Peter Hyman always writes and speaks with commendable frankness and perception but his piece demonstrates two typical Labour blind spots (“This is an existential moment in Labour’s history. It may not survive. It may never win again”, Comment).
First, he regards the Liberal Democrats – and unnamed others – as existing in order to be the biddable handmaidens of new Labour survival. Labour politicians really need to realise that Liberalism is a separate and distinctive political philosophy from socialism, whether the latter is embodied in old, new or indifferent Labour, and is not enhanced by electoral pacts. Post-election arrangements are a different matter when the new parliamentary arithmetic may legitimately justify coalition. And if the Liberal Democrats are tempted by Hyman’s arguments, they should recall the 1983 and 1987 election alliances with the SDP that weakened and blunted the Liberal appeal for no apparent gain.
Hyman’s second blind spot is his failure to realise that the right electoral reform will solve the problem for him. Introducing a preferential voting system, such as the single transferable vote, will enable the election of the relevant number of old and new Labour MPs according to the voters’ preferences, without the necessity for any Labour party “split”.
Michael Meadowcroft
Leeds
I thought Peter Hyman’s thoughtful piece about the Labour party was spoilt by bitterness and a rather unnecessary end section, not really connected to the rest, predicting a Labour split.
I have been in the Labour party for many years and the only “project” I am interested in is the achievement of successful Labour governance, whether at national or local level. Splits have always prevented that. In the 1980s, the breakaway SDP meant we were unable to challenge Thatcher successfully, despite her unpopularity.
Many of us long-standing members did not vote for Jeremy Corbyn, but now he is leader we want to make it work. We need the same attitude from the leadership, MPs and members, old and new. Talk of splits will get us nowhere. We need to work together to get rid of this government. We must all overcome the bitterness that seems to derive from past quarrels.
David Taylor-Gooby
Peterlee
County Durham
Peter Hyman’s “existential challenge” to Labour is interesting but his criticism is unduly harsh in some cases and missed more crucial mistakes elsewhere. I doubt if any party could have survived in government after the crash of 2007-08. Hyman made no mention of the catastrophic failure to nail the Big Tory Lie that the financial crash was entirely Labour’s fault and nothing to do with the banks. In accepting Osborne’s agenda, Labour leaders failed to highlight simple ONS facts that Brown/Darling’s policies had returned UK to 1% growth by mid-2010 while also reducing the deficit by £38bn. Instead, Labour reduced itself to saying it would cut more sympathetically than the Tories.
Hyman wants Labour to develop a new vision offering hope to millions beyond the narrow confines of party membership while insisting that economic credibility be re-established and anti-capitalism avoided. But how can hope be offered without challenging the juggernauts of unregulated globalisation and privatisation crushing jobs, lowering wages, worsening conditions at work, eroding family and civic life and putting home ownership beyond the reach of low and middle-income earners? Is no one to challenge out-of-control, tax-dodging corporations operating in dysfunctional markets for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many?
Hyman’s branding of all Corbyn’s followers as “wanting to win an argument, not an election” is a travesty. Most want to win both, believing that you have to win the former to secure the latter.
Nigel de Gruchy
Orpington
Kent
