Monday 1 August 2016

Labour: Conspiracy, Cock Up or Catastrophe?


by Les May
Is there really a conspiracy within the Labour party to prevent Jeremy Corbyn leading the Labour party? On the evidence available to us the answer to this question must be 'Yes!'  
So what is the evidence? Consider the following newspaper headlines since Corbyn was elected in September 2015. 'Secret bid to oust Corbyn' (The Times 28 November 2015); 'Revealed: plot to oust Jeremy Corbyn by using veteran Labour MP Margaret Hodge to spark leadership contest' (Daily Telegraph 3 May 2015):  'Labour rebels hope to topple Jeremy Corbyn in 24 hour blitz after EU referendum' (Daily Telegraph 13 June 2016):  'Labour rebels plan to elect own leader and create 'alternative' if Jeremy Corbyn is re-elected' (Daily Telegraph 30 July 2016)
Now, Owen Smith dismissed the last of these stories by insisting he would not 'indulge in gossip'.  But given that the other two stories from the Telegraph proved to be true this hardly looks like a considered response.

Not only does this point to a conspiracy but given that no disciplinary action has yet been taken against any of the people involved it would appear that those who run the party are turning a blind eye to what is going on.

If not actually encouraging the plotters they are certainly guilty of a monumental 'cock up'.

On 15 July, Iain McNicol circulated members informing them that the National Executive Committee had decided 'to suspend all normal party meetings at CLP and branch level until the completion of the leadership election'.  The reason (excuse?) given was the by now all too familiar one of some people feeling 'threatened'.

Now I can think of little that would be more likely to destroy cordial relationships between a sitting MP and Labour members in his or her constituency than this.  If Labour members disagree (or agree) strongly with the behaviour of their MP in the Leadership contest (or anything else) they need a way of resolving their differences.  Being unable to meet for two months to do this collectively is asking for trouble.

Three days after these instructions were issued a Labour party member asked me rhetorically, 'what does she think we are, postmen to deliver her leaflets at election time?'  Later that day at an informal meeting of his branch, complaints were voiced about the something the MP had been doing for some time.  My response when I was told this was to point out that it clearly had not bothered anyone up to the present, so why complain now?

Keeping channels of communication between Labour members and their constituency MPs is important.  Whilst I do not doubt that a number of Labour MPs have been plotting against Corbyn, I am sceptical that all those who resigned from his front bench team were active plotters.  Nor do I know what pressure was applied to them to persuade them to resign.

If, as seems likely, Corbyn is re-elected as leader of the Labour party some of the MPs who originally resigned may wish to reconsider their position and agree to work with him.  They need to have a way back without losing face.  Bridges have to be built (or rebuilt) to enable this to happen.

The alternative, that a group of MPs attempt to form a parliamentary group calling itself the 'Labour' party and with a different leader would be a catastrophe, not least because it would involve tearing up the 'one member one vote' electoral system for leader in favour of one in which members of the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) chose the leader.

Neither The Times nor the Daily Telegraph can be described as papers which support Labour.  A weak and factional Labour party suits their proprietors very well.  So perhaps we should take some of what they say about Labour's difficulties with a pinch of salt.

However that should not stop us from wondering whether the plotters are in fact puppets with someone else 'pulling the strings'.  Bankrolling a legal challenge over who has the right to use the Labour name and owns the assets would not be cheap.  But perhaps someone intent on destroying the Labour party would think it was worth it.  





No comments: