Well they’ve only gone and bloody done it, haven’t they? In the UK, seven Labour MPs have quit the party, and announced that they will sit on the crossbenches. They’ve named themselves “Independent Group”, announced that they won’t be forming a new party, yet, and that they have no leader. Their most prominent members are north London MP Luciana Berger and Chuka Umunna, the slick half-Nigerian MP for Streathem in South London, who had once been spoken of as a possible leadership contender.
Who are they?
The seven independents are all from the right of the party, and they variously argued — at a press conference stuffed into a small Westminster room, enlivened by a hot-mic’ed BBC tech mumbling “we’re actually fucked” at various moments — that Labour had become a dictatorship of the leadership group, imposing socialist ideas far to the left of Labour, refusing to campaign for a second referendum because they are secret Brexiteers, and failing to tackle anti-Semitism within the party, which they claim to be of epidemic proportions.
Hasn’t this happened before?
The launching of a Labour split inevitably brings to mind the formation of the Social Democratic Party in 1981, after Labour responded to the victory of Margaret Thatcher in 1979 by staying on the left, with its leadership group advocating new nationalisations of industry and unilateral nuclear disarmament.
That time, however three of the four who split away — Roy Jenkins, Shirley Williams and David Owen — were leading figures in the party, who had held major cabinet posts. None of the seven “independents”– the name “TIGgers” is already being bandied about some corners online — have held anything more than a parliamentary secretary (i.e. very junior minister) post, and Umunna has only ever been a shadow minister.
Back in 81, the SDP came roaring out of the gate, with a 25% approval rating, and persuaded around 25 Labour MPs, and one Tory, to defect to them. But the effect was to cannibalise the left vote, and make Thatcher’s assured victory after the Falklands in 1982 into a landslide. They allied with the Liberals, and were then taken over by them in 1987 — although it was politely called a merger — and disappeared from history.
The TIGgers are hoping that 30-40 Labour MPs will join them, which, would see Labour lose about 15% of its MPs. But if the first-past-the-post system made it difficult for a defined party such as the SDP to make gains, it will prove near-impossible for the TIGgers, with no core beliefs — the phrase repeated over and over at the presser was that “politics is broken” — and no defined positions on policy.
Unsurprisingly, their commitment to a “new politics” that represents “the people”, didn’t extend to resigning and then recontesting their seats at byelections. “Byelections are the last thing the British people need now,” Mike Gapes, an Iraq War hawk noted. Well, the last thing that seven British people need. Their sudden enthusiasm for the difficult but resolute path of independence, blah blah, may be not unrelated to the moves to deselect them by Momentum, the pro-Corbyn group that exists both inside and outside the party.
What does this mean for Corbyn?
Nevertheless, their departure is a bad break for Corbyn Labour, which is under pressure from all sides.
Corbyn’s election was due to a rebellion of Labour members against Labour MPs, who never wanted him; now Corbyn and his leadership group find the membership turning against them. Corbyn and Co are Brexiteers. But 80% of Labour’s members — the waves of young, educated activists, and left-wing workers who came in after Corbyn’s victory — are Remainers, who want a second referendum.
However Labour’s core vote, in the north, are firmly pro-Brexit. They barely trust Corbyn now; committing to a new referendum would sour them on him, drive them to the Tories on a one-off Brexit vote, and tempt May to a snap general election.
A whole section of the middle class wouldn’t vote Labour on Brexit alone. But a section of the working-class would vote Tory, and that would hand May victory, and perhaps a renewed majority.
What happens next?
What the TIGgers must be hoping for is for May’s commitment to a “no-deal” exit to persist; or even better, for May to be deposed and replaced by a hard-line no-deal Brexiteer such as — god help them — Jacob Rees-Mogg, or — god help Britain — Boris Johnson. Then, they might get an influx of Tory Remainers, have the March 29 departure date delayed, and get a second referendum.
Only by being a genuine cross-party do they have a chance of winning some seats, in an early election, or holding together until a scheduled one. The TIGgers paradox is that they’re prating on about a new politics, while their refusal to face a byelection test is the worst of the old politics.
Should Tory Remainers regain hold of their party, several TIGgers may well end up crossing over to it. Their complaints about anti-Semitism are genuine, it would appear, but that also counts simple support of Palestinian struggle (five of the seven are Labour Friends of Israel members). Meanwhile, one was a proponent of water privatization (while holding shares in water companies); Chuka Umunna is a smooth-talking professional politician of “the new politics” and fools nobody; and Luciana Berger has attacked Corbyn’s leadership relentlessly since he was elected.
But that’s a while away, and the next big Brexit vote is scheduled for February 27. A week isn’t always a long time in politics, but this one will be.
The loss of a bunch of blindly pro-Israel Blairites will, IMHO, actually help Corbyn more than hinder him.
Should I Stay Our Should I Go
The Clash
Darling you got to let me know
Should I stay or should I go?
If you say that you are mine
I’ll be here ’til the end of time
So you got to let me know
Should I stay or should I go?
It’s always tease, tease, tease
You’re happy when I’m on my knees
One day it’s fine and next it’s black
So if you want me off your back
Well, come on and let me know
Should I stay or should I go?
Should I stay or should I go now?
Should I stay or should I go now?
If I go, there will be trouble
And if I stay it will be double
So come on and let me know
I remember back in the dark ages, a pop song titled ‘Winchester Cathedral’ was in the hit parade. A God Botherer being interviewed on the tv opined that it represented a return to the church by the youth of the day. So my hope that this event marks the beginning of the end of party politics is probably equally naive. But I live in hope.
I remember it well too. However, I don’t consider the sixties to be the dark ages and in fact, I believe we have had darker times since and are in danger of sinking into a real dark age in the near future!
‘Winchester Cathedral’ had nothing to do with religion and everything to do with vaudeville, young love and pop music when pop music was worthwhile listening to.
“nothing to do with religion and everything to do with vaudeville”
The New Vaudeville Band song berates the cathedral (religion?) for doing nothing while the singer’s girlfriend left him. It wasn’t worth listening to.
Crosby Stills Nash and Young’s Winchester Cathedral, however, has its moments. “I’m flying in Winchester Cathedral” is a touch ambiguous, but the lyrics also include an impassioned repudiation of Christianity:
Open up the gates of the church and let me out of here
Too many people have lied in the name of Christ
For anyone to heed the call
So many people have died in the name of Christ
That I can’t believe it all
Can’t imagine what the God Botherer was thinking, whichever song he had in mind.
Could “Winchester Cathedral” be seen as a lament that “God is dead” ( a popular debate at the time) because it did nothing to help the poor young man singing?
The disappointed swain laments the inaction of the cathedral/deity:
“You could have done something
But you didn’t try
You didn’t do nothing
You let her walk by”
It would be a touch inconsistent, not to say harsh, to also complain that s/he is dead.
Most, if not all, of these splitters have faced no confidence from their local party organisations and we’re also facing deselection. The prominent members have been whiteanting Corbyn relentlessly since his elevation to leader. Nothing short of Corbyn resigning would have satisfied them. Angela Smith made a racial gaffe later on in the day after claiming to have left Labour because of its racism.
“A whole section of the middle class wouldn’t vote Labour on Brexit alone. But a section of the working-class would vote Tory, and that would hand May victory.” That might be true, but do we really have any evidence for it? If May goes to an election, she has to have a Brexit position; if it’s anything other than hard Brexit it’ll split her party, and if it’s hard Brexit, surely that will drive a big chunk of the middle class vote to Labour. I don’t know if that would be enough to outweigh Labour losses, but I reckon there’s a good chance it would.
I’m suggesting the middle class will always cleave to the Tories rather than vote for someone like Corbyn. Whereas a rather nationalist, conservative working class can more easily be got over to the Tories. It’s been the key to Tory dominance of UK politics.
Especially so as Corbyn is seen by many northern voters as from the metro side of the party, whom they don’t culturally identify with.
To get a middle class cross to Labour, you need a leader like Blair, who implicitly promises to make sure Labour isn’t Labour.
Nicely put. And we all know how Blair capitulated to the US over the illegal Iraq invasion. The middle class just love these smarmy Labour imposters!
Thanks Guy – I understand that that’s your argument, and I’m not saying it’s implausible, but is there actually any evidence for it? You seem to be assuming that Corbyn will be simultaneously (a) playing the metro cosmopolitan pro-European, thereby alienating working-class voters in the north and (b) still being too identifiably “Labour” to attract a countervailing number of middle-class former Tory voters. And I guess that’s possible, but it seems more likely to me that he’ll do one or the other, not both.
Well, no, I think whatever he does he’s seen as a metro cosmopolitan by northern voters, which makes it easier for the Tories to detach them. And no matter how metro etc he is, the middle classes see him as a grubby socialist. But if he goes too brexit/nationalist, he loses some of the London labour vote. It’s a 3 way split.