Why does Labour conference feel so even-tempered so far? In previous years the answer would be that it has been stage-managed to the hilt and all frontbenchers programmed with the lines to take. But this year the party’s conference strapline is ‘Straight talking. Honest politics’ and frontbenchers aren’t being sent daily lines to take, so even if they wanted to be on message, they couldn’t be.
Of course, those frontbenchers are enjoying telling fringes that they take one view while their leader takes another, but what’s still remarkable about this conference is how good natured all the fringe meetings have been after a vicious leadership contest. Those running were abused endlessly online, as were activists who dared stray from the Corbyn line. Those twitter trolls with Corbyn logos on their avatars are either not as good at making their views known in person as they are when hidden behind a computer screen, or else they’re not actually at the Labour conference. Even fringe meetings where people express views that are contrary to the party line haven’t featured the gasps and booing that accompanied some of Liz Kendall’s statements during the leadership campaign.
So what’s going on? The frontbenchers aren’t on message in the usual sense of the phrase, but Corbyn is clearly very keen that his overall theme of this conference is one of mild consensus, rather than behind-the-scenes infighting. So this allows them to look as though they are enjoying themselves.
But what’s also probably going on is that the two different tribes of Labour activist aren’t really mixing. The Corbynites are flooding anti-austerity fringes, which are all oversubscribed and having to turn people away. And the moderates/Blairites/centrists/whatever you want to call them are also flooding fringes where their defeated faction has a collective moan and tries to work out what to do next. Those fringes are also oversubscribed: a Labour First event had to move into the street yesterday because so many people had turned up. If you’re pro-Corbyn, why would you want to choose a Blairite event when at the very same time a rally with some of your favourite frontbenchers is taking place? And if you’re a Blairite, why would you go to the rally against austerity when you can also attend an event with your favourite former frontbenchers? You need two materials to rub against one another for there to be friction: if they are kept separate then all seems calm.
This doesn’t, by the way, mean that the two rough groups within the party (and they are very roughly defined groups, as some who supported Andy Burnham, for instance, are still thrilled that Jeremy Corbyn is leader, and there are many different types of ‘moderate’ Labour members) will get along splendidly for the next five years (or maybe even for the rest of conference).
The biggest point of friction so far has been John McDonnell’s call to those who stepped away from shadow ministerial roles to ‘come back’. Corbynites read this as a call for unity and solidarity. But some of the frontbenchers in question feel rather less sympathetic. They feel it suggests that not agreeing to join the frontbench now means you are not properly Labour. And others point out that they weren’t actually asked to serve as shadow ministers, either, so it’s not technically their fault that they’re not there. Others still wonder how those who did agree to frontbench service feel, given the implication of McDonnell’s comments is that the current line-up is lacking.
It may be that those who believe Corbyn is an electoral danger for Labour will be the first to break the good-natured atmosphere in the party once they decide that his huge mandate has run out. Or it may be that Corbyn and McDonnell press a stronger version of the ‘come back’ point to the extent that those who didn’t end up on the frontbench for one reason or another start to feel seriously hacked off. Either way, the chances are that there will be rougher patches than this.
Comments