Reader TTS

At the Conservative conference in 2002 the then-party Chairman, Theresa May, branded the Tories the “nasty party”. That moniker has arguably passed to Labour, following the claim by its

former deputy leader, Tom Watson, that he was forced out by the “brutality and hostility” of the hard left. The acclaimed ceramicist, Grayson Perry, who is a Labour supporter, has weighed in

with his own withering attack, accusing the party of being “puritanical”. The various contenders for the leadership should address these issues, but judging by the opening remarks from many

of the leading protagonists, that seems unlikely. Who the party decides to choose will determine whether it is out of power for five years or another generation. The fortunes of political

parties go in cycles. Once the seismic shock of Tony Blair’s landslide victory in 1997 had subsided, Tory grandees proclaimed that “the wheel turns”. That is nonsense. There are times when

the wheel needs a good yank and others when it needs to be ripped off, thrown on a scrapheap and replaced. The Labour Party is in such a parlous state that even replacing the wheel may be

insufficient. It may need a totally new car. The comparison with the Conservative Party after its battering at the hands of New Labour is helpful but the circumstances are different. Back

then, after 18 years of Tory rule, the public wanted to give the new government a fair crack. Now — while the Conservatives have been in government, in coalition or alone since 2010 — the

thumping majority secured by Boris Johnson in the general election means that the Labour Party is facing an entirely new government, not a fag-end one on its knees. During the Blair years,

the Conservatives had no convincing alternative narrative to the “Third Way” project, which skilfully fused an acceptance of free-market economics and social liberalism. That, combined with

the decision to choose a succession of hapless, unelectable Tory leaders, meant the party was out of office for the next thirteen years. Labour faces the same two problems: it needs to

change both the message and the messenger. The party needs to begin by reflecting why it lost so comprehensively and took such a mauling in its northern heartlands. Former leader, Ed

Miliband, has established a group to look at what went wrong. But a collection of policy wonks in Westminster, who are not rooted in the communities which the Labour party seeks to

represent, are unlikely to draw the right conclusions, even if the reason is not hard to grasp. The party was punished for ignoring the result of the 2016 referendum. This was compounded by

the ludicrous position of renegotiating the Withdrawal Agreement to secure a Brexit-light deal and putting it to the electorate in a second referendum against an option to remain.

Brexit-supporting Labour voters saw it as a betrayal. Then there was the policy agenda of radical nationalisation espoused by Jeremy Corbyn who was seen as weak on defence and security,

unpatriotic, and incapable of managing his own party on the issue of anti-Semitism, let alone running the country. The majority of the leadership contenders who have signalled their

intention to run, or are expected to do so next week, show no sign of acknowledging the glaringly obvious. Emily Thornberry has argued that Corbyn did not heed her advice to block the

election until the Brexit deal had been put through Parliament. If Thornberry believes that seeking to frustrate the Withdrawal Agreement would have resulted in anything other than an even

bigger Conservative majority, she is deluded. Keir Starmer asserts that Labour was right to oppose Theresa May’s effort because it was a “bad deal”. But if Labour had forced her to back a

customs union — which she was reportedly on the cusp of agreeing to last May — there would have been no new Conservative leader, no general election, and the Labour MPs that were

unceremoniously turfed out would still be in situ. While the spectre of Europe haunted and divided the Conservative Party for four decades, it is the Labour Party that has impaled itself on

the Brexit stake. Given that the UK will now leave the EU, the party should at least be able to put the issue behind it. That should allow it to focus on tackling the pompous sneering

contempt for the white working class that has become the leitmotif of a London-centric Labour Party that detests a large part of the electoral base that it has lost. Rebecca Long-Bailey,

seen as the continuity-Corbyn candidate, has called for “progressive patriotism”. The litmus test of what that means in reality will be Labour’s approach to immigration. A party that appears

to be more obsessed with culture wars and identity politics rather than truly representing the views of its hitherto longstanding supporters, will not win them back. If Labour can elect a

leader who is sound on national security, pushes the government to secure a close trading relationship with the EU, understands that immigration should be controlled, deals with the scourge

of anti-Semitism within the party, and focuses on developing a narrative that challenges the failings of capitalism, it could begin to be taken seriously. Don’t hold your breath.