YOUR editorial (“Damaging Labour in-fighting must end”, The Herald, August 12) concludes that: “Whatever the outcome of the Labour leadership contest, the party must reunite and regroup, end the in-fighting and begin to again work as an effective opposition to the Tories.” That would indeed be good, but it just isn’t going to happen.
The fundamental problem for Labour is that it’s a democratic socialist party in a world where traditional socialist policies have been shown as inadequate. Arguably, socialists take too optimistic a view of human nature. Capitalism relies on greed to deliver profit and, if you put too many restrictions on the freedom to be greedy, you run the risk of destroying the economy, which benefits nobody. The supreme example of socialist folly is the Venezuela created by Hugo Chavez, where, despite enormous oil reserves, the hospitals have no medicine to dispense and people are starving.
In the 1990s, Labour recognised it was going nowhere. The Tories had been in power since 1979 and were mired in sleaze, but Labour still wasn’t gaining traction with the electorate its policies simply didn’t appeal. So, in desperation, Old Labour was ditched and New Labour was born as a modern social democratic party. Its policies were generally slightly left of centre, but it wasn’t afraid of stealing policies from the right and it didn’t threaten anything that might frighten the electorate. It was enormously successful.
However, for many Labour members, the party remained a democratic socialist party, and that’s what it still says on the membership card. They went along with New Labour in the belief that, once in power, the mask would be ripped off and Labour would govern as a socialist party, red in tooth and claw. It didn’t happen. Some members left, but many remained, biding their time.
The difficulty with going back to Old Labour is that, outside the narrow confines of the party itself, there just aren’t the votes. The traditional working class communities that would vote for a donkey with a red rosette aren’t there any more in the numbers Labour need; they’re also more savvy. And the trade unions have seen their membership shrink to less than 6 million, half what it was 30 years ago.
Both Jeremy Corbyn and Owen Smith are offering a democratic socialist vision because that’s where the votes inside the Labour Party lie, but neither offers a vision that chimes with the wider electorate. Whoever wins, they’ll lead a divided party that has no chance of winning power in the foreseeable future. The Tories, having resolved their split over Europe, are now more united than ever and can look forward to decades in power. So the best hope for those of us who believe in social democracy is a parliament in Edinburgh with full powers to govern Scotland.
Doug Maughan,
5 Menteith Biew, Dunblane.
HAVING watched both Labour leadership hustings, I found most party members clapped loudly for Jeremy Corbyn. Members seem to accept the Corbyn narrative that the MPs who opposed him were simply wreckers – and they're not listening to or evaluating other possibilities. Yet if Mr Corbyn wins he will soldier on with an inexperienced shadow cabinet which will make little headway in debates with Tory ministers, and his divided party will be inadequately prepared to face the public at large when an election comes, and the bulk of Remain voters from the referendum on Europe will look elsewhere (to the Liberals possibly) if they still feel that Brexit creates economic decline.
Mr Corbyn's ambivalence on Europe suggests that he will not suit these voters.
Andrew Vass,
24 Corbiehill Place, Edinburgh
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here