COMMENTARY
that state of affairs in Britain and beyond,
There Is an Alternative
Priyamvada Gopal
As the euphoria of a victorious
defeat subsides, there is a sense
of determination within Labour
ranks as well as a degree of real
hope among those in the broader
electorate who wish to see Tory
rule and austerity come to an
end sooner rather than later. The
way ahead will not be easy, not
least because of the still very deep
divisions of Brexit both within the
Labour Party and beyond.
This article was earlier published in the
Web Exclusives section of EPW website.
Priyamvada Gopal (pg268@cam.ac.uk) teaches
at the University of Cambridge and is Fellow of
Churchill College, Cambridge.
Economic & Political Weekly EPW JUNE 24, 2017
O
n the morning of 9 June 2017,
many progressive people in
Britain woke up with a familiar
sense of dread. The memories of 24 June
and 9 November 2016 were still fresh in
our minds. On both those occasions, the
opinion polls had been wrong in calling it,
in the first instance, for a Remain vote in
Britains referendum on membership of
the European Union (EU) and, in the case
of the United States (US), indicating that
while it would be close, Hillary Clinton,
rather than Donald Trump would win
the presidential race. I was, therefore,
not placing my faith in the exit polls of
the previous night which had suggested
that the snap election called by British
Prime Minister Theresa May would
result in Britains Conservative govern-
ment losing its majority.
A Gulp of Fresh Air
How glad I and many others were to be
wrong, delighted to see the ticker tape
running across the BBC screen confirming
a hung parliament, no party having won
an overall majority. The widely antici-
pated coronationthe distinct possibility
of a landslide having been Mays motiva-
tion for calling the gratuitous snap elec-
tionhad been cancelled and to wide-
spread amazement, the Labour Party, led
by the veteran left winger, Jeremy Corbyn,
had increased its seat share, putting
paid to repeated prediction of total anni-
hilation at the ballot box. Instead, it had
acquired 32 more seats and increased its
share of the vote to 40%, only slightly
behind the Tories 42%. Just days before,
May had sternly warned voters that as
few as six lost seats for her party could see
Corbyn negotiating Brexit instead of her.
She lost 18. It may yet be that her gov-
ernment falls sooner rather than later.
The Labour Party had, of course, not
won the election but as defeats go, this
was a startlingly triumphal one. For many
on the broad left and liberal spectrum of
British politics, a sense of euphoria now
prevails, and certainly, of a reprieve from
vol lIi nos 25 & 26
where the near inexorable rise of right-
wing forces had started to seem like being
sewn up inside a fresh animal hide which
would suffocate its wearer as it shrank.
For us, the shattered Tory expectations of
a decisive majority combined with what
was patently a huge swing in Corbyns
favour felt like someone had gashed
open the shrinking leather, allowing in a
gulp of fresh air. Perhaps it could be that
the juggernaut of fiscal austerity and the
rule of capitalist greed could, after all, be
slowed down. This victory in defeat for
Corbyn and defeat in victory for May
could have seismic repercussions.
What had happened? Only a part of the
story is that of the entitled arrogance of
May and her fellow Conservatives in set-
ting a date for re-anointing themselves
supreme rulers of Brexit Britain, author-
ised to run roughshod over the concerns of
half the populace about Britains with-
drawal from the EU and the hard terms on
which it would be conducted. In the seven
years of Tory rule, austerityblamed
repeatedly on supposed prior Labour prof-
ligacywas inflicted ruthlessly with bene-
fits for the poorest and the disabled
slashed, public services eroded and the
National Health Service (NHS) performing
at breaking point. Meanwhile, also lower-
ing corporate taxes more than once, the
Tories repeatedly informed a population
where wages remained depressed and
whose living standards were further wors-
ened by a weakened pound in the wake of
Brexit, that we were all in it together.
May, not blessed with charisma as it
is, was brazen enough on live television to
inform an overworked nurse concerned
that her pay had not risen in years that
theres no magic money tree. Up until the
Brexit referendum, the time-honoured
formula of blaming the decimation of
public services, including the NHS, on
migrants while peddling the crassest forms
of nationalism tinged with a good meas-
ure of imperial nostalgia, had appeared
to be working beautifully. Until, one day
this June, it did not.
Compelling Counter-narrative
In the six weeks following Mays snap
election announcement, Corbyn and his
team criss-crossed the country speaking to
37
COMMENTARY
large crowds at rallies, making the case
that a different kind of society was
entirely possible. To the right-wing Tory
tale of a Britain being taken for a ride by
the EU, the well-being of ordinary citi-
zens jeopardised by immigrants over
whose presence the government was
powerless to stop, Labour at last offered
a compelling counter-narrative that was
outlined, in due course, in a succinct,
clear and carefully-costed manifesto.
What had hurt people and society, Corbyn
repeated, was that a small number of
people were getting wealthier under a
rigged economy and government that
secured and nourished the rich at the
expense of the many. This had meant a
fall in living standards for the larger
number as well as growing job insecu-
rity. The NHS was struggling from under-
funding as were schools, social care and
public services even as tax avoidance in
high-income brackets was rife and enforce-
ment poor. The electorate had a very clear
choice: they could either settle for more of
the same if the Tories were re-elected or
choose a party which would emphatically
invest in the NHS, education, public trans-
port, and social care.
Surely this is the stuff of any electoral
battle, the opposition party promising to
do the needful, accusing the incumbents
of having failed, only to break pledges
when in power? While it remains to be
seen, what Labour will actually manage
to achieve if they are voted into office
again, there is little doubt that Corbyn
brought to the field a narrative that out-
lined clearly where the battle lines were to
be drawn based on ideas that Labour
itself had essentially abandoned in the
heady years of Tony Blairs ascension to
power. Now there would be a return to
first principles, emphasising economic
redistribution and a measure of social
justice since, as the manifesto put it, the
creation of wealth is a collective endeav-
our between workers, entrepreneurs,
investors and government. Secondly
and here Corbyns own personality mat-
tersswathes of the electorate were
clearly persuaded by the veteran back-
benchers patent personal integrity and
manifest commitment to principles of
economic redistribution. As May and
other conservatives mechanically parroted
38
the mantra, strong and stable govern-
ment as a talismanic invocation intended
to answer any and all questions about
what the post-Brexit future held for Brit-
ain, it became clear that British voters
were no longer prepared to countenance
the meaningless sound bytes of conde-
scension over thoughtful arguments and
concrete proposals.
Corbyn also eschewed personal
attacks on his rivals, a move that simply
entrenched his credibility, even as he and
members of his inner circle, especially
the articulate black female member of
parliament (MP), Diane Abbott, were sub-
jected to frequently nasty and, in the latter
case, racist and misogynist smear cam-
paigns. Corbyn also displayed a willing-
ness, when labelled, for instance, as a
terrorist sympathiser, to take a difficult
position, noting after the London terror
attacks of 5 June that Britain needed to
assess the role played by its foreign policy
in fomenting Islamist militancy. A simi-
larly bold move was to propose high
levels of spending on public services and
investment in infrastructure given the
relentless accusations of profligacy with
finances that had been the mainstay of
Conservatives attacks on Labour.
Emergence of Young People
Refreshing and welcome though its recent
high profile has been, Corbyns brand of
Labourism is not, in and of itself, the
game-changer in British politics. The one
single factor that has transformed the
British electoral landscape over the last
year is the emergence of young people,
particularly students, as an electoral
forcethe youth turnout in this election
was in the vicinity of 72%, an unprece-
dented figure. There are sound reasons for
this including a political class across the
spectrum which has largely pandered to
middle-class, middle-aged, and older
voters, relying on the presumed apathy
of those under 34 and, concomitantly, an
economy which has seen young people
significantly worse off than their parents
and grandparents in terms of job secu-
rity, housing and retirement benefits.
In 2010, the ToryLiberal Democrat
Coalition government also tripled tuition
fees in the face of widespread protests
with further increases expected in this
JUNE 24, 2017
parliament. Young people, if they got an
education at all, would enter the work-
place already saddled with thousands of
pounds of debt, an amount that would
only increase exponentially if they found
themselves able to get on the property
ladder in the first place. It is into this
milieu in which Momentum, the organi-
sation set up to campaign for Corbyn,
was able to make significant inroads,
registering thousands of new Labour
members and bringing in young people
in unprecedented numbers to work as
activists and organisers who would also
be involved in voter registration drives
to bring more young first-time voters on
to the electoral rolls. In the days leading
up to the election, 10,000 Momentum
volunteers knocked on about 1.2 million
doors to make the case for Labour.
The Labour manifesto in their hands,
dismissed by opponents as a spending
spree, promised massive investment in
public services without raising taxes for
anyone but the top 5% of earners and
corporations who, under the Tories, had
been enjoying the lowest corporate taxes
in the industrialised world. Under Labour,
the rigged (a description used frequently)
economic system which disproportion-
ately rewarded the most well-off would be
reconfigured and those individuals and
entities avoiding their fair share of the
tax burden would be brought to justice
and compliance. The Tories, meanwhile,
amazingly and brazenly, had refused to
rule out tax increases for all but the top
earners and large corporations, offering
a vague manifesto that was also fully
uncosted. Mays U-turn, after wide-
spread criticism, on a manifesto pledge
which would make people pay more for
social caredubbed the dementia tax
by Labour, also did not help her cause.
It is worth noting that the most progres-
sive electoral manifesto Labour had pro-
duced in decades was, in fact, essentially
social democratic in spirit and letter. It was
keen to be seen as supportive of business
and conditions which would foster jobs
and economic growth defined in tradi-
tional terms while yet ensuring that pro-
gressive taxation kept schools and hospi-
tals open and well-resourced. This did
not, of course, prevent tabloids and the
right-wing press screaming that Corbyn
vol lIi nos 25 & 26 EPW Economic & Political Weekly

would drag the country back into social-
ism and the seventies, a time period and
scare story which, of course, has no mean-
ing for a large section of the youth who
would comprise Corbyns social base. It
was always unlikely, of course, given the
formidable array of forces arrayed against
even this perfectly moderate if highly
welcome promise to return to the funda-
mentals of social democracy that Corbyns
Labour would sweep to power. It is in
this light that Conservative losses can be
regarded as a victory for the Labour left.
Corbyn, it must be remembered, did not
just face the arrogant condescension of his
Conservative opponentsformer British
Prime Minister, David Cameron, famously
told Corbyn at the dispatch box to wear a
tie and sing the national anthembut
also relentless undermining from the
centre and right of his own party. Labour
members and voters were repeatedly and
lugubriously warned that Corbyn would
finish off Labour and that his tenure as
leader would only help the Tories win.
The former Blairite minister, Peter Man-
delsons words were not untypical as he
committed himself to try to do some-
thing each day to bring forward the end
of (Corbyns) tenure in office and to save
the Labour party from his leadership.
What was the main problem with Cor-
byn? He was, in a word used repeatedly
from within Labour, unelectable.
Unelectable?
This much-bandied about term is a word
that exceeds its pejorative and personal
remitdismissing Corbyn as a remnant
of a bygone era whose views would not be
palatable to a public accustomed to being
treated as consumerstakeholders rather
than as citizens. At stake, ultimately, was
nothing less than the a panic-stricken
defence of the failing Third Way project
pioneered by Tony Blair and his lega-
tees, the so-called modernisation of
the Labour Party which would involve a
complete jettisoning of any commit-
ment to socialism, capitulate fully to the
demands of capitalism in creating a sup-
posed centre ground and focussing as
far as possible on a middle-class prop-
erty-owning electorate while throwing
a few sops in the direction of the fading
welfare state.
Economic & Political Weekly EPW JUNE 24, 2017
It was, in others words, the last panicked
screams of New Labours embrace of the
notorious Thatcherite TINA, that is, there
is no alternative to neo-liberalism, pre-
cisely the claim which Corbyns narra-
tive was challenging. The Blairites had
famously insisted on being intensely
relaxed about the filthy rich; now they
were anything but relaxed faced with
the prospect of the Labour Party spear-
heading a modest degree of redistribution.
Another kind of society, Corbyn was say-
ing, was not just possible but perfectly
viable. The Parliamentary Labour Partys
own insistence on Corbys unelectability
tells us much about how far Labour had
come by the beginning of the 21st century
from its modestly socialist beginnings, set
up by the socialist, Keir Hardie, and others
in the early 20th century as the electoral
face of the British working-classes.
The intense anxiety displayed by fac-
tions within the Labour Party were mir-
rored in the press, not just the usual sus-
pects owned by Rupert Murdoch (the Sun
and the Times) and the Barclay Brothers
(the Telegraph) but also in the Guardian
which, for a very long time, ran hostile
editorials and opinion pieces by staff col-
umnists which repeated the charge that
Corbyn was a throwback to a time best
left behind. As the tabloids and their twin
broadsheets ran hysterical pieces about
Corbyns purported links with terrorists
and extremists of every ilk, liberal com-
mentators in the Guardian and the Inde-
pendent, agreeing that Corbyn had ren-
dered the party unelectable, also offered
snide and unsubstantiated suggestions
that Corbyn and his circle were hospita-
ble to anti-Semites and misogynists.
Since the elections, a few have retracted
though not perhaps as fully and as hon-
estly as might have been proper.
Victorious Defeat
What next? As the euphoria of a victorious
defeat subsides, there is a sense of deter-
mination within Labour ranks as well as
a degree of real hope among those in the
broader electorate who wish to see Tory
rule and austerity come to an end sooner
rather than later. The way ahead will not
be easy, not least because of the still very
deep divisions of Brexit both within the
Labour Party and beyond. Where the wider
vol lIi nos 25 & 26
COMMENTARY
membership of the Labour Party and
the overwhelming majority of Britains
younger voters were and are against
leaving the EU, Corbyn was charged,
not without justification, of running a
lacklustre campaign in favour of the
Remain vote last year. More dismayingly,
Corbyn issued a three-line whip ordering
Labour MPs to vote with the government
when May sought parliamentary approval
to trigger Article 50 which would set in
motion the negotiations leading up to
Britains departure from the EU.
Since 48% of the United Kingdom (UK)
voted to Remain, there was widespread
feeling that Labour under Corbyn could
and should have done more to represent
this half of the country. The Labour man-
ifesto does, it is worth noting, make clear
that freedom of movement between the
EU and Britain will end which may have
been a tactically clever move to placate
Britains Leave voters and indeed there is
some evidence that Labour picked up votes
which would have otherwise gone to the
wildly xenophobic United Kingdom Inde-
pendence Party (UKIP). The question of
whether it is right to give up that principle
in a world where it is necessary to open
up more borders rather than re-inscribe
them, however soft the Brexit Labour
proposes, remains on the table, a bitterly
divisive issue as does immigration on
which the Labour manifesto prevaricated.
What does remain heartening and
hopeful, however, is that young people
have now asserted themselves as citi-
zens and agents of democracy; it is vital
that they be supported and cheered on
as they do so. They do necessarily have a
fully mapped-out version of the future
but have a keen sense that the present is
unacceptable. Their new mood is pro-
gressive and coalitional in spirit, some-
thing that the Corbyn camp would do
well to keep in mind, both as principle
and as strategy. The decisive end of Tory
rule in short order might well necessi-
tate the Progressive Alliance that
many have called for, one that would
involve the cooperation of the Greens
and the Scottish National Party. For one
thing is at last crystal clear: contra
Thatchers famous pronouncement, there
is an alternative and it is finally begin-
ning to make its presence felt.
39