Up split creek

Drawing on the skills of a diverse crew to sail towards electoral success not towards the rocks that could break us 

At a time of seemingly deep division in the Labour Party, I find it difficult to participate in the leadership debate in a meaningful way through posts limited to 140 characters.  My #keepitcomradely interventions seem impotent as a toxic meme war rages around the twitter sphere.  If I was to believe some of the tortuously stretched spin I have read then neither candidate would be fit for office. I am sure I am not the only one exasperated as the good ship Labour seems to float towards the rocks propelled on a wave of social media bile.

This blog post is my attempt to find calmer waters, to create space to turn the boat around and start working as effective crew towards electoral success.  I write it in the belief there remains a significant proportion -hopefully a majority on both sides and neither - who have the good faith needed to show the pragmatic spirit upon the labour party was built.  It seems too easy to only hear destructive voices in the social media age.  Whoever wins this leadership contest, our public reactions and future conduct matter.  If nothing else I hope this post creates a moment of calm for reflection. It would be great if it helped facilitate more pragmatic and considered interventions.

First I think it's important to think about leadership. The position of Leader of the Labour Party is not the Labour Party.  Leaders come and go - they are temporary captains of the ship, whether at times you want to throw them overboard or not! Furthermore leadership is not exclusive to the role of leader.  We have many leaders, both official and otherwise. We can all to a greater or lesser extent show leadership (for example by the way we behave on social media, or conduct our business in branch and constituency).  Our official leaders may have their powers codified, but they are not all powerful.  I worry some have begun to see leaders as policies personified.  Elected leaders do not have the gift of policy to give. They are gifted with many other privileges including the opportunity to direct the further development of policy, appoint their team etc. But getting  the policies they want is not a given.  Our captain may have many policy destinations in mind - hopefully - but must employ their nouse and strategic sense to achieve success: where to go first, where to avoid, what route to take and how to manage the crew to get there most effectively and so on.  We need to stop thinking in terms of leadership as absolute and remember it is conferred by consent.  Mandates can be broken when leadership fails.
   
Secondly I think its important to think of labour as it is - a progressive alliance of diverse interests, and different elements - members, trade unions, socialist societies and elected representative groupings -from councils to parliaments.  This alliance was forged by our forebears to win representation for working people. The prize of parliamentary representation involved compromise to secure unity.   Our much derided, misunderstood and often meddled with  structures and processes need adept leadership. They can frustrate, but can also provide important checks and balances.  It seems a little ironic for some to talk of progressive alliances with other parties when we seem to have forgotten to see labour as such an alliance - and when the skills to maintain this alliance seem in short supply.

My third point is a challenge to supporters of rival candidates. What if there is a grain of truth in some of the arguments flung back and forth between rival 'opposing' sides?  What can we learn from thinking about some of these points in order to understand each other and begin to make things better. I've order these "what ifs" largely as they came out in my head as I sat on the train.  It's not a comprehensive list but hopefully provides some food for thought.  Whether there is a grain of truth in the points presented is another matter, but if it's what people believe then it's a useful starting point for reflection.

What if Jeremy Corbyn is not up to the job - he has been too insular, has wound people up, has not listened, he has done things that had undermined colleagues, he has not adjusted from being a back bencher free from responsibilities of the office of leader? What if colleagues in the PLP are not a bunch of rabid right wingers who should 'join the tories'?

What if Jeremy Corbyn is learning on the job but has yet to fully grow into it.  He needs a chance to settle in and shine. Maybe he needs support, perhaps some mentoring?  Maybe he needs to widen his inner circle? Maybe he needs to think about the balance of power in this group and the impact of the words of some of his colleagues and how they sit with his professed distance from the toxic issue of deselection? Maybe he needs to think about the platform the Parliamentary Labour Party was elected on as the starting point for policy development? Maybe he needs to be seen to focus more on the day to day issues that concern the people we purport to represent? Maybe he needs to remember that the words of leaders are often heard as party policy even when they are not?

What if Jeremy Corbyn's is not the 'leader of a cult' but his appeal is testament to his impact in fanning the embers of the fire that a majority of us hold in our hearts but which has too often been cloaked in timidity, throttled back too far as we've tried too hard win by cold calculations and opinion polls?  What if the Parliamentary Labour Party knows this and Owen Smith "copying Jeremy Corbyn's policies" is a sign that more unites us than divides - that these are actually Labour ideas that can be shaped into a unifying policy?  What if the majority of the PLP have accepted a leftward tack but Jeremy just doesn't have the skills to get the best out of his team? What if the clear interest and emotional investment Jeremy Corbyn seems to have generated amongst his supporters was shared out and people started to see the PLP as being on the same side?

What if people supporting Jeremy Corbyn are not 'Trotskyist entryists' or supporters of other parties?  What if they are not 'idiots', or part of a 'personality cult', but simply appreciate the authenticity apparent in long serving strong minded backbencher? What if some of Jeremy's past statements and contacts make him a soft target for a media all too keen undermine Labour?

What if some some supporters are Trotskyists agitators using the party for their own ends?  What if it didn't take many entryists to turn the mood bitter and to trigger deselections? What if you'd been a member through earlier bitter times and sensed history was repeating itself? What if you thought that a group like Momentum operating outside the party could too easily be a used as a vehicle for infiltration and trouble?

What if Momentum had the best interests of Labour at its heart?  What if it was a valuable basis for organising a social movement? What if it affiliated to and was subject to the rules of other societies and groupings in our progressive federation?  Will it or won't it? If not why not?

What if this isn't the last say on leadership before the next general election?  What if Jeremy Corbyn is a reluctant leader or Owen Smith wins and is then challenged? What if Jeremy wins now but actually wants to go once he has brought forward changes to strengthen the role of members in our party's affairs?  Who is next?

And so some final concluding thoughts. What if we stop elevating the role of party leader to something it is not?  What if we viewed labour as a pragmatic alliance of diverse progressive interests and valued each other's view points and harnessed the passion and creativity we possess? What if  our social media posts going forward sought to unite not divide?  What are we all going to do to ensure we can present a credible election winning platform to make the world into a better place?  After all, whoever wins, what if the polls are right?