www.policynetwork.org e: [email protected] +44(0)2073402211 f: t: +44(0)2073402200 SW1P3QB Street11 Tufton Second floor Policy Network policy network paper social democrats andCorbynism For themany notthefew: Labour's A Policy Paper Network June 2018 Steven Fielding Contents 2 |For themany Labour's socialdemocrats andCorbynism not thefew: |June 2018 the People's History Museum to mark the twentieth anniversary of the 1997 election. ofthe1997election. to thetwentieth Museum mark the People's anniversary History He hasalsopresented 4andin2017curated anumber ofdocumentariesonRadio anexhibition at aswell asculturalextensively representations onthepastandpresent oftheLabourparty ofpolitics. Steven Fielding isprofessor at theUniversity ofNottingham.Hehaswritten ofpoliticalhistory About theAuthor outlined by outlined Anthony ago. years democracy Crosland over forty they are to contribute to future to theyembrace need Labour’s the more robust vision social of has adecisive made pastwhich achievements. if But they are contribution part to the party’s social democrats must first rediscoverin the party, traditionThe purpose. of principled their outcomeThe this of caution Jeremy of is Corbyn. the leadership Ifthey are to recover their position ‘anti-business’. even Some referred to themselves as ‘progressives’ rather than social democrats. achievements of the Blair-Brown years, too many social democrats were afraid of being seen as Evenmodest. as crisis the banking that the and austerity followed washed away the of some race and addressednonetheless gender, inequalities of but whose record sexuality class on was government, Labour which the New its shaped emissaries. This attenuated retreated prioritizing from equality. From the critical being capitalism, friends of many became within capitalism.create society amore equal as But capitalism inthe 1970s changed many to reaffirm thatpost-warfor of purpose which main they The democrats social stand. was to Jeremyof ‘Blairites’Corbyn Vilified by as or supporters ‘centrists’, democrats need social Labour’s About thispaper Alison McGovern,Burnell, IanMcKenzie, McHugh, Declan Marc Stears andChorlton LabourParty. For Emma thanks are helping me think more due toabout this subject Blackburn, clearly Dean Acknowledgements — Steve Fielding Jim Wood /Shutterstock.com Cover photo credit: www.policynetwork.org

policy network paper The election of as in 2015 has seen Labour’s social democrats work through all five stages of grief. From denial, through to anger, bargaining, and depression most have now arrived at acceptance, apart from a few notable eruptions over . As Matt Chorley of recently had it, many in Parliament are, “like Rose in Titanic, just bobbing around on an old door on an icy sea, hoping they might be the lucky ones to survive” Corbyn’s leadership. For some activists however hope is not enough: they are doing their best to prevent councilors and MPs from being deselected in favour of those swearing complete allegiance to Corbyn. But theirs is an

inherently defensive campaign, which employs wily organisational nous more than persuasion to paper policy network achieve its ends. If such efforts have produced little victories, it still means that, although Labour’s showing in the 2018 local elections suggests Corbynism’s appeal to voters has peaked, its advance within the party continues almost unabated.

Labour’s social democrats are not alone: across Europe their ideological cousins are also in varying states of disarray. Since the 2008 financial crisis those on the centre left who believed capitalism could be used to build a more equal society have been thrown out of office and from the leadership of their parties. To the far left’s millenarian assertion that the current economic system has to be cast aside because it has become an implacable engine of ever-increasing inequality they have developed no compelling response.

Yet less than twenty years ago European social democrats were electorally ascendant. Some claimed they had found a new way to reconcile capitalism with the pursuit of a fairer society, one that made all previous strategies redundant. A few spoke of a ‘’ – others of a ‘neue mitte’ – and asserted theirs was the only means through which a centre-left politics could be built. History, they believed, had spoken.

It is now a decade since the financial crisis destroyed such hubris. But, tainted by their almost unqualified embrace of a radical form of free-market capitalism, social democrats have not found a language or policies to win back their own members, let alone the wider electorate. In few countries has the turn-around been more dramatic than in Britain. For in the 1990s was seen as supplying the model for a renewed social democracy but now Corbynism is regarded as illustrating the possibility of transcending social democracy from the anti-capitalist left.

Assailed across and Facebook by a high-profile boy band of bragging Corbynistas, no wonder Labour’s parliamentary social democrats are punch drunk. If they are to have any hope of clambering back into the ring they need to reflect on why so many think they are out for the count. They also require an argument to win back Labour members who currently see the semi-mythical figure many simply call ‘Jeremy’ as a saviour. There are grounds for thinking this is not an impossible task. For even most of those who joined the party after 2015 share the same basic objectives as social democrats, even if they might not realise it. So, rather than burning their bridges by creating a new party, social democrats should find ways of rebuilding them. To find the material for this process of reconciliation social democrats must revisit their past: they need to reassess it and recover some of the more radical strands in a tradition that has contributed so much to the party. But it will not be easy: they have to do this at a time of unprecedented political instability after Britain’s vote to leave the . There have been few moments as difficult as this for Labour’s social democrats.

A Paradox

While much of their history should inspire them – social democrats can rightly claim credit for most of Labour’s achievements in office – looking back also needs to be an occasion for self-criticism: the party’s failures in power are also theirs. In particular they need to appreciate how that history has contributed to the creation of Corbynism, for many Labour members embraced Corbyn as a

3 | For the many not the few: Labour's social democrats and Corbynism | June 2018 www.policynetwork.org approaches: the primacy of the pursuit of equality. This was something , a cabinet Anthony Crosland, acabinet something was equality. of This pursuit the of primacy the approaches: two these between shifted many whom of members, Labour most that united which obscured has it importantly more but prospects electoral party’s the harmed has often Such bitterness happy that really year. them thatthing made death in 1963 Gaitskell’s sudden regarded they Abrams Mark one as the sociologist told Socialist Young1961 Labour anonymous to a result one multilateralism. As Labour in returning succeeded he In evil. reactionary of him saw embodiment as the some return In expelled. them wanted invariably and fools or as we Communists love”. opponents toagain save regarded party the Gaitskell fight“Fight,fightand he would declared defiantly Gaitskell Hugh leader party the disarmament To in 1960 aconference vote losing unilateral example, nuclear on take one as life-or-death. after regarded often moment, differences the gaveheat were,which of these the rise to in conflicts The now.do as they shots, the called briefly approach 1930s, the during But prevailed. 1970s reservations, with albeit second the of 1980s and exponents identify, came to strategy,democrats social which with first the of advocates part For most the . building of citizens capable into them becoming educate and desires people’s to reshape aimed they which through process transformative awider of part one as merely elections on looked latter The attitudes. conservative accommodating deeply meant as were, they sometimes which much people with engaged so and prerequisite was a elections office national through winning believed order. social of former The type new to wanted create who were awholly those other the On here-and-now. in the brain by and to worked hand improvesought who those place of the who were those hand one the On strategies. basic two between struggle site anunremitting of the became soon Labour in parliament, unions Created in 1900 trade of interests the to represent today of new. is hardly another. one bitterness with The to disagree propensity members’ is its party Labour the of characteristics persistent most the of One Labour and social democracy live to upto promise. fully their way failed their and lost they because is Conservatives from to them distinguish ‘centrists’ to be little with democrats social imagine who by those them against words are now used have these That always believed. democrats social encapsulates party’s also that it the which But phrase. a ‘Blairite’ is then Few’ Many the the Not ‘For that Labour: Blair’s of clause asserts part relevant The . to Tony which gave clause Blair in revising 1995 the when his name Corbyn’s of face in the –and is it aphrase But cards. party all is members’ it on purpose: basic its out that sets constitution its clause four, of that part party’s the words from were taken These stands. his what leadership for to encapsulate repeat still Few, ForMany the the Not entitled, his acolytes and Corbyn aphrase 2017 Labour’s Corbyn. back currently many with who those of all a rapport after was manifesto rebuild still can democrats crisis is their social however like now but just deep it might feel It not misfortune. own their for to blame largely words, are, They in other principles. to live defining upto own their reluctance democrats’ to social reaction 4 |For themany Labour'ssocialdemocrats andCorbynism notthefew: |June2018 tolerance respect. and rights duties wethe enjoy reflect we owe,and where we live together,freely, ina spiritof solidarity, are inthe hands the of many,in which power, not the wealth few, opportunity and where the so as to create us of each for the means to realise potential true our us of all for and acommunity thatbelieves by the strength we common endeavour achieve our of more than we achieve alone, www.policynetwork.org

policy network paper Now (1973),Now social in which one context, political and economic adark amidst produced he which in Socialism name his same essay the of from takeCrosland this not is did route. apparent This Thatcher.of that not key assets, privatising state that Callaghan started James of government Labour the was it spend’. and alone: were not They ‘tax of shackles the from liberated to be that needed market the and big Thatcher’s too 1979Margaret become had state the argued colleagues and Jenkins victory, SDP in 1981. the formed who Four’ of ‘Gang the become would what of members other Even before with –along democrat than asocial aliberal of always more –perhaps contemporary, Crosland’s of true especially was This movement. to labour news the to was it bad break main job whose emissaries its became and capitalism’s to ceased be friends critical democrats that social in effect, meant, it But understandable. was ‘sick‘ungovernable’ the and -such ashift Europe’ of man called Britain saw –which opinion economic of tides changing the events and unprecedented of pressure the Under market. to free power the less not state; more the of more not less meant That footing. profitable amore on put was once capitalism only andresumed be suspended should equality of pursuit the circumstances difficult extremely that in these were persuaded democrats social of Many Crosland’sof in this generation model. viability the to of question them some led unrest industrial and mass inflation, high unemployment 1970s the By precarious. increasingly became arecession, act balancing democrats’ social meant 1945, after imposed regulations the against which fought It still. however not did stand Capitalism From friends critical to emissaries benefit. to worked everybody’s atime for that role was tension,it with replete if but unions, trade the of interests the to serve founded party never is easy, ina those friend for critical a Being especially efficient. more sector private the making meansof as a nationalisation justified that government, led who quintessential democrat social economy. the the , ultimately benefitted which but by capitalists initially opposed 1945 after policies introduced Labour had for capitalism’s friends, critical became democrats social available, those of system economic best as it the Seeing priority. their being ownership, private of maintenance –equality, the not conditional was capitalism with relationship theoretical democracy’s social ultimate to economy achieve goal, Labour’s capitalist to abasically Crosland looked If spend’. and in ‘tax believed he inequality, for reducing of sawengine main he as whichthe system, state could financewelfare agrowing base tax expanding thebelieved country’s Crosland In increasing that affluence. and context employment created full which growth, unprecedented of aperiod entered a result Britain As in check. managers rapacious movement kept also union control. Astrong and regulation of forms to other subject was rest the accounted cent much of 20 and economy the of for per sector nationalised the government, Labour to 1945 the thanks Crosland wrote when, capitalism. within achieved -could be disparities income that addressed also something but opportunity of equality mean just didn’t –by he which equality that greater case democratic essential social the Future Crosland The In established Socialism, of force. political major other no with and other each with in shared common they forgot often too members Labour purpose adefining was it But when. and whom, equality,for achieved, be of overhow it definitions argued could debate: members to great subject itself was inevitably This commitment shared different concerns. very had who Liberals, and Conservatives from members party distinguished also equality more desirefor The Future doctrine”. (1956)The Socialism of socialist every virtually of inspiration ethical strongest “the in called democracy, social 1960s the during 1970s and postwar of theorist effective the and 5 |For themany Labour'ssocialdemocrats andCorbynism notthefew: |June2018 www.policynetwork.org

policy network paper and the public sphere more generally. Even so, despite what his critics said, Blair was a social asocial was generally. Blair more said, Even sphere so, his what despite public critics the and government of into economy workings the the society, to from stretch that begun had eminence accepted and pre- amarket fairer. prescribed highly was Blair’s In role government’s imagination, society or efficient make could not fully economy the that alone market the recognised nonetheless He capitalism. to afford challenge could it not market: free globalised hegemonic permanently a to be seemed what to with had it work towas achieve anything that Labour if believed Blair leader, influence new himself. significant the Jenkins over some including government Callaghan the for the SDP) exerted who worked laterjoined (and figures Indeed, others. and by Jenkins begun ajourney of end the merely was like a revolutionary, Labour New sounded into Blair Labour. although New But Labour of transformation the was victory electoral of price the Tony cent backed 58 them of per Over that wilderness. argued in the years who Blair party’s the to promising end candidate any to embrace leadership were prepared members Labour increased, massively in had a row, defeats class time which inequality during election 1994, general By four after implacable. 1945, after Alternative’ seemed imposed had ‘No of Thatcher’s logic Labour restraints of by kind the unshackled increasingly capitalism with this period, accept During more. nothing apparently would 1970s. in the given achoice at polls, the that when emerged had at least people, democracy The social consistent attenuated the with largely to capitalism anattitude embrace reluctantly and slowly party the saw in 1983 manifesto traumatic defeat Labour’s afar-left in particular under and dominance that in his absence, Thatcher’s know we do But electoral lived. he had have happened We him. sure with say would what for cannot democracy social of version his radicalised took and in 1977 attack a heart of history. Crosland died in Labour’s role has alwaysDeath played animportant An social democracy attenuated workers”,the accountable. more becoming state the and companies private with to a “genuine community, this power the of promote would and consumers the transfer hoped and - education comprehensive for his support –hence equality cultural also in material but interested just not issue. moreover was such voters He a critical on with prevaricate not should Labour arguing risk, Crosland to willing was take apolitical cent. Unlike his of peers, per most top 80 the on taxes cent 20 to had increase per any bottom the of incomes wanting to government the raise growth that low of in atime recognised also He company investment and holding bank. astate including interventions, of forms various inequality, of Crosland endorsed reduction the to sustain necessary heconsidered of growth kind the produce to and unable in was difficulty capitalism Recognising industrialextend democracy. and education; in school wealth; eliminate capital selection redistribute into ownership; land public to have take development home; adecent everyone enable were to:government poverty; reduce priorities”. egalitarian [and] about Labour Consequently, afuture for agreater clarity his priorities objectives fundamental of “a delineation to adopt sharper needed they and beliefs, own in their faith “a to will change”, required stronger democrats social agreater claimed that he aim, from retreating of equality. of Instead continued pursuit the for case the Crosland made this context, grim Despite 2018 might recognize. many will-power”. in description It radical is a clarity,of aflight into chiliasmpractical lossof a and Future (when wrote The Socialism), ago of he years lack pessimism, of but optimism as twenty was it purposive and hopeful of not one, to be seems mood present “the concluded, he to tackle”. fact, In weak of, makes “glaring economy hard it, it anappallingly Britain which put as he class inequalities, to wrote Crosland allies. in a far-left party his and influence in were losing the democrats 6 |For themany Labour'ssocialdemocrats andCorbynism notthefew: |June2018 www.policynetwork.org

policy network paper contracts only to firms with adequate apprenticeship schemes. apprenticeshipschemes. adequate with to firms only contracts government easily access giving more and small businesses credit way helping through equitable can’. they what in ‘taking in amore interested to work make sought are only capitalism He who invest, invent, ‘train, ‘producers’ sell’, the who termed he ‘predators’ than the rather entrepreneurs to wanted support he said Miliband createdwealth jobs. and who others and themselves millions for making into while ground employees the their ran who leaders business between distinguishing by to capitalism today’, friend as acritical spoke pro-business nonetheless he be must parties 2011 to Labour’s a In speech Claiming that ‘all his direction. new outlined conference Miliband soon. too came leadership party the perhaps, him, for badly: hand played atricky Miliband And democracy. social of form radical amore of his embrace opposed also colleagues cabinet shadow Leading crash. the financial manyone for in office, record were convincedvoters wasresponsible many. the of interests in the capitalism by party’s the down however was He challenged weighed insufficiently had that crisis governments Blair-Brown the as evidence banking the saw he caution: in 2010 leader Labour away New from elected was party’s Ed the to Miliband reset hoping in opposition. back and discredited was Labour when tried only was it strength of aposition from this maneuver attempting of Instead overjust horizon. the crisis was over banking the issues that while other and divided increasingly War, was Iraq his party into late: however too the Britain taken then had already was it Blair By democracy. social assertive and confident amore for argued Hyman before, decades wordsCrosland of Echoing the three to: needed longer no Labour victories landslide two Tena teacher. Of Out account, One Writing (2005), in his remarkable that having won argued Hyman 10 Number to become in 2003 left but strategist and as aspeechwriter leader Labour the for worked Peter Hyman to were frustrated. also Blair closest those of Some . the of as part described be could approach Blair’s with cautious uneasy everybody not But opposition. Conservative the with voting his –often time much government own against spent Corbyn Jeremy thisAll through period havehis did government credit. to its achievements democratic social to upthose talk beast neoliberal Thatcherite the reviving of afraid patchy, and limited was But cent not. –did top 1per the of incomes the too was Blair and in to rise dramatic the measures – thanks some on even years inequality if Labour New the during declined relative aresult, poverty As ground. democratic social onto more politics nudged had Labour tax-cuts, with obsession away Thatcherite the Moving from provision. education and health improved dramatically which services, public for agenda his ‘invest government’s reform’ and developed had Brown, Blair, Gordon with together 2001 the election for general to country the back went Labour time the By pensions. raising and minimum measures such the wage asdid introducing as to improve poorest, the of incomes the promised in work those for credits tax while to it, reduce started and child poverty to abolish pledged He raised. surreptitiously income than for other taxes and loosened, Having won his 1997limits saw spending byterm Blair’sa landslide, first election 1950s, in the Crosland spoken which of had one equality. of to pursuit resistant the more much one to different the very capitalism aform was it But capitalism. through society achieve equal amore to strategy, that democratic classic the trying of social Evenpursued still he so, severe within limits that of failure. interpretation aparticular and failure of decades by three shaped one but democrat 7 |For themany Labour'ssocialdemocrats andCorbynism notthefew: |June2018 New Labour inthe term. long We Labour New have to persuasion.” of use powers our those for it. We denied have to agrassroots build greater opportunity movement that will sustain taxeshigher to education for health, pay argue and greater for tolerance minorities, for argue for that you cannot create social democratic by stealth. country amodern You have to argue for “reassure we can trusted be people with government. We have proved that. passionately believe www.policynetwork.org

policy network paper nearly 80 per cent want a second referendum. Anecdotal evidence suggests that a significant suggests evidence Anecdotal referendum. centBrexit want a second per 80 nearly and as beneficial immigration see they liberal: thinknot such things? are socially also Members members nation’s Labour the most share from did fair their when But wealth. get not does majority that the abelief and consensus in favour is abroad redistribution there of means This radical. more intriguingly, although to rest, be than the themselves wing imagine they left more much are they Nor members. long-standing as more 2015the middle-aged and are as white, middle-class election after joined who Those membership. the of the character transformed not has significantly influx as well as YouGov however Project that suggest this Members Party by ESRC the conducted Surveys to vote Corbyn. for party the joined as thousands surge in membership in 2014Miliband’s reforms say. anequal the of gave main cause the was power new all This members matter. the But votes total athird the of decided which MPs retained leader.the this system, Under in 1981, college Until basis. an electoral of creation the ‘one-member-one-vote’ MPs voted for only purely on a 2015decided Miliband, under reforms constitutional election leadership first the was to Thanks changed. to has undoubtedly work need democrats social in environment which The appeared. thanfirst it is alarming less reality the at present, the closely more look and to willing past, revisit the democrats social for But politics. outside lucrative careers more as MPs to even pursue resigned parliamentarians away Some to breaking of create party. a‘centrist’ SDP, the of example disastrous the Despite tradition. talk was Labour there the outside from others and Stop War the activists entryists, over taken by hard-left been had it thinking party, their death of the represented Corbyn’s it does What believed democrats? some Initially success social for mean Smithvote in 2016. Owen against as leader, him his in the position 61.8 with defend and campaign reelecting cent members of per 2017 the of over aftermath in amillion the half Corbyn’s leadership to support Many contest. joined 2015 the before immediately to 200,000 under election from rose also membership majority. Party in 2017 campaign an election Commons of later led and House their lose that Conservatives saw the in 2015 leadership Labour the won only not Corbyn to unseat him a year off attempts fought but in his opponents. fortunate extremely was leader future The members. to much so Labour’s might have Corbyn not is possible appealed since 1970s the tradition it their down that weighed had Miliband’son project, creatively to reflect chains the caution of from themselves to free ‘anti-business’. able democrat asocial been there Had definitely, most was he unapologetically system: capitalist enemythe of implacable and standing as along- but friend as acritical not spoke He as whole. capitalism to describe now used hardleft the term –ablanket ‘neoliberalism’ with break acomplete required Labour argued Corbyn crisis. banking the that followed had austerity the for over need the Conservatives the complicit with being for Miliband criticised he Instead, Corbyn. Jeremy was attacks in these to not indulge candidate one The of CorbynismThe reality democracy. social post-war of nadir very the perhaps as ‘anti-business’. excesses capitalism of worst Miliband’sthe of condemnation describe was This in 2015 to him as replace sought leader who candidates the of one were all but upto queued they as capitalism’s role their and emissaries democracy social in attenuated enmeshed So perspective. this echoed colleagues how many Miliband’s of parliamentary striking also was It radical. dangerous as a presented widely was Ed’ ‘Red his of leadership outset the by it that this on from point reported which media the and politics British was warped so Indeed, him as aMarxist. to cast speech Miliband’s used media Even rightwing the measures. so interventionist of set amodest was This 8 |For themany Labour'ssocialdemocrats andCorbynism notthefew: |June2018 www.policynetwork.org

policy network paper this device will work its magic, only time will tell. tell. will time only magic, this its work devicewill long How criticism. their escaping while oppose, members of majority that vast the aBrexit support himself. surrounds has he It even to Corbyn allowed whom with those of methods operating the as well as his of past, aspects over savoury less invisibility of cloak powerful animpressively cast has creation peculiar onto This him. project Corbyn’s his supporters those with realattributes that combines one persona, is a constructed refer often ‘Jeremy’ the But such members to whom to victory. Labour even lead 2017 Since the then, might he supported. hopes fully they has raised policies on based be election in 2015: declared member one As would it at least but defeat another deliver might Corbyn only disavow since which compromises 2010 governments. Conservative delivered in any had only case and principles lost to its party the return would he to anti-Blair, as Corbyn the believing turned They his of government. achievements were aware positive the of members to few Blair’s caution, own thanks war, Largely Iraq the of prism terms. the many through possible now regard, darkest in the period a Blair-Brownthe by byyears, office tainted is Corbyn not during that was he possessed shining virtue One explanation. simplistic if has acaptivating It proved to cause. the be betrayed had 1970s the leaders that party’s the in government 1980s and belief by same the were all motivated 1930s, in the League Socialist 1950s in the Bevanism of The phenomena the in Bennism of left. and to the by shifting power of disappointments the against have reacted invariably members Labour of figure mythical ‘Jeremy’. semi- in the faith members’ obstacle: amajor face democrats that territory, social in establishing But ground. to common together. of is work alot able be There should equal more society in making is belief political primary whose thrive. still Those can democrats social in which is alandscape This ‘Jeremy’ terms. in forceful ever and more power exert and likely will grow it in numbers more the is Corbyn leader longer the But loses. circumstances, appropriate in the arguments and people of kind right the by opposed When inconsistent. influence is its confirm parliament and councils for contests in selection record –its hardleft the of grounds stomping traditional other –as well as afew London of parts and Brighton in Liverpool, has areas strength of Momentum while And levels enthusiasm of huge at grass roots. group the the for suggests hardly this performance opponents, their for great not news still over Although of amillion. half votes in anelectorate 68,000 than more received none animpressive was but achievement, This poll. top the candidates backed Momentum- saw three as weight, recent NEC elections above its punches certainly organisation The enemies. bitterest party’s the as as recently 2015 who sectarians, extreme were amongst most far-left’s the of to some up Labour has opened Momentum doubt is no there –but Corbyn for support declared its of because simply have – they Momentum joined members many like are just Labour other suggests gatherings at party Observation 40,000. about isonly still membership Momentum’s media, actual social through ballots one-member-one-vote for mobilize effectively can it which ‘supporters’ 200,000 Yet, Corbyn’s upto advance set group the party. the within claiming cause Momentum, while of skills media social and to organisational any the since 1980s. point the thanks is largely This than at is now stronger party in the however that voice the denied hardleft the of be can’t It members. newer Labour’s of majority vast the of representative not are they loudest, may they the while speak but ‘Trumps or left’ Trotskyists are hardline the of doubt, to make adifference’. trying ‘decent has it, few, A people politics without Labour local of experience close with are, as one These taking. was Labour New earlier, or years direction the unhappy with Blair the during party the 2015 left who after joined who members former are actually proportion 9 |For themany Labour'ssocialdemocrats andCorbynism notthefew: |June2018 www.policynetwork.org

policy network paper were formed in a different era, one defined by the cold war. As a benevolent elitist, he believed believed he war.the elitist, cold by benevolent defined Asa one era, in adifferent were formed to prosper. hope they in which Crosland’s context unique in the assumptionsto themselves think for have still democrats social Contemporary apanacea. supply cannot revisit Crosland, do he they if But means. it what ‘progressives’, positive, know few sounds it while for years, Blair the during adopted some a term as to themselves referring stop should certainly They exceptions. rare the of one Umunna being Chuka that what term, even few the means: too use as explain such and themselves describe should democrats Social Croslandite iteration. ambitious democracy’s revisit social things, other amongst is to why equality. That increase should, they struggle the of at forefront was the and economy the about opinion received challenge that helped atradition of part is to be democrat asocial be For to to them. applied ‘moderate’ when or ‘centrist’ terms the reject angrily should they Indeed are part. they which of tradition Labour the of value unique the assert to rediscover publically and To allows them. presently need they into advance future the party in the marginal position their is it aluxury to horizon: sights the their by lifting this moment for prepare should democrats Social as Tories? ‘centrists’ think the them join of currently should really whom of who, all things considered, many to members, to appeal able leader for acandidate produce they Can stand? democrats social Labour’s will where stage, the departs he so, whenever period aprolonged for leader want to be not does forever. he around be not will suggest Corbyn but future, the Rumours predict can Nobody London? of City the of women and ‘A men seek hard-faced the with World dealing with Transformed’ who activists Momentum of hopes the to reconcile able be humiliation. Would example, for Corbyn, 1936 short-lived whose Blum French Leon with socialist in collapsed government comparisons closer may see Others Attlee. as alatter-day leader Labour current think the of Some foresee. can –nobody how cohesive –and be his that would government role handle would he Quitehowmajority. non-existent with aor smallMinister, Prime himself well find probably albeit might Corbyn negotiations, Brexit of uncertainty given the especially system, in atwo-party But away 1980s. the during drained this why was Benn’s opposition: of support impotence the of weary become leaders, union trade and members, point At well. so do would some that or Labour soon Few so anticipated one May call would election. next the before down stand that in March2017,recall to Corbyn wanted party in the half polls, in the badly trailed Labour when to ever power. win his ability to We question should likely start would members Even clung on, he if to Corbyn’s lead 2017 of outcome probably will promise the resignation, unfulfilled. having been possibility. Such an remains adistinct election general in afuture defeat thatimpression aLabour confirms the 2018 only in the scandal, May’s despite over Windrush the troubles elections, local performance disappointing party’s The Conservatives. the with polls in the level pegging only best, at remains, in recent history, Labour governments divided most the of one May leading Theresa 2019, of spring in the Brexit after Despite party. in the hand to afree has Corbyn amounts what by 2022 soon held has to which be called might well be but election, general At until next the least done? be to is What everybody. of true not was were: it Perhaps but cult. some personality bizarre in a ralliesto hisas flocked celebrants who those to ridicule many preferred phenomenon, Corbyn the creation in the responsibility their However, toCorbyn. understand trying of instead Jeremy of balanceidealisation were they thrownby off the Express Orient than the baggage more carried he Confident that enemies. many with its of consorted who party margins the the of from afigure instead saw They that them. did good much beguiled, were not democrats Social 10 |For themany Labour'ssocial democrats andCorbynism not thefew: |June2018 www.policynetwork.org

policy network paper and have done recently, respectively advocating increased wealth taxes and imposing imposing and wealth taxes increased Stellaand advocating have Creasy recently, done respectively Reeves equality, to as Rachel advance measures designed advance also should democrats Social scheme. Sure Start –aninsight Labour’s that New inspired equality social on impact most hasthat children the investing agree youngest in the given experts that sum preschoolers, on to spend advised better be would centrepiece. Such as aleader their have would this policy equality £11cost about government to committed seriously leader ayear. aLabour billion strange seems It would fees tuition abolishing completely is but certainly it reform radical of in need mechanism border. the of Animperfect north this happened has £9,000 not the of fee since introduction the Wales and in students working-class of number in the arise has been there while but tuition university free backgrounds. Scotland has affluent less from to people young education university up open to purpose stated fails evenits in policy The peers. off to better their taxpayers poorer from income distribute it would classhomes: middle from students benefits measure disproportionately The that on basis. policy the –opposed democrat asocial of idea everybody’s –by means no Rayner Angela We ways education that achieved. shadow other that current the could be know many are There equal. more Britain is making of anefficient way fees tuition circle think abolishing hoping their children would attend university. But while effective, few electorally outside Corbyn’s parents to aspirational appealed it also and of share young voters party’s in rise the a significant encouraged certainly This fees. tuition crown: university commitment to the manifesto abolish in the jewel as many the Corbynites see could interrogate policy the democrats particular,In social benefits. to working-age cuts Conservative most to plan reverse not did Corbyn because poorest the in 2017 benefitted most policies whose Democrats Liberal the was it that calculated example Studies Fiscal like for for Institute the observers Objective improvement. for is room much also there but many with pledges, the of board on could get equality of principle the around arguments their building democrats Social defeat. aterrible be would assumed it drafted to mitigate even what who designed those enticing of commitments bag arummage was document However, the in next. reality party’s the template the for likely will be and by Corbyn’s supporters 2017 the relative the success campaign, Given Labour’s of to skies the praised has been manifesto not. do they when them critique but that principle as serve they insofar Corbyn’s policies support should above all They class. but of gender,– of race, disability, sexuality equality of principle basic the from so do in censuring But should they however uncritical. not be should Corbyn offer they man himself.support Jeremy,The the it hard even find they to respect if elected why reasons many the so members respect must They believes. nobody prophecies laden doom- making Cassandras, like modern-day basis now look habitual analmost on leader the attack to take to airwaves MPs who the to directly. Corbyn counter-productive take Those on isIt certainly take? that support should form what But voted. members Labour most whom for leader the to alternative support but little havethey means This have also they here-and-now. But in the than pragmatism. more tofor exist –that stand they never known –or have who forgotten party in their some of minds in the values their terms to reestablish principled and public in themselves to define need democrats Social many few. the of than the rather interests the serving stopped capitalism ‘anti-business’ when called being about concerned not was He reform. its propose and friend critical as its to act afraid not was he in that to pursuit help failed system economic the when –and capitalism within society equal amore Britain making of to principle the true held Crosland But at least sexuality. and gender, of disparities race, to disability tackle need the of ignorant largely was he equality of talked he Also, when themselves. process in the participate should they imagining not but people for wanting to good do best, knew in Whitehall’ 11 |For themany Labour'ssocial democrats andCorbynism not thefew: |June2018 www.policynetwork.org

policy network paper advancing the interests of the many not the few – not only in principle, but in practice. in practice. but in principle, many only the –not of few the not interests the advancing to commitment revitalised continued and –their technicolor –in glorious as possible as frequently and as loudly proclaim and selves lost is recovered It they their now time principles. to own their to failure live up democrats’ social of Corbyn’s is them. to aproduct power address the leadership with agovernment to form unable one but concerns, legitimate members’ its of expression the for likely avehicle will remain have would voice Until their Labour less. much regain they achieved party the at helm the them without past: have to contribution Labour’s apositive made democrats Social victory. cause to defeated takeseemingly can a persona right the confirms, Corbyn of matter. example crucial the at that level is anational another vision As articulate to best persons of group or person Finding the defended? be representatives such elected should purpose what in place. For be must framework ideological the to across party, the those a chance appealing of success to and have sustained for But them. for care not does Momentum because just deselection, with MPs threatened and councillors competent to otherwise neither, to defend belonging is vital democrats as well as Progress, social and First now, Right Labour of work organisation. the of continue politics in the must to engage democrats social reframing, this ideological Alongside justice according social to works. what to advancing are committed who Rayner likethose Angela with to bridges build this standpoint from policy party critique should democrats equality.of Social 2015? perspective the from are many interrogated there issues be that other can fees, tuition Beyond in September voted for that members equality on focus renewed the with party aLabour for priority a be should ask, legitimately can EU. the leaving of democrats consequences the with social What, UK time, to as the in is what comes aflat-liningterms likelysome toeconomy be for prioritised be should PFI on to how suchlegitimate is debate policies It entirely also tax companies. a windfall 12 |For themany Labour'ssocial democrats andCorbynism not thefew: |June2018 www.policynetwork.org

policy network paper