Assessing Corbyn’s victory

As the dust settles on a truly remarkable Labour Party leadership election, there is one group of people who are very relieved. There was no last minute reprieve for the establishment candidates, no evaporation of Jeremy Corbyn’s support, and the pollsters and political commentators at least have the satisfaction of having called an election correctly for a change. Corbyn’s victory was both expected by the commentariat and in the end very handsome.

For everyone else, though, and most especially the great number of Labour MPs (by some reckonings as much as 90% of the parliamentary party) who do not find themselves natural supporters of their new leader, the analysis and post-mortems have already begun. And anyone who looks with distaste on Corbyn’s victory and expects his leadership to be short and unhappy, an interlude before sense prevails again, is likely to be both mistaken and disappointed.

Those that dismiss Corbyn as out of touch with the electorate are likely to be surprised:  just like the SNP in Scotland during last year’s independence referendum, he seems to have connected with people who did not know that they were politically minded but who once awakened, may not go quietly. For this alone, he deserves credit: he has energised a part of the electorate that other politicians seem unable to reach, and has instilled in it an interest in politics. For anyone who believes in a participatory democracy, this can only be a good thing.

Nor is it very difficult to see why he has been able to connect with his new supporters. As regular readers of our essays will recall, we have highlighted before the challenge of those in the developed world who increasingly have not shared much in the general economic prosperity in the good times, and who feel that their interests were ignored during the more recent period of austerity. In the absence of a politician to champion their cause, their grievances seldom rise much above a general feeling that they have been left behind and taken advantage of, but when someone like Corbyn, or Nigel Farage of the UK Independence Party (UKIP), or Marine Le Pen in France, takes their side, they are capable of mobilising considerable numbers.

And this is because of an uncomfortable truth which the established political parties would rather not dwell on: there is much justification to their grievances. There are a number of trends in society that are hollowing out the middle ground and removing opportunity from the mass working population. Three in particular stand out:

First, the reduction of social mobility in western society, and the reinforcement of self-perpetuating elites in politics and the professions, matched at the bottom of society by the creation of a semi-permanent unemployable underclass who cannot reach even the lowest steps on the ladder.  It is – remarkably – more likely that one can predict someone’s social standing in the UK solely from looking at their parents’ class and lifestyle now than at any time since the mid Victorian era.

Second, and connected to this, the growth and perpetuation from generation to generation of large fortunes, unhindered by redistributive taxation.  Looking again at the UK – but other nations are not very different – income tax is not set at a level to prevent the creation of great wealth and inheritance tax (ie estate or death duties), which has now become essentially optional, does not prevent it being passed on to the next generation.

Third, a sustained assault on middle class white collar and technical jobs from the twin forces of globalisation and automation. This has led to a shift from what a respected commentator[1] described to me as the “accountant” model of income distribution (in which all accountants are comfortably off, but only a few do very well) to the “footballer” model (in which a few exceptional individuals earn fortunes, while most can barely earn a living). More and more occupations now resemble the footballer model, from writers and novelists to musicians and lawyers to entrepreneurs and office workers. The leitmotif of the 21st century is the chief executive paid over 100 times the salary of the average worker in his or her company.

Much of this is due to the rise of the developing economies.  They have never had a significant middle class and have always had a pattern of a ruling elite plus impoverished masses.  As China, India, Russia, Brazil and others have become significant forces in the global economy, they have by and large retained that societal model, and the more equal one of the developed West (in which the great majority of people enjoyed at least some level of affluence and comfort) has struggled to compete with it.  In short, we have had to make our society more like theirs to stay in business. And those affected by the change have noticed, and they are understandably neither happy about this nor impressed with their political leaders’ attempts to combat it.

Whatever the cause, though, taken together these trends perpetuate and accentuate inequality in the developed world and with it the sense that our current form of capitalism is simply not working for whole swathes of society. And none of the three trends is likely to dissipate in the near future. So while some of Corbyn’s more speculative economic proposals may not attract support from mainstream economists, he can retort that their policies and the current system do not seem to have worked much better so far for the mass of the population he claims to represent.

So what does the Labour Party do now? The margin of Corbyn’s victory means that it is very difficult for dissenters to challenge the result, either now on a procedural basis or in the near future in some sort of palace revolt. And even if Corbyn was forced to resign, there is no guarantee that a similar figure would not be elected in his place. Rather, the Labour Party will have to support the leader that they have just elected – he is after all the only one they have.

As for those who disagree with him, they will have little option but to rebuild their position from within while maintaining an outward semblance of at least passable unity. One the one hand the British electorate seldom supports a party which is seen to be riven by internal dissent, while on the other there is not much likelihood of a breakaway by centrist members of the Party to form a new grouping either. Unlike 35 years ago when the Social Democratic Party was formed by those unhappy with the leftward turn taken under then leader Michael Foot, there is neither a leader-in-waiting to match the stature of the late Roy Jenkins nor a compelling manifesto for centrists to rally round.

One thing is clear though as the dust settles: the major opposition party in the UK has taken a decisive move to the left. That in itself is not wholly surprising: the Labour Party usually retreats to its left-wing heartland after a defeat, and their defeat in this year’s general election was more bruising than most. But what should most concern all those who believe in orthodox centre-left policies is a single harsh but unavoidable truth: Corbyn’s victory was above all because none of the trio of establishment candidates had the stature, the appeal or even the policies to prevent it.

 

[1] I am grateful to David Rowe for this and other observations on this matter (private conversations with the author).