Between the Wars. Labour looks on a roll at the moment. It will not be long before that changes

Politics at Westminster is starting to settle into a new kind of normal. It is clearly not, however, the normal that was anticipated a mere month ago. Jeremy Corbyn has been on something of a roll, so much so that it at times he appears to have been forgotten that he did not actually win at the general election.
The momentum that he acquired from having started some 20 percentage points behind in the opinion polls yet ending up depriving Theresa May of her overall majority is considerable. It has secured his own position even though we could be five years from another national contest. He has also responded to recent tragic events with more force and more passion than his opponents. He will enter the summer recess insisting that he could be the next Prime Minister “within months” and with larger numbers of people (not least fearful souls in the business world) actually believing him.
They should be more circumspect. Labour is a long way from achieving office, especially with a solid majority in the House of Commons. The Conservative alliance with the DUP means that the numbers in Parliament are clearly in their favour. It would take a spate of by-election defeats in order to put them under pressure on this front and only one Conservative MP has actually caused such an event to occur by their death in the past 15 years.
There is a strong possibility of an election in 2019 in the immediate aftermath of the UK’s exit from the European Union, but if it does not happen then (and it will not unless the Conservatives are very confident of winning and under a leader with more flair for the hustings than the incumbent), then the odds are that it will not occur until 2021 or 2022.
Furthermore, Mr Corbyn was in many ways a fortunate figure this time round. He benefited from a series of factors which are unlikely to be repeated in quite the same fashion.
First, not just Mrs May and the Conservatives but all of his main rivals miscalculated and ran terrible campaigns. The Conservatives should have opted for a 4 May ballot and conducted a short competition. Tim Farron had a torrid time as leader of the Liberal Democrats, endlessly having to explain the contradictions between his personal religious faith and mainstream opinion within his party, and never settling on a consistent theme for the electorate. The SNP decided to make the case for a second referendum on independence the core of their message only to discover that many voters north of the border did not favour yet more disruption and were willing to back the Conservatives to avoid the possibility.
Second, the widespread assumption that Labour had no chance of winning both meant that there was little serious media scrutiny of the costs of its proposed programme and it was able to run a campaign almost under the radar, appealing the most to precisely those citizens (the relatively young) whom pollsters find it hardest to contact and the most difficult to assess whether they will ultimately vote in practice. These were optimal conditions which allowed Mr Corbyn to make a set of promises aimed at multiple aggrieved individuals (those with student debt, public sector employees, rail commuters etc) almost in the manner of one very large by-election campaign rather than a more conventional national contest.
Finally, Labour appeared much more united than it actually was. The vast bulk of Labour MPs did not have much enthusiasm for their leader or for his manifesto. They were determined, nonetheless, not to do or say anything that would allow them to be blamed for what all were certain would be a bloody inquest after a heavy defeat. Moderate MPs stuck with their own local campaigns and avoided controversial comment. Ironically, this strategy based solely on preparing to seize back their party leadership after the election was over ended up assisting Mr Corbyn and his supporters. Yet relatively few of the thirty or so new Labour MPs are his devotees.
All of this sets the scene for the fundamentals that the Labour Party will see as we move forward.
Labour is still essentially two parties within one at Westminster
Mr Corbyn had the chance in the immediate aftermath of the election to reach out to his opponents. If he had openly invited back to the Shadow Cabinet many of those who had either resigned from it or had always refused to serve under his command, it would have been difficult for many of them to decline. As it happened, however, no such act of reconciliation transpired and little moral anguish as to whether or not to return to the fold was necessary.
With the single exception of offering Owen Smith (his opponent for the Labour leadership last year) the position of Shadow Northern Ireland Secretary, Mr Corbyn has stuck by those who agreed to work with him when many others would not and left almost all of the most experienced and prominent Labour MPs on the sidelines. There will be more Labour talent on the Select Committees soon to emerge than within the Shadow Cabinet.
This is not inconsequential. It means, in the most extreme circumstances, that the chance of a split is still there. That possibility will become more serious depending on the speed at which the Corbyn camp moves to seize full control of the party machinery and rulebook (see below). It is also more likely to be witnessed if MPs soon conclude that there will not be another election until towards the scheduled end of this Parliament affording them more time to organise themselves for any division. An open rupture in the ranks of Labour at Westminster will have a very negative impact on voters.
Some sort of Civil War is inevitable
It is inconceivable that the hard left will not attempt to make the most of its moment and to take control of the Labour Party in a far more forceful fashion than it has been able to do so until now. This coup will take place on several fronts.
First, the Corbynites will succeed in taking full command over the National Executive Committee through its elections this summer. At present, Mr Corbyn has an unstable majority there, which depends on the co-operation of certain key trade unions. He will not need to compromise with them for much longer.
Second, various unsympathetic individuals inside the party’s organisation will be replaced. Third, the hard left will attempt to change the rules for future leadership contests so that aspiring candidates only require the backing of 5%, not 15%, of Labour MPs. Fourth, further changes will be made to allow the membership more control over the content of future manifestos and have far more influence in the selection and re-selection of MPs. Finally, policy will be pushed further to the left with Trident in particular being a central battlefield.
It is again hard to imagine that voters will not notice any of this. Some of them may not choose to care but if the Liberal Democrats (almost certainly under the reassuring figure of Sir Vince Cable) can offer a more compelling alternative to the Conservatives than Labour, then there is a market for a movement in support from the Labour vote recorded last month back in their direction.
Labour does not have a remotely coherent stance on Brexit and is unlikely to acquire one
The biggest issue in British politics over the next two years, and indeed probably the next five years, is how to manage the UK’s exit from the European Union. As the Queen’s Speech illustrated, the many substantial measures required to execute this shift will totally dominate Parliamentary proceedings.
Despite this, Mr Corbyn has little real interest in the subject. He wants to attract the support of the Remain contingent without doing anything to lead those who favoured Leave to think he is obstructing the referendum outcome. Hence, Labour’s stance on Brexit is that it wants a settlement with all the advantages that come with membership of the single market and the customs union but without formal membership of either. To assert that no such option exists for the United Kingdom is putting it very mildly.
Most Labour MPs recognise this and the revolt on the Queen’s Speech amendment on this issue distinctly understates the scale of their dissent. At some point, as the ‘divorce’ package, the transition arrangement, and either a free trade deal or a departure on WTO terms, all in turn take centre stage, Labour will have to decide whether it is for or against what is on the table and why.
These will, to be sure, be challenging moments for the Conservative Party as well, but for Labour, with the much bigger issue of whether it is to be either a socialist party or a social democratic one, or to split, it could prove an existential occasion.
Tim Hames
Director General, BVCA