If Jeremy Corbyn wins, we need to make it work

by Brian Back

Let’s face it: with so little time left before members vote for a new leader, it is time that we stopped the shouting, insults and dire forecasts for the future.

It is time to face the facts.

It is time that we took a calm, pragmatic view of the possibility of a Corbyn win. Whilst we should not stop campaigning for the other candidates, we have to face the fact that a Corbyn win is a real possibility. That being the case, how should we deal with this prospect?

So far, everyone seems to be asking the wrong questions regarding the possibility of Corbyn becoming the new Labour leader.

Some have asked whether those in the centre-ground of the Labour party should split, and start a new party, if Corbyn wins. That is not a sensible question, because forming a new party would just split the left-wing vote, thereby guaranteeing a Tory win at the next election. Also, most members would stay with the Corbyn-led Labour party, as would the unions, so the new party would have few members or activists, and very little funding, as well as a very short life-span.

Others have asked whether the centre-ground MPs should stage a coup and force another election contest. This is not sensible either, as disunity and conflict are the biggest problems we face; problems which, if not dealt with, always spell electoral disaster, and a coup would only make things much worse. Furthermore, the next contest would probably be won by Corbyn again, but with a bigger majority, as Labour members react with fury against MPs who are seen to ignore members’ wishes.

Another big question is whether his opponents should refuse to accept shadow cabinet positions if he wins. Some big name MPs have already stated that they would not work with Corbyn.

However, those MPs who have said that they will not work with him are surely only saying that for tactical reasons, because their main argument regarding a more centre-ground approach is that; you have to be in power, if you want to make changes. By that logic, it is obvious that accepting a shadow cabinet post gives one the power to influence Corbyn’s policies, so they will, and must surely find a way to reverse that decision and work with him, for the good of the party and the people it represents, who desperately need the party to be at full strength and firing on all cylinders.

Most commentators who oppose Corbyn have stated that his leadership would leave us forever shouting from the sidelines. Once again, the argument holds true regarding a shadow cabinet position- refusing a place in the cabinet would relegate centre-ground MPs to a position of just grumbling from the backbenches.

These questions have to be seen as just tactical manoeuvres in the leadership contest, which, whilst being entirely understandable in that context, have no place in any serious discussion regarding a Corbyn-led Labour party.

Instead of these questions, we should now be asking the same question we would ask regarding any of the candidates- if they become leader, how do we win the next election?’

So, firstly, we need to consider the biggest question regarding winning the next election; is Jeremy Corbyn unelectable? The answer is: only if we make him that- by creating a self-fulfilling prophecy; by causing conflict and refusing to work with him, thereby making not just Corbyn, but the whole party unelectable.

I have been as guilty as others, in my assessment of Corbyn; as in a previous article, I called him unelectable. Whilst that may have been understandable and ok at the start of the contest, it will not be ok if he wins. If he wins, then the party must treat him as they would any of the others; by uniting behind him and focusing on finding a way to win the next election.

Whilst some may say that winning the next election is impossible with Corbyn as leader, this is not true.

The left has seen a huge resurgence across Europe; in France, Spain and Greece. Whilst the overall situation may be significantly different in those countries, the electoral success of the Left in those countries clearly demonstrates that choosing Corbyn as leader may not be as disastrous as it is generally being depicted by most commentators in the media.

We need to learn the lessons from those countries; that a mass-movement, of the kind that seems to be developing around Corbyn, can lead not only to effective opposition, but also success in elections. Building on the growth in membership and the groundswell of support that Corbyn’s campaign seems to have generated, could give us a community-based movement that is easily strong enough to combat the wealth of the Tories and their devastating media power and propaganda.

However, this will not be enough on its own; we must also learn the lessons from our defeat in the election.

Polls consistently show voters agree with and want policies that promote a fairer society, but the election showed that wasn’t enough. There has now been sufficient post-election analysis for us to be sure of what is required to win back voters: a credible plan for economic growth and stability, which also shows the definite gains which will come from greater investment in public services; as well as real solutions for the issues of welfare and immigration. These are obviously massively difficult problems. Finding credible solutions will therefore require all the talent, from all parts of the party. This once again shows the need for us to put aside the rivalries, conflicts and insults of the leadership contest, directing all our energies towards the tasks of opposing the Tories winning the next election. Corbyn has offered the olive branch to his opponents, stating his desire to work with all sections of the party. His opponents must accept this offer and help to create the ‘big-tent’, unified party that is strong enough to win in 2020.

We also need to learn from the Tories. Their media strategy was hugely effective, we need to emulate it. Their policy of endlessly repeating, in every media appearance, by every Tory politician, the same message- that Labour caused the crash, did huge damage to our reputation. If Corbyn wins, a powerful and effective media strategy will be vital, to make the possibility of a left-wing Labour government seem viable and attractive to voters.

We cannot rely on many of the national newspapers, so we need to focus on developing a radio and TV strategy, that is focused on maximum exposure and repeatedly hammering home the same message; which blames each individual issue on the Tories’ failing and unfair austerity policies and then gives our superior solutions- solutions that are fairer, which will also boost the economy.

This strategy must be pursued on national and local media, by big-name shadow-cabinet members, backbench MPs, AMs, councillors and activists. Staying on-message, hammering home the same clear, direct and easily understandable points at every opportunity, will give us the chance to dominate the debate, to once again make left-wing ideas mainstream, ‘normal’ and acceptable by the whole population, pulling the political centre-ground away from the current right-wing position.

We don’t need to be concerned that Corbyn’s politics would take us back to some kind of Marxist dark age, in which we all address each other as ‘comrade’, whilst planning to overthrow the capitalist system. We can combine arguments based on fairness and social justice, with a hard-nosed, economic analysis of the problems caused by poverty and inequality: educational failure, poor health and lower life-expectancy, unemployment, crime, low productivity, absence from work, huge costs to the NHS, and an ever-increasing welfare and prisons bill.

There is a huge wealth of rigorous research evidence to back up these arguments, to ensure that our approach is seen as credible: from the Rowntree Foundation and Townsend’s work on poverty, as well as its effects on educational attainment; to The ‘Black Report’ (1980) on the class-based inequalities of health; to Wilkinson and Pickett’s ‘The Spirit Level’ (2009), and Piketty’s work on the corrosive effects of inequality, to name but a few.

This approach would enable us to appeal to people’s head, as well as their heart; to their self-interest, as well as their conscience; to voters on the right and the left of the political spectrum.

So, when we consider how strong and effective this overall approach could be, we can see that it is possible to be hopeful, rather than despondent, at the thought of a Corbyn-led Labour Party.

We can also see that it is obvious that we have been asking all the wrong questions about the possibility of a much more left-wing Labour party.

In fact, when we consider how strong and effective this approach could be, the most pertinent question concerning this issue may be: ‘why haven’t we done this before?’

Brian Back is a sociology lecturer and Labour campaigner who blogs at brianbackblog


Tags: , , , , , ,


65 Responses to “If Jeremy Corbyn wins, we need to make it work”

  1. Madasafish says:

    “to win back voters: a credible plan for economic growth and stability”

    If you really seriously think a Labour Party led by Jeremy Corbyn has a chance of achieving that, you believe in miracles.

  2. Chris says:

    As someone who has never yet voted Labour, please let me assure you that I would vote Corbyn.

    He is not as hard left as some of you believe. I can remember Wilson and Callaghan. He stands for traditional socialist values. I believe if he is elected leader you have a even better chance of winning in 2020. The other 3 laudable candidates are too alike, too “plastic” and are “nobodies” in comparison.

    Please hear me! Corbyn is appealing to voters in the middle like me precisely because he has a clear understandable message.

    You would be surprised how many of my friends agree…..

  3. AlwaysIntegrity says:

    Putting lipstick on a pig still leaves it a pig and fools noone.

    Pro IRA, nationalise, print money etc etc

  4. Nick Turner says:

    This strategy for transforming a Corbyn led party into a election winning force seems hopelessly optimistic. We should remember that the best campaigners that could be bussed in from the Obama campaign and the remnants of Blair’s election winning team couldn’t transform Ed Miliband into a credible leader. In the face of an even more hostile press, I see no chance of anything different happening with Corbyn.

    We should also not be too quick to dismiss the reservations of centrist-leaning shadow cabinet members as ‘tactical’. Whilst the differences between Blairites and Brownites or between David Milibandites and Ed Milibandites were largely to do with emphasis and presentation, the differences between the Blairites and Corbyn are far from cosmetic. It may well be that there are those on the right of the party who cannot in good faith support Corbyn’s decisions on issues from Trident to the economy. Principled rebellion is not the sole preserve of Corbyn and those on the far left.

  5. @AlwaysIntegrity,

    “…… nationalise, print money etc etc”

    Nationalisation is a political issue. Nationalisation doesn’t cost anything. Otherwise Attlee’s government in the post war period wouldn’t have been able to nationalise some 25% of the British economy. Conversely privatisation doesn’t raise any usable spending money.

    All money, even the euro, is either printed or created digitally in a computer. Since 1971 there has been no gold involved in any of the world’s currencies. If we didn’t “print” money there wouldn’t be any! So we do need to “print” it in just the right amount to ensure the efficient workings of our economy. Not too much or we get high inflation. Not too little or we get high levels of recession and unemployment.

    It’s a big mistake for the Labour Right to deny the reality of the situation. By all means criticise Jeremy Corbyn if he advocates creating and spending too much money which will cause inflation. But, at the same time we should criticise those who might err the other way and create too much recession and unemployment.

  6. ad says:

    The left has seen a huge resurgence across Europe; in France, Spain and Greece.

    I wonder how many people will be that keen on emulating Greece. I suspect not many – and I don’t blame them.

  7. John P Reid says:

    Threw council elections tons,like it or not people vote on national issues on them,then the London Mayor/GLA election and the EU referendum, there’s decentNti the EU people in the Labour Party, Jon Cryer might not be CLP chair so can have a voice alongside Kate Hoey,if JC wins he may says,it’s up to party members and MPs to canvass, but if the mJoirty of the MPs disagree with him, then he’ll have to accept it, Livingstone has Blamed Blair and Brown for him losing the Mayoralty twice, despite getting more votes the times he lost than won, the question rely is how many people who’ve been associated with questionable, left organizations will join, or if they’re allowed t o, I can’t see, labour over turning the Banned for life status of Hatton, or wanting Tachell back,there’s a blogger David. Lindsay who was refused re admission, and those who departed like Blogger Jack Monroe, under the old rules wouldn’t be re allowed in for 5 years, although this excludes many like billy Bragg,who left 25 years ago,has Voted lib dem since 97′ and lastly Christine Shawcroft and Lufthur Rahman, would they be re admitted?

  8. Jimmy says:

    I disagree with this pretty much entirely:

    1. Corbyn is a profoundly unserious choice for reasons rehearsed extensively elsewhere
    2. He can’t win. Pretending otherwise will make no difference.
    3. More to the point he shouldn’t. If by some fluke he did his policies would do enormous damage and ensure the end of the party as a potential credible government.
    4. I’m not leaving the party. Why should I? I suspect I may not vote for it though.
    5. No coup. We accept the result. We are democrats. We give him the rope to hang himself and move when even his supporters have to accept the experiment has failed.
    6. No one should serve in a Corbyn shadow cabinet unless they are prepared to accept cabinet responsiblity. If he wants advice he should have it. Come to think of it if he doesn’t want advice he should still have it.

  9. I hope Brian doesn’t mind, but to paraphrase his article I would put it thus. If you are looking for a career in politics, past experience has shown that to do it without a brand can be difficult. Labour is a brand. If you try to go against the democratic will of the membership by launching a coup there is a good chance that you will lose that brand. Best to be seen, on the surface at least, to agree with the changes being made. Good luck Brian. Does this mean you have given up on Liz?

  10. Dave Roberts. says:

    If he even comes a respectable second the Labour Party is finished. He is too closely aligned with things that the majority of the voting population are opposed to. He has too much ideological baggage that will sink the party and that’s before most of the loony left join up and star to take over ward and constituency branches.

  11. hannibal_barcauk says:

    We need thinking people who are prepared to compromise to help forge a better future for all of us in my Labour Party.

    Corbyn has stated categorically that we are one big mixed family and he is prepared to work with all members.

    Crass, inaccurate and right wing comments designed to mislead our members and the electorate about Jetemy Corbyn being an IRA, Hamas or other sympathiser are untrue and misrepresent the facts.

    At present, the Labour party needs NO opposition from without with the ganging up on one single candidate. It looks awfully biased to most in the general public.

  12. james says:

    It’s like listening to a very brazen and brilliant defence barrister of a murder case. The barrister knows that the person’s going down and just wants to ensure the years in prison are as few as possible.

    The thing is Labour have played the easy game since 2008. In 2010 – 2015 they dragged the Lib Dems through the mud for easy local election gains and for their 35% strategy. No need for intellectual heavy lifting just score cheap easy points to gain power.

    Now I sense that they realise that due to their `all things to all people` stance up to about the time Balls tried to pull the party to the centre left they are too broad a church and thus vulnerable to Corbynite revisionism.

    If you think that other parties aren’t going to use Corbyn smartly and the media aren’t going to have a field day then you’re going to have another think coming.

    And it’ll be all your own fault.

  13. 000a0000 says:

    An interesting article.

    I think you are wrong though – if Corbyn wins, the focus of the average labour member should be on getting rid of him

    “Polls consistently show voters agree with and want policies that promote a fairer society, but the election showed that wasn’t enough. There has now been sufficient post-election analysis for us to be sure of what is required to win back voters: a credible plan for economic growth and stability, which also shows the definite gains which will come from greater investment in public services; as well as real solutions for the issues of welfare and immigration. ”

    The polls have shown that Labour was too Left wing under Miliband, it was seen as hating private business (most of us work for private business – it’s not an abstract evil concept for most of us, it’s our working life), entirely economically incompetent – apologise for Gordon Brown and move on, Labour’s reputation on the economy couldn’t be worse, and utterly detached on immigration.

    Corbyn would be an utter disaster on all these factors – he will poll sub-foot as we’re not in the 1980s and more.

  14. David Walker says:

    “Polls consistently show voters agree with and want policies that promote a fairer society, but the election showed that wasn’t enough.”

    The question is always put to voters in a way that gives Labour the answer it wants to hear. Who is going to say ‘I want a society that is less fair’? The problem for Labour is that too many voters have a completely different idea of what represents fairness.

    “There has now been sufficient post-election analysis for us to be sure of what is required to win back voters: a credible plan for economic growth and stability, which also shows the definite gains which will come from greater investment in public services…”

    The Tories are already providing that. Britain is enjoying both growth and stability. It isn’t a good time to be poor, but most people aren’t poor and those that are don’t vote enough.

    The party also needs to convince the voters that it can boost the economy by taxing them more and then spending the money on public sector salaries. If I am dining in a restaurant and the waiter comes and takes something from my plate, then puts it on somebody else’s plate, I am worse off and the pool of diners is collectively no better off.

    “…as well as real solutions for the issues of welfare and immigration.”

    Good luck with that! Labour’s solutions for welfare will always involve spending more money than the Tories – something that is extremely unpopular with people that vote. As for immigration, neither Labour or the Tories have any power to control our borders. The voters know this.

    They also know that Labour considers anyone opposed to the status quo as being racist, although it now tries to keep that opinion under lock and key.

    This is why going for the centre-ground is now a futile exercise, for Labour. The party needs to stand up for what it truly believes in and hope that people emerge who want to vote for it.

  15. Dan says:

    I would like to echo Chris’s comment that Corbyn is not as leftwing as he’s made out to be, and he is therefore appealing to the middle like me – a former lib dem campaigner and comfortably middle class.

    Corbyn is superbly authentic, honest, and clears about others. Everything the country wants in a politician, and no other politician (Tories included) are offering that.

    Needless to say he has my vote.

  16. Dan says:

    * clearly cares about others

    Not sure what happened there but I blame my phone!

  17. Stephen W says:

    This is just Milibandism with more repetition. It’s not going to work. And what happens when Corbyn legislates to end bank of England Independence so he can print money to spend on nationalising Rail and all 6 energy companies? Any economic credibility Labour have left will fly out the window.

    And by the way:

    “The left has seen a huge resurgence across Europe; in France, Spain and Greece.”

    Hollande in France has been a disaster, at times the most unpopular President in opinion poll history. Syriaza in Greece have trashed their country’s economy and then totally caved to German demands achieving nothing, Podemos in Spain are now trailing 3rd in the opinion polls after voters there have seen what a disaster Syriaza have been in Greece. The Left across Europe is a disaster.

  18. Janice says:

    Corbyn’s appeal is very much to Guardian readers, his defence diversification, his national education service, his national investment bank, his 1 million new climate jobs is all the sort of stuff to make them feel warm, and fluffy, and happy.

    However there are only a few seats where there are sufficient Guardian voters for Labour to win them on Guardian friendly policies alone. Mostly previously held by Lib Dems.

    The problem that Labour has, and its existed for some time but has been ignored, is that there is a growing divide between what the middle class Guardian reading left want and what the C1, C2 and D voters who make up Labour’s core vote, and the bulk of votes in marginal seats, want.

    The pro immigration, pro identity politics, pro cnd, pro environment type ideas of Guardian readers just don’t appeal to the voters that Labour needs to keep and win over to remain a mainstream political party.

    Those who call themselves the progressive too often fail to understand this growing divide. Corbyn’s policies are directed at the Guardian left, they are expensive. How can Labour afford also to offer any policies that would appeal to the other group of voters it needs if it is making such massive promises to the smaller section of its electorate, that Corbyn has persuaded to vote for him as leader? He has bribed his way to power and will have to deliver.

    A workable strategy for keeping both sides on board is probably impossible to come up with. His connections to sinn fein, and other groups is going to massively amplify the perception amongst the non guardian voters that the Labour party is anti-english, and pro immigration. All these problems are going to surface with corbyn, once he is elected it is going to be impossible to get rid of him, in my view, but working too enthusiastically for his Guardian reader agenda will cause massive problems for Labour.

    I don’t have an answer, the only possible way forward in my view is a wait and see attitude, he has a number of quite dodgy associates on the hard left, who would like to remove the Blairites, and if aggressive actions like de-selections start happening then a completely different strategy will be needed to one where a peaceful transition takes place.

    I find this article a little naive, there has been an organised coup, admittedly a coup because of the stupidity of the Labour leadership, but those who just lie down and accept it appear a bit cowardly to me, to be honest.

  19. Tafia says:

    Jimmy – 4. I’m not leaving the party. Why should I? I suspect I may not vote for it though.

    Lets reverse that. You do know Labour cannot win without the vote of the Left? So what of they took that position if Corbyn wasn’t elected.

    If they did, then no matter who wins, the other half of the party’s support won’t vote Labour and they’ll be lucky to get above 100 seats no matter what.

    It’s strange that the Corbyn wing are labelled wreckers when in fact they are the wing that is willing – pist-leadership election, to work with the others. So really it’s Progress that are the wreckers and prepared to go nuclear and destroy Labour.

    Two words – ‘Broad Church’

  20. Madasafish says:

    Petermartin2001 says:


    “…… nationalise, print money etc etc”

    Nationalisation is a political issue. Nationalisation doesn’t cost anything. Otherwise Attlee’s government in the post war period wouldn’t have been able to nationalise some 25% of the British economy. Conversely privatisation doesn’t raise any usable spending money.

    Firstly most UK industry post WW2 was effectively broke. The railways were. They had been run into the ground during the war, the train companies had no money and they needed to spend money on new engines and rolling stock.
    So nationalising bankrupt industries is cheap. And it was..

    See Northern Rock – which was nationalised for peanuts when all its loans went bad. (the owners sued on the grounds it was cheap and lost because the alternative was receivership).

    Try nationalising the electricity companies today for peanuts and you would have court cases in spades.. And the owners would win under the Human Rights Act. The assets they own are worth billions and make profits. So the Government would have to pay a realistic price. And then fund the £120billion required in new investments.

    You really are telling it as you would like it to be .. rather than what reality would dictate,..

  21. Debbie says:

    Nationalisation doesn’t cost anything?Really? Who funds the nationalised industries?I have lived through all of that and the country had to go to the IMF. The nationalised industries were almost permanently on strike ,wealth creators left the country.It doesn’t work. I don’t care who leads the Labour Party. I could never be tempted to vote for them.

  22. Forlornehope says:

    When I first heard about “The Spirit Level” I really wanted to believe that it was accurate. Then I read it and looked at the data (I’ve got a lot of experience of real world statistics). Then I heard Kate Pickett on Tim Harford’s “More or Less” where she clearly didn’t understand how regression analysis works; she didn’t even seem to recognise that he’d cut her legs off! Sorry, the analysis in the Spirit Level is so poor that it would get a fail as piece of undergraduate work and, according to Ms Pickett, specifically does not demonstrate cause and effect. An academic who quotes this piece of work is allowing their political persuasion to take precedence over their professional obligation to be objective and is therefore not to be trusted on anything else.

  23. Phil says:

    I don’t support Corbyn’s views and just as he ignored the party line hundreds of times, so will I in our area if it’s nuts and so will many others, if he becomes leader.

    As to his economic credibility, his ramblings about buying up majority shares in the big six energy companies is the latest illustration he is on another planet from most other people. I cannot see EDF etc selling up because JC wants them to…

  24. philip martin says:

    David Walker says neither tory nor labour have an answer to the immigration problem; that may be true if they ignore the available solution. All immigration is governed by the UN treaty of 1951, and its protocol of 1967. We are bound to it by being in the EU which has adopted it in its aquis. The treaty is out of date, written for a past age. It needs to be rewritten. The only way we can do this is by leaving the EU. So when the opportunity arises, vote NO.

  25. Jon says:

    What nonsense. If Corbyn wins, the PLP needs to move against him and get rid of him. Then we have another election – and this time Corbyn doesn’t get on the ballot. He only got on it this time because of the fools who gave him their charity votes. He doesn’t have enough support in the PLP to get back on the nomination list if he’s deposed, so there is no risk of him getting re-elected, as the author of this piece suggests.

    If Corbyn wins, we have to destroy him.

  26. Rational Plan says:

    Ha ,Ha, Ha. economic credibility! The problem is Mr Corbyns chief economics guru believes that because QE has proved not to be inflationary (hmm tell that to stockmarket and house price valuations) we can safely print an extra £60 billion on welfare payments and infrastructure etc. This ignores that QE is not money out of nothing, it is balanced against debt and was used to over come the liquidity crises in the Banks.

    Also it would be expected that the Bank of England would not agree to this, and the answer to this is just sack him. If this ever came to pass, just run through the global market reaction, the value of the pound, interest charged on new debt, if anyone would buy it any price in this scenario.

    Lets us also remember the report in this blog of his speech in liverpool where he says that debt is ‘only at 80%’ of GDP and Atlee had 250% in his time. Quietly forgetting that Atlee was running a surplus and the Unions agreed to zero pay rises for several years and we had just exited a global war in which we were fighting for our lives!!!

    Gah wake up!!! greater disaster awaits.

  27. Metro Elite says:

    Comrades! Corbyn is just Tory Lite #kimjongun4leader

  28. Madasafish,

    The Nationalisation of the railways didn’t work as you suggest. The shares in the railways companies were deemed by the Attlee government to pay an average dividend of 3%. So the government simply issued stock (created from thin air), known as British Transport Stock, which paid 3%. There was some criticism the government had overpaid and that the railways only made money from wartime government contracts.

    So the Government got the shares and the former shareholders got the paying stock. As the government now owned the railways and so received the profits the government and the shareholders would be all square had the valuation been accurate.

    The same method could still be used by Govt to Nationalise whatever it wants to. It doesn’t have to raise the £N billions from tax revenue as some may suppose. It simply issues stock and uses the profits from the acquisition to pay the dividend on the stock. Of course it needs to make sure that it doesn’t get ripped off by the city sharks. They ripped off the Govt when the RM was privatised and they’d rip it off again, given half a chance, if and when it ever gets renationalised.

  29. @Jon,

    “If Corbyn wins, we have to destroy him.”

    I suspect you aren’t alone in feeling this way. Yet, you and others, Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters are all meant to be members of the same political party.

    Is this a viable situation? Surely it would be better to work with whoever wins. Those who feel they cannot accept the outcome should go off and find some other political party – whether that’s to the left or to the right.

  30. Madasafish says:

    Labour’s biggest individual donors have pledged to stop giving money if Jeremy Corbyn becomes leader in a move that could leave the party almost entirely dependent on trade union funding.
    Five senior donors have told The Telegraph that Mr Corbyn’s victory would be “disastrous” and could lead to Labour being locked out of power for decades.

    http://tinyurl.com/pnxdqyp

  31. Tafia says:

    I think you are wrong though – if Corbyn wins, the focus of the average labour member should be on getting rid of him
    If Corbyn wins, it will be because the average Labour member put him there.

    If Corbyn wins, the PLP needs to move against him and get rid of him.
    If the PLP did that not only would the membership turn against them in no uncertain terms and the party would disintegrate irrecoverably, but the wider voters at large would be absolutely disgusted and Labour would face certain annihaltion in 2020. Apart from which, who runs the Labour Party – the grass roots members or the elitist PLP. If he wins, accept it in good grace. The sort of behaviour you endorse will end up costing the party tens of thousands of members, irreplacable tens of millions in union money and doom them to deserved electoral irrelevance for decades.

  32. TNL says:

    So, having lost an election in 2015 with an unelectable leader Labour’s solution is to find an even more unelectable leader with less mainstream policies for 2020? Utterly bizarre.

    As a floating voter let me say this – if you go with Corbyn, you’re guaranteed not to get my vote. So good luck!

  33. John P Reid says:

    In 1983 someone on the right of labour, said “let’s not oppose anything Benn suggests as when we lose big,we can blame him for the defeat, and call for a rejection of all that manifesto” or words to that affect.

    If Corbyn wins,the leadership, he’ll need Union votes member the NEC to repeal clause 4′ should those who feel it was rightly modified, oppose it or when he loses big in 2020 we can blame everything on what he stands for?

  34. Tom Papworth says:

    Petermartin2001 says: “Nationalisation doesn’t cost anything”…

    Actually, it depends what you’re nationalising. If Labour were willing to wait until the rail franchises expire, they can decline to offer them to tender and instead take them into public ownership for free. However, as others have pointed out, that doesn’t necessarily save anything either.

    In the case of other utilities, however, they have been sold and would therefore have to be re-bought. In theory the government could legislate to expropriate them without compensation. As others have pointed out, this would result in large court cases that the government would certainly lose, if only because many are now owned by European firms that would take the government to Luxembourg. If the UK withdrew from the EU as well it might – just might – be able to win all cases in the UK.

    Having said that, it would do enormous damage to the UK’s reputation as a place to invest. At present we enjoy among the highest levels of FDI in the world, bringing enormous benefits to productivity and therefore wages and jobs. That would be dealt an enormous blow by a non-compensated nationalisation.

    One could also make a moral case that the government should not (be empowered to) seize private property at will, but I suspect that argument will gain less traction here.

  35. swatantra says:

    Tell the biggest donors and the unions to clear off if they don’t like what Corbyn’s proposing. Bring back Clause 4 because some of the essential industries and services need to be back in the public’s hands.

  36. In the case of other utilities, however, they have been sold and would therefore have to be re-bought

    They are re-bought by issuing Govt stock. Just like the Attlee Nationalisation of the Railways.

    It’s just a balance sheet exercise. No new money is needed from the taxpayer.

  37. Jimmy says:

    Tafia – Lets reverse that. You do know Labour cannot win without the vote of the Left? So what of they took that position if Corbyn wasn’t elected..

    I thought the entire basis of the Corbynite argument is that that just happened, that the pool of non voters is made up of millions of demotivated revolutionary socialists?

  38. TC says:

    @Jon What nonsense. If Corbyn wins, the PLP needs to move against him and get rid of him. Then we have another election – and this time Corbyn doesn’t get on the ballot.

    So if the Labour membership votes for Corbyn, and it’s looking increasing likely it will, then your plan is to deliver a massive F.U. to that very membership? Brilliant plan, what could possibly go wrong…

  39. Tafia says:

    his ramblings about buying up majority shares in the big six energy companies is the latest illustration he is on another planet from most other people.

    You don’t actually understand much about listed companies and shares do you. No listed company can prevent anyone buying their shares. And you only need a ridiculously small percentage in order to force a hostile takeover whether the company likes the idea or not – and there is nothing they can do to stop it other than outbid you to buy their own shares back off other investors. Wonderful thing capitalism/.

    Even ordinary joe-scmoe can dabble on the stock exchange these days – you just open an account with a comopany such as Hargreaves Lansdown and as and when you feel like it you transfer money from your bank account to your trading account and buy what ever you feel like. And provided you do a minimum number of trades a year (ten I think), you don’t even pay a handling charge.

    I been doing it for years. Is a piece of piss.

  40. Jimmy says:

    “They are re-bought by issuing Govt stock. Just like the Attlee Nationalisation of the Railways.

    It’s just a balance sheet exercise. No new money is needed from the taxpayer.”

    So this stock is non interesting bearing and irredeemable? Why not just give them monopoly money instead?

    I’m afraid you’re simply underlining the economic illiteracy at the core of this project.

  41. Bob Crossley says:

    Solidarity isn’t about agreeing with everyone, it’s about working together even when we don’t agree, so this article is in the socialist tradition of solidarity. Fair enough. I wonder how many £3 Corbynites will see it the same way if their man loses?

  42. Tafia says:

    Why not just give them monopoly money instead?

    All money is monopoly money. It isn’t actually worth the paper it’s printed on. It’s value is entirely notional and based entirely on trust.

    Anyway, he never said he would bring back Clause IV, just that he was open to it. It’s all been the usual girlie scaremongering by Progress and it’s actually backfired quite badly because it turns out the idea actually has quite widespread support.

  43. Madasafish says:

    PeterMartin appears to think the Buyers of Government stock cannot or will not go on strike.

    It’s a simple rule that if you try to sell too much of anything at one time, the price goes down and if you try to buy too much the price goes up. So the price of utility company shares go up and the price of Government stock goes down.. That will work well.

    As some utility companies – EDF and EON- are not UK quoted companies, you cannot buy their shares…EDF are wholly owned by the French Government… S
    Sorry but the level of ignorance on the subject is pitiful. An O level economics student would be failed for such rubbish.

  44. Madasafish says:

    PeterMartin appears to think the Buyers of Government stock cannot or will not go on strike.

    It’s a simple rule that if you try to sell too much of anything at one time, the price goes down and if you try to buy too much the price goes up. So the price of utility company shares go up and the price of Government stock goes down.. That will work well.

    As some utility companies – EDF and EON- are not UK quoted companies, you cannot buy their shares…EDF are wholly owned by the French Government…
    Sorry but the level of ignorance on the subject is pitiful. An O level economics student would be failed for such rubbish.

  45. Tafia says:

    Tom Papworth bringing enormous benefits to productivity and therefore wages and jobs.
    Our productivity levels are utter rubbish, caused primarily by the fact our salary levels are too low in comparison to the cost of housing, utlilities and basic items. As a result investment levels into manufacturing etc are also way way to low and have been for 2 decades, in tureen leading to lower productivity. Artificially boosting living standards amongst the low paid via tax credits is eocnomically illiterate short termism and exacerbating an already dire situation.

    Jimmy , that the pool of non voters is made up of millions of demotivated revolutionary socialists?
    The pool of non-voters as a share of the electoral base, is nearly 50% higher than Labour’s vote. If just one in three non-voters voted Labour, they would win the next election by a massive landslide.

  46. John P reid says:

    The people who are backing Corbyn inTusC, were like those who bkaced Livingstone when he first stood as an independent, extremists, Livingstone soon had to junk the. To get backintothe labour arty 4 years later,or 6 years in Lee Jaspers case
    Lots different but they won’t be happy until they erun the party so they’ll have 3 years to do it,and then Corbyn will go,but will the damage be doe will the party be 59m in debt?

  47. Rachel says:

    Madasafish: ”Labour’s biggest individual donors have pledged to stop giving money if Jeremy Corbyn becomes leader in a move that could leave the party almost entirely dependent on trade union funding.“

    Not sure what point you are making here. Because if you are implying that the views of five people should dictate the future of the Labour party, well if that’s not scary, I’m not sure what is.

  48. Landless Peasant says:

    Reinstate Clause 4. and take everything back. Into Public ownership asap. Especially all Power & Water companies, all Transport, and phone/Internet companies. Remove profit from the equation. By the People, for the People.

  49. Jimmy says:

    And you only need a ridiculously small percentage in order to force a hostile takeover

    As has been pointed out elsewhere this is nonsense. You cannot attempt a takeover unless you are prepared to offer to buy every share once you reach 30%

  50. Tafia says:

    As has been pointed out elsewhere this is nonsense. You cannot attempt a takeover unless you are prepared to offer to buy every share once you reach 30%

    You don’t actually need to hold the 30% and the government can outbid anyone.

Leave a Reply