Corbyn's rise is caused by neoliberalism's onslaught on 'Middle Britain'

Tweet

Hark the sound of panic from the Labour establishment and its media backers, from the Sun to the Guardian, vainly trying to warn voters away from the surge in support for Jeremy Corbyn.
But Tony Blair's warning of annihilation, along with those of Mandelson and Campbell, are a Canute-like chorus against a swelling tide caused by decades of neoliberal policies of new Labour and the Tories.
Essentially the middle ground, middle England voter to whom new Labour has always sworn its undying faith, has been whittled away as a voter demographic by the economic and social policies of the last 35 years, and especially of the last five years. The first signs of this were clear from the 2015 election - with the millions voting Ukip, SNP and Green.
The theory of Blairism was that the working class was disappearing, being replaced by a new middle class of aspirational voter, especially in the south and Midlands where most elections were won or lost. This was the result of the policies of Margaret Thatcher, which deindustrialised Britain and turned many more people into homeowners, thanks to the Right to Buy policy, and also the culture of consumerism and the decline of trade unions.
In theory this change was irreversible and meant that the traditional Labour social base was being replaced by a new type of voter more naturally inclined toward consumerist and individualist ie Tory values. Hence new Labour's shopping list approach to politics, with pledges and carefully triangulated messages - minimum wage, yes, but tough on welfare and immigration, and an insouciant acceptance of rising inequality.
Behind a lot of this was fear of the Tory media, which new Labour spent an enormous amount of energy cultivating in order to avoid the fate of Neil Kinnock. Recall Blair's early meetings with Rupert Murdoch in Australia and of course, his model, Margaret Thatcher.
However, it makes no historical sense whatsoever to believe that the moderate centre-left appeal of early Blairism that worked in 1997 after 18 years of Toryism is in any way relevant to the 2020 election. The biggest party in recent elections has been the non-voters - who in 2015 were 34 per cent to the Tories' 24 percent. These are the people Russell Brand says he represents - those who no longer have a stake in a political system that appeals to lower middle and middle-class homeowners. As for traditional Labour voters - public sector workers and carers, they were always treated with contempt by Blair - but in Corbyn, they at last have a candidate who unashamedly shares their values.
Since the financial crisis of 2008, the social divisions caused by a policy of deregulation and privatisation have accelerated - and it is clear who has lost out: average wage earners, young people, renters and others, such as those on in-work benefits and zero hours contracts, have suffered declining living standards, while often apparently treated by our political class as the great unwashed whose votes don't count.
Home ownership is in decline, private sector renting is moving toward 9 million, zero hours contracts have rocketed, food bank use has become a commonplace. In this deeply divided country where the wealthiest 0.1 percent saw their assets double in value since 2008, for whom austerity is what happens to the little people, Corbyn is the answer to the question - who stands up for us?
This is the socio-economic soil from which the Corbyn surge emerges, and is only surprising to those living in a privileged Westminster-media-West London bubble. It is not going away.

Why the right can't handle democracy

Tweet

The horror, the horror. Democracy - that quaint idea of the people actually deciding who leads us, as against having to choose between pre-selected establishment candidates - has broken out in the Labour Party. The Blairites and others who see in Jeremy Corbyn everything they hate about their own party's traditions - honesty, socialism, commitment to principles - must be truly cursing Ed Miliband now for introducing a new democratic system for electing the leader. In the 1990s, the Parliamentary Labour party had half the votes on the leadership of the party. It was a way of making sure grassroots members didn't get above themselves and start thinking it was their party. God and Tony Blair forbid!
At some point, the leader election system was changed again, with a third of votes going to members, a third to affiliated unions, and a third to Labour MPs. That system put Ed Miliband in charge over his brother, whose Blairite record made him a dead duck for the unions.
And now, thanks to Ed, its just one member, one supporter, one union affiliate, one vote. Oh glorious democracy. Getting Corbyn on the ballot was a way of showing how fair minded Labour MPs were in the wake of the shocking defeat in May. But very few ever expected there to be an insurgency of the kind we are now seeing.
They bought into the Tory media line that Miliband lost for being too left wing. What is it about Labour politicians that they believe everything they read in the Sun, Telegraph and Mail? It's as if they lack the capacity for independent thought. They all trot out the same line - the Tories won and Labour lost because we don't 'get' popular right wing sentiments on immigration, welfare, tax etc. Yes, many people do worry about these things, but if you go and ask someone on the doorstep what they feel about these issues, some of them might repeat what they have read in the papers. Gypsies with big families are given five bedroom houses. People enjoying a life of ease on welfare. God forbid that you should challenge the distortions and lies that appear in the papers and point out some other salient facts - the billions in subsidies that go to landlords and businesses to subsidise high rents and low wages. No, no - that would be to suggest you could change these inequities and build a fairer country No, that would be a dangerous raising of expectations. Just keep it vague and aspirational and hope people vote for you out of desperation - maybe stick it on a stone plaque with apple pie promises of sunshine and warm feelings. This then becomes Labour policy.
Then along comes Jeremy Corbyn, squeezed onto the ballot for Labour leader and now leading the pack. I've known Jeremy for years as a peace and solidarity campaigner whose commitment is second to none - he has supported a lot of unfashionable causes, from Diego Garcia, to Palestine, CND, to Colombian trade unionists and the Kurds. Those who sneer should ask themselves what it is about political commitment they find so off-putting.
Corbyn is straight talking and is not burdened with the kind of inflated ego that has been the downfall of other left leaders in the recent past - abrasive personalities who, while charismatic, too often can't live up to the principles they espouse.
Kendal and Blair and all their right-wing media acolytes warn that we might be moving back to the 80s. They seem to be unaware that when the country voted Labour in 1997 and 2001, it was looking for an alternative to the right-wing Thatcherism that had governed the country and raised levels of inequality and poverty in the 80s and 90s. They did not actually vote for Blairism - they voted Labour. A landslide in 97 was almost inevitable. But even more important than this, 2020 is 23 years after 1997. The country has been ruled by a neoliberal regime - with a very short interregnum of Gordon Brown - since 1979. Perhaps only a radical candidate committed to real social change can challenge and bring to a halt this juggernaut that keeps coming back stronger like a zombie we thought we had killed.
Remember 1990 and the end of Thatcher. After that we got Major and the closure of the mines and the rail privatisations. With Blair we got Public Private Partnerships, Iraq, and ever greater security surveillance, plus the micromanagement and farming out of public services.
Neoliberalism comes in different guises, with different faces - but each time the electorate is fooled that it has voted for change, the continuity candidate wins. Even Brown, confronted with the biggest crisis in capitalism in 80 years, bailed out the banks with our money and asked for nothing in return - no radical reform of a financial sector that had become a blood sucking beast on the backs of ordinary people.
Blair reorganised Labour's democratic system so that members no longer had any real say over policy. Miliband began to change that.
So yes, people are desperate for something different. Janus-faced candidates like Burnham and Cooper - who declare love for big business or Israel whenever someone says jump and can't give a straight answer to a question - are not going to do it.
This is why Corbyn has caught the moment, and why Labour's political establishment - and the right-wing and liberal media including the Guardian - are in shock and don't know what's hit them.
Can Corbyn win in 2020? Who knows? And who knows what catastrophes Osborne will have inflicted upon the nation by then. Anything is possible - except the sudden discovery of conviction and principles coming from any of the other three candidates.
And as for the Labour right, the slick-faced elitists like Tristrum Hunt and Chukka Ummuna, they have shamefully exposed their contempt for democracy. After 20 years of managed control of the party in the name of staying rigidly to centrist politics that kill all enthusiasm, they have revealed the very reason millions in Scotland and England no longer want their kind of politics.
There is every chance that if Corbyn wins, they will split the party as happened in 1981 with the Social Democrats. That didn't work out well. However, as European politics has shown, new popular left movements can eclipse traditional social democracy - or at least give it a run for its money. See Spain, Greece, Italy, Holland. Britain needs a left-wing alternative to Ukip and the SNP in Scotland. This could be the beginning of something truly exciting.

Post-Miliband meltdown, the Blairites are back

Tweet

Charles Clarke, Alan Johnson, all the Blairites are hitting the airwaves saying Miliband's 'left wing' platform is what lost it for Labour and saying they need to go back to 'aspirational' new Labour. Who can argue with aspiration? Everyone wants a good life, obviously. But aspiration under Blair and Cameron is code for a false either-or - that solidarity (collectively ensuring everyone has access to the essential elements of a good life - education, healthcare, a home) is anathema to economic success. You can't have both. We've been told that for 35 years and looking at the electoral map today, it appears that most of England agrees.
But really, was that it? It could simply be that Miliband comes over like a north London policy wonk with no connection to the real world - and he fatally refused the hand of the only ally who could have helped him into Downing St - Nicola Sturgeon. Labour was arrogant enough to think it could win alone - and have nothing to do with the other progressive parties.
Miliband's narrative was feeble and unclear for so long - even the Mansion Tax was a Lib Dem policy, not exactly nationalisation of the commanding heights. In fact if he had come out for rail and energy nationalisation, rather than the feeble price freeze, he might have sounded like he had a coherent policy for returning to a mixed economy and breaking with neoliberalism.
It's obvious that aside from Brighton, left wing voters are no more than 10% of the country (or 5% if you exclude SNP Scots). Left-wing candidates scored almost nothing.
But a lot of how you win people over to more social-democratic policies is framing. In Scotland, SNP speaks the language of social democracy and won 50% of the vote.
Saying you will build social housing and regulate private rents is not incompatible with 'aspiration' - it's for aspiration (not to hand all your money over to rapacious landlords), for everyone, not just the middle class. It's saying that everyone should have the elements of a decent life. After all, the Tories have no problem subsidising the rich: housing benefit is a massive taxpayer subsidy to landlords, as is low wages and zero hours - its 'taxpayers' subsidising big business.
Miliband (or whoever replaces him) could have said it's time to stop wasting billions of 'your hard earned money' on subsidies to business and landlords and instead bring in a living wage and fix the housing market - and cut those rich people benefits. Flip the Tory welfare scrounger language on its head. He never articulated that because Labour is forever terrified of being portrayed as 'left wing.' The Blairite view is based on four Labour election defeats from 1979-92: they concluded that you can't change the right-wing narrative, so you must mirror it and sneak in your policies under the radar. But that policy has major drawbacks - it ultimately feeds right-wing ideological domination (as well as leaving the economic model mostly untouched, which came a cropper in 2008 with the financial crash). It's tough accepting that you live in a right-wing country, but if an opposition can link personal interests with a wider narrative of social solidarity, it can win millions of votes - just look at Scotland. May be the Labour party should throw the leadership election wide open - come on Nicola!