Compare and Contrast: Grey haired Labour Leaders, the SDP and the Independents

In 1980, Michael Foot was elected Leader of the Labour Party and the following year had his party torn up from beneath him by a 'Council for Social Democracy'. In the next general election, a split leftist vote gave Margaret Thatcher a comprehensive victory. However, Thatcher's victory was aided by a good economy, Falklands victory, and Labour's manifesto -  'the longest suicide note in history'.

One man elected in 1983, was the MP for North Islington, a man who at least partially owes his seat to the very people who tore his party apart. And the redrawing of electoral boundaries. Jeremy Corbyn was elected as an MP having defeated an SDP candidate and the incumbent MP, this time standing as an independent. In an inner city Labour heartland, Mr Corbyn won with only 40% of the vote where his predecessor frequently scored over half.  Fast forward to 2015 and Jeremy Corbyn is elected leader of the Labour Part, and then finally fast forward to this Monday where once again, the Labour Party has been torn once more with a socialist leader at the helm. Yet there are some key differences which warrant discussion and will fuel this article's publication. Let us begin:

Both Foot and Corbyn are grey-haired socialists who prefer brown jackets to suits. Yet their rise to Party leadership was very different. In 1980, Foot stood as a compromise candidate in the leadership election. Back then only MPs voted for the party leadership and the left wing of the party, led by Tony Benn had a far greater representation in the Commons than they do now. To prevent a more centrist candidate winning (Denis Healey), the left urged Foot to run against him. Foot, despite his more radical views, had governmental experience as Leader of the House of Commons and Employment secretary, thus giving him appeal to swing voters concerned with the future direction of the party.  As such Foot won the election, and chaos began to slowly unfold.

Initially, Labour moved ahead of the Conservatives in the opinion polls however this can be attributed to economic recession rather than any great policy development or charisma from Foot's side. In fact, in an era when newspapers were far more influential than they are today, the papers ridiculed him for being old, frail and having a poor dress sense. The nickname Worzel Gummidge lingered with him.

Foot, portrayed as a uniting figure during the leadership election was unable to keep the moderates of his party happy. The entryist tactics of a Marxist group (called the Militant tendency) into the Labour Party dissatisfied the right and they soon split into the SDP. Such was, and still is, Britain's electoral system of First Past the Post (an issue which I could discuss at great length here but will eventually do so elsewhere instead), The SDP struggled to gain many parliamentary seats except through defections. As such, despite receiving 25% of the vote in 1983, the SDP and the Liberals won only 3.5% of seats. This meant that their primary effect was to siphon votes from Foot's Labour and unintentionally help Margaret Thatcher win a second term with a notional majority of 144, unparalleled in that era.

Labour's support was likely to have dropped anyway in that election as their manifesto, no longer compromised by the desires of their party moderates was the most radical set of reforms in decades.  1983 saw the Labour Party pledge to go against the wishes of the people and here's how:

• The manifesto was calling for withdrawal from the 'Common Market' Trading area (later to evolve into the EU) despite the British public voting by a supermajority to remain in it 8 years prior.
• Nationalising industries which had only been privatised since the last general election and would therefore go against what the British people voted for when they voted for Thatcher's party and policies in 1979.
• Calling for the disarmament of Britain's nuclear weapons despite the Cold War meaning most people wanting us to keep our deterrents available as a precaution.
• Nationalising the Banks, the final part of Clause IV which Clement Attlee, Harold Wilson and James Callaghan didn't do. However, the economy was recovering under Thatcher's free market policies and few of the electorate wanted to jeopardise this growth.

How much of this 'suicide note' was drafted by Foot as a compromise and how much of it was demanded by the hard left will never be clear but the Labour Party was trounced and since then, the party has not achieved as few seats as it did following that election.

Anyway, history lesson over. Let's evaluate the events of the last few days.

The 7 MPs who broke away on Monday claimed that their reasons for leaving the party was due to Anti-Semitism and the mishandling of Brexit. Brexit is such a unique political event that it can't be compared to any precedents regarding the level of division felt not just politically but also with its socio-cultural impact. Therefore as bizarre as this may sound, I'm not going to focus on Brexit.

When the Conservatives were accused with Islamophobia, irrespective of your thoughts on how serious these allegations were, the response the Tories made in comparison to Labour's response to Anti-Semitism, was slick and professional. Whilst still being urged to launch an investigation into the party, the peak of these allegations came around the London mayoral election of 2016. Apologies came swiftly, and action was taken to suspend party members accused of such behaviour. Islamophobia remains an issue in the party and there was a recent flair up in the European Parliament surrounding Viktor Orban (a man who is also worthy of a post devoted to himself), but in the media spotlight, this topic has been superseded both by the aforementioned topic I'm not going to focus on, and Anti-Semitism in Labour.

When Ken Livingstone said what he said in relation to Naz Shah saying what she was saying, the outrage was universal from people on all sides of Labour and from other parties and Livingstone was suspended. However, over the following 2 years, it was the lack of action by Corbyn and the wider Labour leadership which irritated, not just the Jewish community, but the wider electorate. Even when adopting the universally accepted rules on what constitutes anti-Semitism, it came after Jeremy Corbyn attempted to amend the rules surrounding the recognition of the state of Israel in relation to Palestine. However, the lack of leadership action and clamp down on this abuse has been most disappointing to this 'Gang of Seven' and has led to them forming The Independent Group.

Over the course of writing this article, 1 Labour and 3 Tory MPs have defected to the IG, and people on both sides of the house are calling for by-elections. I suspect that this won't happen. Nor do I know what will happen come a general election, whether this parliamentary grouping will evolve into a political party with a clear platform or merely a grouping to represent independent Europhiles until parliament dissolves. It is worth noting that Theresa May has announced she will stand down between now and 2022, meaning that the prospects of the IG will hinge largely on May's successor. A 'moderate' such as Amber Rudd will likely lead to the grouping dissolve or have limited success as its policies would overlap with both major parties to some extent. However, a more radical right-wing leader such as David Davis or  Boris Johnson could dampen the electorate's mood for the Oak Tree in the garden of No. 10 and the IG could take over this space in terms of vote share, even if not in terms of seats. Maybe who knows, a long serving backbencher could unexpectedly find themselves on the ballot paper to represent the radical brand of Euroscepticism not seen elsewhere in the House. In essence, this would be 'doing a Corbyn' though I somehow doubt Bill Cash has the energy and vigour needed to appeal to young, vibrant electorate. Either way, a radical right wing leader would likely lead to a coalition between the left and the centrists, a move unprecedented in our modern democracy but common in many countries with proportional representation voting methods, the aim of such coalition primarily, would be to keep the right-wing out of government.

If there is one thing the Independent Group can learn from the SDP, it is that they shouldn't try to siphon votes from the parties with which they share many ideological beliefs with, for fear of re-electing their common enemy, as happened in '83 and '87. I would recommend that each 'independent MP' stands for election as just that: an Independent. They could campaign to say that they are best placed to represent their local constituency without the party banner influencing their decision and conscience. Success would inevitably be mixed so seat targeting is vital but I see the potential for limited success within our First Past the Post framework

 

The one thing you could learn from Michael Foot is not to let the ideological puritans of the party dictate the policies and mechanisms of the party. Unfortunately for Labour centrists and moderates, Jeremy Corbyn is the party's leader of the opposition who - with the government in turmoil - is somehow unable to lift the party in the opinion polls. It is Jeremy Corbyn who, as the 200-1 outsider, galvanised so much support so suddenly in the same way that his nemesis Blair did so in 1994. And it is Jeremy Corbyn, the most rebellious Labour MP from when they were in government, who is the centrist's dreaded ideological puritan. 

Politics is polarising by nature, but what we are seeing at the moment, is the breaking down of bipartisanship and, in trying to create a two party system, we are witnessing a slow disintegration of our two party system. Only a general election, will build it back up again.

NOTE: This article has been attempted to be written without bias, using quotation marks and stating where points of view and opinions stem from where necessary. Please contact me if you think this article has become unintentionally partisan.