Owen Jones

Author of 'The Establishment' and 'Chavs', Socialist, Guardian columnist. Losing my Northern accent. My
views etc. https://www.youtube.com/c/OwenJonesTalks

Questions all Jeremy Corbyn supporters

need to answer
Labour and the left teeter on the brink of disaster. There, I said it. Ill explain why. But first, it has
become increasingly common in politics to reduce disagreements to bad faith. Rather than
accepting somebody has a different perspective because, well, thats what they think, you look
for an ulterior motive instead. Everything from self-aggrandisement to careerism to financial
corruption to the circles in which the other person moves: any explanation but an honest
disagreement. It becomes a convenient means of avoiding talking about substance, of course.
Because of this poisonous political atmosphere, the first chunk of this blog will be what many will
consider rather self-indulgent (lots of I and me, feel free to mock), but hopefully an explanation
nonetheless of where Im coming from. However long it is, it will be insufficient: I can guarantee
the same charges will be levelled.
There are some who expect me to mount an uncritical defence of Jeremy Corbyns leadership and
leave it at that, suppressing any fears that I have. The Establishment media have criticisms of his
leadership more than covered, after all. The duty of one of the few left-wing journalists with a
public platform is simply to rebut this onslaught, and keep reservations to a minimum. My failure
to do so has led to a number of charges being levelled against me.
One: the Guardian have gagged me, or I have spent so long there I have succumbed to
Guardianitis: a liberal disdain for the radical left, essentially. The Guardian have never gagged
me, I am free to say exactly what I want; and Im not staffI barely even go in to The Guardian. I
spend far more of my life at left-wing rallies and with left-wing activists than I do associating with
any members of the media world. Second: that I am a careerist. If you drew a Venn diagram of
Corbyn supporters and people who read my articles, buy my books, or turn up to my talks, well,
the results would be pretty obvious. From a career perspective, the best approach would be to
suppress any fears and simply uncritically defend the leadership. Third: that I have never really
been left-wing at all. Spending my life agitating for left-wing causes and movements seems like a
slightly odd choice in hindsight, in that case. And if Im not really left-wing, where does that leave
most of Britains population? Fourth: that I am shifting politically to the right. Some of this is
coming from people withlets just sayan eclectic political history. Some of the people who, 18
months ago, were berating me for believing the best bet for the left was through the Labour party
(they would mockingly reduce my political strategy to Join Labour!they have now joined
Labour) are now berating me for insufficient loyalty to the Labour leadership. But my beliefs on
how to win change in Britainand what that change should look likehave remained stubbornly
static: a left-led Labour Party that convinces enough people to win power, backed up by broader
social movements and mobilisation. Fifth: that I support the coup against Corbyn. But I have
repeatedly damned it, not least as a disgrace at a time of national crisis and effectively shutting
down the functioning of the Opposition when all the scrutiny should be focused on the Tories.
Some are claiming that Labours current plight is like the Miners Strike. You just have to pick
sides. You may have reservations with the strategy being pursued, but voicing those concerns
achieves nothing but playing into the hands of the enemy. But there is no comparison between an
industrial struggle on the one hand, and building enough popular support for a political party to
win power on the other.
As a multitude of producers can attest, over the last few weeks Ive turned down every request to
do TV and radio because I didnt think I had anything helpful or constructive to say. To criticise is
to join in a chorus of media attacks, goes the argument. Theres a difference: the vehement
media attacks on Corbyn come from those who do not want the left to succeed. But my starting
point is exactly the opposite. I worry about the left failing, and even disappearing forever. You may
disagree with me, and passionately so, but what I say and write is genuinely and entirely based

on what I consider to be the lefts best interests. You may think Im completely wrong, but that is
my sole motive, and it is genuinely in good faith. Mock me with pictures of tiny violins if you want,
but I cannot even begin to put into words how much Ive agonised over Labours terrible plight.
Here is my political background. When I left university in 2005, I worked in the office of the now
Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell for two-and-a-half years, and helped to run his (abortive)
leadership campaign in 200607. My Parliamentary badge sponsor was Katy Clark, then a Labour
MP who it turned out knew my uncle as a fellow party activist in the 1980s, and who is now
Corbyns political secretary. My colleague was Andrew Fisher, now Jeremy Corbyns director of
policy. Friends who were fellow Parliamentary bag-carriers included Cat Smith, Jeremy Corbyns
researcher and now an MP in the Shadow Cabinet. Other Shadow Cabinet members Ive known for
years include my friend Clive Lewis, who I campaigned for years before the election, and Richard
Burgon, whose house I stayed at when I did talks in Leeds. Seumas Milne is my friend and
colleague at The Guardian. Team members like ex-New Economics Foundation economist James
Meadway Ive long known through political activism. Much of the leadership team are my personal
friends, and some I have known for a decade or more. And as for Corbyn himselfwell, Ive
known him for years, and shared a platform with him many a time. During the leadership
campaign, I was at the first Corbyn campaign meeting, and the last campaign meeting, too. I not
only spoke at Jeremy Corbyn leadership rallies: I introduced him at the final one. I helped choose
the name for Momentum. This isnt a milieu that I know well: its a milieu Im part of.
When Corbyn stood for the leadership, the expectationincluding Corbyn himselfwas that he
would lose, but do well enough to shift the terms of debate. When it became increasingly clear he
was likely to win, I was not alone in worrying about the phenomenal odds that would be stacked
against him, but I wanted to be constructive about dealing with them. To say that I was desperate
for it to work is an understatement. Some berate me for failing to give sufficient weight to how
damaging attacks from the Establishment have been. I know how the Establishment treat their
opponents: I literally wrote the book on it. A year ago, I wrote a piece for The New
Statesmanentitled If Jeremy Corbyn wins, prepare for a firestorm. Heres an excerpt:
I would never underestimate the ruthlessness and effectiveness of the PLP and media
establishment linking hands to turn victory into an opportunity for organisational and ideological
destruction of the left, one Labour MP tells me. The PLP will do whatever makes them look best
and makes us look worse. And they may be happy to endure a split until Corbyn is deposed.
Hostile MPs will obsessively leak to the media; they will cite Corbyns rebellious record as
justification to refuse to tow the line; their strategy will be to bleed a Corbyn leadership to death.
As Chris Mullinthe ex-Labour minister and writer of A Very British Coup, which explores the fate
of a left-wing Labour Prime Minister at the hands of the Establishmentputs it: The media will
go bananas, of course. Every bit of his past life will be raked through and every position he has
ever taken will be thrown back under him. People Jeremy Corbyn has met, or has been close to,
will be scrutinised in great deal. Quotes will be taken out of context and twisted. His political
positions will be ruthlessly distorted. The media will seek to portray Labour as being in a state of
chaos (a narrative fuelled by right-wing MPs); and Corbyn as dangerous or ridiculous or both.
This article has recently gone viral again and been described by many passionate Corbyn
supporters as prophetic. It wasnt. It was entirely obvious what was going to happen. The issue is
how such an onslaught is dealt with, unless you adopt a defeatist approach and believe that the
general public are sheep and will simply be instructed what to do by the Establishment.
In the weeks before Corbyns victory, I wrote a long detailed suggested strategy for his leadership
to follow. Was it all right? No, I am just one flawed human being with my own flawed ideas. I do
think it was essentially the right strategy (well duhh, thats why I wrote it). When it became clear
such a strategy was not going to be put into practice, I fell into despondency. The most important
advice I could give was that first impressions were critical: most people are not losers like me who
take a daily interest in politics. They might look up at their TV sets, see who this new leader of the
Labour party is, and if they dont like what they see: well, a bad first impression is very difficult to
shift. If you do not define yourself, you will be defined by your opponents. Or as I said at the time:

Corbyns leadership acceptance speech the day he wonhis first real opportunity to speak to the
countrywas not, lets say, a classic in the genre of reaching out to a wider audience. The
appointment of the Shadow Cabinet was a PR disaster. For the first few days, the new leader was
barely on TV, even as the full force of the British media was deployed to define him in the most
negative way imaginable: one exception being a disastrous encounter in which he remained silent
as he was pursued by Sky News journalists yelling questions at him. I wrote what were pretty
desperate columns pleading for a media strategy. As Corbyn was defined as a threat to national
security by the Conservative Partya claim laughed at on Twitter, but all too poisonously
effective in the real worldhe infamously failed to sing the national anthem at a Battle of Britain
event in a country where supporters of an elected head of state (like me) are in a small minority.
A speech to the TUC a few days after his victory similarly failed to reach out to the country.
Jeremy Corbyn began his term in office as the first Leader of the Opposition ever to have a
negative personal rating. His ratings slid from there.
After a few days, I was in a pit of despair. And, funnily enough, it was Neale ColemanCorbyns
newly hired policy directorwho tried to drag me out of it. I went round to his house a week after
the leadership contest, and (frankly) was not in a good place. You always talk about hope in
public, he told me. Now you have to help put that into practice and help make this work. So,
through Coleman, I suggested ideas for his speech. (Just so were clear: I was open about my role
from the very beginning).
The team didnt have a speechwriter, and normally speeches like this are months in the making:
the final speech was pretty messy and lacked a clear coherent structure. What I thought was
critical was for the leadership to come out of its comfort zone and address the weaknesses his
enemies were honing in on. This point stands today. In particularly, I wanted them to go hard on
patriotism (given he was being defined as someone hostile to his own country) and (almost
obsessively) policies focusing on the burgeoning ranks of the self-employed (which is how
the speech was initially trailed); to make the case that, rather than simply being anti-austerity,
Labour was pro-something else; as well as building a coalition of middle-income and low-income
people and addressing issues like immigration. I genuinely thoughtand thinkit is possible for
a left-led Labour Party under concerted attack to cut through with an inspiring alternative that
would resonate with millions of people.
The last few months have been a story of relentless Establishment hostility towards Corbyns
leadership. Personally, I repeatedly tried to challenge it myself: see here or here for example. But
it was faced with an utterly ineffective strategy to deal with it and cut through with a popular
message. Ive already said that my own preference was somebody would take over from Jeremy
Corbyn from the new intake like Clive Lewis in, say, 2018: Brexit, the Labour coup (launched
disastrously at a time of national crisis), and the looming threat of a snap election clearly
complicate that.
Let me put this in stark terms. As Jeremy Corbyn is surrounded by cheering crowds, Labour
generally, and the left specifically, are teetering on the edge of looming calamity. Im not
apportioning blame: there are lots of factors at play. But thats how I genuinely feel, and it would
be as dishonest as it would be irresponsible for me to suppress my actual views to try and
maintain popularity among the people who read my work. I would happily sacrifice all of that if it
was helpful for the things I believe in. Saying things I do not believe to be true for personal gain
would reduce me to the status of a conman. All the things I do are motivated by a desire
however misplaced or wrong-headedto make a positive contribution to politics; I cant facilitate
something harmful, even if that means saying things the people reading my work do not wish to
hear.
There are those cheering now becausefinallyideas that havent been on the agenda for
decades are finally back. But when I was growing up, to even mention left-wing ideas was to
inevitably invite derision: oh here we go, back to Michael Foot, Labours 1983 electoral disaster. If
Labour ends up being routed, then theres a very good chance those ideas will once again be
associated with calamitous defeat for a generation. A snap election is entirely plausible, andas
things stands, thanks to the actions of all sides of the Labour partyLabour faces electoral

oblivion. And thats why it feels like Im at a party on the edge of a crumbling cliff. Enjoy the
party, stop being on such a downer! theyre all yelling. But all I can see is the cliff. And Im
desperate, at all costs, for us all not to fall off that cliff.
And that is why the questions below need answers. Not just for my own sanity, but for the future
of the Labour partythe only means the left in this country has ever had to wield influence
through national governmentand the left as a whole. These answers deserve clear, coherent,
detailed answers. Not answers which just make true believers feel good about themselves. Not
political alchemy. Theres too much at stake for that.
1. How can the disastrous polling be turned around?
Labours current polling is calamitous. No party has ever won an election with such disastrous
polling, or even come close. Historically any party with such terrible polling goes on to suffer a
bad defeat.
Dont take my word for it: listen to John McDonnell. During the leadership election last year he
wrote: It is inarguable that no modern party leader can win an election if behind in the polls on
economic competence. This is actually untrue: you can be behind on the economy and ahead on
leadership and still win. It is when you are behind on bothas they are for the current leadership
that history says you are heading for disaster. According to ICM in mid-July, on the team better
able to manage the economy, 53% of Britons opted for Theresa May and Philip Hammond, while
15% opted for Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell. Labours polling has deteriorated badly ever
since Brexit and the botched coup. But it was always bad and far below what a party with
aspirations for power should expect. Corbyn started his leadership with a net negative rating. (Ed
Milibandwho went on to losestarted with a net 19% positive approval rating); it has since
slumped to minus 41%. At this stage in the electoral cycle, Ed Milibands Labour had a clear lead
over the Toriesand then went on to lose. But Labour have barely ever had a lead over the Tories
since the last general election. When there is a slim lead, it is seized on with much excitement on
social media: but it was the norm throughout the entire last Parliament for Labour to be ahead,
often by a big distance. The Tories have now opened up a lead of up to 14 pointsyes,
undoubtedly partly caused by the destabilisation of the party by Corbyns opponents, but there it
is. Numerous polls show that most Labour supporters are dissatisfied with his leadership, even if
they show little faith in any alternative. One poll showed that one in three Labour voters
think Theresa May would make a better Prime Minister than their own party leader andmost
heartbreakingly of all18 to 24 year olds preferred May.
The response to this normally involves citing the size of rallies and the surge in Labours
membership. There is no question that Jeremy Corbyn has inspired and enthused hundreds of
thousands of people all over Britain. But Michael Foot attracted huge rallies across the country in
the build-up to Labours 1983 general election disaster. When Neil Kinnock saw the huge crowd at
the infamous Sheffield rally in 1992, he was undoubtedly convinced he was going to become
Prime Minister. It did not happen. Ive spent a considerable portion of my life speaking at rallies: I
would not mistake what I saw before me as representative of the nation as a whole, which is why
I have often urged that those attending protest rallies went out into their communities. The
enthusiasm of a minority is not evidence that the polls are wrong. There are 65 million people in
Britain. If a total of 300,000 turn up to supportive rallies, that means, 99.5% of the population
have not done so. There are those who do argue the polls are wrong, of course. But unfortunately
the evidence to date is that when the polls are wrongas they were in 2015it is not in Labours
favour.
Yes, its true that Labour has won all its by-elections since Jeremy Corbyn became leader, and
increased majorities. But in his first year, the picture was the same with Ed Miliband. Neither did
Corbyn do as badly in the local elections as was predicted. But Labour still lost seats
unprecedented for an the main opposition party for decadesand as Jeremy Corbyn said at the
time: the results were mixed. We are not yet doing enough to win in 2020.

So my question is: how is this polling turned around? There is no precedent for a turnaround for
such negative figures, so it needs a dramatic strategy. What is it? How will the weaknesses that
existed before the coup be addressed, and how will confidence be built in him and his leadership?
2. Where is the clear vision?
Labour under Ed Miliband jumped around from vision to vision. The squeezed middle, One
Nation Labour, the British promise, predistribution (catchy). All of them were abstract. There
was a lack of message discipline. Random policies were thrown into the ether but nothing brought
them together with a clear overall vision. On the other hand, it is very easy to sum up the
Cameron and Osbornes Tories vision. Clearing up Labours mess. Long-term economic plan.
Balancing the nations books. Reforming welfare. Taking the low-paid out of tax. Reducing
immigration. Giving freedom to schools. All sentiments and slogans repeated ad infinitum. Labour
canvassers would literally find voters repeating Tory attack lines back at them almost word for
word on the doorstep.
Whats Labours current vision succinctly summed up? Is it anti-austerity? Thats an abstraction
for most people. During the leaders debates at the last general election, the most googled
phrase in Britain was what is austerity?after five years of it. Anti-austerity just defines you by
what you are against. Whats the positive vision, that can be understood clearly on a doorstep,
that will resonate with people who arent particularly political?
When I asked Jeremy Corbyn what Labours vision under his leadership is, here was his response:
An economy that doesnt cut public expenditure as a principle, that instead is prepared to invest
and participate in the widest economy in order to give opportunities and decency for everyone. A
welfare system that doesnt punish those with disabilities but instead supports people with
disabilities. A health service that is there for all, for all time, without any charges and without any
privatisation within that NHS. And a foreign policy thats based on human rights, the promotion of
democracy around the world.
Im not at all convinced that this is a vision which will resonate with the majority of people.
Compare and contrast to the Tories messaging. So what is a clear vision for Labour that will
resonate beyond those who, on social media and in rallies, show their enthusiasm for Corbyn
now? This is a critical question and it needs an answer.
3. How are the policies significantly different from the last general election?
The Labour leadership effectively has the same fiscal rule as Ed Balls in the last election: balance
the nations books, not to borrow for day-to-day spending, but do borrow in order to invest. The
leadership proposes a British investment bank: again, in the last manifesto. The key policy at the
launch of Corbyns leadership campaign were equal pay audits. That was also in the last
manifesto.
Yes, the Labour leadership now says its anti-austerity: Corbyn told me in my interview that they
werent pledging cuts, unlike Ed Balls. But as I say, their fiscal rule is effectively the same,
including a focus on deficit reduction Deficit denial is a non-starter for anyone to have economic
credibility with the electorate, wrote John McDonnell. Labour would renationalise the railways, he
says: but this, again, beefs up Labours pledge under Milibands leadership. Labour would reverse
NHS privatisation: again, Labour at the last election committed to repealing the Health and Social
Care Act and regretted the extent of NHS private sector involvement under New Labour. Corbyn
opposed the Iraq war: so did Miliband. The Labour leaderships policy was to vote against the
bombing of Syria, as it was under Miliband.
Im somebody who campaigned for Corbyn, Im a left-wing journalist. But Im genuinely not clear
on the policies being offered. It seems as though Ed Miliband presented his policies as less leftwing than they actually were, and now the current leadership presents them as more left-wing
than they actually are. Its presentation, style and sentiment that seem to differ most. The same
people alienated by a similar offer are now the most enthusiastic about it. But surely the aim
should be to develop radical policies and present them as being commonsense and moderate

not as super radical in a way the substance doesnt justify. The danger is similar policies are being
offered by a leadership regarded as less competent, more extreme and less popular.
Its less than a year in to Corbyns already embattled leadership: there hasnt been the time to
develop clear new policies. Fine: but surely there needs to be a clear idea of what sort of policies
will be offered, not least given what is at stake?
4. Whats the media strategy?
Yes, the media are always going to demonise a left-wing leader. But, again, if we just believe the
public are robots who can be programmed what to think, then we might as well all give up. Sadiq
Khan was not standing on a radical left programme in his London Mayoral bid. Nonetheless he
was remorselessly portrayed as the puppet of extremists by his opponent and his allythe
capitals only mass newspaper, as well as several national newspapers. He managed to
counteract it, and won. His ratings are extremely favourable. The press lost.
Yet there doesnt seem to be any clear media strategy. John McDonnell has actually made regular
appearances at critical moments, and proved a solid performer. But Corbyn often seems entirely
missing in action, particularly at critical moments: Theresa May becoming the new Prime Minister,
the appointment of Boris Johnson as Foreign Secretary, the collapse of the Governments
economic strategy, the abolition of the Department of Energy and Climate Change, soaring hate
crimes after Brexit, and so on. Where have been the key media interventions here? When Theresa
May became Prime Minister, Labours initial response (via a press release from a Shadow Cabinet
member) was to call for a snap general election, which (to be generous) seems politically suicidal.
As Andrew Grice in the Independent points out, press releases are often sent out so late that they
become useless.
Many of Corbyns key supporters will not recognise this picture, because they follow his social
media accounts. The polling last year showed a huge gap between Corbyn supporters and the
rest of the public when it comes to getting news off social media. Look: I could hardly be a more
avid user of social media. Without sounding like bragging, my social media following isnt
insubstantialI have 489,000 followers on Twitter, for example, and in June I had over 4 million
profile visits and 46.3 million impressions. I set up a Facebook page last year and have 225,000
likes; I use YouTube, Instagram and Snapchat. Social media takes up all too much of my life.
But social media is no substituteat allfor a coherent media strategy. Only a relatively tiny
proportion of the population use Twitter, for example, to talk about or access political news:
disproportionately those who are already signed up believers. Take Facebook. At the last general
election the Tories used targeted Facebook ads very effectively. There are a few points here. This
is very different from people joining Facebook groups or sharing Facebook memes. This is online
advertising. As one of Labours social media team put it to me, Labour actually may have had
higher levels of reach than the Tories on Facebook at the last election. But the Tories paid money
to work out who they need to target, and with clear messages tailored for specific audiences,
repeated ad infinitum. Labour had lots of different messages, didnt target them at the right
people, had a more diffuse audience, and many of the people targeted would only have seen a
Labour post once. You end up with huge engagement amongst people who are already engaged
and you end up repeating messages that get the most engagement, because those are the ones
that get your most dedicated supporters most enthused. You energise your core supporters (and
end up sticking to the messages that energise them most), but fail to reach out you actually do
the opposite.
I sometimes do Facebook videos that get millions of views. Wow! I think. Unfortunately it takes
three seconds to qualify as a view. People are mostly just scrolling past. The same with Facebook
posts: youre told theyve reached however many people, but the number who are genuinely
engaging is much smaller. Ill get a million user reach on Facebook on a given day: but thats
mostly people just scrolling past on their feed. Theyre not meaningfully engaged. Those who are
engaged are overwhelmingly those who are already supportive.
The point about the Tories social media strategy is it was not a substitute, but just a complement
to a wide-ranging overall package. They werent relying on social media at the expense of the

mainstream mediawhere their message dominated; they had a clear overall message they
repeated over and over and over again.
There are, as I say, 65 million people in Britain. Most people do not spend their times discussing
politics (or seeking out political content) on social media. Thats just an obvious fact. Millions of
people do get their information about whats going on in politics, say, from watching a bit of the
10 OClock News, or listening to news on radio. Radio 2, for example, has 15 million listeners, four
million more than voted Conservative at the last general election. A study in 2013 found that 78%
of adults used television for news; just 10% opted for Twitter. Things have not changed
dramatically since then (indeed Twitter has been stagnating). The study found that people had
poor trust in Twitter as a news source. Most people hear a bit of news about politics on the TV or
radio.
Yes, social media has a rolebut as a complement. An effective media strategy means appearing
on TV and radio at every possible opportunity, and lobbying for appearances when they are not
offered; reacting swiftly to momentous events like a change in Prime Minister; having message
discipline underpinning a coherent vision; planning ahead, so that you are always one step ahead;
sending press releases in good time so they can be reported on, and so on. Such a strategy does
not seem to be in place.
So what could a coherent media strategy look like? How would it genuinely reach millions of
people who arent trawling through Facebook for political content with an appealing coherent
vision?
5. Whats the strategy to win over the over-44s?
Britain has an ageing population. Not only are older Britons the most likely to turn out to vote, but
they are increasingly likely to vote Conservative. At the last general election, the Tories only had a
lead among people aged over 44. Labour had a huge lead among 18 to 24 year olds, but only
43% voted; but nearly eight out of ten over the age of 65 voted, and decisively for the Tories.
Labours poll rating among older Britain is currently catastrophic, particularly the leaderships own
ratings. Unless Labour can win a higher proportion of older voters, the party will never govern
again.
When I asked Jeremy Corbyn in my recent interview what his strategy was, he came up with some
sensible starting points: respect for older people (this needs fleshing out in policy terms), dealing
with pensioner poverty, and social care. The problem isthats the first Ive heard of it. Wheres
the strategy to relentlessly appeal to older Britons who are so critical in deciding elections?
Theres no point having a vision unless it is repeated ad infinitum, rather than being offered after
being prompted: it will go over everyones head.
6. Whats the strategy to win over Scotland?
This was identified as a key priority during Corbyns last leadership campaign. It is difficult,
currently, to see how Labour can win a general election without winning a considerable number of
seats North of the Border. At the last Holyrood elections, Scottish Labour came a disastrous third.
Thats not to blame Corbyn: here was the manifestation of problems that long predate his
leadership. But polling in Scotland really is beyond awful. Just 19% of people who voted Labour in
2015 think Corbyn is doing well: and while Scottish Tory leader Ruth Davidson has a +58 net
rating among Scottish Labour voters, Jeremy Corbyn languishes on -47% among Scottish Labour
voters. It no longer seems as though Scotland is any kind of priority. Where is the strategy to win
back Scotland?
7. Whats the strategy to win over Conservative voters?
The evidence strongly suggests thatto have a chance of forming a governmentLabour needs
to make some inroads into the Conservative vote. When I asked Corbyn about how hed win over
Tory voters, he spoke of dealing with the housing crisis, decreasing student debt, promoting new
industries like solar panels, and asking them if they were comfortable with rising inequalities not
least the declining share of income going to wages compared to dividends and executive pay. This
does not seem like a convincing strategy for persuading Conservative voters who didnt want to

plump for Labour under Ed Miliband. It does not seem like much thought has been put into this.
So what strategy could be developed to win over Conservatives?
8. How would we deal with peoples concerns about immigration?
Britain just voted to leave the European Union in what, above all else, was a vote on immigration.
Some of the communities who most strongly voted Leave were working-class Labour
constituencies in the North. The ward I grew up in voted to leave: it was obvious to me what was
going to happen before the result. Labour has to at least engage with where people are at. In my
proposed strategy blog last year, I suggested Labour offer an immigration dividend: ringfencing
the extra money EU immigrants put into the economy and using it to invest in communities with
higher levels of immigration. To his credit, Corbyn has occasionally spoken about reinstating the
Migrant Impacts Fund, abolished by Camerons governmentbut only intermittently, to the
extent where I doubt the vast majority of the electorate are even aware of this position. So how
could the leadership devise a strategy to respond on immigration?
9. How can Labours mass membership be mobilised?
I wrote about this in my recent Guardian column. Having a mass membership is a real
achievement, and one that should be lauded. But unless it can be mobilised in the wider
community to reach those who are not already convinced, then its role in winning over the wider
public will be limited. There are other dangers, too. Because the leadership is so vilified and
attacked by the media, it is easy to become defensive. But that defensiveness can turn into
intolerance towards any criticism. Look: Ive spent my entire adult life in socialist politics, and
trying to popularise it as best as possible, and I campaigned for Jeremy Corbyn, and Im now
being attacked as a Blairite, crypto-Tory and Establishment stooge. The gap in values, outlooks
and priorities between members and the wider public becomes ever harder to bridge. A
movement becomes united by a total loyalty to the leadership, rather than over policies and
beliefs. But a movement will only win over people by being inclusive, optimistic, cheerful even,
love-bombing the rest of the population. A belief that even differences of opinion on the left cant
be toleratedwell, that cannot bode well. So how can the enthusiasm of the mass membership
be mobilised, to reach the tens of millions of people who dont turn up to political rallies? What
kind of optimistic, inclusive message can it have to win over the majority?
Conclusion
Labour faces an existential crisis. There will be those who prefer me to just to say: all the
problems that exist are the fault of the mainstream media and the Parliamentary Labour Party,
and to be whipped up with the passions generated by mass rallies across the country. But these
are the facts as I see them, and the questions that have to be answered. There are some who
seem to believe seeking power is somehow Blairite. It is Blairite to seek power to introduce
Blairite policies. It is socialist to seek power to introduce socialist policies. As things stand, all the
evidence suggests that Labourand the left as a wholeis on the cusp of a total disaster. Many
of you wont thank me now. But what will you say when you see the exit poll at the next general
election and Labour is set to be wiped out as a political force? What will you say whenwhenever
you mention anything vaguely left-wing, youre mocked for the rest of your life, a throwback to
the discredited Labour era of the 2010s? Will you just comfort yourself by blaming it on the
mainstream media and the PLP? Will that get you through a lifetime of Tory rule? My questions
may strike you as unhelpful or uncomfortable. Im beyond caring. Call me a Blairite, Tory,
Establishment stooge, careerist, sellout, whatever makes you feel better. The situation is
extremely grave and unless satisfactory answers are offered, we are nothing but the accomplices
of the very people we oppose.