programme <a href="https://newsocialist.org.uk/when-we-go-into-government/">will rely on</a> the “active engagement on a daily basis between government and civil society and the real experts on the shop floor”.</p>
<h2>Inspired but not acting</h2>
<p>But evidence that Labour has actually started to morph into a social movement is patchy. Momentum’s membership still represents less than 10% of Labour members. Local Momentum branches are working with the homeless, asylum seekers, women’s and youth groups as well as food banks. The political efficacy of such efforts however remains uncertain. In any case, the organisation has in the main focused on internal party matters: winning seats on the <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/momentum-labour-party-reforms-jon-lansman-jeremy-corbyn-nec-plp-mp-a8420806.html">National Executive Committee</a> (NEC) and ensuring the selection of approved candidates. </p>
<p>In this it has enjoyed some success, recently winning all nine NEC seats voted for by members, although its slate won little more than half of votes cast. And, despite Momentum’s attempt to generate enthusiasm, over two-thirds of Labour members <a href="https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/elections/2018/09/pro-corbyn-candidates-sweep-board-elections-labour-s-ruling-nec">failed to vote</a>. Perhaps even more surprisingly, earlier this year a similar proportion of Momentum members did not <a href="https://labourlist.org/2018/04/women-and-minorities-triumph-in-latest-momentum-election/">vote in elections</a> for the organisation’s own governing body.</p>
<p>It is undoubted that most Labour members approve of Corbyn. But their failure to even click online in support of his favoured NEC candidates suggest few are prepared to assume the arduous obligations of being a member of a social movement – something which requires an intense involvement in local communities. This is possibly because most who recently joined Labour are largely mature, former members who quit the party during the <a href="https://esrcpartymembersproject.org/2016/11/21/explaining-the-pro-corbyn-surge-in-labours-membership/#more-1222">Kinnock and Blair years</a>. They have a conventional view of political action. If they are the ones flocking to the Labour leader’s rallies and tweeting the hashtag #WeAreCorbyn, some see this as evidence more of a personality cult rather than of a social movement, many of which – like Occupy – are uncomfortable with the very concept of leadership.</p>
<p>The MP Clive Lewis <a href="https://twitter.com/labourlewis/status/1038890498298191873">tweeted recently about the party</a>, saying: “The birthing of something new is … painful. But at the end of that process something with immense potential is created. It will wobble. It will stumble. But with the right care & support, it will thrive.” </p>
<p>It is arguably too early for us to see a fully transformed Labour Party. Perhaps the party’s <a href="https://labour.org.uk/about/democracy-review-2017/">Democracy Review</a> will help it acquire the characteristics of a social movement: that is certainly the hope of many Corbynites.</p>
<p>An election is less than four years away. But Corbyn’s social movement is barely born. That means any government he leads will lack the kind of extra-parliamentary support the left has always considered necessary for the success of its transformative agenda. Lacking such support, therefore, a Corbyn government will ironically struggle to counter opposition from the City and business except through parliament – that is, just like every other Labour government that has come before.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/103315/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>Managing day-to-day politics and radically transforming the world is a big task.Steven Fielding, Professor of Political History, University of NottinghamLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1035402018-09-21T13:11:15Z2018-09-21T13:11:15ZLabour conference: a major stress test for the ‘broad church’<p>Jeremy Corbyn has promised Labour MPs that their party will remain a “<a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45478946">broad church</a>”. This year’s Labour Party conference will no doubt test that commitment. </p>
<p>“The Labour Party,” MP Gerald Kaufman wrote in 1966, “would not be what it is – maddening, perhaps, but also capable of arousing strong positive emotions – if people not only with widely differing views but also with widely differing analyses of episodes in the Party’s history did not come together as fellow members.” This is a good description of the broad church. Labour finds strength through its difference, channelling the best of what can sometimes appear to be troubling antagonisms. But how applicable is this to the Labour Party right now?</p>
<p>Jon Lansman, the founder of Momentum and a member of Labour’s governing body, the National Executive Committee (NEC), tweeted recently that “Tony Blair was never in the right party and there will never be a return to his politics” within Labour.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1037962859022561280"}"></div></p>
<p>Lansman’s latter suggestion is, perhaps, a defensible medium-term prediction. But suggesting that Blair was “never” in the right party? The early Blair, even as leader, was very comfortable inside the Labour Party. The Labour members who elected him recognised that Blair represented a challenge to some of the party’s traditions, but also saw a leader arguing for a socialism (he and Gordon Brown were not reluctant, in the early days of New Labour, to use the word) with recognisable themes, rooted in the party’s history, and more politically nuanced than the connotations of the label “Blairite” suggest today.</p>
<p>The later Blair moved some distance away from his party. He disengaged with its traditions – a damaging legacy for his successors that aided Corbyn’s rise. But to ignore the different versions of Blair’s “politics” – and to further an analysis of Labour as a homogeneous entity temporarily taken over by a “Tory”, is to question Labour’s broad church.</p>
<p>Tony Benn, for whom Lansman once worked, eloquently expressed the “different Blairs” in his diaries. In 1994, watching Blair make a speech, he wrote: “It was really quite radical … I think he’s frightened the life out of the Liberals … It was a good and radical speech and I have no complaint about it at all.” Watching Blair depart 12 years later, he saw a leader who “hectored us and bullied us … making us feel totally inadequate”. Both parts of this analysis can be true.</p>
<h2>Practical and ideological</h2>
<p>In a recent pamphlet <a href="http://www.smf.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Centre-Ground-150618.pdf">Centre Ground</a>, the Labour MP Chris Leslie contrasted an “evidence-based” approach to politics with an “ideologically driven approach”. Competing traditions within Labour have conflicting views on the role of ideology. From its foundation, the party’s ideology has been unclear and figures from both left and right have argued for a more precise vision. Many have blamed the sometimes rudderless nature of Labour’s politics on its misguided pragmatism. Others have sought to protect its “practical” outlook, thinking values like fairness were sufficient to guide it.</p>
<p>The broad church has, in the past, made room for both. To be too readily dismissive of ideology is to ignore rich Labour traditions, including from the centre and right of the party. As Andrew Thorpe wrote in his history of the party, Labour’s early years brought together not only those focused on “controlling markets and other apparently mundane issues”, but also those who seemed to embody a more radical set of beliefs.</p>
<p>What Michael Foot called “imaginative sympathy” within the Labour Party – recognising the legitimacy of Labour’s competing traditions, whatever your own view – appears to be running rather low in some sections of the movement. Dissent, including from former Labour leaders and <a href="https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tony-blair-doubts-labour-cant-13205944">prime ministers</a>, can be reasonably met with rebuttal – but seeking to ostracise falls short of a commitment to Labour’s broad church. So too does the view that to hold ideological belief, with great fervour, is somehow out of place within the Labour Party. </p>
<p>Such discord is not without precedent, of course. Holding the broad church together has been challenging for past Labour leaders, including for Foot. Yet with a conference agenda focusing in large part on internal party democracy (the longstanding “who decides” question in Labour’s politics) and including constituency party motions on “<a href="https://theconversation.com/labour-deselection-and-reselection-rules-explained-102938">open selections</a>” and a referendum on the government’s Brexit deal, this conference could be one of the more memorable stress tests of Labour’s broad church.</p>
<p>It’s also an opportunity for Corbyn to set out how he sees Labour’s broad church – and to work out how to channel it into positivity.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/103540/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Karl Pike is member of the Labour Party in Tower Hamlets.</span></em></p>The long history of inclusivity within the Labour Party is likely to come under pressure next week.Karl Pike, PhD candidate and Teaching Associate, School of Politics and International Relations, Queen Mary University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.