tag:theconversation.com,2011:/uk/topics/sdp-26082/articlesSDP – The Conversation2019-02-18T13:02:20Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1118872019-02-18T13:02:20Z2019-02-18T13:02:20ZLabour split: new independent group of MPs could break Britain’s political deadlock<p>The rumours of a breakaway centrist movement have finally come to fruition. Frustrated at Labour’s supine approach to <a href="https://theconversation.com/brexit-the-real-reason-why-theresa-may-wont-commit-to-cross-party-talks-with-labour-111678">Brexit</a>, and understandably angered by the leadership’s attitude towards anti-Semitism within the party, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/18/chuka-umunna-and-other-mps-set-to-quit-labour-party">seven MPs</a> including Chuka Umunna and Luciana Berger have had enough. They have broken with their former allies and will now sit as an independent group in parliament.</p>
<p>Though the contemporary context lends matters a particular urgency, British politics has seen some dramatic political splits before. Back in the late 19th century, Joseph Chamberlain’s Liberal Unionists formed largely to prevent Home Rule for Ireland, albeit ending up being merged into the Conservative Party in 1912. Half a century after Chamberlain’s dramatic move, there were schisms in both Labour and Liberal forces as they wrestled with the dilemma of supporting the Conservative-dominated <a href="http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/cabinetpapers/alevelstudies/national-government-1931.htm">national government in the 1930s</a>. The so-called National Liberals, again, ended up a virtual vassal of the Tory Party in the post-1945 period.</p>
<p>As such, the major difference between these and, one presumes, the new Labour split, is that the aforementioned cases all ended up intellectually and, later, formally, subsumed by the political right. Today, however, it is the left that needs some hard thinking. Here we may best look back to two historic examples.</p>
<h2>The New Party</h2>
<p>The first concerns the New Party of 1930-31. This was a short-lived vehicle for Oswald Mosley, whose later shift to fascism has seen it rather underplayed (Matthew Worley’s great <a href="https://www.palgrave.com/gb/book/9780230206977">work</a> not withstanding) in the popular mindset. But what the New Party represented for many of its fellow travellers was a space to think away from the constraining forces of small “c” conservatism, embodied by orthodox figures like Ramsay Macdonald and Philip Snowden.</p>
<p>In a British climate then obsessed with the austere reduction of public spending, this new force offered politicians a means to forward their views on alternatives, such as a “borrow to invest” solution to the economic slump. Mosley’s resignation speech from the Labour government in May 1930 – in protest at its insufficiently dramatic attempts to curb rising unemployment – had been a Keynesian call to arms that it seemed many would follow.</p>
<p>Regardless of where its leader ultimately went, then, the New Party created a space for new ideas. Figures who probably would not have seriously conversed, including Tories like Harold Macmillan and later Labour heroes like Nye Bevan, were given a means through which they could plausibly, and creatively, think about the future.</p>
<p>Neither Macmillan nor Bevan ended up joining the New Party, which was crushed in the 1931 general election. But discussing the possibility of doing so helped garner associations that led to further cross-party talks through the 1930s. Aided by the unifying experience of the war against Hitler’s Germany, it helped create the intellectual thrust necessary for a post-war consensus towards a more interventionist state. Such figures returned to their traditional folds, but did not shed the radicalism their flirtation with the New Party had brought. There was a long-term impact here.</p>
<h2>The SDP</h2>
<p>The more famous example of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-messy-history-of-british-party-politics-61835">Social Democratic Party</a> (SDP) arrived 50 years later. This was created in opposition to the nationalising, anti-EEC, and anti-nuclear weapons agenda of Michael Foot as Labour leader. The SDP was a project of serious intellectual heft, led by the “Gang of Four” of ex-Labour giants: Roy Jenkins, David Owen, Bill Rodgers and Shirley Williams. It was, crucially, also populated by many figures who would make the journey to New Labour in the 1990s.</p>
<p>For my <a href="https://issuu.com/ibtauris/docs/us_lbf_18">forthcoming</a> book, March of the Moderates – which looks at the rise of Bill Clinton’s New Democrats in the US, and New Labour in the UK – I had the good fortune to sit down with Roger Liddle, later Tony Blair’s special adviser on Europe. Liddle had been one of the founding members of the SDP, and in retrospect praises the grouping as providing “a very intellectually liberating experience and doing some interesting policy work”.</p>
<p>By creating a new organisation, not beholden to various special interests, progressive figures were able to pickle a dogma that helped produce the climate for 13 years of government after 1997. A total of 28 Labour MPs (and a single Tory) had joined the SDP determined to engage with an electorate that had become more individualised, and less trusting of the left’s ability to tax and spend effectively, than Labour wanted to admit. </p>
<p>The old left, the SDP contended, was “now pledged to policies which would isolate and weaken Britain – import controls, unilateral withdrawal from the EEC, one-sided disarmament”. Though acknowledging the trade offs of the special relationship with the US, they believed “Britain’s security as a country depends on the cohesion and effectiveness of the NATO alliance.”</p>
<p>Where Labour had talked itself into a series of positions it was difficult to quickly reverse out of (for all the good work of Neil Kinnock), creating a new party allowed the unthinkable not only to be thought, but articulated. The SDP could not quite break through – gaining a quarter of the vote in 1983 but, thanks to first past the post system, only 23 seats. But its intellectual legacy lived on. Put simply, the groundwork for New Labour’s pro-market, pro-defence and, fundamentally more electable strategy, was laid both within, and outside, the Labour party.</p>
<p>Occasionally, politics becomes gummed up. Sometimes tribalism blinds us to the good intentions (and indeed policies) that the people on the other side of the fence may have. Party machines can be captured to the point of no imminent return. And so what is to be done for those who disagree? Chris Leslie, Angela Smith and others have stepped outside the Labour box for answers – and, history suggests, they may have a point. The new independent force may not, and probably will not, change the political game overnight. But if British politics is to escape the current dirge, something must be done.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/111887/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Richard Carr’s book March of the Moderates will be published by I.B.Tauris in September 2019</span></em></p>The Labour split may cause electoral problems, but it could also prompt fresh thinking.Richard Carr, Lecturer in History and Politics, Anglia Ruskin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/620752016-07-07T10:49:18Z2016-07-07T10:49:18ZWhy Labour’s Gang of 172 should seek an alliance with the Liberal Democrats<p>Those with long memories will have a sense of déjà vu about the <a href="https://theconversation.com/corbyn-must-go-labour-needs-to-choose-a-new-leader-wisely-but-quickly-61645">war currently raging</a> between the grassroots of the Labour Party and its parliamentarians. Talk of splits is familiar. It all hearkens back to 1981, when four senior Labour Party figures broke away to found their own centrist party, the SDP. </p>
<p>Stepping outside the “big two” is a perilous path in politics. But while the SDP lasted just seven years, there are reasons to believe a breakaway group would have a greater chance of survival these days. Forming an alliance with liberals, just like the SDP, could be a good option for Labour parliamentarians who are fed up with leader Jeremy Corbyn.</p>
<p>Division is nothing new to Labour. It’s good old-fashioned politics to see the hard left clashing with the rest of the party. In the past it was Michael Foot, nuclear disarmament and the power of the unions that caused all the tension. Today it’s Corbyn, austerity and Brexit.</p>
<p>The Party’s <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-32913465">Militant Tendency</a> prevented Foot from mounting a credible challenge to Margaret Thatcher – and today divisions within the party are holding it back from capitalising on the deep division in the Conservative Party.</p>
<p>Politically, this is a familiar fault-line in the factionalised Labour Party but the stand-off is now coupled with <a href="https://theconversation.com/well-labour-this-is-what-happens-when-you-crowdsource-a-leadership-election-45177">new leadership rules</a> that present a genuine logistical crisis. Unless Corbyn voluntarily resigns, a split looks inevitable.</p>
<h2>The leadership question</h2>
<p>Another key difference is the important question of leadership. Back in the 1980s, there was an abundance of quality leadership. In 2016, it is less apparent. </p>
<p>In 1981 the inspirational Gang of Four, the politicians who broke away from Labour were formidable former office holders – Shirley Williams, Roy Jenkins, David Owen and Bill Rogers – and took with them 28 defecting Labour MPs. It was a top-heavy, leadership driven, move. In 2016 we appear to have a <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36647458">Gang of 172</a>. That’s how many MPs voted against Corbyn in the recent vote of no confidence, yet nobody is coming to the front to lead them.</p>
<p>It is precisely the current lack of leadership in Labour that created the vacuum for Corbyn to fill. Any new entity needs strong, and focused leadership with a clear single voice. The SDP struggled under the personalities of its four powerhouse leaders – who fought among themselves, contributing to its ultimate downfall. </p>
<p>Then comes the question of party organisation. The SDP had no grassroots, no infrastructure, no basis for a nationwide membership structure, and no means by which to organise a seat-by-seat challenge across the country at a general election. By contrast the Liberal Party had all these things, but failed to get any media attention. It looked like a spent force and, behind the scenes, faced bankruptcy. Each had something the other wanted and an alliance was born. Both parties agreed to work together and fought two general elections, before merging permanently in 1988 to become the Liberal Democrats. </p>
<p>Here there is a significant similarity between 1981 and the present day. The Liberal Democrats are a stubborn bunch, who continue to battle on at the centre of British politics despite suffering such a massive electoral defeat in 2015 that they now have just <a href="http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/mps/current-state-of-the-parties/">eight members of parliament</a>.</p>
<p>As things stand, the Liberal Democrats have much to offer those wishing to break away. They have an extra-parliamentary organisation including significant, well-organised and committed grassroots. Since the 2015 election defeat there has been a massive swell in membership and commitment to Tim Farron’s fightback campaign. </p>
<p>The challenges would obviously be vast: the parties would need to overcome decades of tribalism, work out an electoral pact, divide up leadership positions and prepare for the painful process of rewriting a constitution. Labour will also need to forgive the Lib Dems for propping up Cameron’s first government in the 2010-2015 coalition. It could be done though – and the party that emerges from a realigned centre-left may be the only hope of taking on the Conservatives.</p>
<h2>Changing electorate</h2>
<p>The final consideration is the electoral system. Britain’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-message-is-clear-its-time-to-put-first-past-the-post-out-to-pasture-40984">first-past-the-post</a> system favours a contest between two big parties and works against third party or small challengers. Despite high hopes – and sometimes a poll rating in excess of 50% – the Alliance was still only able to win 23 seats in the 1983 election.</p>
<p>Party politics these days are, however, more de-aligned and fluid. The 2010 election delivered a hung parliament and gave the third party a direct share in national office in the form of the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition.</p>
<p>The electorate has got wise to tactical voting and the third party has mastered its <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/liberal-democrat-membership-brexit-latest-remain-tim-farron-london-stays-a7109906.html">targeting strategy</a>. There are also now more smaller parties playing a part. Single-issue groups operating outside the party domain – and newer entities within it (UKIP, the Greens, SNP, Plaid Cymru) – are mopping up segments of the fragmenting electorate. A savvy electorate knows how to get what it wants, and an <a href="http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/06/green-party-calls-labour-lib-dems-and-plaid-cymru-form-progressive">anti-Tory pact</a> is <a href="https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/liberal-democrats/paddy-ashdown/news/76872/paddy-ashdown-plans-cross-party">already under discussion</a>.</p>
<p>The SDP failed, but the Liberal Democrats did not. History tells us that new small parties die, but bigger merged parties survive. In order for this to work they need to have something of equal importance to trade, they need strong focused leadership and they must strike while their bigger rivals are in disarray.</p>
<p>The SDP failed for many reasons – indeed had its founding supporters realised it would ultimately join forces with the Liberals, many would have stayed in the Labour party. With the benefit of hindsight they may well want to stay, but Corbyn can make that a very long game, one his more ambitious colleagues are unlikely to simply sit out.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/62075/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Emma Sanderson-Nash is a former employee of the Liberal Democrats. </span></em></p>After voting no confidence in leader Jeremy Corbyn, angry MPs should think about forming an SDP-style alliance on the centre left.Emma Sanderson-Nash, Research Fellow, University of SussexLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/618352016-07-05T13:50:39Z2016-07-05T13:50:39ZThe messy history of British party politics<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/brexit-is-on-britain-votes-to-leave-the-eu-experts-respond-61576">Brexit</a> has triggered an unprecedented scenario in British politics. Never before has a sitting <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-david-cameron-resigns-resignation-prime-minister-career-eu-referendum-a7100621.html">prime minister been forced to resign</a> because of a referendum defeat. Never before has a governing party in apparent meltdown been faced by an official <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-36687767">opposition whose situation</a>, if anything, seems worse. </p>
<p>But the two main parties have faced perilous and damaging situations before, and have a history of drawing back from the brink.</p>
<p>In the case of the Tories, the most profound crisis occurred in 1846, when the party split over the <a href="http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic637538.files/Schonhardt%20Bailey.pdf">repeal of the Corn Laws</a> instigated by its leader Sir Robert Peel. For more than 20 years, the party was kept out of office, save for brief intervals, until at last it saw an electoral revival under Benjamin Disraeli at the general election of 1874. </p>
<p>In 1903, the Conservatives again divided into Free Trade and protectionist camps. This time, there was no major exodus of MPs – although Winston Churchill, who joined the Liberals, <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/timelines/z363gk7">was a notable exception</a>. The electoral consequences were nonetheless calamitous, with a <a href="http://www.oxforddnb.com/public/themes/95/95348.html">landslide defeat in 1906</a>. In spite of a partial recovery four years later, there was no clear prospect of the Tories returning to office. It took a world war to bring about the eventual Conservative recovery – and, despite winning a huge victory at the polls in 1918, it was not until 1922 that the Tories had the confidence to rid themselves of their coalition partners, the Lloyd George Liberals. </p>
<p>That process itself provoked another split, but because it was driven by
personality rather than ideology the healing process was fairly quick and the party dominated for the remainder of the interwar years. </p>
<p>The recent divisions under <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/history/past-prime-ministers/john-major">John Major in the 1990s</a> had more direct similarities to today’s situation. The atmosphere within the Tory party was wholly toxic and became a major factor in <a href="http://www.ukpolitical.info/1997.htm">New Labour’s 1997 triumph</a>. But it did not create a constitutional impasse of the kind that Britain now seems to face. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/129254/original/image-20160704-19107-zkunf5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/129254/original/image-20160704-19107-zkunf5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=846&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/129254/original/image-20160704-19107-zkunf5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=846&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/129254/original/image-20160704-19107-zkunf5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=846&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/129254/original/image-20160704-19107-zkunf5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1063&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/129254/original/image-20160704-19107-zkunf5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1063&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/129254/original/image-20160704-19107-zkunf5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1063&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">On his bike.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The divisions in the party over the EU today are ideological, so are potentially very damaging. On the other hand, there has been no formal split in the party – and if it can hold together it may live to fight another day.</p>
<h2>The opposition position</h2>
<p>For Labour, the first obvious historical point of comparison is the Ramsay MacDonald “betrayal” of 1931. On that occasion, a minority Labour government split over the question of cuts to unemployment benefit. <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/macdonald_ramsay.shtml">MacDonald continued as prime minister</a> of a cross-party “National Government” and then defeated his former Labour allies at the general election that followed. </p>
<p>It was a catastrophe for Labour. Yet although the party was reduced to around 50 seats in the Commons, it was still the largest organised body of opposition to the government of the day. Labour’s continued strength in working-class areas also made it almost inevitable that it would at some stage be called upon to form a government (although this would not occur until the very special circumstances of the post-war election in 1945). </p>
<p>The other key comparison is the split of 1981, when some <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35370788">MPs broke away</a> to form the Social Democratic Party.</p>
<p>Labour in opposition today faces a much more confused situation, having <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/incoming/exclusive-ukip-surge-is-costing-labour-as-many-votes-as-tories-research-suggests-9523847.html">lost votes to UKIP</a> and also the SNP. And the MPs who have <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/26/momentum-jeremy-corbyn-loyalists--confront-rebel-labour-mps">rebelled against Corbyn’s leadership</a> clearly represent a majority within the parliamentary party, whereas the MPs who were expelled and went on to form the National Labour Organisation in 1931 and those who left to form the SDP in 1981 were in the minority. </p>
<p>Labour’s current problems are likely to be amplified by future disagreements over the rules governing the party’s leadership contests. After the adoption of the <a href="http://action.labour.org.uk/page/-/Collins_Report_Party_Reform.pdf">2014 Collins Review</a> it is not entirely clear whether an incumbent leader needs to meet the same nomination threshold as any challenger. </p>
<p>Significant changes in the nature of the party’s membership and its registered supporters make the outcome of any future leadership contest hard to predict. However, in the absence of a leader who can unify the party and make a broad-based electoral appeal, it is possible that the consequences for Labour will be worse than either of the previous splits, especially if there is a general election before the end of the year.</p>
<p>It seems that neither party is well placed to turn the current crisis into an opportunity, even though the Conservatives still have the advantage of a majority in the House of Commons. </p>
<p>However, the problems that both parties face should be seen as symbolic of a broader political crisis. On the one hand, this crisis reflects the fact that the electorate is seriously divided, albeit not on straightforward class lines. On the other hand, it reflects the fact that voters in both Leave and Remain camps lack faith in the capacity of politicians to deliver positive change or even to tell the truth. The vote for Brexit was a product of these divisions and of this crisis of trust, and it also looks set to be exacerbated by them.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/61835/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Richard Toye volunteered for the Britain Stronger in Europe campaign. He has previously received Arts and Humanities Research Council funding for a project on "The Rhetorical Culture of the House of Commons in the Interwar Years."</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Richard Jobson 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 and the Conservatives have faced crises in the past… Just not at the same time.Richard Toye, Professor of Modern History, University of ExeterRichard Jobson, Associate Research Fellow, University of ExeterLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/568282016-03-24T17:15:32Z2016-03-24T17:15:32ZLabour lacks the ‘big beasts’ needed to form a Social Democratic Party<p>We’ve been here before, or so it seems. A left-wing Labour leader the parliamentary party feels was foisted upon it, ongoing ideological warfare, and a fear of impending electoral Armageddon. The last time this happened was in 1981 when such circumstances <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35367714">led to the creation of the Social Democratic Party</a>, the first new major mainstream political party in almost a century. Could Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership of the Labour Party, the demolition of the Liberal Democrats in parliament, and even strife among the Conservatives trigger similar events today and the creation of a new party to capture the centre ground?</p>
<p>In some ways, the current state of Labour seems ideal to foster a breakaway. Corbyn might actually be to the left of Michael Foot, the Labour leader at the time of the creation of the SDP. While Foot was a member of the Tribune Group of MPs, Corbyn comes from the Socialist Campaign Group, a group historically associated with the more radical Bennite left. Foot was also an experienced cabinet minister who enjoyed far more support and respect from colleagues than Corbyn does today. </p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/116398/original/image-20160324-17844-16dztlj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/116398/original/image-20160324-17844-16dztlj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=286&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116398/original/image-20160324-17844-16dztlj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=286&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116398/original/image-20160324-17844-16dztlj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=286&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116398/original/image-20160324-17844-16dztlj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=359&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116398/original/image-20160324-17844-16dztlj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=359&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116398/original/image-20160324-17844-16dztlj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=359&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>A modern version of the SDP might have some support to draw upon. Media reports claim that <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-membership-figures-show-fewer-than-14000-have-quit-the-party-since-election-a6811681.html">nearly 14,000 Labour members have left the party</a> since Corbyn became leader. While this is dwarfed by the <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/more-people-have-joined-labour-since-the-election-than-are-in-the-entire-conservative-party-a6686001.html">nearly 200,000 new members who have joined since May 2015</a>, it suggests that there are dissatisfied natural Labour supporters who could make up the nucleus of a new party. </p>
<p>Perhaps a new party might be able to <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12190512/Labours-biggest-donors-abandon-party-and-pump-140k-into-leadership-challengers.html">attract some of Labour’s major donors</a> to provide the financial resources for the project – this would be particularly important as it seems unlikely that the new party would be able to draw on any significant support from the trades unions.</p>
<h2>Changed days</h2>
<p>If there are some arguments in support of the possibility of a SDP-style breakaway, however, there are many more arguments as to why it’s unlikely. The destruction of the Liberal Democrats in 2015 poses both a tactical and strategic dilemma for any would-be secessionists. Tactically, it means there is no longer a large group of centrist MPs who might be open to being folded into an <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32318993">electoral pact</a> – as the former Liberal Party agreed to with the SDP, <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1136223.stm">running as the Alliance</a>. But more strategically, it raises serious questions about just how deep the well of potential support really is for a centrist third party in British politics. </p>
<p>A breakaway party would also have problems in terms of leadership. The Labour politicians who founded the SDP – the “<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/26/newsid_2531000/2531151.stm">Gang of Four</a>” – were “big beasts”: Roy Jenkins had formerly been deputy party leader, chancellor of the exchequer, home secretary and president of the European Commission. David Owen had been foreign secretary, Shirley Williams a former secretary of state for education and science, and Bill Rodgers a former secretary of state for transport. </p>
<p>But due to various historical accidents, lost parliamentary seats and early retirements, the current parliamentary Labour Party lacks figures of this statute – with the possible exception of Harriet Harman, a former deputy party leader, and Alan Johnson, who has held previous roles as home secretary and security of state for health and education to his name.</p>
<h2>The weight of history</h2>
<p>But, ultimately, the reason why history may not repeat itself is history itself. The SDP turned out to be an electoral dead end, largely due to Britain’s first past the post electoral system that works against new parties. In the 1983 general election <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/politics97/background/pastelec/ge83.shtml">the SDP received 25.4% of the vote</a>, just behind Labour with 27.6%, but won only 23 seats in the Commons compared to Labour’s 209 seats. Unless a new breakaway party could find a way to significantly deplete Labour’s core vote, it would likely suffer the same fate. Indeed, it is a supreme irony that many of the SDP’s ideas only really became influential when championed by New Labour modernisers. </p>
<p>One of the central insights of the New Labour project is the importance of winning office – something repeated ad nauseam in criticism of Corbyn. So adherents to the New Labour creed are highly unlikely to choose any option that looks like a one-way ticket into the political wilderness. </p>
<p>What, then, is a centrist MP to do? The starting point must be an assessment of where they have gone wrong. It is very easy to blame the three leadership candidates Corbyn defeated, but this misses the point. Far more important was the intellectual exhaustion at the heart of the New Labour project. New Labour’s successes all took place during periods of economic growth and confidence, which allowed increased spending on public services without greatly increasing the tax burden. In these more financially straitened times this isn’t an option. </p>
<p>Which poses the broader question – whether asked from within the Labour Party or outside it – of what centre-left politics is for, what is its vision of the good society? Without an answer to that, any centre-left political project will remain fatally flawed.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/56828/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nick Anstead is a member of the Labour Party. </span></em></p>Turmoil on the left led to a party split in 1983, and today’s circumstances look very familiar…Nick Anstead, Assistant Professor, London School of Economics and Political ScienceLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.