Some rough reflections on Labour's 2019 lost

The Conservative party has won a landslide victory. In many ways, this was predictable. Unfortunately, my strong desire for a Labour government clouded my judgement, so I will admit I was surprised to see Johnson win so big. There is already plenty of analysis going on. Many are now questioning the decision to come out in favour of a second referendum, which I now agree was probably a mistake. The commentary from the so-called centrists is, as you would expect, terrible – so there no need to detail it here; it is best ignored. Put simply, there were three main issues which help explain why Labour lost and lost so badly: Corbyn; Brexit; and policy.

First, Corbyn is a controversial politician, and controversial politicians only have a limited amount of political capital – especially when the mainstream media is desperate to strip it from you. In simple terms, Corbyn was past his sell-by-date by the time of the 2019 election. Really, after the anti-Semitism controversy, and as the dithering over Brexit lengthened – around 2018, that is – Corbyn should have stepped down. John McDonnell should have taken his place as leader and fought the election we all knew was coming (there would have been no point at this stage picking a future, long-term leader because their political capital would be spent after the near sure defeat Labour were facing). The idea that Corbyn was always unelectable is bollocks, he could have been elected prime minister in 2017, but the sad thing is that really was his one and only chance.

Second, on Brexit, it should be said first that Corbyn is a good instinctive politician – that is why he did so well in the 2015 leadership contest – when he was unexpectedly thrown into it – and the 2017 general election – which was, again, somewhat of a surprise. The best Brexit position, then, considering all options had downsides, was to go with the one Corbyn felt most comfortable with. This would have probably meant defending the soft-Brexit line and possibly seeing Brexit as an opportunity and not just a problem to be dealt with – an attitude that would resonant with Leave voters more than stating out particular positions on a future relationship with the EU. Indeed, it was clear that Corbyn lost a lot of his energy around 2018 and this in part was probably due to having to accept positions he didn’t totally agree with. Moreover, Corbyn not supporting a second referendum, and supporting instead a position he genuinely believed in, would have saved his reputation as a straight-talking, honest politician. The loss of this image, especially in the populist age, was massive. Most importantly, though, support for a second referendum was overblown and the desire to get Brexit finished underestimated. Also, it has to be remembered that Brexit was, partly, a cry of frustration at not being listened too by people who felt, legitimately, left behind; saying you're going to support a second referendum, which could overturn the original Brexit decision, is not a good look in this context.

Third, there was nothing wrong with the radicalness of Labour’s policy. But there was too much of it. Moreover, it was too convoluted and there was never a message/narrative which helped ground and articulate it. This wasn’t the case in 2017 when Labour had the great message of ‘for the many, not the few’. The 2019 slogan ‘real change’ was crap in comparison. Johnson had a clear message – ‘get Brexit done’. And because for many people Brexit is synonymous with change – or, more crudely, giving the Westminster establishment a big kick in the balls – Johnson managed to appeal to the populist age ethos much more effectively than Corbyn, who, in contrast, was triangulating on the biggest issue of the day with his second referendum pledge. This was the opposite in 2017, where May looked like the status quo candidate and Corbyn looked like the insurgent outsider. Also, something we shouldn’t forget on policy is that, ironically, Corbyn is a victim of his own success. In 2015, restating socialist principles and policy was radical and fresh; however, the success of Corbyn meant that the Overton window shifted so much, that by the time of the 2019 election, radical Labour policy was much less exciting and inspiring – certainly less inspiring than the message, ‘get Brexit done’. 


There were also other factors to Labour's defeat which are too complicated for someone like me, who is merely interested in politics as a hobby, to unpack – like the neglect of the North and the issues of regional inequalities, etc. The three issues I have identified were salient, but, of course, as always, it’s a bit more complicated.

            

Looking to the future, there are several leadership candidates already being lined up. In the end, the best choice is Rebecca Long-Bailey - the socialist cause should not die with this defeat, and Long-Bailey is not only the best candidate to keep socialism alive but also to win the next election; if anyone, for example, seriously thinks that Jess Philips or Yvette Cooper would do a better job, they clearly have not learnt anything from what has happened over the last few years. Though, regardless of who puts themselves forward, in my opinion, the best candidate needs to state three things: Frist, the candidate needs to say, loudly and clearly, that is wasn’t because of Labour’s socialist commitments that it lost the election. Indeed, the policies were popular, have been for a long time and seem sure to continue to be popular in the future. The policies need to be simplified, and some will need to be chucked to achieve this. But most importantly, a better narrative is needed. Johnson’s narrative is based around the label Brexit – a label which many can emotionally invest in. The left need to find an equivalent label and message. The label of socialism could achieve this. Second, the candidate needs to kill Brexit. To do this, they need to state that the question over the UK's membership of the EU is over. The UK will leave the EU – like it or not, that is what people voted for and that is what will now happen because of Johnson’s majority. And, no, Labour should not turn itself into a re-join party – let the Liberal Democrats do that and let them fail again. The candidate should say, however, that Labour will oppose any trade deals, or other manifestations of Brexit, which would threaten the NHS, the environment, and worker’s rights. Finally, and most importantly, the candidate needs to produce a short manifesto which explains coherently why Labour lost in 2019 and what needs to be done to recover its support in the North, Wales, Scotland, etc. 

These are just a few rough, hastily written thoughts. But hopefully, they provide a little bit of insight. The future may look bleak. But, there are good reasons to believe that Labour could win the next election - we are not, necessarily, doomed to another 10 years of Tory rule. Maybe I am being too optimistic again, but in these times, we do need something to hold on to. In the end, as the late Tony Benn said, 'There is no final victory, as there is no final defeat. There is just the same battle to be fought, over and over again.' 

Jack Lewis Graham