Older readers might remember a TV show called “How”, which began – in unPC fashion – with the presenters raising their hands and shouting “How”. I was reminded of this because the launch of Angela Eagle’s leadership bid raised exactly this question.
She said:
Jeremy Corbyn is unable to provide the leadership that this huge task needs. I believe I can.
How?
She continued:
I will unite, I will not divide. I can bring our Party together again.
How?
I fear this lack of important detail is not an idiosyncratic failure of Ms Eagle’s. Instead, it illustrates John Gaffney’s point that Labour “doesn’t know what leadership is, doesn’t want to know, and doesn’t like it – so doesn’t know what it entails.” This, I think, is true in three ways.
First, leadership – like much else – is about mechanisms. The question is: through what precise mechanisms does leadership translate into results? Ms Eagle doesn’t answer this question. She is guilty of what I complained about recently: the “leadership-?????-success” fallacy.
Secondly, what matters is not so much getting the best person to be leader as getting the right match between the candidate and the job. As Boris Groysberg has shown (pdf), managers of similar ability are successes where there’s a match between their skills and the organization’s needs, but not where there is a mismatch.
This requires that Labour understands precisely what qualities it needs in a leader, and identifies the individual with those qualities. Wishful thinking about what would happen if only the party had a “proper leader” is not good enough. Instead, the question is: what exactly is the shape of the hole we’re trying to fill, and who fits that shape?
There’s something else. One key feature of good leadership in business is the ability to get feedback and act upon it. Two of the questions Bloom and Van Reenen ask in their work (pdf) assessing management competence are:
How well do companies track what goes on inside their firms, and use this for continuous improvement? [And] do companies set the right targets, track the right outcomes and take appropriate action if the two are inconsistent?
By these criteria, Corbyn’s critics* are abject failures. They failed to take feedback from their defeat to him last year. He didn’t win so crushingly because he’s a political genius – he spent 32 years in parliament without ever being hailed as such – but because his opponents (except perhaps for Liz Kendall) were offering little but vacuous marketing-speak. Corbyn’s critics should have learned from this that they need to develop some kind of inspiring vision of centre-left principles and policy. With precious few exceptions, though, this is still lacking. Corbyn's opponents seem not to have learned that they are not entitled to run the party, but must earn the right to do so.
Now, I don’t say this to defend Corbyn. His inability to placate fractious MPs and his downright bizarre decision to attend a Cuba Solidarity meeting when there were far more important things to do suggest he isn’t up to the job. In this context, though, the failure of his critics to understand what leadership means is simply tragic.
* I don’t want to use the word “right” in this context as I’m not sure the left-right distinction is helpful in this context.
I'd add in the even if Kendall had some good ideas, she did a terrible job of putting them over to the electorate she was addressing.
Posted by: Metatone | July 15, 2016 at 01:42 PM
By this logic then there is in theory such a thing as general leadership talent - the ability to matchmake leadership skills to organizational need. Even if the leader doesn't have those skills they can recruit and delegate.
You are suggesting or hoping that the party as a whole has that skill.
Posted by: Endrew | July 15, 2016 at 01:43 PM
«his opponents (except perhaps for Liz Kendall) were offering little»
It is hard to discern differences when the reading is so close to zero :-), but I thought that A Burnham was a but more substantial than the others.
«but vacuous marketing-speak»
What if that is what the "conservatory-building classes" want to hear? What if that is what wins elections?
Or more probably, what if the best strategy is to let the Conservatives try hard to lose the election between now and 2020, and just be anodyne wallflowers until then? My impression is that in the UK elections are lost, not won.
«Corbyn’s critics should have learned from this that they need to develop some kind of inspiring vision of centre-left principles and policy.»
That would be hopeless and contrary to their analysis, which is that elections are won by pandering to the "aspirations" for bigger capital gains for the reactionary rentier "conservatory-building classes".
New Labourists want to develop centre-right or right-wing, not centre-left, principles and policies, even if perhaps not as right-wing as those of D Cameron/G Osborne or the "Britannia Rules The Waves!", oops, I meant "Britannia Unchained" people.
Posted by: Blissex | July 15, 2016 at 02:16 PM
Another aspect of leadership is to know where your going and try to get ahead of the curve. Unfortunately focus groups and 'poll-watching' don't enable you to do this and you simply end up looking rather limp and weak. Corbyn gained a huge amount of support simply by his anti-austerity message. He has also gained moral authority over his opponents with his opposition to the Iraq war. For his supporters these are important issues that his opponents are busy trying to avoid.
Posted by: Hilary Richards | July 15, 2016 at 02:17 PM
«inspiring vision of centre-left principles and policy. With precious few exceptions,»
The exception linked to lists the following «centre-left principles and policies»:
«enthusiasm for the EU [ .... ] to row us back from the calamitous cul-de-sac that Corbyn helped back us into;»
For tory New Labourists it is Corbyn alone, not the the fellow tories in the other party, who responsible for Brexit.
«internationalism that extends beyond Brussels to robust support for our NATO responsibilities and solidarity not with Putin but with Clinton and our American allies;»
Another Iraq invasion? :-)
«fiscal coherence that moves us beyond the infantile nonsense of being “anti-austerity” and – as per John McDonnell – in favour of balancing current spending;»
That's to the right of G Osborne.
«welfare policy that doesn’t indulgence a failing status quo but which is wholly remodelled to always reward contribution;»
"Three generations of benefit scroungers" :-).
«and an unabashed commitment to backing those who deserve backing but are not always backed on the left – entrepreneurs (we must be pro-business), Londoners (we must have no truck with chippy provincialism), immigrants (we must stand with them).»
That sounds just like B Johnson.
Now now. Rather than a neutered, much scaled down FO ministership, couldn't B Johnson have much more fun of he walked across the aisle like his hero W Churchill did and join the Liberals, I mean New Labour? He would be easily elected leader if he toned down his occasional centre-left pandering :-).
Posted by: Blissex | July 15, 2016 at 02:32 PM
«not always backed on the left – entrepreneurs (we must be pro-business), Londoners (we must have no truck with chippy provincialism), immigrants (we must stand with them).»
Note that backing "immigrants" as written brings no direct votes as they cannot vote.
What the authors meant quite probably is not backing "immigrants", but backing "immigration", that is those voters (shop owners, property owners, big business, pensioners...) who benefit from immigration to the UK.
Posted by: Blissex | July 15, 2016 at 02:57 PM
BTW reading a neoliberal/neocon manifesto presented as «inspiring vision of centre-left principles and policy» I had a flash of intuition as to what at the core neoliberal/neocon principles and policies are, a rewriting of Hua's "two whatevers":
* We will resolutely uphold whatever policy decisions result in cheaper help and bigger profits and rents
* and unswervingly follow whatever instructions the president of the USA gives.
Plus the "three represents" too: "entrepreneurs", "Londoners", (employers of) "immigrants".
:-)
Posted by: Blissex | July 15, 2016 at 03:09 PM
«Corbyn gained a huge amount of support simply by his anti-austerity message.»
Anti-neoliberal: New Labour can't tolerate that.
«He has also gained moral authority over his opponents with his opposition to the Iraq war.»
Anti-neocon: New Labour can't tolerate that.
PS. Actually J Corbyn is not quite "anti-austerity", it is really J McDonnels's position which is more nuanced and sensible, while not being as anti-wages as that of the right-wing.
Posted by: Blissex | July 15, 2016 at 03:12 PM
Isn't the point that Corbyn shared a platform with Hamas and has sympathy with the plight of the Palestinians? No one cares about his meetings with Adams and McGuinness, but Hamas? No way.
Therefore his card is well and truly marked, and no matter Labour's performance in elections (not bad so far) or in the referendum* (ditto), attacks on him will continue regardless, even if he put Labour high in the polls. Especially then, in fact, because that would raise the terrible spectre of a UK Prime Minister who was neutral or agnostic about Israel, and we can't have that.
* 36% of 2015 SNP voters went for Leave as compared with 37% of Labour voters - but no one's calling for Nicola Sturgeon to step down, instead she's the Voice Of Scotland.
Posted by: Bonnemort | July 15, 2016 at 04:47 PM
I think Bonnemont is correct, Liz Kendall is clearly a safe pair of hands for the establishment, a servile lackey to the 'interests of Britain'. But Corbyn is dangerous, not because of his modest domestic policies, but because of his modest anti imperialism.
This will always but always make him an enemy of the state.
The Liz Kendall supporters really may as well vote Tory. We should absolutely regard Liz Kendall supporters as being politically on the right.
So this blog should be considered politically as being a right wing blog.
The left-right distinction is absolutely appropriate and necessary in this context.
Support Corbyn against the anti democratic right wing plotters.
Posted by: BCFG | July 16, 2016 at 03:13 PM
«Corbyn is dangerous, not because of his modest domestic policies, but because of his modest anti imperialism.»
That was "gesture socialism" that he was indulging in when he did not matter. Since becoming leader he has become a lot more prudent in his gestures. Today's Corbyn is largely a mild centrist social democrat, a mild europeanist (more than atlanticist), somewhat to the right (arguably) of Neil Kinnock when he was leader.
But that means that he is not a neoliberal in domestic policy and a neocon in foreign policy.
«So this blog should be considered politically as being a right wing blog.»
That could be a marxist position too, because if that's the best that is feasible in the current political situation, then one has to be realistic and deal with the politics as they are.
The Blair administration while pursuing mostly neoliberal neocon goals also delivered in a less overt way, to avoid alarming funders and voters, some social democratic measures like the tax credits. They were mostly because of G Brown. By doing a coalition with A Blair he could get into power and do something of what he still believed in.
For another example D McBride in his book reports how G Brown and A Darling successfully resisted regressive increases in the VAT.
The problem with blairism is that while it is acceptable to get the votes of the rentier middle class by pandering to them, their politics was to just pander to them and use the votes of the working class to support the resulting neoliberal policies, instead of using the votes of the middle class to support *also* social democratic ones.
The neoliberal blairites like L Kendall are the more worrying because there is no obvious social-democratic figure like G Brown on their side to balance them a bit.
Try to imagine the Blair years without G Brown and with P Mandelson as Chancellor... :)
Posted by: Blissex | July 17, 2016 at 12:55 AM
" I don't know how to define it but i know it when i see it"- so Blair had it, Cameron has it, Sturgeon has it . They can talk and walk and think at the same time; well educated, two of them lawyers, very articulate, pragmatic , inspiring voters with a vision , certainly cogent and personable. Corbyn does not have it, weak education, not able to inspire the voters , think clearly ahead or have any impact on the population as a whole. We know it when we see it.
Posted by: leslie48 | July 18, 2016 at 07:10 PM
@ leslie48
I'm not sure about Sturgeon, but you could certainly add 'sociopathic' to the traits of Blair and Cameron.
Posted by: Igor Belanov | July 18, 2016 at 07:19 PM
Some of the commenters here epitomise what is wrong with UK Labour. People, the hard fact is that this is a capitalist democracy. That means:
- it really is in most people's interest that business makes an honest quid. Sure, focus on the "honest" part of that phrase - stop 'em unduly screwing their workers and customers and make sure they pay tax. But as you are never going to get socialisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange then if you want production, distribution and exchange to happen then you have to permit - nay, encourage - some rather unattractive people to make a profit from it.
- and its a democracy. The fact is that capitalism has become prosperous enough that most voters are in the "conservatory building classes". Unlike Marx's time it is minorities rather than majorities that are oppressed, and that matters. Sure, if carefully done you can persuade people that they should help those who are never going to get a conservatory, but sanctimoniously and inaccurately denouncing conservatory building as fascist is not gonna get you elected. People rightly hate killjoys and Puritans.
The Blairites are right on this one thing - if you want to avoid the Osbornes and Mays then the Labour party has to be able to show what's in it for those bourgeois you are so dismissive of. Because those bourgeois vote.
Posted by: derrida derider | July 19, 2016 at 01:58 PM