{UAH} INTELLECTUAL DEBATE ABOUT THE SOUL OF THE UK LABOUR PARTY
|
6:48 AM |
No comments |
Labour Labour's struggle for consensus, within the party and beyond
Jeremy Corbyn at a leadership rally in Hull. 'Labour no longer has a
consensus,' writes David Hughes. 'In its place one single group has
taken control, spearheaded by a man who has spent his professional
life in effect rejecting the British system, steadfastly voting
against party consensus for 30 years.' Photograph: Danny Lawson/PA
Letters
Sunday 31 July 2016 18.52 BST Last modified on Sunday 31 July 2016 18.54 BST
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via Email Share on LinkedIn
Share on Google+ Share on WhatsApp
Share on Messenger
It's really positive that some of Jeremy Corbyn's key allies are
willing to think about working together across party lines (Labour
'needs allies', 28 July) to produce a government that might actually
at last have the support of a majority of British people, and that
Labour might be willing to make the kind of constitutional changes
that our country desperately needs: most crucially, creating a more
localised political system, where power is closer to the people; and
changing the electoral system to a fairer one, of seats proportional
to votes, so that no one's vote is wasted.
Those are the kinds of changes that a "progressive alliance" of
Greens, Labour and more could bring in. They would mean that we, the
people, could really take back control, rather than control being in
the hands of an overly remote, insufficiently democratic set of houses
of parliament.
My challenge to Clive Lewis et al now is: if you really want a
progressive alliance, will you work to make it work for Greens as well
as Labour? That would mean changing Labour party policy on the issues
I just mentioned – and being willing to offer real political
opportunities and real power to the Green party at large, and not just
to our wonderful MP, Caroline Lucas. In other words: the only way that
a progressive alliance will ever get agreed is if it doesn't simply
involve Greens standing down everywhere save Brighton Pavilion in
Labour's favour.
Rupert Read
Green party candidate for Cambridge in 2015
• In his race to "move away from top-down legislative change to one of
legitimising and helping enable change from below" (I'm backing Jeremy
Corbyn for Labour leader. Here's why, theguardian.com, 27 July), Clive
Lewis loses track of how British electoral democracy works. Whereas
under the continental system voters elect a range of parties which,
post the election, horse-trade to form a government, in the British
system the horse-trading occurs before the election. The political
groupings within the major parties work to achieve a consensus which
is set before the electorate as a manifesto. The party with the most
attractive manifesto wins power.
Since the manifesto is its natural outcome, party consensus is an
absolute prerequisite in the British model, which explains what has
gone wrong for Labour and why Jeremy Corbyn is by definition the wrong
person to lead the party. Labour no longer has a consensus. In its
place one single group has taken control, spearheaded by a man who has
spent his professional life in effect rejecting the British system,
steadfastly voting against party consensus for 30 years, while
refusing to participate in the implementation of the party's manifesto
in government. Instead of representing the 11-million-plus voters
needed to elect it to power, the Labour party now represents the 0.25
million who elected Jeremy Corbyn, the man British public opinion has
already rejected ahead of any general election. Clive Lewis can call
it "top-down, vertical power relationships" or the "bottom-up
variety", but Labour will not again achieve power until it achieves
consensus.
David Hughes
Cheltenham
• Owen Jones believes that there is a "false dichotomy" between Labour
as a social movement and as a party of government (Mass membership
alone doesn't make a social movement, 28 July). But there are stubborn
differences.
Social movements – for example the feminist movement, or the
environmental movement, or youth movements, or movements of LGBT
people – usually have ambitions which are not limited to any one
political party and seek supporters from all parties and none. Why
would one want credit unions, or food banks, or tenants' movements
(all instances cited by Jones) to be party political in their identity
rather than working across party lines?
Moreover, social movements, like the "campaigning organisations" which
Jeremy Corbyn uses as a description of his party, are responsible to
their own members alone and may take decades to secure their goals (if
they ever do), as different governments come and go. By contrast, a
party of government must show that it can govern on behalf of the
whole people, not just its own members, and can make the necessary
arduous compromises that every government must make in order to
reconcile competing interests and views. It therefore requires skills
and temperaments that are different from social movements', and cannot
afford to wait for many years and decades in the wilderness as social
movements may do.
Jeremy Corbyn is undoubtedly a fine supporter of social movements, on
picket lines and at evening meetings and demonstrations for decades,
never erring from the movements' goals, enduring in the wilderness,
rarely deflected by other people's views and interests. The question
is whether he can also be an effective leader of a party of
government, with its very different requirements.
Andrew Purkis
London
• Owen Jones fails to talk about a pressing issue. In my local Labour
party, and I suspect in many others, many of those organising it are
against not just Corbyn but what he stands for. And they don't welcome
new members. I went to what was billed as a welcoming party for new
members. It turned out to be a large room full of noise, a table of
limp sandwiches and a few people, alone or in small groups, who came,
looked and left again. No one was talking to new people, welcoming
them and addressing them about the very things that had brought them
to join Labour. Contrast this with a Momentum group and you feel
something totally different. There is a high energy, enthusiasm and
interest that is fed in the sharing. And it's not just about Corbyn:
it's about the values and ideas he brings, as well as the qualities
people recognise so lacking in politics as usual. I have phone-banked
and door-knocked along with other people from Momentum, and doing it
within the old party structure lacks this energy. In his
self-appointed role as "on-side" critic, Owen indicates his
frustration with what he sees as a lack of the working class he feels
he represents, but there needs to be a real dialogue about this divide
and how it can be bridged.
Mora McIntyre
Hove, East Sussex
• David Wearing refers to Corbyn's "head-on challenge to a status quo
that a broad swath of left-progressive opinion now considers
intolerable" (Labour's bitter battle isn't about Corbyn – it's a fight
for change, 27 July). As a Corbyn supporter, I want to identify "the
intolerable status quo", so there is no mistaking it. It is the
outdated nature of the establishment that the contemporary political
system is in thrall to, which governs with old-fashioned and redundant
traditions and language, and which exhibits conservative ways of
thinking and behaving right across the political spectrum. The
physical form of the Commons chamber itself is a good example. It
can't seat all those it needs to and is designed for aggressive debate
rather than rational discussion of ideas and issues. The democratic
seating forms employed in the Scottish and European parliaments
promote a much more civilised form of exchange, and this in turn
supports more equitable thinking.
Judy Liebert
Nottingham
• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com
--
Disclaimer:Everyone posting to this Forum bears the sole responsibility for any legal consequences of his or her postings, and hence statements and facts must be presented responsibly. Your continued membership signifies that you agree to this disclaimer and pledge to abide by our Rules and Guidelines.To unsubscribe from this group, send email to: ugandans-at-heart+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
Jeremy Corbyn at a leadership rally in Hull. 'Labour no longer has a
consensus,' writes David Hughes. 'In its place one single group has
taken control, spearheaded by a man who has spent his professional
life in effect rejecting the British system, steadfastly voting
against party consensus for 30 years.' Photograph: Danny Lawson/PA
Letters
Sunday 31 July 2016 18.52 BST Last modified on Sunday 31 July 2016 18.54 BST
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via Email Share on LinkedIn
Share on Google+ Share on WhatsApp
Share on Messenger
It's really positive that some of Jeremy Corbyn's key allies are
willing to think about working together across party lines (Labour
'needs allies', 28 July) to produce a government that might actually
at last have the support of a majority of British people, and that
Labour might be willing to make the kind of constitutional changes
that our country desperately needs: most crucially, creating a more
localised political system, where power is closer to the people; and
changing the electoral system to a fairer one, of seats proportional
to votes, so that no one's vote is wasted.
Those are the kinds of changes that a "progressive alliance" of
Greens, Labour and more could bring in. They would mean that we, the
people, could really take back control, rather than control being in
the hands of an overly remote, insufficiently democratic set of houses
of parliament.
My challenge to Clive Lewis et al now is: if you really want a
progressive alliance, will you work to make it work for Greens as well
as Labour? That would mean changing Labour party policy on the issues
I just mentioned – and being willing to offer real political
opportunities and real power to the Green party at large, and not just
to our wonderful MP, Caroline Lucas. In other words: the only way that
a progressive alliance will ever get agreed is if it doesn't simply
involve Greens standing down everywhere save Brighton Pavilion in
Labour's favour.
Rupert Read
Green party candidate for Cambridge in 2015
• In his race to "move away from top-down legislative change to one of
legitimising and helping enable change from below" (I'm backing Jeremy
Corbyn for Labour leader. Here's why, theguardian.com, 27 July), Clive
Lewis loses track of how British electoral democracy works. Whereas
under the continental system voters elect a range of parties which,
post the election, horse-trade to form a government, in the British
system the horse-trading occurs before the election. The political
groupings within the major parties work to achieve a consensus which
is set before the electorate as a manifesto. The party with the most
attractive manifesto wins power.
Since the manifesto is its natural outcome, party consensus is an
absolute prerequisite in the British model, which explains what has
gone wrong for Labour and why Jeremy Corbyn is by definition the wrong
person to lead the party. Labour no longer has a consensus. In its
place one single group has taken control, spearheaded by a man who has
spent his professional life in effect rejecting the British system,
steadfastly voting against party consensus for 30 years, while
refusing to participate in the implementation of the party's manifesto
in government. Instead of representing the 11-million-plus voters
needed to elect it to power, the Labour party now represents the 0.25
million who elected Jeremy Corbyn, the man British public opinion has
already rejected ahead of any general election. Clive Lewis can call
it "top-down, vertical power relationships" or the "bottom-up
variety", but Labour will not again achieve power until it achieves
consensus.
David Hughes
Cheltenham
• Owen Jones believes that there is a "false dichotomy" between Labour
as a social movement and as a party of government (Mass membership
alone doesn't make a social movement, 28 July). But there are stubborn
differences.
Social movements – for example the feminist movement, or the
environmental movement, or youth movements, or movements of LGBT
people – usually have ambitions which are not limited to any one
political party and seek supporters from all parties and none. Why
would one want credit unions, or food banks, or tenants' movements
(all instances cited by Jones) to be party political in their identity
rather than working across party lines?
Moreover, social movements, like the "campaigning organisations" which
Jeremy Corbyn uses as a description of his party, are responsible to
their own members alone and may take decades to secure their goals (if
they ever do), as different governments come and go. By contrast, a
party of government must show that it can govern on behalf of the
whole people, not just its own members, and can make the necessary
arduous compromises that every government must make in order to
reconcile competing interests and views. It therefore requires skills
and temperaments that are different from social movements', and cannot
afford to wait for many years and decades in the wilderness as social
movements may do.
Jeremy Corbyn is undoubtedly a fine supporter of social movements, on
picket lines and at evening meetings and demonstrations for decades,
never erring from the movements' goals, enduring in the wilderness,
rarely deflected by other people's views and interests. The question
is whether he can also be an effective leader of a party of
government, with its very different requirements.
Andrew Purkis
London
• Owen Jones fails to talk about a pressing issue. In my local Labour
party, and I suspect in many others, many of those organising it are
against not just Corbyn but what he stands for. And they don't welcome
new members. I went to what was billed as a welcoming party for new
members. It turned out to be a large room full of noise, a table of
limp sandwiches and a few people, alone or in small groups, who came,
looked and left again. No one was talking to new people, welcoming
them and addressing them about the very things that had brought them
to join Labour. Contrast this with a Momentum group and you feel
something totally different. There is a high energy, enthusiasm and
interest that is fed in the sharing. And it's not just about Corbyn:
it's about the values and ideas he brings, as well as the qualities
people recognise so lacking in politics as usual. I have phone-banked
and door-knocked along with other people from Momentum, and doing it
within the old party structure lacks this energy. In his
self-appointed role as "on-side" critic, Owen indicates his
frustration with what he sees as a lack of the working class he feels
he represents, but there needs to be a real dialogue about this divide
and how it can be bridged.
Mora McIntyre
Hove, East Sussex
• David Wearing refers to Corbyn's "head-on challenge to a status quo
that a broad swath of left-progressive opinion now considers
intolerable" (Labour's bitter battle isn't about Corbyn – it's a fight
for change, 27 July). As a Corbyn supporter, I want to identify "the
intolerable status quo", so there is no mistaking it. It is the
outdated nature of the establishment that the contemporary political
system is in thrall to, which governs with old-fashioned and redundant
traditions and language, and which exhibits conservative ways of
thinking and behaving right across the political spectrum. The
physical form of the Commons chamber itself is a good example. It
can't seat all those it needs to and is designed for aggressive debate
rather than rational discussion of ideas and issues. The democratic
seating forms employed in the Scottish and European parliaments
promote a much more civilised form of exchange, and this in turn
supports more equitable thinking.
Judy Liebert
Nottingham
• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com
--
Disclaimer:Everyone posting to this Forum bears the sole responsibility for any legal consequences of his or her postings, and hence statements and facts must be presented responsibly. Your continued membership signifies that you agree to this disclaimer and pledge to abide by our Rules and Guidelines.To unsubscribe from this group, send email to: ugandans-at-heart+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment