29 October 2015
Be wary of what you wish for
Corbyn, a leader some may want
by Tom Dowling
It is a severe black mark against the Conservatives that Ed Miliband was ever allowed become a viable electoral threat. Having seen him off, the party is now in great danger of making the opposite mistake with his successor. Corbyn has the potential to be a far more serious challenge, and may yet actually be one, if he is not taken seriously. The Conservatives believe all their birthdays have come together, but they run the risk of overplaying their hand. Ridiculing him is not a viable counter strategy. It also runs the risk of alienating some in the undecided middle for whom being non‑Tory may be enough. They need to take him seriously and defeat him in detail. Corbyn’s methods may be for the birds, but his analysis of problems that mainstream politicians are reluctant to acknowledge, let alone to engage with, are dangerously seductive. Circumstances may conspire to see a groundswell of opinion, tired by another major financial failure, willing to give the alternative a chance. If this happens the political system will have only itself to blame.
History is dotted with leaders who came out of nowhere, took on the system and beat it. In each case the existing establishment wrongly believed this was impossible. In each case they were in for a rude awakening. By the time they woke up it was too late. We forget what a long shot Thatcher was. She was neither expected to win the leadership in 1977, nor when, to the surprise of all, she did, was she expected to survive long. Hitler was widely ridiculed, a little man with a funny moustache. His contemporaries believed they could control him. The price they and the world paid was catastrophic. Corbyn is neither Thatcher nor Hitler, but has a messianic faith in his own views and an ability to inspire others in a way the other candidates for the Labour leadership could not. The very attributes that make him an object of ridicule to some stand out as authentic to those outside the Westminster bubble. Burnham, Cooper and Kendall were the anodyne remnants of New Labour, the final dregs of the barrel. They could have as easily blended into any other party. Unlike Miliband, who had a ready supply of alternative principles if you did not like his current ones, Corbyn has religiously stuck to his views over many years. This is not unattractive to an electorate repelled by the flip-flopping personalities it has been fed since New Labour changed how politics are done in the UK. We can see this with Boris Johnston and Nigel Farage, both personalities with baggage who appeal because of their greater authenticity. Corbyn though is in a different class. Unlike the sidelined Johnston, he has secured a seat at the top table and a theoretical chance. Events could yet conspire to give him a real chance. It never pays to underestimate your enemy. Better that they are not in the game at all. A very long odds Japan would never have beaten South Africa in the Rugby World Cup had it not first qualified.
Democracies are very vulnerable to ideological demagogues disconnected from the mainstream but resonating with disillusioned sections of the electorate. De Toqueville said societies were particularly vulnerable after a crisis has peaked and the immediate sense of danger dissipated. With the UK having weathered the worst of the 2008 financial crisis and subsequent recession, Corbyn has emerged at a very dangerous time. Primeval fear having passed, there is greater room to express discontent. His opponents have not really engaged on the issues, while bending over backwards to ridicule him. Too few are, I suspect, paying enough attention to what he is actually saying. His solutions are from another planet and his presentation shambolic, but there is more substance to his analysis than they think. Dangerous narratives usually have enough truth to resonate with the disaffected. Corbyn’s appeal ultimately lies in widespread discontent with the political system. It is a tribute to politics that the traumas of the 1970s and 1980s, with their extremes of left and right, have calmed. Politics is now fought in the centre, but, drained of its passions, is drearily bland for those looking for more. The very things that make Corbyn anathema to the Westminster bubble therefore make him seem human and politically attractive to many of those outside it.
The late Hyman Minsky was an American economist largely unknown at home. Now he is largely unknown everywhere, having become a mainstay of post‑crash commentary. Minsky believed that instability was the natural order of the day. Long periods of stability were very dangerous. They bred complacency, risk and an inevitable instability. Minsky was an economist, but at a macro level economics and politics are inseparable and often exhibit the same dynamic. The British electorate was happy to luxuriate in Brown’s long boom, but the 2008 crisis revealed that New Labour had not delivered the promised New Jerusalem. The electorate would now prove correspondingly disaffected. The UK has survived the worst, but it remains vulnerable to a fresh outbreak of market panic and with it political loathing. Globalisation and financial expansion mean that crises are increasing in their intensity and frequency. Another crisis is inevitable in the near term. The 2008 panic was the worst to hit the rich west since the Great Depression of the 1930s. An unprecedented crisis required unprecedented measures. Deeply unpopular, they were nevertheless grudgingly accepted by many as the lesser of two evils. The UK’s initial responses in 2008 were a model for others. Collapse was prevented. Ostensibly costly, it would prove cheaper in the long run. Europe’s ongoing woes are proof that the alternatives were much worse. At the time there was a natural expectation that things had to change – this must be the crisis to end all crises. However, it has not happened. The core of the system remains largely intact, the changes to date have been largely tinkering.
The public rightly sees a system which, having paused for breath, resumes its onward march. A lack of remorse and continued outsized rewards rightly inflame public opinion. The public believes it is paying a heavy price for protecting a privileged few. Quantitative easing and near zero interest rates have seen an emerging bubble across all asset classes, but particularly in housing. The result has been a transfer of wealth and greater inequality. Prudent savers and pensioners have seen their incomes fall dramatically. Income growth remains anaemic. The financial system is not supporting the broader economy. Government has proved unable to make it do so, even those parts under its control. Cutbacks in government spending are attributed to post crisis strains. Attacks on austerity may not always be intellectually robust, but this is not the point. Astronomical amounts can be found for the financial system, while essential services are believed to be suffering for sums that amount to relative trifles. The public believes it is paying a heavy price, while a reckless financial system continues unchecked and the guilty go unpunished. An electorate feeling powerless has unfinished business both with the banking system and the political systems that supported it. This has limited the political room for future action. An incumbent government will have far less latitude, come the next crisis.
Labour’s 2015 election campaign sought to tap into post crisis disenchantment. The strategy was conceptually flawed and ineptly pursued. The crisis occurred under Labour’s watch and it struggled to balance admitting responsibility with distancing itself from the consequences. Its colourless leadership was also seen as part of the problem. They were disconnected from popular feeling, seeing matters only through a narrow Westminster prism. They paid the price at the polls, and again when defeated by Corbyn.
Forget the details of Corbynomics. On the overarching issues of morality, vested elites and popular opinion he has shown a greater electoral connection than he is given credit for. He has also too often been on the mark. The UK remains vulnerable to another financial-economic crisis from a repeat of past behaviours from an un-reformed and unrepentant banking system. The electorate may have, just about, forgiven the political system once. It will not lightly do so a second time. Alternative prescriptions, no matter how loony, may suddenly seem worth a shot. Remember this is an electorate that has little direct memory of the appalling 1970s and 1980s. Those of a certain viewpoint over 50 will recall the horrors. The succeeding generation, however, has known only good times and lacks this perspective. They may not understand either the details or the consequences, but they may have a better grasp of the causes than they have been given credit for. It has been said that history does not repeat itself, but patterns of thought do. It is time to wake up.
