Betrayed: Is it time for the left to leave the Labour Party?

In all honesty, the recent Labour Party leak has done little more than confirm what many on the left already suspected about the party. This being, that labour since possibly the mid to late 80’s has been led by the right side of the party. The apparatus and the bureaucracy surrounding the Labour Party are soaked in neoliberalism. With a new leader this faction will be desperate to maintain control of the party at all costs, while showing zero interest in improving the lives of working class people around the country. The recent leak has proved yet again that Labour consists of two parties under one roof, each side indistinguishable from the other, while the centrist shadow deeply damages the socialist cause.

The left in general have always looked towards radical change. But now more than ever, the world needs a real political shift, requiring big bold ideas that can burst open the straitjacket of capitalism. The right of the party in contrast claim to be pragmatists, incessantly declaring that nothing can change without power, but nothing perceptible will change if you sell out to attain power. What this recent leak has shown is the disdain certain senior staff members at Labour HQ had for the hundreds of thousand of members who joined because of the ideals that Jeremy Corbyn represented.

To remain as a member or even a casual supporter of the Labour Party as it stands now, would be to adopt the role of “a useful idiot” as Noam Chomsky would say. Remaining would serve the party’s right wing by bolstering the numbers, putting money in their coffers, while they arrogantly think of you as scum. We had a small window of opportunity to elect a truly socialist Labour leader as Prime Minister, that moment has now passed. Members and supporters of Labour have been repeatedly betrayed by people who were supposedly on the same team. For decades it has been an abusive, one sided relationship and now I suggest it’s time to walk away.

The newly leaked report (full report here) emphatically dismantles claims that The Leader of The Opposition Office (LOTO) was responsible for sabotaging the efforts of the Labour Party tasked with dealing with anti-Semitism. On the contrary, it was the Blairite right wing of the party fuelled by hatred of the left that were the ones who made a conscious decision to drag their heals over any complaints regarding anti-Semitism. Thus creating a crisis that was conveniently blamed onto Corbyn and his team. This report also dismisses any notion put forward on the BBC’s Panorama programme that Corbyn’s office was to blame for this failure.

The upper reaches of the party HQ have been implicated in this treachery, including former General Secretary Iain McNicol. With further spotlight on the Governance and Legal Unit (GLU) largely responsible for disciplinary issues within the party. The report uncovers that the GLU failed to act on the majority of complaints, including those related to anti-Semitism. This inaction created a huge backlog which was egregiously used to imply Corbyn was soft on anti-Semitism. Information to support these alleged actions has been accumulated via extensive What App messages involving 6 top Labour Party Officials.

Further to this, there are examples in the report of officials within Labour’s HQ deliberately giving false information, suggesting these complaints were being dealt with quickly and professionally. Worryingly, the Chakrabarti Inquiry, which stated that the Labour Party was clearly not overrun with anti-Semitism was repeatedly ignored by members of GLU. The GLU also argued that the findings of the inquiry should not be uploaded onto the Labour website. It is fair to say, that this current leaked report does a good job of correcting the record regarding the failures of dealing with anti-Semitism and the people responsible for such failures, but it does contain flaws.

Where it falls short is the lack of acknowledgment regarding the weaponisation of anti-Semitism, while repeatedly stressing the word “denialism” throughout. To refute any incidences of anti-Semitism or racism in general within the Labour would be to ignore the reality of British society. However, “denialism” in this case has been utilised to rubbish any potential discussion around the use of anti-Semitism for political gain. Accounts of anti-Semitism within the Labour Party are tiny, compared to those both in wider society and the Conservative Party. Sadly in this case, context and proportion were concepts wilfully dismissed in order to sustain a political project.

Moving away from the issue of anti-Semitism, it is blatantly obvious reading the content of the What App messages that certain members of Labour HQ wanted Corbyn to lose in 2017. One Labour staff member even declared that, Corbyn’s good result in 2017 was against everything they had been working for over the last 2 years. Electoral disaster was clearly what certain high ranking members of the Labour Party were hoping for, realising that this would strengthen their case to boot Corbyn out.

Further to this 5th column activity, any MP who was considered even marginally on the left was labelled a “Trot”, including moderates such as Andy Burnham, Ed Milliband and Sadiq Khan. Meanwhile, members of Corbyn’s team were given derogatory nicknames by top staffer Emilie Oldknow such as, calling Corbyn’s political secretary “pube head”, while she mocked black MP Dawn Butler for bringing up the issue of racism in the party. In fact, Oldknow seems to have a particular penchant for verbal abuse, calling Karie Murphy one of Corbyn’s team both “fat” and the “Medusa Monster”. This group within the Labour Party HQ also discussed hanging, burning and shooting Jeremy Corbyn.

What’s deeply disturbing about all of this is, Emilie Oldknow was a top pick of Keir Starmer to take over as General Secretary of the Labour Party. I have no doubt that there will be a concerted effort by the Labour right to sweep this under a very large carpet. Starmer has proposed an investigation, but I wouldn’t get too excited if you’re hoping for a thorough and fair probe into what occurred at Labour HQ during this time. Judging by the outline of the investigation, it would appear the new regime seem more intent on investigating the “whistle-blowers” rather than the people named in the scandal.

This is a good example of what moderate or centrist technocrats think of politics. To them politics is just a charade, a game of chance, a way of feeding their egos, while using their wits and backstabbing treachery to gain an advantage over the other lot, be it socialists or the Tories. It’s a world devoid of principles or any notion of making the world a better place, except of course for themselves. These people ooze entitlement and privilege, a group who genuinely think they are suitably qualified to decide the fate of the Labour Party and indeed the country.

Obviously this sort of duplicitous behaviour wasn’t solely confined to the Labour Party HQ. The Parliamentary Labour Party also had a significant hand in engineering a Corbyn defeat in both elections. In 2016 the vast majority of Corbyn’s shadow cabinet resigned and 172 MP’s passed a motion of no confidence regarding his leadership. In 2019 nine Labour MP’s left the Labour Party, again blaming Corbyn’s stewardship, whilst suggesting a prominent culture of bullying and anti-Semitism. However, judging by recent accounts these activities seem to have been performed generally by the right of the party, with their claims of victimhood now presenting more like an elaborate “gaslighting” exercise.

This group would possibly describe themselves as part of the “intelligent minority”. This was a term given by the American writer and political commentator Walter Lippman whose stated function was to “practice democracy” by manufacturing consent. In Lippman’s world public opinion was not to be trusted, in his view, decisions should be made by a “specialised class” capable of social and economic management.

This report strongly indicates that this particular “specialised class” of MP’s and high ranking party staffers, over an extended period of time, arrogantly chose what was best for the Labour Party. This is despite the fact that Labour Party members, which still numbered over 500,000 in August 2019, overwhelmingly supported Jeremy Corbyn. This persistent deceptive behaviour demonstrates that the right of the party have no interest in democracy, whatsoever. However, this group and those they politically represent now have the audacity to ask lefties to support the current leader. A request such as this after 5 years of subversive behaviour is astonishingly contemptuous.

This centrist dim view on democracy is supported by figures, in 2018 the New York Times reported that centrists were more suspicious of democracy than both the far right and the far left. Furthermore, it states that this group are least likely to support free and fair elections. Even scarier still, centrists appear to be the least likely to support liberal institutions, such as civil rights. Finally, the centre are much more inclined to support authoritarianism than the far left. Disturbingly in the UK and the US, it is reported that centrists would also be more likely endorse an authoritarian than the far right, which kind of takes us back to the ideas of Walter Lippman.

Centrists and lefties have many irreconcilable differences. Centrists believe in a rigid, bureaucratic top down system of slick professional politicians, good speakers and party staff whose sole existence is to win elections. As principles are of little consequence, centrists are free to adopt or reject ideas dependent purely on whether they gain votes or not. Additionally, centrists will attempt to manufacture support, often by making promises they have no intention of keeping (see Obama for a case study). Or they will simply ignore public opinion under the auspices of doing “what’s best for the country” (see Blair and weapons of mass destruction for details).

In contrast, lefties are bound by a certain ideology, largely based around the idea of constructing a fairer, more just world, which centrist would determine as naïve. The problem is, this instantly binds the left to principles which can become our undoing when faced with people who recognise politics as nothing more than a pursuit of power. Many lefties will look at this recent report and acknowledge that this underhanded mutiny contributed to a lost opportunity, which aimed to make the lives of many people much better. They may also reflect on this betrayal and wonder how many more people have died needlessly due to politics of austerity at the hands of the Tories following Corbyn’s defeat.

Ethics and principles can place you at a strategic disadvantage when grappling with people who value nothing but narcissistic glory. This is why I firmly believe the two factions need to split, and soon. Neoliberal centrists need the left much more than we will ever need them. They require our votes to win an election, in order for them to gain power and control. After all, this is their only concern. In contrast, socialists need to divorce the centre in order to re-evaluate what principles are important to the left without constantly deferring to soulless political chameleons. If I had to choose between principles and vacuous power, I’d pick principles every time. However, I can’t lie, both would be nice.

Now what for the left? Labour lurches back to the centre.

Many centrists, moderates, 3rd wayers or whatever you might to call them (I have some suggestions), will be rejoicing within the Labour Party as the ‘charismatic’ and ‘dynamic’ Keir Starmer has been elected to lead the party. What a joyous occasion! Boris Johnson must be shitting himself. A slick, corporatized, centrist politician who is a pro-EU Londoner and a middle class lawyer has been sent to gain the vote of the Brexit supporting, working classes, largely from the North. Yeah, good luck with that.

Wow, we all thought politics was dead, hopefully this appointment may speed things up.  I’ve not been this happy since my dog died. Labour is back! Back to centrist, bureaucratic drivel, underpinned by a neoliberal doctrine that is severely lacking and outdated, peppered with social justice platitudes. Come on! Lets get this rather irrelevant party started! What shall we call it? How about Newish Labour?

The left have now had their scraps for at least another generation. We had four years of hope for change and a new way of running society, led by a man with rare ethical integrity. Now it’s time to head back to the cheap seats or even the exit, as the smarmy “moderates” are here, more emboldened and irritating than ever before. We have already been warned on many a forum on this inter webby thing that “it’s a broad church”, “the left experiment has failed”, “you had your chance”, as the cocky chorus of centrism continues to chime their hideous tune. The left are now expected to shut up and bolster the numbers within the Labour Party. After all, “the last time the Labour Party had a moderate leader, we won 3 elections, don’t you know”. But I’m sure you’ve been told this ad nauseum.

The problem is quite simple, Labour consists of two parties under one roof. Personally I have about as little in common with centrists as I do with Mussolini. I would even argue that they irritate me more than the average right wing, Oxbridge bigot. Centrists basically agree with the right, primarily that unbridled capitalism is still the way we should run a nation, however to distinguish themselves from the Tories, they subscribe heavily to the misguided doctrine of identity politics.

This political direction is already on display, Starmer has stated he will toughen the party rules on anti-Semitism. This is almost like the US/UK forces looking for weapons of mass destruction. As if by magic, these persistent accusations of anti-Semitism levelled at the Labour Party coincided with a Corbyn led shift to the left and an increase in scrutiny of Israel. These allegations may also miraculously disappear now Starmer is the leader.

In truth, Labour have continuously been reported of having exceptionally low levels of anti-Semitism. Out of the 228 MP’s as of 2016, one had been suspected and suspended for anti-Semitism, equating to 0.4% of all Labour MP’s. Among the 7000 councillors 0.07% had been suspended and of the 388,000 members (2016), 0.012% were suspended. Additionally, a 2017 survey found that the Labour Party were unsurprisingly less likely to hold anti-Semitic views than both the Conservative Party and UKIP.

In a 2015 YouGov survey in the UK looking at varying groups, Roma/Gypsies were suggested as providing the most negative impression with 58% of the vote, Muslims at 40%, black people 8%, gay people 9% and Jewish people picking up 7% share of the vote. In this survey it concluded that Jewish people in the UK were perceived more favourably than 5 out of the 6 groups investigated. While in all the other countries surveyed, Sweden is the only nation who identifies Jewish people more favourably than the UK.

Despite all this, anti-Semitism seems to be top of Keir Starmer’s agenda, despite the problem being relatively minor. We will always have people in our midst who are racist, trying to eradicate all of these people is impossible, in any institution. To consider it as a major problem as ‘moderates’ suggest, you have to define what constitutes a problem and be able to measure it, therefore, you can judge whether any strategies you employ have improved the very situation you have highlighted. Additionally, the ultimate goal needs to be achievable. Eradicating all racism everywhere really isn’t realistic, no matter how much you would like this to happen.

In 2018, Deborah Maccoby wrote in the Medium that, “anti-Semitism is at a low level and is almost never threatening”. She continued suggesting that trying to completely eradicate it may well be counter-productive, curtailing freedom of speech and thought. She offers that possibly the best way to deal with this would be to keep people who espouse these ideas marginalised in society.

As groups, the Gypsy/Roma and the Muslim communities are infinitely more ostracised, and yet very little is spoken about it, certainly not in the press or within parliamentary parties. Considering centrists appear to champion identity politics, you would expect them to support all minority groups, however, it would seem these are the wrong kind of minority groups, offering little influence in the corridors of power. We must consider that while the ‘moderates’ are at the helm, anti-Semitism will be used as the leash to keep the left at bay.

As far as the centrists are concerned it’s now their ball and they’re not going to give it back. I would suggest Labour is probably not a place for lefties anymore. Some people may well exercise caution, seeing how things develop before making a decision regarding their political allegiances. But many on the left vote on principles, not on the colour of the rosette. ‘Moderates’ talk about winning, spouting that you can’t enact change if you’re not in power, but you can’t implement real change if you have discarded all your principle along the way.

Lefties will be cast out into the wilderness yet again, resigned to the role of a protest faction. Unless the world suddenly realises that we can’t continue with neoliberalism, or we can somehow unify the left, the working class and the disenfranchised, we will remain outsiders. Logic suggests than when the people realise this system does not have the answers to the problems we face, this may initiate discernible change. Judging by what is occurring around the world with; Trump, Modi, Johnson and Bolsanaro to name a few, this would indicate that the reality is very different.

Both the US and the UK entertained the notion that they may be on the cusp of a sea change regarding the political narrative, but this has been extinguished by the ruling elite and their useful idiots. Both nations are invited to vote in their respective elections every 4 (US) and 5 (UK) years. Their citizens are led to believe that they are at the forefront of democracy, that they live in a free country, but nothing could be further from the truth.

On either side of the Atlantic two older, socialist gentlemen have recently highlighted that this is a fallacy. Preserving the ruling elite will always be given special preference over the general population. Anyone who challenges this neoliberal orthodoxy will find themselves, systematically dismantled by the people who really control these two countries. Now, Labour will revert back to the role of a controlled opposition after a brief flirtation with the heady ideas of systematic change.