Thus Spake Rosie Duffield

"Since the change of government in July, the revelations of hypocrisy have been staggering and increasingly outrageous ... How dare you take our longed-for victory, the electorate's sacred and precious trust, and throw it back in their individual faces and the faces of dedicated and hardworking Labour MPs ... Forcing a vote to make many older people iller and colder while you and your favourite colleagues enjoy free family trips to events most people would have to save hard for - why are you not showing even the slightest bit of embarrassment and remorse?"

Thus spake Rosie Duffield, in her resignation letter to Keir Starmer. Absent is the obsequiousness that usually marks the form. It has the anger, if not the ranting quality of a furious Facebook status update. Yet that makes Duffield's letter effective. She has let her shock hang out and loosened her rage at the ride Starmer has taken the Labour membership, his MPs, and the electorate for. Duffield has channelled the disappointment of the Starmerist base into an unparliamentary intervention, boiling over with the sentiments that that had simmered on the back benches.

Last year Labour had the opportunity to ditch Duffield. She was always going to be a thorn in Starmer's side because of her transphobic campaigning. No matter how many times Wes Streeting restricts trans health care, or the genuflections Bridget Phillipson has made to "genuine concerns" about gender identity in schools, it would not have been enough for Duffield. But that she has attacked the leadership's integrity, and used the sort of hard language never employed by the soft left, is a surprise. Who can deny the substance of her argument? It's true. Starmer and friends have an entitlement complex to the trappings of office, and how they see nothing wrong with it is a reflex of the Labour right's self-importance. This isn't helped by Starmer's foolish efforts to emulate Emmanuel Macron, who has deliberately cultivated himself as a figure above politics unbeholden to the petty concerns of the little people. Look where that's got France.

Everyone knows Duffield is right and that Starmer is duplicitous. Especially those closest to Team Starmer, who are now unionising to fight wage cuts. What a way to show gratitude to one's underlings. While the media have indulged freebiegate and left the bigger scandal well alone, the damage to the new government's standing is real. The defences of Starmer's troughing, from it "didn't cost the taxpayer a penny" to the Prime Minister needing a wardrobe allowance was arrogant and dismissive, and has gone down as you might expect. Note to the Labour leadership. The poll bounce after a conference speech is supposed to go the other way.

Because Duffield is a cause celebre for transphobic centrists, her resignation will feed the divisions in Starmer's base that were present well before he took office. And for those loyalists who lost no time trying to fob freebies off as unimportant, they are bound to discover how objectionable and appalling Duffield's "gender critical" politics are. You can anticipate the ministers on the politics shows saying she has been "unhappy" with the party for some time and this is sour grapes because she was passed over for a job (Duffield's letter is annoyed at the new no-marks who've been promoted over the time servers). None of this is going to rescue the situation. Starmer and co. are exposed as out of touch troughers while telling everyone else to tighten their belts, and what Duffield has done is opened up a division in the party that had been papered over. We're not even three months in yet.

Image Credit

Quarter Three By-Elections 2024

This quarter 311,570 votes were cast in 111 local authority contests. All percentages are rounded to the nearest single decimal place. 31 council seats changed hands. For comparison you can view Quarter Two's results here.

* Reform's comparison results are based on recomputing their tallies in Others over the last quarter/year
** There were nine by-elections in Scotland
*** There were three by-elections in Wales
**** There were 13 Independent clashes
***** Others this month were Alba (133), Crewe First (109), Freedom Alliance (178, 25), Heritage Party (115, 30), Independence for Scotland (236), Liberal (125, 58), Party of Women (19), Scottish Family Party (53), TUSC (550,  178, 83), UKIP (148), Workers' Party (460, 300, 274, 166, 52), Yorkshire Party (634). Comparison results are now based on the last quarter's result with Reform's totals subtracted.

A huge vote for Labour and very little to show for it. It's too early to say if disaffection with Starmer's performance in office is behind this sudden about turn in fortunes, but to see the Tories come out of a quarter that saw their worst election defeat ever with a net gain of councillors has to constitute some sort of record. For those who pay attention to such things, it was a good while before Labour got on the front foot following the suspension of by-elections during the Covid lockdown period.

Elsewhere, the Lib Dems aren't going to be chuffed with their results. But the Greens continue to make steady progress, and making their debut on the quarterly round up is Reform. A small vote share seeing as they've only ramped up their local operations this last month, but they netted their first by-election gain in July. Unfortunately, provided they do start taking local party building seriously their vote share can only go up for the time being.

Image Credit

Local Council By-Elections September 2024

This month saw 55,602 votes cast in 38 local authority contests. All percentages are rounded to the nearest single decimal place. 15 council seats changed hands. For comparison with August's results, see here.

Party	Number of Candidates	Total Vote	%	+/- Aug	+/- Sep 23	Avge/ Contest	+/- Seats
Conservative	37	12,789	23.0%	+2.1	-7.2	346	+4
Labour	39	15,968	28.7%	-0.6	-3.1	409	-7
Lib Dem	34	8,655	15.6%	+4.1	-5.3	255	+1
Reform*	16	2,823	5.1%	-1.5	+4.4	176	0
Green	30	6,602	11.9%	+2.4	+7.9	220	0
SNP**	4	2,439	4.4%	-5.3	+0.8	610	+1
PC***	2	119	0.2%	-1.9	+0.2	60	0
Ind****	27	5,627	10.1%	+1.4	+2.0	208	+1
Other*****	7	580	1.0%	-0.5	+0.2	83	0

* Reform's comparison results are based on recomputing their tallies in Others over the last month/year
** There were five by-elections in Scotland
*** There were two by-elections in Wales
**** There were six Independent clashes
***** Others this month were Alba (133), Crewe First (109), Heritage Party (30), Party of Women (19), Workers' Party (166, 52). Comparison results are now based on the last month's/year's result with Reform's totals subtracted

I've bowed to the pressure of the polls. Because Reform have started taking council by-elections more seriously and standing decent numbers of candidates, for the first time since the eclipse of UKIP an extreme right party has returned to the table of parties. Explainers above about how their past performance has been tracked are in the notes above. This will carry on until this time next year.

Elsewhere, this cycle of by-elections have been terrible for Labour. Yes, it's a mix of local factors plus displeasure at Winter Fuel cuts won't have done their performance much good (remember, pensioners are more likely to turn out for council by-elections). But we need to temper this with the overall picture. At the general election dozens of Labour councillors won seats and will be vacating them in fairly short order. As it's more their seats that are up for grabs than Tory-held seats, it's expected that their "punishment" will look more severe than it actually is. Still, dropping so many councillors so quickly and seeing the Tories win back seats already is weird. Yet it isn't if you keep the amateur hour that is freebie gate, winter fuel, and letting rumours about scrapping single persons' council tax discount circulate without rebuttal are taken into consideration.

Elsewhere, solid results for the Liberal Democrats and the Greens and a respectable outing for Reform, which amounts to their biggest monthly by-election intervention so far. Not, however, their best result at this level.

October will be another ludicrous month for by-elections with over 50 slated. Depending on what's in the budget, Labour could well find themselves even more out of pocket come Hallowe'en. And if they are, it will all be thanks to the shoddy tricks they've played on the electorate.

3rd September
Swale, Priory, LDem hold

5th September
Camden, Camden Square, Lab hold
Camden, Kentish Town South, Lab hold
Camden, Kilburn, Lab hold
Cheshire East, Crewe West, Lab hold
Manchester, Baguley, Lab hold
Merthyr Tydfil, Bedlinog & Trelewis, Lab gain from Ind
Redcar & Cleveland, Longbeck, Con gain from Lab

12th September
Cambridge, Romsey, Lab hold
Gateshead, Bridges, Lab hold
Hackney, London Fields, Lab hold
Hackney, Stoke Newington, Grn gain from Lab
Milton Keynes, Bletchley East, Lab hold
Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North Jesmond, LDem hold
Norfolk, Freebridge Lynn, Ind gain from LDem
North Ayrshire, Arran, Lab gain from Con
North Norfolk, North Walsham Market Cross, LDem hold
Tower Hamlets, Bow East, Lab hold

16 September
Gedling, Bestwood St Albans, Con gain from Lab

19 September
Bromsgrove, Sidemoor, LDem gain from Lab
Cornwall, Falmouth Penerris, Lab hold
Hartlepool, Burn Valley, Lab hold
Huntingdonshire, St Neots Eatons, Ind gain from Con
Stockton-on-Tees, Fairfield, Con hold x2
Westminster, Harrow Road, Lab hold
Westminster, West End, Con gain from Lab
Worthing, Marine, Con gain from Lab

24 September
Mid Suffolk, Thurston, Con gain from Grn
Waverley, Godalming Binscombe & Charterhouse, Con gain from Lab

26 September
Denbighshire, Rhyl Trellewelyn, Con gain from Lab
East Staffordshire, Stretton, Con hold
Herefordshire, Credenhill, Ind hold
Highland, Cromarty Firth x2, Ind hold, LDem hold
Highland, Inverness Central, Lab hold
Luton, Barnfield, LDem hold
Luton, Wigmore, LDem hold
Perth & Kinross, Perth City North, SNP gain from Lab
Perth & Kinross, Strathallan, LDem gain from Con

Time for a Left Alternative?

No time for a proper post today as I'll be in London speaking at the first of the Party Time? series of discussions this evening. If you can't make it or fancy a preview, my contribution will draw heavily on the below. This was first published by Labour Hub earlier in the week.

A Conference for a Party that has won its second highest seat tally ever should be an occasion for celebration. But the partying mood appeared absent from Labour’s annual gathering. The week-long feeding frenzy on ‘freebiegate’ would have come as a shock to Keir Starmer supporters who bought into the ‘Mr Rules/grown-up-in-the-room’ image that has been crafted for him. It would have sent a shiver down the dozens of backs of newly minted MPs in marginal constituencies, whose success lies partly in painting their defeated Tory opponents as corrupt and incompetent.

But there are other worries too. The thinness of Labour’s vote demonstrates the shallow relationship ‘Starmerism’ has with the country at large, a level of indifference that saw Labour’s support dip beneath 10 million votes for the first time since 2015. What should be a moment of supreme confidence is shot through with unease.

This is not helped by the results mustered by challenges to Labour’s left. The returning of four MPs – one at Labour’s expense – and almost two million votes suggest the Greens are poised to be a serious problem for Labour during this Parliament. It’s doubtful the Turning the Green tide event at Conference last Sunday would have calmed many jitters coming from this direction.

But what could amount to a bigger and possibly existential problem is the possibility of a viable left alternative. The victory of Jeremy Corbyn and the unexpected wins by four more anti-war Independents, plus very strong results in some places for other left-wing indies and George Galloway’s Workers’ Party could be a foretaste of difficulties to come. The suspension of seven Labour MPs for going against the whip on lifting the Child Benefit cap also creates an (on paper) parliamentary nucleus around which a new united left party could be built. Are the stars aligning for a viable left alternative?

The space is there, so it behoves the extra-Labour left to make the move. Which is what will be debated at the upcoming series of Party Time? public discussions about left strategy under Keir Starmer’s Labour. But it’s not as simple as simply declaring a party, as the last 25 years of left electoral experiments have taught us. The central question for any new party project has to be ‘What is it for?’

The answer for some of the left is straightforward: a combat party capable of taking on the capitalist class and building working class capacities to the point where a revolutionary crisis breaks out, which the party can then prosecute to victory. For others, it’s the creation of a broader party that is simply about challenging Labour from the left. But here, there are issues around whether it should exist to ultimately displace Labour, or act as a pressure group to keep it honest. These are the three strategic positions likely to dominate debate in a new formation and could easily cause it to fall apart in short order, or bring about an unsatisfying fudge that could enshrine permanent factionalism.

Then there are questions about how it should be built. Jeremy Corbyn has argued for a community-focused orientation. He says the sinking of deep roots across Britain is the prerequisite for building something lasting. The truth of this, he suggests, was shown in his own victory against the Labour machine.

The problem is that while this would be ideal, it overlooks how Corbyn’s example is based on his being the MP for Islington North for 41 years, and hamstrings any effort to make the most of the opportunity now in front of the left. The alternative is some central direction, by someone or a collective with a national profile to take the lead. The seven suspended Labour MPs are best placed to do this. Their views are more in tune with public opinion than the Labour leadership’s, and it’s unlikely most will get the whip back soon.

But this too comes with problems. How many, if any, want to take this lead? Do they think their political priorities are better served by remaining left Labour MPs, and therefore seeking readmission to the PLP? And if any do want to take this role on, does this not replicate the priority Labourism accords MPs over the rest of the party, no matter how formally democratic this left alternative sets out to be? And if this is the case, what role in an electoralist party for those who are involved but are committed to a revolutionary project of some sort?

There are no easy answers to these questions, but they have to be grasped, debated, and decided upon, if the extra-Labour left want to build a new party. The gap in Britain’s political ecology is open, and the left have an opportunity to fill it. But the moment is time-sensitive and if it doesn’t, the Greens almost certainly will. What’s it going to be?

Anything but a Banger

Keir Starmer gave a conference speech typical of him. There were the nods to "service". There was the (unfounded) election triumphalism because we "changed our party". There were gestures to better things in the future, tempered by acknowledging the hard road ahead. Working people, "country first, party second", the boilerplate Starmerism was present virtually unchanged from last year's speech. In fact, the stand out moment - and what it will be remembered for - was his demand for the return of the sausages. An unexpected moment of levity in a scripted address that was anything but a banger.

What was striking about his speech was as if the last week didn't happen. This would no doubt concern Andrew Marr, who argued that Starmer should have apologised for the wardrobes of gifted clobber, the free tickets, and the takings ups of hospitality enjoyed by the leadership. There was no concession that anything was amiss, nor was there likely to be. Starmer has long nursed a penchant for the spoils of office. To his mind he believes he deserves it, and he's not going to say sorry for something he isn't sorry for. Never apologise, never explain is the first rule of right wing Labour politics. Jittery journos like Marr can carry on jittering because, they believe, the public don't care. A silly assumption, because they do.

A vague plan for Britain got a second airing, which via the framing of building a "decisive state" singled out Starmerism's two enemies. The first was the phantasmic Labour left, which was repeatedly dismissed and traduced by comparing his changed Labour to the "comfort zone" of irrelevance. The heckler who took him to task over his continued support for Israel was contemptuously dismissed with a "This guy has obviously got a pass from the 2019 conference." What japes to laugh off complicity in a genocide. Despite the evisceration of Labour's left by fair means and foul, Corbynism is a shade that weighs on their brain like a nightmare. If the "magic grandpa" has cast a spell, it's one over the Labour right's imaginary.

The other enemy was "populism". Corbyn was lumped in with Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage, who were denounced - albeit not by name - as peddlers of "easy solutions" and unrealistic promises. Contrasting his managerialist project with pie-in-the-sky politics, "we know where that leads" he said. He almost verged on the passionate in attacking the far right, though this was limited to "racist thugs" and praising the communities that came together to rebuild after the riots. He's still lagging behind the King on this one, and refusing to take on the Tories, the Farageists, and the right wing talking heads who've encouraged and excused it.

Starmer announced one new policy: guaranteed accommodation for former armed forces personnel, so none will end up sleeping on the streets. He also outlined the ambition of extending this to care leavers and victims of abuse. And if you're not one of Starmer's worthy homeless? Let's just say the silence was symptomatic. But there was a weird moment when Starmer waxed lyrical about everyone having the right to access the arts, music, and pursue their creative passions. He gave the impression of working himself up to an announcement about guaranteeing children's access to artistic subjects and venues, many of which are either on the brink or have gone under. But it never went anywhere, except for an anecdote about Starmer's first trip abroad with the Croydon Youth Orchestra.

In all, the court media loved it. The New Statesman said this speech showed "the real Keir Starmer". If it did, then we can conclude the Prime Minister has more waffle than Birds Eye, is tone deaf to public grumblings about freebie gate, and despite what was supposed to be an electoral triumph is haunted by his predecessor still. It wasn't a bad speech by Starmer's standards, but it wasn't the one he needed to give. If the customary post-conference polling bounce doesn't materialise, it's not difficult to see why.

Image Credit

Calvin Harris, Ellie Goulding - Free

Have written something for elsewhere this evening, so your filler is ... dancefloor filler. Let it never be said that the All Solid Disco eschews new tracks because it was better in the olden days. This summer has abounded with plenty of decent tunes and here's one to close off the sunny weather with. Easily Harris's best tune since One Kiss and Goulding's since Russ Chimes's superb remix of Starry Eyed. Play it.

Another Strange Death of Liberal England?

Labour's bum note of a triumph in July found its echo in the Liberal Democrats' performance. 72 seats was their best ever performance under modern branding, and you'd have to go back to December 1923 when Herbert Asquith re-entered the Commons with 158 MPs to find them doing better. But the blight in the Lib Dems' garden was the strength of support. 3.5m votes was down on the widely-panned 2019 result. Therefore, while there was much gaiety and partying at conference last week the more thoughtful have been asking why they didn't do better. Especially when taking the circumstances into account.

To be fair to the Lib Dems, within a week of the general election the naysayers were getting published on Lib Dem Voice with refreshing outbreaks of honesty. For example, Chris Whiting wrote that the haul of formerly Tory-held constituencies creates a pressure for the Lib Dems to move right to keep hold of them next time round. He argues this would be a mistake as the Lib Dems are seen as a centre left progressive force by the public and, by implication, the Tories were turfed out in fall cognisance of this fact. Instead, if the party wants to improve on 72 seats between now and the next election it has to stay where it is and swoop in as Labour lurches rightward. A point made here enough times.

Going from his leader's speech, Ed Davey partly disagrees. He also means to carry on as the Lib Dems have been. I.e. No peddling back on the positions the party has taken, and the emphasis on adult social care stays. Nor is there going to be a lurch to the left to intersect with those appalled by Labour's cutting and grasping. Davey has set out his doctrine of "constructive opposition". I.e. Using his two weekly questions at PMQs to cast the Lib Dems as a grown up, critically supportive opposition that isn't out to score points. A lofty ambition in the yah boo sucks pantomime of the Commons, so we'll see how long that lasts. But what Davey is banking on is that when the new Tory leader takes office, they're going to carry on in the same stupid and arrogant way that cost them the election and, by default, the Lib Dems will look better and be poised to take even more seats off the Tories next time. Worth nothing the party is still second placed in more Conservative held than Labour-held seats. And because the mood of British politics has apparently turned toward sensible sensiblism what with Keir Starmer's election, the Lib Dems can profit.

It's a coherent strategy, and one that might navigate the pitfalls of turning too left or too right. It could work. The dream of the Lib Dems coming second and forming the official opposition is far from dead. But it's not without difficulties. Not moving left leaves the field open to the Greens and possibly other left wing forces (if they get their act together), giving both of them a leg up. In the case of the Greens, this is especially dangerous to Lib Dem fortunes because not only is it winning over the more radicalised sections of the new working class, the last two years' worth of council results and winning Waveney Valley and North Hertfordshire from the Tories demonstrates a capacity to eat into the vote that, elsewhere, was predisposed to support the Lib Dems. And this despite the Greens standing on a radical left manifesto.

The opportunities that lie ahead for the Liberal Democrats are pregnant with dangers. It might be that Davey's strategy pays off. His constructive opposition shtick does take more seats from the Tories next time, and sitting Lib Dem MPs largely retain their seats thanks to a parliamentary term of hyper local campaigning. But eschewing the politics might let their Green rivals chip away at the foundations of the decent seat tally the party has built. A reminder that moments of opportunities are also moments of crisis, and this is one that could lead to another strange death of Liberal England.

Image Credit

A Fondness for Freebies

Say what you like about Keir Starmer, here's a man who enjoys the high life. Designer glasses, nice suits and outfits for the Prime Minister and Victoria Starmer, free Coldplay and Taylor Swift tickets (each to their own), free entry to Arsenal away games with hospitality, theatre tickets ... and centrist champions of the Labour leader have the cheek to call Nigel Farage out for his grifting. This is nothing new for Starmer. When he was the Director of Public Prosecutions, he insisted on a chauffeur driven motor to and from work. And on his watch, the shadow cabinet was effectively auctioned off, with each and every minister - at least those most favoured by capital - equally in receipt of corporate generosity.

Starmer sees nothing wrong with this. The defence put by an equally compromised David Lammy on Sunday's politics shows - that the PM has to take the threads donated by Lord Waheed Alli because Number 10 doesn't offer state-funded clobber - is probably the most pathetic line put out by a minister in recent years. And that includes the dread periods of Boris Johnson and Liz Truss. Indeed, when Johnson was caught out for getting donors to pay for a garish redecoration of the Downing Street flat he didn't even try to defend it. Which Labour, naturally, attacked the Tories on. It's almost like this government is on fast forward. Just over two months in and we're already at the sleaze/flimsy excuse combo stage.

It's true Starmer hasn't got the most political of brains, which is why he surrounded himself with the most dishonest operators he could find. But bearing that lack of nous in mind, surely even he can see what an appalling look this is. Especially while cutting support for pensioners and promising pain for everyone else. Yet he can't bear the tough choice of digging into his pockets and forking out for clothes and gigs. What an own goal. What an embarrassment.

Why? His statecraft, the project of authoritarian modernisation is, effectively, above politics. No one serious opposes efforts to fix the broken capacities of the state (which, with his promise to cut civil service numbers by a further 100,000, casts Robert Jenrick as the Tory leadership contest's clown-in-residence), or that the economy should grow, and so on. It's only a small step from supposing one's programme is above politics - because it corresponds most closely to the self-evident requirements of British capital - to viewing oneself as recused from the fray. Here, the failing, flailing Emmanuel Macron is the model, not the warning. Though it's the measure of Starmer that while Macron's 'above politics' affectation is done to cobble together governing coalitions, for the PM it's about saving a few quid.

Labour strategists have got to be hoping that most people won't notice or care about Starmer's addiction to freebies. No government money is involved, after all. But for Britain's boardrooms it's reassuring. Contrary to the hysterical opinion pieces that better workers' rights and fixing public services are prefacing full force socialist revolution, Starmer's lorry load of shopping bags and weeks spent in corporate hospitality boxes says loud and clear whose side he's on. That the PM and his cabinet are the sort of people they can do business with, and the snip of treating them like VIPs and paying for an afternoon at Fortnum & Mason's is enough to earn a sympathetic ear and guarantee this Labour government is, in all essentials, their government.

Image Credit

Confessions of the Gravediggers

I do like a good memoir, especially when matters touch on the recent past. That's why I read Anushka Asthana's piece about Labour Together's manoeuvrings in the Corbyn years with some interest. You've probably had a look at it too. It's a tale of the dishonesty we've come to expect from the Labour right, describing the outfit's cynical soft branding and efforts at wooing the left (including delivering a nice presentation about Labour Together to Jeremy Corbyn himself). But this was a front for the usual skulduggery: using antisemitism as a factional weapon (so much for the protestations) and passing on social media posts to journalists to damage the party. Erecting rings of protection around right wing Labour MPs facing deselection. Saying a left-led government should be something to be avoided at all costs. And telling donors that their imagery was a ploy to defeat Corbyn and the "hard left".

This late candour confirms everything that the left said at the time, but got vilified for stating the bald truth about what was going on under the toupee. Thinking back to Labour's factional struggles in the early 1980s, it's striking that when the late John Golding penned a memoir about his time fixing and smearing, John Spellar wasn't happy about it because it brought the Labour right's factional ploys into the open. Despite Hammer of the Left being published 20 years after the events described. Yet here we are, only a handful of years after the right lied its way back into control of the party machine and already the secrets of how they did it are getting spilled. Poor old Spellar must be wondering what his comrades are playing at.

For one, Asthana has a book to sell which goes over this period. And as her article shows, she was invited to several of the key organising meetings by the right's movers and shakers - hence her easy familiarity with how the Labour right's networks operate. If you're going to let a journalist in to chronicle your legend, you're going to have to let her publish sooner rather than later. Especially when it no longer matters. And that's the clincher. As far as the Labour right are concerned this doesn't matter any more. Saying that they are less popular than Jeremy Corbyn at his lowest ebb riles up a few loyalists, but they have their majority and can now get on with the important stuff. Like taking money off pensioners and making sure children in poverty stay in poverty.

The truth is they think they've won, and they have. There is no way for the Labour left to come back in the immediate to medium term, and so they feel safe letting their secrets all hang out. No newspaper is going to revisit their crimes and call out their dishonesty. When Keir Starmer isn't now being held to account for his brittle authoritarianism, it's not likely lies from several years ago will ever count against him. But, as we know, pride comes before a fall. As internal jockeying is more now more obviously defined by careerists competing for careers a la the "disputes" between Blairites and Brownites of old, there are plenty of others who've watched the behaviour of the Labour right in recent years and drawn the necessary conclusions. For those on the left groping towards a new party, the utter cynicism being advertised can only stiffen their resolve. Pleas to vote Labour at this election didn't work as well as they should have, and the antipathy the right's factionalism has engendered conjoined to an awful record in office isn't going to see any emergent project off. The Greens, poised to do well out of Labour's woes (as long forecast) can prosper for the same reasons. And when Labour has to engage with trade unions over pay settlements and disputes, they know full well that "their government" is dirtier in practice than even the Tories. They are telegraphing to each and every progressive social movement that they cannot be trusted.

There are several reasons why Corbynism failed, but the major factor was the scorched earth war the Labour right launched against their own party the moment the left looked like it was going to win. They'd rather see the Labour Party die than play second fiddle within it, and as they set about digging the Labour left's grave they furnished it with a lead-lined coffin, and stood ready to pour a concrete cap. Now they feel confident enough to say this openly, they are not only warning future left wingers what behaviour to expect from them within the party, they are telling everyone else exactly what they are. And that their opponents should take this as their truth, and treat with them accordingly.

Image Credit

Where Now for the Left?

A perennial question for our movement if there ever was one (and one asked here plenty). But instead of contemplating it through a long read of the grey beards, or zero-summing it with tankies on social media, why not come along to this series of public discussions in London town? On 26th September, 10th October, and 24th October at Pelican House in Bethnal Green we have three sessions exploring this vexed issue.

The events are free (donations welcome) but they are ticketed. Please secure your place here. Hope to see you there!

26th September: What’s Left? Is this moment of national decline a political opportunity?
Nandita Lal / Owen Hatherley / Dan Evans / Fiona Lali / Phil Burton-Cartledge

For decades, Britain’s working class has been battered by falling wages, rising poverty and gutted public services. The Starmer government is offering them austerity and authoritarianism, while the far right are attempting to capitalise on the atmosphere of discontent. The left, atomised and fragmented in the wake of Corbynism, seems ready to re-emerge as a national political force. What are its current power bases? Where is it strong and where is it weak? What type of organisation is needed to challenge Labour’s fragile hegemony and remake our rotten system? Join with other comrades who have been asking these questions for the first in a series of three events exploring left strategy today.

10th October: What is to be Done? Organisational forms and the prospect of a new party.
Andrew Feinstein / Ash Sarkar / James Schneider / Keir Milburn / Hilary Wainwright

In 2017, nearly 13 million people voted for Jeremy Corbyn’s radical left-wing programme, demonstrating the viability of a popular mass politics opposed to inequality at home and war abroad. Since then, the establishment has tried to erase that result from public memory. Yet the election of nine Green and independent MPs this year shows that they have not succeeded yet. To capitalise on this historic breakthrough and rebuild our strength at the national level, socialists need a new political organisation. But what form should it take? How should it relate to left parliamentarians, trade unions, social movements and the broader working class – especially outside the major cities? Should it be focused on the electoral sphere, or should it play a more expansive role?

What Next? How can we take on the far-right and the extreme centre to remake national politics?
Jeremy Corbyn / Richard Seymour / Ashok Kumar / Halimo Hussein / Grace Cowan

The long-simmering threat of the far right has now burst into the open. Reform UK elected five MPs this year and came second in 98 seats. Racist riots have erupted across the country, fuelled by an ecosystem of migrant-baiting politicians, media outlets, funders and influencers. With Labour more than willing to mimic the toxic politics of Farageism, a new left electoral project will have to challenge the xenophobia of the entire political class. How can it rise to the challenge? How can those interested in national organisation move forward collectively? What should we do next?

Residual Welfare Vs Universal Social Security

It's now abundantly clear what Tuesday night's Winter Fuel Allowance vote was about. It wasn't, according to the cynical and dishonest household budget metaphor, a money saving measure. Showing the political establishment that, like in opposition, Keir Starmer's Labour would carry on being strong on the weak was a useful by-product, but not the main reason. Nor was it an exercise in a twisted notion of fairness, where pensioners are going to have to suffer because it's "their turn" - following 14 years of attacks on younger, working age people. No, what Rachel Reeves really set about doing was abolishing an example of universalism, of rubbishing the idea that social security should be accessible to all.

How do we know this? The new Labour government have told us in not so many words. From the beginning, Reeves said stopping the payments would be mitigated by a campaign to get more eligible pensioners on to pension credits. My friend Pete Nicholls has roughly calculated that the take up of pension credits by an extra 800,000 eligible pensioners would cost over £2bn - wiping out the £1.2bn it would contribute to closing the famous £22bn black hole. Regardless of what one thinks of Reeves, Starmer, and the rest, they are not stupid people. They know this is the case, which ineluctably points away from fiscal prudence towards a different objective: universal provision.

In this respect, Reeves truly is the heir to Blair. Universalism is not "progressive". It costs a bomb and is "inefficient" because people who don't need it get it. I'm sure His Blairness would have performatively disavowed his Winter Fuel Payment, if the government was in a bit of a spot and they asked him. But this is ideology masking interests. Since the battles successfully waged by Thatcher in the 1980s, her aim of stripping back the welfare state and public services to the barest minimum has largely succeeded. Residualism is the common sense. This was a strategy in her class war to permanently tip the scales away from labour to capital. I.e. Clawing back benefits, introducing conditionalities, holding them down at barely subsistence levels, was an effort to centre the wage as the primary, if not the only means of income for millions of people - giving capital the whip hand. In Thatcher's scheme, it sped up labour "flexibility". By cutting social security, she made sure any job was better than no job, even if the pay was poor and the conditions abysmal.

This contrasts with how the architects of thw welfare state saw things. Whether one was Labourist, one nation Tory, or Liberal, it represented a social wage. Universal social security provided a floor designed to catch anyone who fell on hard times. Welfare was never a luxury, despite how the unchanging propaganda of the last 45 years styles it, nor was it a product of high-minded enlightenment by clever, compassionate politicians. It was a gain extracted from capital by labour as the cost of avoiding social unrest and certain kinds of events. The fact of universalism gave other layers in society a stake in the social security system. Better off families might not have needed child benefit, for example, but it gave them extra spending power they could splash on extra clothes, treats for the children (and treats for themselves). But by extending them a stake, it was hoped opposition to their losing an entitlement would protect those who really needed it - families crippled by low wages and debt, mums financially controlled by abusive husbands, and so on. And as imperfect as it was, universalism was a bureaucratic expression of solidarity. Universalism, as a product of heightened class struggle when our people were politically ascendant, went into retreat as the tides of battle flowed in the bosses' favour. As class consciousness eroded it was easy to characterise universal entitlements as largesse/symptoms of administrative inefficiency, and the axe fell on them in due course. Unsurprising that getting shot of Winter Fuel Payments, ironically introduced under the otherwise anti-universalist Gordon Brown, fits the Starmer project like a hand in a glove.

As we noted the other day, this was not a "tough choice" for the government. But one, from the standpoint of Starmer's statecraft, a politically necessary one. Universalism raises the idea of everyone getting something, of building on collective aspirations that lie outside the class alliances and type of capitalism the Labour right want to build. This is a capitalism that offers steady, stable growth, is run by Treasury-brained technocrats like Reeves, has a re-legitimated state that works, a pacified work force interested in consumer durables and coffee shops, and returns a semi-permanent government of centrist sensibles at election time. There is no room for alternative ways of doing things. Hence universalism is anathema not just to the nuts and bolts of this dismal project, but to their very conception of politics.

Image Credit