Sorry Jeremy, You're Doing The Whole Job Wrong...

When a political party is in crisis, it is often asked 'what is the point of this party?,' or 'what does this party stand for?'

I've heard this a lot in the last few weeks about the Labour party. Riven with internal dissent, and buffeted by external events, Labour is in serious trouble. It's a fair question.

It also has a remarkably simple answer. Because Labour writes all these things down. The Labour Party Rule Book is the place to look, and it clearly says that Labour's purpose:

shall be to organise and maintain in Parliament and in the country a political Labour party.

The Party shall bring together members and supporters who share its values to develop policies, make communities stronger through collective action and support, and promote the election of Labour Party representatives at all levels of the democratic process.  

Note what comes first in that statement. In 1900, the nascent Labour Representation Committee was faced with a choice: were the interests of working people best advanced by operating within or without the parliamentary system? The LRC chose within: the ballot box over the banner, elections over revolutions.

This should be understood by all those who claim to have Labour's best interests at heart. The road to improving the lives of "those who can't speak up for themselves," as John Smith once said, lies in the maintenance of the Labour party in Parliament and in local government. Anything that threatens to neuter that political force is an obstacle on the road to progress.

What is more, this also matters to anyone who wants to see a left-wing government in the UK. Labour is in a unique position in British politics. It is the only left of centre political entity currently capable of assuming national power. When it fails to assume office, the cause and interests of the left are not advanced. When it does win elections, and takes power, the interests of the left are advanced, however slowly and imperfectly. This gives a heavy burden to the Labour party. Without it, there is no dawn for the left, at least not for many years to come. Therefore, it has to strive for office, be it local, regional and national, at every opportunity. The lives of millions depend on it.

At present, Labour is in crisis because of the leader. Jeremy Corbyn was only elected last year, but already many have grave doubts. His MPs have passed an overwhelming motion of no-confidence in him, the NEC has fallen out with him, there is even talk of legal action within the party. Ugly accusations of intimidation, rape, racism, Anti-Semitism and death threats swirl around. There is talk of de-selecting those MPs who do not follow the line laid down by the leadership. All in all, it is an atmosphere of crisis and chaos.

There are a myriad of explanations of the origins and aims of the Corbyn phenomenon. I don't intend to go into them here, as I'm not entirely sure what I think about all of these ideas.

But what I do know is that Corbyn has failed to fulfill his responsibilities as the leader of the Labour Party. The Labour Party Rule Book says that:

The Leader shall, as a member of the NEC, uphold and enforce the constitution, rules and standing orders of the Party and ensure the maintenance and development of an effective political Labour Party in parliament and in the country.  

In the year since Corbyn became leader, Labour has effectively ceased to operate as the Official Opposition. They are trailing the Tories in the opinion polls. Sluggish local election results show that the party is not heading back to power any time soon. The party is riven with internal dissent, much of which has been expressed in abhorrent language and attitudes. There is no way that what is going on can be described as "the maintenance and development of an effective political Labour Party in parliament and in the country."

Under these circumstances, the survival of Labour as a parliamentary force is in grave doubt. The current party leadership has to assume its share of the blame for this appalling state of affairs.

The strange thing is, Labour is reasonably united on policy. Corbyn has introduced no radical departures from the platform on which Ed Miliband stood last May. For all the cries of 'Blairite' to try and smear Corbyn's opponents, there are not many die-hard Blairites left, and certainly not much of his policy agenda remains. If there is an election in the autumn of spring, the shape of the manifesto isn't hard to guess. Whoever the leader was, they would be espousing many of the same ideas.

So it is not on policy grounds that I believe that Jeremy Corbyn should go. The job of the Labour leader is to lead Labour to a parliamentary victory, so it can use the powers of the state to advance the interests of the left, in helping those people who need it the most. Corbyn has shown himself unwilling or unable to do this via the ballot box.  For the sake of everyone who believes in left wing ideas, Labour needs to find someone who is willing and able.

P.S. After I had written this, Corbyn declared over the weekend that he sees himself as the leader of a social movement. I actually think he'd be really good at that. If he has indeed chosen to pursue that path, that is fine. But it is not compatible with being the leader of a political party where the job description commits you to fighting and winning Parliamentary elections. The choice before Labour is even starker than ever.