It's my party and I'll do what I want to.
The end result of a consumerist approaches to politics is a continued misunderstanding of the need for - and value of - political parties.
Edited because I - ironically - got Stamer and Corbyn mixed up in one paragraph!
I have been thinking about class identity and solidarity a lot recently. I did a quiz the other day that told me I was definitely working class because I am financially precarious (buy me a coffee) and shop at Tesco.
But I own (well, leasehold) my own flat, have a Master's degree have degree-educated parents from whom I will inherit some (not masses sadly) wealth and am technically a company owner. Much of my precarity is because I have made choices to have a more interesting life and career which is occasionally significantly less financially rewarding than I would get in regular work. Those choices are ones I have probably been more able to make because the other parts are true. I am and always have been smack bang in the middle of the middle class. And while I am firmly a believer in social and class mobility, I don’t think there’s much up or down for me to go other than, perhaps, within that class bracket.
But here’s what’s important: my class doesn’t and shouldn’t matter. It’s not about me personally. We have made class about personal signifiers like where we shop at our peril - and it's part of an increasingly consumerist, individualised approach to politics. We endlessly either parade our own class credentials or deny them. What we have stopped doing so much, is looking at why class matters beyond the individual.
If this is true about class, it is true in spades for the bodies that once sorted into representing class interests - our political parties. the Tories were always supposed to be the party both of upper-class interests but also of the status quo and the conservative instinct that believed in a class hierarchy even if it wasn’t held by those at the top of it. The Liberals were traditionally those who wanted to change the status quo - radicals in their own way - but not in terms of class. Labour was formed to be a party of representation of the working class interest - even though it was, from formation, a party that was a coalition of liberal middle-class values and working-class and class-based struggle.
As class in the UK has become more complex, so too has its political representation. But while a lot of the struggle to define what Labour or the Tories are for now is affected by the history of class and labour struggles, I think there is an underexplored aspect that comes from a combination of modern communications and Thatcherite consumerism that has meant we rarely examine what we want and, more importantly, need from political parties. And whether our demands are right and reasonable what their effect is on the politics we undertake and the ways in which we view politics and behave in the political sphere.
So let’s think today about what parties are for.
The Labour Party have been agonising for too long about what to do about former leader Jeremy Corbyn. Recently, it has seemed that Corbyn may be about to make the decision for them with reports that he is considering setting up his own party. Something which current leader Keir Starmer says he is extremely relaxed about.
Those who would support this move and some of those who would oppose it are doom-mongering (some gleefully, some angrily) about the impact it could have on Labour. Corbyn is extremely popular in his own constituency and it is certainly possible that, with the right set of circumstances, he could hold onto the seat. If Labour run a candidate against him, rather than *for* Islington North, they could easily lose a more split electorate and either Jeremy wins or a Lib Dem comes through the middle.
But Islington North is one seat. And however much animosity there is between Stamer and Corbyn, I cannot see the first act of a newly elected Peace and Justice MP being to deny Labour power in the case of a hung parliament and gift the Tories another term. So a single Corbyn is not that much of a worry. More than that, the fear goes, he could take other MPs and a decent chunk of members with him.
However, the loss of MPs - possibly apart from in Islington North - would likely be very short term. It would be a brave MP with a profile lower than Corbyn's (and a constituency set up less favourable) who would choose to stand against an official Labour candidate and almost certainly lose not only their job now, but any hope of a serious political career in the near future. Even the most successful of new parties rarely make an immediate dent in parliamentary seats. UKIP has probably been the most significant political force since Thatcherism and they have only ever held seats through defections - not elections. The Greens have had just one MP for a very long time and even when their agenda should be extremely high on our priority list, don’t look likely to change that.
The loss of members would be worse for the Labour Party, coming as it would at a time where income is extremely precarious. But in the medium to long term, that loss would be felt much harder not by the centrists who would have a shiny new story to tell potential donors, but the left they leave behind who would lose votes in CLPs in selections, at conference and in internal elections.
Meanwhile, Remain campaigner Gina Miller has set up her own party called True and Fair - but not, it seems, to campaign to reverse Brexit but on constitutional issues. Nothing wrong with that on the face of it. But I don’t know what good she expects to achieve from striking out on her own that she wouldn’t do by joining the obvious choice of the pro-European and constitutionally-obsessed Lib Dems. I am unpersuaded that in taking any votes from a candidate with whom she was able to agree on a vast suite of fundamentals she is advancing her cause more than herself.
Crudely - politics is a numbers game. And there are no perfect outcomes. But were I a Labour centrist, I think the trade-off of losing a little long term but having a left-wing scapegoat would be more than worth it in pursuit of my internal goals. And were I a liberal centrist Gina Miller type who wanted to use the current momentum to look at how Britain is governed in light of scandal after scandal caused by a self-centred narcisist , I probably wouldn’t launch a party centred on my own celebrity.
I think they would be wrong about how much they would lose, and I think Gina Miller will damage the causes she believes in, in the longer term. The reasons I do are the same reasons I want to defend the notion of political parties and try to fight to reintroduce some of what makes these coalitions of people important and worthwhile.
Yes, politics is a numbers game. So the way to win it is to manage to get the largest number of people to agree with you more than they agree with your opponent. At the end of the day, it’s that simple.
So how do you do this?
I would say that starting off by working out how to form alliances with people you disagree with on some things would be a key start. What are your shared values and are they enough to form a permanent alliance while disagreeing on other matters? Are there others like you who also share those foundational and broad values? Are there (and this is quite important) people who don’t share those values - who in fact share the opposite values? Are they in charge? Are they in a different alliance? Are they in yours? If the latter why? Do you still have enough in common to persuade them to change on the things you think are foundational?
It is in truly testing what we really fundamentally not just believe but raise up our hierarchy of beliefs that we understand where our politics truly lie. If the language of socialism is the language of priorities, that is also true of capitalism, communism, fascism, liberalism. They’re just very different priorities arrived at by applying very different foundational values.
Parties are strengthened by having shared values and weakened when these bonds are weakened. But they are also strengthened through debate and disagreement. It’s knowing which is which that matters.
Unfortunately, that seems to be less and less possible as we move from a political culture based on class and economics to one based on individualism and identity. Left individualism and right individualism may look and feel very different. But both put these values above economic collectivism or individualism when it comes to their core values.
And as we have come to embrace and value that individualism more and more on the left, we are - ironically - less tolerant of difference. This is a shame because it shouldn’t have to be that way.
There are people in all parties who are just a bit too tribally of their party. The ‘my party right or wrong’ attitude is what has allowed for a lot of shoddy behaviour to be excused, ignored and unanswered. But equally, there are people who don’t brook any disagreement within their party *at all*. So if a question comes up about which they feel strongly, anyone who doesn’t agree is seen as illegitimate. Not properly Labour/Conservative/Liberal etc.
This purist dismissal is lazy thinking. If you simply expel someone from your tribe for whatever this week’s heresy is, you lose an ally for life. But even more importantly, you lose the chance to debate, properly, with someone whom you can and should believe is coming from a place of good faith and general agreement. You should be curious as to why someone who so often agrees with you doesn’t on this occasion - not scared and desperate to rid yourself of their thought crime.
Debating them might not change their mind (it might even change yours). But it will strengthen your ability to argue well in good faith and that will - to put it crudely again - increase your ability to win numbers to your side.
No party has a God-given right to exist and most people should have the right to form a new party if they feel strongly that their foundational principles are not currently being represented. So I too am pretty relaxed about any formation of a Corbyn or Miller party. Let a thousand flowers bloom if needs be.
But if you are unable to be a member of a coalition with anyone you don’t have 100% agreement with on everything, you will only ever be in a coalition of one.
And that’s no way to build a solidarity movement.
I run a political and communications consultancy called Political Human. Please get in touch if you are looking for political or media consultancy advice, strategic communication and campaign planning, ghostwriting, copywriting, editing, training or coaching.
You can read some lovely things that some of my clients have said here.
I am also a playwright and director. My debut piece No Cure For Love can be seen here.
Work on my next piece Triggered is continuing apace with a view to staging it next summer. I have set up a Go Fund Me with details and would be delighted to receive donations rather than coffees (and will be linking to this space for the next few months rather than the Ko-Fi).
What I’ve been up to
No theatre reviews sadly. Though I have a few things lined up. These might also drop off as I am about to start a three-month directing course (which would have been helpful before Directing No Cure For Love, I realise!) on Tuesdays and Thursdays - which are frequently press nights. However, if you are launching a new piece of theatre - please get in touch if you would like me to review and I will try and get along.
I wrote for the Times (£) about the Tory dilemma about getting rid of Boris Johnson. It forces them to make a choice about who they are - and are not.
I had my debut in Business Insider talking about fulfilling my dream of becoming a playwright and director.
We released the latest episode of Zeitgeist Tapes (please rate, review, like and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts). This month, Steve and I talked about Don’t Look Up.
Finally, I took part in a discussion on what to expect in 2022. Kindly hosted by the Project for the Study of the 21st Century.
Questions, comments and arguments are very welcome. Insults will get you summarily blocked on every platform that no longer hosts Donald Trump. I’m at emmaburnell@gmail.com or on Twitter (far too often) at @EmmaBurnell_.
11Share