The racists have lost: Britain has risen above patronising portrayals of identity

Race, crime and the media: an essay.

Part One: Alan thinks rather too much about David Starkey

On 12 August 2011, Newsnight covered the riots that had swept Britain that month, and invited three guests - the historian David Starkey, the journalist Owen Jones, and the author Dreda Say Mitchell, to discuss them. The exchange would spark outrage from the public, the media and front bench politicians, and would arguably end Starkey's broadcasting career. You can’t view the whole thing on YouTube, but to be honest you're better off watching him lay down some deep bars in this remix.

These were the words which caused such a kerfuffle: "I've just been re-reading Enoch Powell," Starkey said. "His prophecy was absolutely right in one sense. The Tiber didn't foam with blood, but flames lambent wrapped round Tottenham and wrapped round Clapham. But it wasn't inter-community violence. This is where he was absolutely wrong."

Then he gestured towards Owen Jones: "What has happened is that a substantial section of the ‘chavs’ that you wrote about have [sic] become black. The whites have become black. A particular sort of violent, destructive, nihilistic, gangster culture has become the fashion. And black and white, boy and girl, operate in this language together, this language which is wholly false, which is this Jamaican patois that's been intruded in England, and this is why so many of us have this sense of literally a foreign country." I’m not going to analyse whether or not Starkey’s a racist. Most people will have a view either way and mine’s no more interesting. I will argue, however, that he’s guilty of two serious crimes for an academic: poor expression and sloppy thinking. The poor expression is obvious. His words imply a simple dichotomy between black and white, as if the first is "destructive" and serves only to infect the other. In fact, he was trying to describe something he saw as a minority sub-culture - black in origin, but subsequently adopted by a minority across the skin colour spectrum. And this diagnosis is at best simplistic and at worse utter arseclap.

The implication was that this "nihilistic gangster culture" was directly responsible for the scenes we saw on our streets that month. As you've seen, he'd go on to cite gangster rap lyrics, and very unintentionally amusing it was too. Now this is where I do have some insight. I’ve spent a lot of time with kids in gangs, and rap just ain’t that big a deal for many of them. “Who listens to studio gangsters?” one once said to me. Now this is a cheap point (of course there are plenty who do like it), but it leads to a serious question: what, exactly, is the “gangster culture” Starkey’s talking about? Because he doesn't define it in any detail, simply conjoining slang language with violent lyrics. Cultures are often a lot more nebulous that they appear.

Is this about violent films? Is, say, the violence in the latest Die Hard better because that’s a white dude killing terrorists whereas something like Kidulthood’s bad because it’s closer to home, even if it shows violence in a less positive light? Or is it about the music? Is Dizzee Rascal a bad influence when he talks about being a black guy doing street robberies and if so does that cancel out the verses he has about trying to live a positive life? Does Pac count when he’s rapping about his mum? Do kids even listen to Biggie these days? Or maybe this is about slang language - but then there are thousands of kids in London who talk the way Starkey’s describing and don't break the law.

Here’s a theory - maybe the “culture" exists as a subjective intersection of all these things, and because we adults who debate this stuff aren’t the primary consumers, we don’t really understand which of them’s important, and how much influence (if any) they have. But you know what? Let’s cut Starkey a break. Let’s pretend that we do know exactly what he’s talking about: “Weeell…it’s that bling bling and rappers round the back of the Corn Exchange (pace S Lee) and shanks and and Justin Bieber getting tattoos. Stop the negative films and music, stop the violence. (Gordon Ramsay glare). DONE.”

Fine. But now we have to consider this old chestnut: "To what extent can cultural products - art, language etc - be said to influence the behaviour of those who consume them, and to what extent are they merely a reflection of pre-existing behaviour?" On the one hand, you have Model A: The simplification that a bunch of white guys in the Middle Ages read the Bible, went to the Holy Land and killed some less white guys. Model B seems more believable: the fact we were stoving each other's faces in with clubs long before the Anglo Saxon poets started dropping rhymes about it. And if you look at art that concerns itself with violence, it's often saying how much said violence sucks. Certainly true of hip hop, if not Anglo Saxon poetry.

Now if you've got art out there that glorifies and/or justifies violence, of course it's unhelpful – but you’ve got to ask how powerful its impact is, and more importantly, why. As a teen I listened to Warren G non-stop back in Southsea circa 1993, and hardly regulated anyone. Yes, it’s more likely to affect the kid living in an estate full of gunmen, but you know what? I just don’t know if it’s the biggest pressure on him in terms of committing crime. So let’s look at areas where there’s a lot of it.

Part Two: Alan annoys the racist middle-aged white guys who comment on his blogs

There’s always been violence in our cities. It was there before the first black immigrants came here, it was there when their kids were born, and it was there when their kids were born. If you look at crime figures – you’ll see a slow, gradual increase – and big spikes in certain areas - throughout the latter half of the Twentieth Century.

"Aha!" Pipes up the racist middle aged moron who perpetually infests my blog comments. "But those areas have something else in common don't they? A whole bunch of black people living in them. Have you not considered that the biggest factor might be something in their nature?"

And here's the problem. You can't tell this soulless goon he's flat-out wrong, because black people are over-represented in the criminal justice system. But the problem is, he's sliced the statistical cake in a certain way, such that he can see a gooey layer of jam that proves his point, but he can't see the five layers of sponge behind it which don't. We have a problem which affects countries across the developed world where there's been an element of ghettoisation. Over the last 30 years, some of us have got richer and some of us have got left behind, and due to the fact that poverty is self perpetuating, and successive iffy housing policies, the people who got left behind have moved geographically closer.

The areas in which they've been congregated have been areas where the amount of crime has gone up. Now in London, Birmingham and Manchester, many of those areas have tended to be high in immigrants. But here's the really important fact: in those areas of the country where white people got left behind, you see exactly the same crime rates and attendant culture. There's a reason when I was researching youth violence that I spoke to white kids in Grimsby rather than black kids in Oxford, and it wasn't that I like the Transpennine Express.

Exhibit A: have a look at this video. It's about gangs in Wythernshawe, and features the kid who famously made a gun sign at David Cameron. There's been violence here for years. But black people? Not so many. Likewise, you get beaten up in Croxteth, you got your beats from a white dude. Same for Bermondsey, and so on. For what it's worth, if a cap gets popped in your ass around Brick Lane, I'm putting money on the fact a Bengali did it. And if you're going to get killed in the UK, the chances are you got stabbed by a Caucasian, because that’s how most violent murders happen in this country.

But in London almost half of all people in poverty are from BME backgrounds. Our media is Londoncentric. Our crime coverage is Londoncentric. QED. There's a really, really stupid school of thought that says the large number of young white criminals outside the capital is somehow still the fault of "black culture" - that these guys picked up a rap CD or watched The Fresh Prince of Bel Air or whatever the hell its proponents think black culture is and decided to start stabbing each other; but that ignores decades of poverty, unemployment and poor educational standards, and I just struggle to buy it. What I'm saying is David Starkey put the cart before the horse - in fact, he put one of the apples that was in the cart in front of the horse, and expected it to drag the horse, the cart and decades of socioeconomic problems all the way through a Newsnight appearance.

And there's one other thing about all this, which is that over the years the media has messed up our perspective of crime. Look at black gun crime, which we all know is a big deal, right? There were 39 gun homicides – white and black – across the country last year. Now admittedly it’s come down, but that leaves roughly 1.8 million (minus, assuming the distribution’s remained the same, about 20) black people across the country whose biggest worry last year was probably getting Olympic tickets. And what about something really big, like the riots? What do they say about our society? Is it collapsing? Well, there were nearly 2,000 rioters brought before the courts, of which just under half were black. So yeah, there’s over-representation there, but there’s also getting on for a couple mil black people barricading their front door and hiding under their bed just like I didn't.

I'm not pretending violent crime and gangs aren't a huge deal for some people in some areas - after all, I've written a book about it - I'm just saying that it's a geographically specific problem, and if you're going to claim it's entirely due to elements of black culture you may as well start saying that murderous GPs or celebrity paedophiles are the result of elements of white culture: there may be smaller risk and protective factors at play buried away in terms of how people act (absent fathers the one to which the media most often turns), but it's a reductio ad absurdum.

Part Three: Alan fails to check his privilege; probably pisses everyone else off

I think the saddest thing about the above argument is that a whole bunch of black people have bought a different narrative, and I think a whole bunch of well-meaning white people have helped sell it to them. I want to turn my attention to the baby-faced firebrand sitting opposite Starkey: Mr Owen Jones.

Now, I feel bad picking on a small time journo like Jones who's clearly struggling to make a name for himself, but that guy was sitting in the wrong place at the wrong time, and I speak as someone with a pretty illustrious history in this regard. He'd later admit he was "paralysed" by Starkey's words - in the video you can hear him stammering something about how black people have made a big musical contribution, which isn’t what you’d call a zinging comeback.

In a series of follow up pieces the next year, Jones visited areas that were hit by the riots. It was largely a good series. But I was struck by the way he started it. The first man quoted in his opening piece is a guy called Stafford Scott, "a race advocacy worker and a friend of [Mark Duggan's] family for nearly 30 years.” Scott’s beef is that “We still don’t know what happened” with regard to Duggan. Later on, he talks to Jones about being arrested under Sus laws in the 1980s, and about the persecution black kids feel due to constant stop and searches.

I’ve never met Scott, but I’ve heard him talk: he’s an impressive guy who's had to put up with some terrible shit as a black Londoner living in the period he has. A lot of cops in the 80s were racist thugs. And a minority of them still are, according to friends I have in the force. But if you’re a left wing hack and you go to a guy like that straight off the bat, you’re setting your parameters pretty early.

No doubt Jones was influenced by the findings of the Guardian’s “Reading the Riots” survey. I was always worried about this one. Journalistic ethics and academic ethics just aren’t comfortable bedfellows. A decent sociological report into a huge epidemic wouldn’t usually generate a headline. Yet there it was in 24pt bold: Blame the Police: Why the rioters say they took part. You can’t reduce the cause of the riots to police behaviour. Any fool could tell you that.

Of course anger at bad policing – perceived or real – was a factor. And you don’t have to read far down the front splash before you see – shock horror – the report found it was just one among many. I suppose the Guardian would argue that the extent to which anger at the police was a factor is an important story. But they’re missing the point. Of course there are too many stop and searches, insensitively carried out, often by young officers or the Territorial Support Group, and they’re humiliating and frustrating for those upon whom they’re imposed. But the thing is, there are cops out there who do understand the needs of the communities within which they work – who are, believe it or not, at least respected by the kids. I know it for a fact. The ‘police’ in that report seemed to be one homogeneous, racist, brutal mass – the “biggest gang” (a line which has been used since, ooh, at least 1990).

The rage at the cops that the researchers’ interviewees are talking about was a symptom of a much bigger, less dramatic malaise, one which usually doesn’t manifest itself in smashed shops and burning buildings. During another debate on Newsnight (5th Dec), Nick Herbert MP said it was hardly surprising the rioters didn’t like the cops – 75% of them had committed crime before. This reading likewise skirted round the biggest factor: the dissociation from mainstream society which happens when areas become ghettoised – when high crime, poverty and welfare dependency become clustered.

You see it all the time if you’re involved in any kind of social work in these areas, and whatever colour most people are, it's the same shit in a different bucket. You see it in the mum telling the council social worker to fuck off; in the dad telling his son he should never snitch or bother going to school. You see it everywhere from Brixton to Salford. These people aren’t rioters or even criminals – but they feel hugely distanced from mainstream society. Riots – and gangs for that matter – are just patterns of behaviour which form the deepest shades on that spectrum - a spectrum that doesn’t care for skin tone. Oh, and there’s the other problem: “racist police” is a much easier answer to give than “I just got caught up in the excitement.”

You can do all the research you want, but if you choose to take a simplistic line on something like this, it’ll get the sanctimonious, clueless big mouths on the right a-huffing and a-puffing, it’ll be lapped up by the ratchet-jawed gasbags on the left who see the conclusions they wanted to see, and all you’ve created is a whole load of artificial racial division that doesn't need to be there.

I'm sick of hearing white middle class hacks in the left-wing media talk about the "black community" like it's one of those alien races that turns up at the Federation AGMs in Star Wars with whichever “community leader” is flavour of the week sitting in one of those pods as its representative. I know for damn sure that some of these guys do NOT speak for everyone in their area (memories here of a well-known "leader" who was always on the local news mouthing off about the cops, while his son was a leader of one of the worst gangs in South London: buddy, if you’re the answer, we’ve really got to think about the problem).

The trouble is, it’s pretty attractive, this vision of black Britain. Or is when you consider the media’s alternative - you know, the “bravery” of occasional Millwall forum contributor Rod Liddle, who blubs about the overrepresentation of black people in the criminal justice system but offers no context whatsoever, just a nod and wink as to why all this might be the case.

It’s a nasty little pincer move; stuck between the choice of perpetrators or victims. It means the media portrayal of the black “community’s” concerns have in recent years ended up set by a few vested interests and some middle class white men who know nothing about their lives (remind me how many black journalists are on newsdesks again). In fact, the reality - whether it’s in arts centres, schools or sports clubs, is a lot more positive. The version we see in the left wing media is less a movement and more misery porn for the coffee shops of Crouch End. What’s that - I’m preaching myself? Well, that makes a change. At least I’m admitting it.

Part Four: Hello young people

And all this patronising bullshit causes endless self-flagellation from black teachers and writers: why are black kids struggling at school and ending up in prison? What are the cultural factors? What about absent fathers? Is the education system racist? What IS to be done? Where’s Katharine Birbalsingh when you need her?

Look, I'm not saying we need to ignore these questions. But I'm pretty certain that my first answer is exactly the same as it would be for the rough ends of Liverpool, Portsmouth and Newcastle: society needs to get fairer. Wage differentials need to be decreased and the quality of state education for kids in poor areas needs to improve. All those other questions are worth asking, but if you prioritise them over those two main ones, I worry you're doing the same thing Starkey did with that apple.

You know the funny thing about all this? I’m talking a lot about poverty and misery, but I’m trying to put out a positive message. You realise what’s happening in our society? We’re getting each other, more and more, day by day, making connections at a rate that’s never been seen before, understanding where each of us is coming from a little better - and a big part of that is social media. Day by day the internet’s bringing home to us exactly how much we can multi-task in terms of our identities. If you do want to be a member of the “black community”, it doesn’t stop you being friends with some ponce from the New Statesman in another tab and posting on the Coldplay message board in another. We can be all these people at once, and it pisses off people who for various reasons would rather the differences between us were emphasised.

They loved the riots. They could say: “we were right”. They don’t speak for the face Britain presented to the world at the Olympics, they don’t speak for most young people, and they sure as hell don’t speak for me. Over the course of the next few weeks I’ll be hanging out with a black girl who acts like a diva, some Australian guys who can’t handle their beer, a Polish guy with a tiny dick and any number of other friends I could wind up by describing without naming them. That’s my community. That’s just how it is for most Londoners in this day and age. It’s fine.

And that’s what upsets the racists who love to come to my blog and kick up a stink: the fact they, and their bitter little prejudices, are dying. So if you’re young, black, white, maybe eggshell and cinnamon, grab your friend, whatever colour he or she is, and step out into the sunlight. You are beautiful, and this is water.

 

A woman walks past a broken cafe window in Clapham Junction after the 2011 riots. Photograph: Getty Images

Alan White's work has appeared in the Observer, Times, Private Eye, The National and the TLS. As John Heale, he is the author of One Blood: Inside Britain's Gang Culture.

Hulton Archive/Getty Images
Show Hide image

Roy Hattersley: Labour is far closer to extinction now than in the 1980s

 If the takeover of the party by the far-left succeeds there will be no opportunity to rescue it from the wilder shores of socialism, says the former deputy leader.

The comparison with the Eighties is irresistible but misconceived. Labour is far closer to extinction as a major party than it was 35 years ago. That is not because Jeremy Corbyn is incapable of leading the party to victory — although he is. Nor is it because his supporters threaten the political assassination of anyone who says so — although they do. It is because, for the first time in its history, Labour is in real danger of a permanent domination by the unrepresentative and unelectable left.

All the other regular crises in the party’s history — German rearmament, nuclear disarmament, the defection of the Gang of Four to found the SPD — were resolved by mistakes being rectified, resolutions reversed and Labour resuming its place in the mainstream of British politics. Nor was there any genuine risk that the infiltrators from the far left would play a decisive part in national policy making. The Militant Tendency controlled municipal politics in Liverpool and attempted, with mixed success, to unseat vulnerable mainstream MP’s. But there was no possibility of them subverting the whole party. Now the far left operating through Momentum  aspires to make a decisive, and irreversible shift in Labour’s core ideology by initiating a purge of mainstream Labour MPs and a cull of headquarters office staff, reducing the part that the parliamentary party plays in choosing the leader and making the election manifesto the preserve of the annual conference. If the putsch — described by its instigators as an extension of party democracy — succeeds, there will be no opportunity for a latter day Neil Kinnock to rescue Labour from the wilder shores of socialism and the odds on its survival lengthen.

The crisis could have been averted. The parliamentary party  with the exception of a handful of residual Blairites  is ready for some sort of compromise. That is why, three weeks ago, it gave its overwhelming support to the proposal that the shadow cabinet should be elected by Labour MPs rather than chosen by the leader. The change was intended to allow an honourable return to the front bench for the shadow ministers who resigned in the spring. As a move towards unity, it is no more than papering over the cracks but better that than gaping fractures. Although Corbyn had neither the sense nor the grace immediately to accept the gesture of conciliation, the choice between an uneasy peace and continued guerrilla warfare still lies with him. If — as his victory speech suggests — he regards last Saturday’s victory as a mandate to impose his sectarian will on the party, the battle is likely end with mutual self-destruction.

Even if Jeremy Corbin succeeds in his attempts to create a permanent far-left hegemony, the Labour Party is unlikely to split as it did 30 years ago . The fate of the SDP — absorption into a Liberal Party which kept the Tory-led coalition in office or defiant independence that ended in the ignominy of polling fewer by-election votes than the Monster Raving Loony Party — has dampened enthusiasm for a breakaway movement. Nor are there charismatic potential leaders who stand ready to lead their followers into battle in the way that Roy Jenkins and David Owen (the Fidel Castro and Che Guevara of social democracy) marched a dozen Labour MPs into the valley of political death. But a futile attempt to form a new party would at least imply the hope of some sort ofresurrection. The more likely outcome would be the product of pure despair — the parliamentary Labour party would not divide and instead would begin slowly to disintegrate.

If the worst happens some Labour MPs will suddenly discover previously undetected virtues in Corbyn and Corbynism and line up behind him. Others will grow weary of being abused by local extremists and fade away. Contrary to public opinion, most MPs could earn more from less demanding jobs outside parliament. The politically dedicated, determined to be candidates in the next election, will accept the challenge of reselection. More will succeed than fail, but the harm to the party’s reputation will be immense.

One feature of the 1980 desertion will certainly be replicated. When the Gang of Four defected, the damage done by the loss of glamorous leadership was more than matched by the loss of hard working membership. If Labour MPs begin to believe that the battle for reason and recovery is no longer worth fighting the disenchantment will become infectious. Jeremy Corbyn’s devotees would still turn out for the rallies. But the enthusiasm with which they would tramp the streets on rainy nights, or spend boring weekends telephoning target voters, is in doubt. Reliance on the notion that the election can be won online is the refuge of politicians who either have not identified or do not understand the floating voters.

The haemorrhage has already begun — increased by the behaviour of recently recruited Corbynites who do not seem to have heard that their hero has an olive tree outside his office door. All over the country they are bullying and filibustering their way into the control of local parties — excoriating mainstream members, manipulating the rules of debate and postponing votes until late in the evening. Of course, the men and women who oppose them could play the same game. But they are, by their nature, reasonable people and they want to lead reasonable lives. That is why they represent the sort of Labour Party with which voters can identify. 

Unfortunately, many of the Labour MPs who should have led the campaign to recreate an electable party have spent the last year either sulking or complaining. They have been anti Corbyn but pro very little. Owen Smith’s leadership campaign ended in disaster not because of the size of the incumbent’s votes but because of the challenger’s failure to set out an alternative vision of the society that socialists hope to create. Angela Eagle would have won fewer votes, but she would come closer to reassuring party members that "moderates" (a deadening description which should be abandoned) have principles and policies. A campaign that relied on nothing except the obvious truth that Jeremy Corbyn would lead Labour to defeat was doomed from the start. A majority of the party members who joined before 2015 voted for Smith. Think of how many more would have done the same had he offered them more to vote for than disapproval of his opponent.

Corbyn, and many of the Corbynites, are unmoved by the evidence that they are heading straight to defeat. That is, in part, because Corbyn himself is in what psychiatrists call “total denial.” There were times last year when he seemed to be implementing a carefully coordinated plan to alienate all the middle-of-road voters on whose support a Labour victory depends. He has proposed the unilateral abandonment of the British nuclear deterrent, refused to back Britain’s continued membership of the European Single Market and defended his historic association with apologists for terrorism — all items on the curriculum vitae of a Labour leader who might have been invented by Conservative Central Office. No political leader in British history has been so careless about his party’s prospects at the ballot box. But that is only one of the reasons why the threat of defeat will do little to halt the party's leftward gallop.

There is, within the ranks of Corbyn supporters, a substantial number of activists who — since they do not believe that parliamentary democracy can create the socialist Utopia of their dreams — regard the election of a Labour Government as an irrelevance. Indeed they believe that a prolonged period of Tory misrule will bring forward the day when a spontaneous uprising will herald the new dawn. It is near to inconceivable that Corbyn believes in such millenarian nonsense. But he appear to subscribe to the equally fatuous view that the first task is to make Labour a genuinely socialist party and that winning elections can wait until it is accomplished.

That is clearly the view of those correspondents to the New Statesman who complain about Corbyn’s critics obsession with what they call “electablity”. It is easy for their cynics to sneer about putting power before principle, but winning is a matter of principle too. Labour exists to make those changes in society which can only be achieved in power. In 2016 the fight — to quote the former Labour leader Hugh Gaitskell in 1962 — is less about saving “the party we love” than about rescuing the nation from long years of  Tory bigotry. To behave in a way which diminishes — indeed for a time extinguishes — Labour’s chance of fulfilling its historic purpose is worse than self indulgent. It is betrayal.

There are major figures in the current drama of the Labour Party whose attitude towards the prospect of government is both inexcusable and incomprehensible. Chief among them is Len McCluskey, the general secretary of Unite and a man whose every bombastic television appearance is worth thousands of votes to the Tories. The members he represents have the strongest possible vested interest in a Labour victory at the next election. Yet many of his policies and pronouncements — particularly his risibly unsuccessful attempts to bully MPs into supporting Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership — contribute to the Conservatives’ opinion poll lead and increases the danger of massive defeat at the next election turning into total destruction.

Anyone who doubts that Labour could be reduced to the status of the Liberal Democrats or the Greens — struggling for influence without even hoping for power — should be sent to canvas for the party in Scotland. But the near oblivion north of the border is not yet inevitable in the south. Recovery will take time and before Labour can begin effectively to deal with the challenges from outside the party it must struggle back into the mainstream of politics — a process which has to begin with an acceptance that Jeremy Corbyn’s first election was more than a combination of the Peasants’ Revolt and the Children’s Crusade. For many of the men and women who voted for the first time in 2015 his victory represented the end of a decade of disillusion. At first they had felt no more than disappointment at opportunities that successive Blair Governments missed — their delight in the landslide victory of 1997 fading away until it was finally extinguished on the battlefields of Iraq.

The Peak District village in which I live is home to more Labour party members than the tourists may imagine. Two of them  —  a retired bank manager and an emeritus professor of cardiac surgery — voted for Corbyn in 2015. In part they were motivated by a desire to “give socialism a chance for once.” But they also thought that they were drawing a line under the years of “the third way” and triangulation. New Labour, in which they had once devoutly believed, had come to mean private enterprise edging its way into the health service, the surreptitious extension of secondary selection and light regulation of the City of London. Jeremy Corbyn, like the Scottish National Party, has much to thank Tony Blair for.

For some people Jeremy Corbyn was, like Donald Trump and Marine LePen, a welcome alternative to the politics of the establishment. To many more he was, by the very nature of his unelectability, the antidote to the opportunism which they (wrongly) believe characterises life in Westminster. Now, a mainstream candidate for the Labour leadership will have to make clear that they are guided not by opinion polls but by a vision of a new and better society. The next leader must concentrate every nerve and sinew on winning, but they must have faith in their ability to carry the country for reasonable revolution.

Unfortunately the members of the Labour mainstream are notoriously reticent about  discussing first principles. They find talk of “the vision thing” embarrassing and believe that the task which faces them is too obvious to need justification by any “fancy theories.” Yet there is a great body of work — by the likes of TH Green, RH Tawney. Anthony Crosland and John Rawls — which set out the theory of democratic socialism and descriptions of why it is especially relevant today – Joseph E Stiglitz’s The Price of Inequality and The Spirit Level by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett — abound. The recovery of reason has to begin with Chukka Umuuna explaining the virtues of equality, Yvette Cooper describing Britain’s obligations to the developing world and Dan Jarvis defining the role of the state in protecting the weak against the strong. Or any of them talking about what they stand for instead of assuming that their convictions are taken for granted. The Daily Mail might not report their speeches, but moderate party members will treat the related Fabian Society pamphlets like water in the desert.

If, as they must, the reasonable majority of Labour MPs choose to stay and fight, they have to organise — inside the parliamentary party and, more importantly in the constituencies. I have spent much recent time insisting, to sceptical friends that the occupants of the opposition back benches are as competent and committed as were members of any of the governments, or shadow governments, in which I served. But I do not even try to argue that they are as active as my contemporaries once were in reclaiming the party. Success and survival depends on the constant demonstration that reasonable radicals still have a home in the Labour Party.  

One refugee from Corbyn’s original shadow cabinet assured me that like-minded Labour MPs do occasionally meet. When I asked what they discussed, I was told that they “wait for something to turn up.” But, something will only turn up if it is prepared and promoted by the men and women who have the courage and commitment to lead Labour out of the wilderness. The journey will be long and hard and there can be no guarantee of arrival at the desired destination. But those of us who believe that Labour can still provide the best prospect of a more equal society have to begin the trek toward the promised land — and we need to set out straight away.

Roy Hattersley was deputy leader of the Labour Party from 1983 to 1992.