Labour Leadership: Corbyn returns to the leadership but party still at an impasse as Labour Right remain defiant

Jeremy Corbyn speaking at a CWU event at Manchester Cathedral in October 2015.

On Saturday, Jeremy Corbyn started his second term as leader of the Labour Party. And yet, despite a second large popular vote victory - actually increasing his already considerable mandate - the Labour Right has already marked out their territory.

Even the night before the vote, Labour MPs where making demands. Amongst them, a demand for shadow cabinet roles that have joint policy setting power with the leader (Sparrow, 2016) and for arbitrary deadlines for leadership reviews that will effectively keep Corbyn on permanent probation (Asthana & Mason, 2016).

For Corbyn's part, he accepted his new mandate with a conciliatory speech. He said it was time to wipe the slate clean, to put aside things said in the heat of the contest and strongly denounced hostility and bullying. He called Labour the 'engine of progress' and called for unity around what the party's factions have in common.

Despite paying lip service, the Labour Right has, from the beginning, resisted Corbyn and sought every means of undermining him. And all the while it has demanded that Corbyn must compromise - which, from their attitude, can only be interpreted as saying Corbyn must do things their way.

To be fair, the leadership of Corbyn certainly has plenty of issues - but none of them really offer the Right of the Labour Party any reflected glory.

Corbyn has displayed poor media strategy - which isn't about playing the media's rigged game, but reaching out to the broader public with a coherent message and making a connection (Jones, 2015; Jones, 2016); and, as Billy Bragg expressed concern, there is a worry that he, and the Labour Party as a whole, are offering 20th century solutions to 21st century problems (Bragg, 2016) - expressed not least in Corbyn's embrace of his party's standard issue rejection of pluralism, saying no to the prospect of a broad progressive alliance.

However, while Corbyn may very well not be the party's saviour, Labour without him has nothing constructive to say. All there has been is whinging, that turns quickly into very public tantrums at the slightest provocation - and even without.

There isn't even any particular effort being made to engage with the positives of Corbyn's short tenure. Rallies where tens of thousands turn up to see Corbyn speak and a tremendous increase in membership and engagement - these things are readily dismissed, when they should be engaged with and used as a platform to reach out into communities.

Trying to reduce support for Corbyn to a 'personality cult', even making comparisons to the supporters of Donald Trump (Manson, 2016), is malicious, untrue and counter productive. It blatantly ignores the fact that many of Corbyn's more militant supporters are part of a long ignored faction and are rallying to support and defend their besieged leader, who's public role represents their fragile reemergence.

It is also to act, untruthfully, as if militant ideologists are a thing that has never otherwise existed, is an invention of Corbyn and the Labour Left, and don't form a loud minority of EVERY political movement. The only difference for New Labour or the Conservatives is that their ideologues wear suits and wield greater media savvy - not to mention both connections and influence.

The Labour Right has, from the beginning, fought Corbyn beyond all reason, sense and seemingly self awareness, undermining at every opportunity - crushing their own party's steadily recovering polling just to take a poorly organised shot at toppling him. All the while, they have failed to make any kind of constructive case for how the leadership should be done differently.

As a challenger, Owen Smith offered practically the same policies. He merely stood as not-Corbyn - an embarrassing revelation of the Labour Right's apparent reduction of all the party's problems to be the result of one old democratic socialist and nothing to do with New Labour alienating most of the country.

And now that their latest, large and embarrassing effort to oust him has failed, they're wedged deeply into a corner. How, after such a deep and prolonged an attack on Corbyn's competence, can they proclaim to the public that they stand behind him?

The next move on that front, from a purely practical viewpoint, is an opportunity for Corbyn to take the initiative. To make symbolic gestures of addressing concerns about his poor approach to the media, for example, so that recalcitrant MPs can say their fears have been allayed and so save face - that is, if he really wishes to lead Labour as the broad socialist-moderate alliance it has historically been.

The only other options appear to be continued destructive civil war, that will simply scorch the earth of the Labour brand completely and render it worthless to anyone, or for one or both factions to leave the party - likely the Right, with the party staying in the hands of the significant emergent Left-wing, socialist and radical democratic, faction of which Corbyn is but the face.

As for Labour's future electoral chances? To say that Corbyn and the Left-wing cannot win is to negate entirely the point of party politics. A party organises around a set of common values and seeks to convince the public of their importance.

The reach elected office, a party must find a way of reaching people who do not know, or currently share share, their values and secure their good will. To suggest it is impossible to convince is to say there is now point to holding a dissenting view, or moving in anyway not driven by the crowd.

If a party isn't to stand with a set of ideals, that inform an attitude to policy-making, then there seems little point to having a party. To say - as Labour MPs have - that the party's duty is just to represent the electorate, is not an argument for how to run a party. It is an argument against party politics.

To run an organised party on the basis of just reflecting your constituency's views, is to run a populist machine designed only for grabbing power - turning constituents into passive actors rather than representing them, and alienating them from power.

For the part of the Labour Right, this is just a deeply-ingrained pragmatic reaction to the iniquities of the present electoral system. At every turn there are conflicts of interest that reduce accountability. An MP cannot be held to their manifesto if they must also represent constituents that didn't vote for them - and if they do, thousands of voices are excluded.

The trouble is that playing the game well, within the iniquitous system, produces power. And that is a seductive lure. However, to express a possibly minority and dissenting view, is not supposed to be about 'winning' power. It is supposed to be about representation.

Politics is supposed to be party candidates, representing the full spectrum of beliefs, being sent by their voting supporters as the people's representatives to an assembly where together they will build a consensus. Where they will build an inclusive compromise that reflects the country as a whole. It is not supposed to be about one party supplanting the system itself, to seize power by convincing enough people it is alive to all of their prejudices.

Adversarial politics offers power at a price. That price is currently tearing the Labour Party in two. One solution is to embrace pluralism, with a number of separate parties with common ideals are willing to cooperate - not least to create a more representative and less alienating system.

However, the most likely (and classic) compromise between the party's factions will be a middle ground between the Left's ideals and the Right's demand for 'electability'. The faction that Corbyn figureheads can achieve that - and success heals rifts faster than anything else in politics.

And yet, this inward-gazing uncooperative party-first attitude, that burns within both Left and Right factions, is unhelpful. While to the two groups squabble over power within and for the party, a plural society goes unrepresented and alienated.

Presidential Illness: An acknowledgement of the grave seriousness of the role

It has been said that there has never been a candidate more qualified for the Presidency that Hillary Clinton. Her recent illness is perhaps another indicator of what sets her apart from her opponent Donald Trump. Photograph: Hillary Clinton speaks at a rally at UW-Milwaukee by WisPolitics (License) (Cropped)

The latest twist in the chaotic US Presidential campaign came ten days ago, when Hillary Clinton had to leave a 9/11 memorial due to feeling unwell. It was later revealed that she was ill with pneumonia.

Of course, her opponents pounced on the opportunity to question her suitability and her capacity to serve as President. But Presidential illness is far from unusual - a number of Presidents have even died in office due to illness. Taking it as a mark of weakness on the part of the candidate is a very narrow and limited interpretation that ignores some important facts.

Probably the most famous President to be carrying an illness was Franklin D Roosevelt, who for over twenty years of his political career strove to cover up paralysis caused by Polio. Yet, despite illness, Roosevelt was President four times - the most of any candidate in US history - and steered the US through the Great Depression and the Second World War.

But perhaps more relevant to Hillary Clinton's situation are the illness and death of both President William H Harrison and President Warren G Harding.

William H Harrison, an old man by the standards of 1841 - in his late 60s, second oldest President on taking office after Ronald Reagan - died from pneumonia. In fact, the former US Army General died just thirty two days into his Presidency, following a punishing initial schedule that left little time for recuperation - and created, in the process, a constitutional crisis over the Presidential succession and the role of the Vice President, leading to the the 25th amendment.

Warren G Harding's death was also linked to pneumonia. Harding was, however, also suffering from a heart condition when he fell ill on a busy cross-country tour, ahead of the post-midterm legislative session. With high levels of stress, a poor diet and an incomplete recovery from the flu, he became tired and fatigued. The Republican died only two years into his first term, to be succeeded by his Vice President Calvin Coolidge and then his Treasury Secretary Herbert Hoover.

While the role of pneumonia, an inflammation of the lungs caused by infection, has been profound, the role of stress  - which hinders the immune system and makes people more susceptible to illness - is perhaps greater.

There are few more obvious indicators of the stress facing prominent figures than the famous greying of world leaders. From George Bush and Tony Blair, to Barack Obama, the role that the stress of office plays in seemingly prematurely ageing people should not be dismissed.

This all raises an important point. Being President of the United States should be a grave honour. If you are not being killed by it, perhaps you are not fully appreciating the gravity of what you're doing. If a candidate doesn't view the role of chief executive of a country as a stressful job, then maybe that candidate doesn't actually understand, comprehend or appreciate the true nature of the job.

Perhaps in this case, illness is not a sign of weakness but one of grave comprehension. Maybe, the real worry should be about the seemingly stress free, unconcerned, gurning and blasé candidate who shows no recognition of the gravity of the undertaking.

Flags at The Proms: Blue and Gold have become the colours of those calling for tolerance and openness in Britain

On Saturday night, the Royal Albert Hall was a sea of flags. Photograph: Interior of the Royal Albert Hall from Pixabay (License) (Cropped)

A plan by a small crowdfunded group, to hand out the European flag to be waved alongside the Union Flag at the Last Night of the Proms, is just the latest attempt by those among the 48ers to show their continued belief in an open and international Britain.

It is also the latest demonstration to provoke the ire of those in the Brexit camp. Every time there has been a show of support by 48ers, there has been a response of equal volume decrying the show as some kind of protest against democracy.

It is as if the most hardline Brexiters see the European flag as a direct attack on their identity - a challenge to their personal Britishness that must contested and squashed wherever it arises. That response is a profound overreaction.

The particularly notable thing about the best represented form of pro-European attitude in the UK is that it carries the belief that you can be British and European. It is inclusive. Support for membership of the European Union is not seen as the negation of Britishness, but distinctly part of it.

The support shown at gatherings where the Blue and Gold flags have been abundant has been for Britishness, to represent Britain, not to oppose it or protest against it - to celebrate a view of Britain that is tolerant, open and takes an international view.

Reducing these outpourings to the tantrums of "precious snowflakes", crying because they lost, who should "accept democracy", is itself a profoundly undemocratic attitude. Democracy is supposed to be about representation, not domination.

It also turns a blind eye to the reality of the hostility provoked by the Brexit vote - and ignores how the Blue and Gold was the starkest and simplest symbol that people could use to show their opposition to intolerance and their solidarity with the victims.

The reality at the Last Night of the Proms was that an overwhelming display of British pomp and ceremony, in a sea of Union flags, was dotted throughout with many other flags of which the European flag was just one - a nod to Britain's presence on the international stage.

The difference is that the planned presence of the Blue and Gold was taken as a personal affront. For those riled by its presence, they need to realise that it is no challenge to their personal identity - and that the 48ers also fear authoritarian attack on theirs.

Those fears are stoked when, amidst suddenly rising intolerance, thin-skinned patriots undemocratically question the legitimacy of celebrations for an opposition view that had the support of 48% of voters. Democracy begins in acknowledging the legitimacy of the opposing minorities and their right to dissenting views.

The stark lines of nationalism are reappearing across Europe. It would be a travesty for the UK to start suffering from the enforcement of a narrow 'Britishness' that leaves no room for other identities. That, in short, is what the Blue and Gold flag has come to stand for in Britain.

What can we do about taboo? Keeping mental health and suicide in the dark is killing young people

Taboo condemns us to ignorance and to repeat our failures through a lack of understanding. Photograph: On Mute by Katie Tegtmeyer on Flickr (License) (Cropped)

It is the mark of a free society that it tackles difficult questions openly. It braves the scrutiny of public debate for those matters that might otherwise have been hidden and emerges the wiser for it.

The closed and stifling world of taboo, by contrast, keeps uncomfortable matters closeted away, where it can ignore them. In doing so, however, there comes the greater risk of not understanding them.

In few areas is this more damaging than when it comes mental health. The stigma and discrimination, and the shame that follows, keeps mental health, and not least suicide, from being understood - preventing effective disclosure, diagnosis and treatment in the light of reason.

And this is no small matter. According to World Health Organisation numbers, by 2014, 800,000 people died by suicide each year. That is a huge number of people dying in a manner that is not widely understood, because taboo keeps it in the dark.

These taboos touch on every aspect of our lives and not least upon the lives of young people. In 2014, suicide was the second most prevalent cause of death amongst those aged 15-29 (Baker & CNN, 2014).

In the UK, the impact of suicide is even more profound. For Britain it is the number one cause of death amongst young people - in 2014, 1,556 young people under the age of 35 ended their lives. Even that number belies the reality.

Indeed, PAPYRUS believes these figures are the tip of the iceberg. In the UK, suicide has not been a crime since 1961, yet the law demands that coroners use the criminal standard of proof to conclude that a death was a suicide.

One of the frightening things about taboo is that, because it discourages open discussion or admission, it also hides the reality. All of this adds up, and the true number of lives lost to suicide is likely to be higher and attempts higher still.

Talking about suicide does not cause suicide and censoring discussion doesn't stop it. Rather, taboo and its inhibitions prevents what could be lifesaving communication.

The deaths of so many young people has sparked campaigns and led to the creation of organisations, like PAPYRUS in the UK, to help support young people and those close to them in order to prevent suicide.

The question is, how do we start the work of breaking up these damaging taboos?

The start comes in changing our own behaviour. By doing so, we can slowly reshape the world around us with our actions. The first step in that process is to talk.

In the UK, attitudes are clearly changing for the better. Articles pointing out the dangers of mental health taboos are appearing in popular media (Harvey-Jenner, 2016) and celebrities are taking to TV to talk personally about suicide (Ruby, 2015).

The very real momentum can also be seen gathering behind the push to put mental health on parity with physical health. Along with the advocacy of former Health minister Norman Lamb, progressive opinion has aligned with campaign (Perraudin, 2016).

The time has come for mental health to come out of the shadows. It's time for us to face the reality of suicide. Taboos only shut down reasoned debate, block discussion and understanding, and endanger lives.

If you are a young person having thoughts of suicide or if you are concerned that a young person make be at risk, please contact HopeLineUK, which is PAPYRUS’ confidential advice and support service. Call 0800 068 41 41, or Email pat@papyrus-uk.org or Text 07786 209697.

Welcome Back Westminster: Big decisions ahead for Members of Parliament

After a summer recess intended as a break from politics as usual - but which in reality turned into a carnival of political attractions - Westminster is back in session and there are some big decisions ahead.

Top of the list for progressives is human rights. With the first PMQs of the new term in sight, the Justice Secretary took it upon herself to confirm Conservative intentions towards the Human Rights Act and the UK's relationship with the European Convention on Human Rights.

Liz Truss, newly appointed Justice Secretary announced during the break that Conservative manifesto plans to replace the Human Rights Act with a British Bill of Rights will go ahead (Stone, 2016). The plan has been widely criticised and spent a lot of time buried in the face of parliamentary opposition (Sankey, 2016) - including within Conservative ranks.

That decision goes nearly hand in hand with the decision ahead of Theresa May regarding Article 50 - which triggers the beginning of the UK's exit from the European Union. So divided are the Tories that the PM arranged a special gathering at Chequers, the PM's country retreat, to hash out a common strategy (BBC, 2016).

The product, that has been seen so far, is a refusal from Theresa May to commit to any of the Brexit campaign's promises: in particular the promises of points-based immigration and £100m a week in extra funding for the NHS (Mason, 2016). Even continuing to contribute to the EU's budget was not ruled out.

Beyond the headline issues, even just in the first week back MPs must get to grips with questions on refugee children, debate the government's budget which is at its third reading in the Commons, while the Lords tackle the Investigatory Powers Bill - the latest iteration of the so called Snooper's Charter.

Meanwhile Labour's leadership election has been seemingly fruitless and has made the attempt to oust Jeremy Corbyn from the leadership look a shambles. Owen Smith's challenge hasn't really materialised in the debates and he has been unable to set himself apart.

That is not, though, necessarily to say that there is substantial ground between the two candidates. Corbyn clearly has faults and never really set himself apart either - even in front of audiences where he enjoyed a clear majority of members' support. Yet for Smith to replace Corbyn, he has to demonstrate himself to be clearly better suited and he has so far failed.

And if, as his polling numbers of around 60% or higher suggest, Corbyn is re-elected leader in three weeks time, the divisions in the party are unlikely to have been resolved - MPs opposed to Corbyn, having failed to oust him, have more schemes planned to undermine him (Whale, 2016).

In all, the Summer seems to have been an embarrassing failure for the Labour Parliamentary Party and its disaffected MPs, and their disappointment looks likely to spill over long into the next Westminster session.

After a summer where Labour have appeared chronically unable to get their house in order, while the Tories got theirs settled almost too quickly, and with only one utterly fringe MP having a 'Brexit' mandate from voters, in a house that by overwhelming majority supported remain, UK politics is back but its actors look unready to deal with the important matters ahead.

Surely against this backdrop, a new election has to be a very real consideration. For the Left, in as difficult a position as it seems, a Progressive Alliance seems to be the only way to take the fight to the Conservatives, who look right now able to win in virtually the same manner as Theresa May became Tory leader and Prime Minister - uncontested.

Caroline Lucas, in her return to the Green Party leadership in a job share, certainly put her best foot forward in making the forming of a Progressive Alliance her number one priority (BBC, 2016{2}). While for the Greens any strategy to increase their own representation is certainly in their interest, an alliance would also help to increase the representation of diverse voices in Parliament and rally the Left opposition to mount a serious challenge to the Conservative position.

However, plans for an Left alliance are already looking to near to scuppered by Labour's inability to get beyond its need to be the single and uncontested party of progressives. The party's official stance remains firmly opposed to pluralism, with even Jeremy Corbyn ruling out a Progressive Alliance by rolling out the party's usual lines about its historic role.

Its belief in the two-party, adversarial, system, and its own special role in that system, is summed up in the slogan on its Pride banners: "Only Labour can deliver equality".

That attitude doesn't bode well for a project aiming to build a Progressive Alliance. While there has been some warming up to pluralism and proportional representation by some individual MPs or members, the Labour Party's official stance remains intransigent.

There are big decisions ahead and progressives can only really face them working together. That means respecting the desire for broader representation, finding common ground, and working across partisan boundaries - rather than trying to wrangle everyone under one programme announced with one voice.

The Left cannot be frightened of debate between plural voices. The Left is diverse and its diversity is its strength. The way ahead for the opposition in Parliament, and the wider progressive movement, is to embrace plurality and co-operation, in the name of the common good.

Around the World: Corruption, Operation Car Wash and the Rousseff Impeachment

National Congress of Brazil, in Brasilia, where now former President Dilma Rousseff was impeached in two majority votes. Photograph: National Congress of Brazil from Pixabay (License) (Cropped).

Dilma Rousseff has lost her battle against impeachment in Brazil, with the Senate confirming the decision of the Chamber of Deputies to expel her from the office of President (Watts & Bowater, 2016). Three-quarters of Senators voted to impeach her on charges of corruption and mismanagement of the budget.

That is unlikely to be the end of the controversy. But for now, it marks the end of a chain of events set against a backdrop of general unrest, with protests against money being spent on huge international events like the World Cup and the Olympics, instead of on practical measures to support the people - like housing and welfare - and an economy deeply affected by the global crisis.

A lot of the present crisis surrounds Brazilian oil. Accusations of bribery surrounding the state oil company Petrobras surrounding the awarding of contracts and its deep connections in Brazilian politics, was uncovered by the corruption investigation known as Operation Car Wash (Watts, 2016).

The result has been a political crisis that has seen Rousseff's predecessor Lula da Silva set to face a corruption trial and the larger part of the political class implicated in the corruption. Rousseff's adversaries have also manoeuvred to have her thrown out of office, though as she is so far avoided direct connection to the scandal, they have pursued her through accusations of fiscal malpractice (Prengaman, 2016).

The impeachment leaves Rousseff's former ally, and now leading figure amongst her opponents, Acting-President Michel Temer in the office of President. While he has the support of the political Right and business that wants austerity measures imposed, he isn't popular - having been booed during the Olympic opening ceremony.

Like Italy's Mani Pulite (Clean Hands) investigation that wiped away the country's established political system and all of its political parties in the early 1990s, Operation Car Wash has thrown open the doors to show how Brazil's system operates behind closed doors - and no one working within that system is likely to come out clean.

That situation is what has toppled Rousseff. The worry is for the political vacuum that might follow the toppling of the rest of the establishment - in Italy it was occupied by the arch-populist Silvio Berlusconi for twenty years.

Yet despite her defeat in what has been denounced as a parliamentary coup, Rousseff insists upon appealing her impeachment by who she describes as usurpers and coup-mongers (Watts & Bowater, 2016). But against a backdrop of massive political-corporate corruption, it is unclear what more can be done at the federal level until it is all swept away.

Clearly, Brazil needs a path out of this dense tangle of overlapping problems. The clear implication is that a new approach is needed.

One option that has been proposed is to embrace the municipal movement, most notably at work in Barcelona, at the local government elections in October and November (Wyllys, 2016). What municipalism offers is a chance to do things a bit differently.

Movements in Brazil are already organising around municipal principles - Muitxos: Cidade que Queremos (Many: the City We Want) in Belo Horizonte, for example (Gutierrez Gonzalez, 2016) - as a way move power away from political-corporate cliques.

With Brazil's federal politics - where pro-market corporate forces face off with populist social democrats over tax and spend projects like social welfare - mired in corruption and accusations, shifting the focus to local government instead could provide a route for citizens to get into politics in a more direct way and perhaps even start to dismantle the corruption from the ground up.

As elsewhere in the world, national politics has been choked by political-corporate cartels, whether de facto or de jure, that restrict political action and assume the driving seat in decision-making.

That path has lead to failures of leadership, where vigilant oversight is lacking - of which, if anything, Rousseff might be legitimately accused, due to being in a senior position during the height of the corruption and yet claiming no knowledge of what was going on.

Devolving power to citizens in their communities and encouraging open city government could help renew the system. And for the municipal movement itself, success in the cities of Brazil would be a major breakthrough.

It is one thing to argue for open source cities, using the twin means of free online resources and open participatory public spaces, that make the municipality a place where people can express their real political power (Gutierrez Gonzalez, 2016{2}).

It is another entirely to see municipal ideas applied to cities on different continents, with different contexts, and see them challenge massive corruption from below by engaging with people in their own communities and returning hope and power to them.