The Labour Party need to reinstate Clause IV of the Labour Party Constitution in order to bind members to a common purpose and understanding of what Socialism actually represents to the Labour Party. At the moment we have a situation of chaos where each member seems to have a different interpretation of socialism there seems to be a lack of common understanding. The very meaning and understanding of socialism is open to interpretation in today’s Labour Party. This is an ill advised system in my opinion. In the past members knew instinctively where the Labour Party’s values were and they knew what was meant when referring to socialism. After Blair this all changed and there is now mass confusion and this is reflected in the mass confusion regarding the overall direction of the Party. The idea that socialism is an system of economic principles and values has seemingly been rather too conveniently forgotten about, and when many members refer to socialism they are simply referring to notions of fairness relative to the other political parties. Simply being nice and fair and listening to the opinions of others is not socialism. It should not be forgotten that socialism is actually a set of economic principles designed to bring about a greater distribution of wealth in an economic system and is something that challenges the notions of Adam Smith’s ideas regarding Capitalism. Socialism counters the greed of a purely Capitalist System of Economics and it gives people a stake in society through the benefits of the State owning some part of the economic system in order to obtain capital for the investment for the good of all the country’s citizens. In particular the key industries it targets are those that are essential for the running of the country such as Energy Supply and Transport. These are the key industries which socialism targets to generate capital for re-investment in the country’s health provision (NHS), to reduce the burden of taxation on the individual and to support local essential services, police and council provisions etc.
I am responding here to statements made by Alan Johnson in an article to Politics Home where he suggests that the Labour Party is dead and finished and where he lays the blame squarely at the feet of Jeremy Corbyn. This is really just sour grapes from a defeated right wing moderate as he struggles to adapt to the much needed change happening within the Labour Party and is probably more about his own line of personal questioning and doubts about whether there is actually a place for him in the Labour Party of the future.
Firstly who does Alan Johnson think he is pontificating on such matters. Johnson, himself now a discredited politician, is a part of the unfortunate legacy of the now dying Labour Party. He is right to say that the Labour Party is dead which it most probably is but guess what: far from being Mr Corbyn’s fault the death of the Labour Party is actually because of people like Alan Johnson and Tony Blair who have killed the Labour Party. The autopsy is now on-going but it will surely be found to be the case that the death of the Labour Party was already a sealed fait accompli as soon as traitors like you and Tony Blair were able to meddle with its Constitution. Mr Corbyn now only presides over the dying corpse of the Labour Party perhaps in a vain attempt to bring back life to the already departed.
Since winning another Labour Party Leadership Challenge it may appear to some that Jeremy Corbyn is unassailable. He may even believe so himself. It appears that the promise of change and a possible swing to the left helped propel Jeremy Corbyn back into the leadership post. In my opinion this was because he came across as the most left wing of the candidates. He had a longer left wing legacy that the newcomers. However so far we have seen nothing that radical from Mr Corbyn and nothing really that justifies all the left wing support he received to secure him another term as the Leader of the Labour Party.