Reader TTS

If you ask some people, Labour has left behind the radical politics of the Corbyn era and given up on its soul. Listen to others and you’ll hear that its moved beyond the chaos of the Corbyn

years to become a professional — and electable — political party. There’s a bit of truth and a bit of propaganda in both propositions. Both sides of the Labour argument would have you

believe the stereotype of the other — and both are quite good at leaning into the more positive parts of their own image. The most dedicated Corbynites want to believe that the

disorganisation of the last five years was down to a conspiracy by the Parliamentary Labour Party, Head Office and the media. But on the other hand, _professionalism_ was seen by some in

itself as a Blairite trait. Managerialism got confused with good management. However, managerialism (in the sense of literal top down control) still existed after Blair and there wasn’t an

end to internal stitch ups and manoeuvres. It simply became the narrative that these were a necessary corrective to the previous machinations of the Labour right. What the Corbynites had in

gallons was passion, something that had often felt lacking from the tired end of the Blair years and which was suppressed in the firefighting of the Miliband era. When this was well directed

— for example during both leadership campaigns and the 2017 General Election — it combined with good planning to become a substantial force. If this had been better and more consistently

harnessed, combined with the digital skills of Momentum and a discipline that put winning in the country first, recent history could have been quite different. All too often though the

well-meaning energy of the vast majority of Corbyn supporters was squandered in the power games of their leaders. Whether that be wrangling internal bodies, an overstuffed leader’s office

which led to serious splinters between players or fairly egregious manipulation of candidate selections. There was also the disastrous pack mentality that led to the protection of too many

of those whose behaviour belonged nowhere near the Labour Party, in particular the anti-Semites and those accused of sexually predatory behaviour. As the former controversy in particular

rumbled on, it became clear that those at the top of the Corbyn project were willing to put their whole enterprise in jeopardy to protect a few friends. Their twisting inability to take a

stand pre-dates Johnson and Cummings, but it left many in the party with the same bafflement as Tories feel now – and had the same effect on the polls. The welfare of a key few being placed

over the success of so many. The passion of Corbyn’s supporters was essential. But passion is no good without a plan. It shouldn’t be the case that left wing politics has to be disorganised

and chaotic. But in the final analysis, Corbyn and his team did everything they could to reinforce that image. It is yet to be seen whether Keir Starmer’s leadership will be the repudiation

of Corbyn’s politics that some on the left fear and some at the centre crave. So far though, it is clear that there is a repudiation of his style. The victory of the Barrister with the

forensic parliamentary approach and the appointment of David Evans of the Campaign Company, who specialises in marrying values with data-driven campaigning, shows that a more professional

approach is being adopted. That will be a relief to many. They will have to be ruthless in their pursuit of victory. They will shortly be dealing with the report from the EHRC. The

widely-held assumption is that it will be a deeply shaming moment for Labour and that it will prompt a top down change in the way the Labour Party currently operates at many levels. It would

be a tragedy for the Labour Party to lose the passion of the vast majority of its supporters. But it would be a far greater tragedy for the country to continue to have an unelectable

opposition. It will be Starmer and Evan’s job to make sure that in ensuring the latter they don’t lose too much of the former.