2017’s Operation Cupcake. Behind the scenes, a WhatsApp group is busy plotting. Lose the Stoke-on-Trent by-election and the Labour managerial team might be able to replace Jeremy Corbyn with their preferred choice, Tom Watson. A web of intrigue subsequently ensues, seemingly constructed to ensure that the next general election is lost. The cupcake, mind you, eventually curdles. Labour secures its highest increase in its vote share since 1945. Those wearing suspiciously suspect smiles have to soldier on. Sabotage can always continue. The leaked report, ‘The work of the Labour Party’s Governance and Legal Unit in relation to antisemitism 2014 – 2019’, is striking in highlighting the malice of all those involved. But how could this happen? Given Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour needed just 2,227 additional votes for Corbyn to be crowned PM, what provoked this bout of self-destructiveness and ultimately a tacit support for a Conservative victory? Let’s attempt to chip away the unfathomable.
Could theory of the firm offer us some valuable context? Within the Economics 101 involved, there is acceptance of the impact of asymmetric information. Principal Agent problems enable the sneakiness of managerial discretion, often to the detriment of the owners. It is straightforward to amend this. The maximisation objective here, winning the election, can be replaced with an alternative unpalatable to the Labour membership. Understanding why that discretion could be so destructive, mind you, takes additional consideration. Given British policies is dominated by the Big 2, it is not surprising that both parties involved are rather membership heterogeneous. The preferred language used by Labour is ‘broad church’. However, that ultimately hides the constant risk of conflict between the competing coalitions. This is intensified by the tendency of political activists to adopt a myriad of styles in their righteous indignation. Such conflict is nothing new for Labour, as illustrated by the Nye Bevan quote currently being bombarded across social media: “The Right Wing of the Labour Party would rather see it fall into perpetual decline rather than abide by its democratic decisions“. The switch from New Labour to Corbyn’s preferred social democracy, deemed to be hard left, is guaranteed to create a power struggle. But it is more than that. Once we have factored in the emotionalism involved in inconsistent perceptions of right or wrong, we must delve deeper into economic psychology. Here, we are no longer necessarily maximisers. We are prepared to harm our own well-being if it means our self-prescribed enemy suffers. Malevolence in our preferences is not a requirement. Neuroeconomics, twinning economic psychology and neuroscience, suggests that it may be a feature which can impact on us all. When confronted with an outcome that is deemed to be unfair, folk will often lash out. Punishment will frequently win the day. Self-destructiveness is more common than we like to believe.
But what is behind this game of righteousness? The previous purge of thousands of members, typically on flimsy charges to dent Corbyn’s support in the leadership challenge, might indicate a form of McCarthyism. Blanket accusations of ‘Trots’ also suggests a knowledge deficiency consistent with bounded rationality. Trotskyism, after all, is as rare in Britain as an Ipswich Town victory. But it is important to dig deeper, and it may well be that a previous PM holds the key. Thatcher recognises that New Labour is her ‘greatest achievement’. Neoliberalism or, in our terms, market fundamentalism is all conquering. Capital must lead, labour follow. While deindustrialisation intensifies under New Labour, opportunities for capital are abundant. It is advertised by the fashionable rise of Private Finance Initiatives. By 2007, such contracts amount to £68 billion. £215 billion is supposedly being paid back. The NHS soon comes under strain. A 2019 report by the IPPR finds that, in return for a £13 billion private sector investment, £80 billion will be sucked out of already weakened NHS budgets. Our political system ultimately lurches rightwards such that policies, still deemed to be bland in their standard application elsewhere, are rubbished as preposterously radical for not fitting snugly within the market fundamentalist outlook. Labour’s report, packed full of bile quotes, illustrates it gaudily: “All [public ownership of rail] looks like is trots doing what trots do“.
Perhaps things will now go quiet amongst the Labour Party ranks? The right-wing arguably now have a knighted leader that they can work with. The craftsman behind Labour’s Brexit fudge, Sir Keir Starmer, is accused of being the chief architect in Labour’s heavy 2019 electoral defeat. Despite that charge, it is fair to note that many do believe that he is the essential figure that maximises Labour’s future electoral chances. Perhaps this is finally a return to good old-fashioned politics? Throw enough money at it and you might deliver your desired outcome.
Banner Image used under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.
So much for democracy and being a member led organisation. Corbyn was an inspiration to millions of people and to find that the only reason he and more importantly the Labour Party is not in power now, is down to senior Labour Party people, just disgraceful, shame on them and what they have condemned our country to. To my mind Corbyn proved that there is another way of governing which is fair to all not just a few elites
“For millions of people living in Britain, life isn’t much fun”. I rarely quote Peter Hitchens, but he hits the nail on the head. Corbyn, whether you agree with his politics or not, is needed. The political spectrum, currently focused on maintaining neoliberalism, must be reset. Unfortunately the self-destructiveness of the Labour right has stopped that reset. While Starmer is making noise over maintaining manifesto promises, his soft left credentials suggest an alternative direction. Following the leaking of the report, they also set an unfortunately conservative tone. Focusing more on the rationality of an inquiry to explain that leaking, they will be haemorrhaging activists encouraged back into politics through Corbyn’s principles driven approach. That’s ultimately leads to a return to the inherent problem with our political setup: access is dictated by money. The temporary dalliance with member power will be replaced with influence costs. As the climate emergency intensifies, that is the last thing we need.
Spot on