Where is the Labour Party's messiah?

The depressing truth is that only a uniquely charismatic leader can unite the left’s warring tribes and lead them out of the wilderness. The hard part is finding someone who fits the bill [Image]( [I'm an image]( Where is the Labour Party's messiah? The depressing truth is that only a uniquely charismatic leader can unite the left’s warring tribes and lead them out of the wilderness. The hard part is finding someone who fits the bill George Chesterton Owen Jones’ favourite word is “war”. The writer is always banging on about the Tories declaring war on someone or the need for [Labour]( to go to war over this or that. Trouble is, the real war is the one that’s been going on in the Labour movement for the past century between social democrats and democratic socialists. [Labour]( is a quasi-religious movement and that’s what makes it attractive. But it’s also why its incivility and moral contortion look set to go on longer than that of the Plantagenets and the Valois. Since 1945 Labour has been buffeted by the conflicts between supporters of Hugh Gaitskell and Aneurin Bevan, then Denis Healey and Tony Benn, then Neil Kinnock and Militant and today a rudderless coalition of centrists against embittered and biblical-sounding Corbynites. Labour has only been able to win when a figure emerges who can, mostly through force of personality, bring both sides together. No one but Harold Wilson and Tony Blair has achieved this. The unfashionable and perhaps unpalatable truth is that even with coherent policies, what Labour really needs is another messiah. In Jones’ Manichean world, good and evil are definable and observable. Regrettably, for far too many in the Labour movement, the things that make winning possible – discipline, coherence, unity – are on the side of the devil. Jones does not appear to see the irony of condemning those he does not like as factionalist, while his current favourite tactic is to attempt to make the label “centrist” convey the monomaniacal malevolence of Pol Pot. He even wrote [an article]( about his regret at Labour’s “internal war” as if he had nothing to do with it (apparently, it was down to a misunderstanding over anti-Semitism, including the hit line, “Corbyn’s personal distress at being labelled a racist led him to make poor decisions on anti-Semitism”). Once again, Labour figures are arguing among themselves about their proclivity to argue among themselves. Holding Batley and Spen in a by-election doesn't really change anything either, other than preventing the latest attempt at political masochism by a handful of delusional dingbat MPs. Now it’s [Keir Starmer](’s turn to face the heresy charges of the left. He takes his place in the lineage of Labour leaders who, upon assuming control of the party, find half of his own side loathe him. It’s all very confusing. Corbyn was disliked by the Labour right for his unreconstructed, union-backed radicalism, but was, of course, an avowedly middle-class elitist who alienated working-class voters. Starmer is now disliked by the left for being too middle-class and centrist, though he is less middle-class than Corbyn but in danger of alienating everyone. When the Labour right complained that Corbyn was incompetent, the left said that didn’t matter (I had actual conversations in which Corbyn supporters assured me competence was irrelevant). Now the left say Starmer can’t win because he’s not like Corbyn, who, as we know, is a role model for winners everywhere. Starmer appears a very intelligent, sincere man with years of public service behind him. What he lacks most obviously is the winning charisma and sense of power-in-waiting that defines transformative opposition leaders. The current self-flagellation concerns the question “What does Labour stand for?”, a brain-scrambler that allows enough empty space for both sides to continue their enmity without end. The debate is important. It obviously matters whether Labour has coherent and popular policies or not. It matters if they have discipline, conviction, confidence and unity. But what is so often ignored is that the only way to achieve this is with a leader who personally embodies all these qualities. The movement has got this the wrong way round. You can’t sell good policies with a bad leader. But a great leader can hide a multitude of sins. Find a messiah and the rest will fall into place. Boris Johnson is exhibit A. Find someone (enough) voters actually like. Only a truly exceptional leader can offset Labour’s structural problems in Scotland, the Red Wall, the media and Conservative attempts to twist the electoral system in their favour. Although eyes will roll at the suggestion, Blair is a good place to start when looking for how Labour can win again. When the left say going back to Blairism isn’t the answer they are correct, but they are wrong about not going back to the example of Blair himself. What Labour needs is precisely what Blair provided in 1997 as a personality: self-belief, fearlessness and the ability to reach almost anyone. Blair in 1997 represented the essential correlation between the individual (charisma, communication, positivity) and the movement (unity, discipline, momentum). The leader and the party fed off each other, acknowledging their own responsibilities as they strove for power and all they could potentially achieve. Labour cannot win without a leader who can convince the entire movement to turn a civil war into a crusade. This movement that exists to help others is so bad at helping itself. Blair’s reputation among activists has led not only to suspicion of him and his ideology, but also of charisma and strong leadership, as if anyone as skilful at politics as he was is inherently wrong and untrustworthy. It’s as if being good is now considered incompatible with being Labour. What should that messianic leader do? Fight the government hard on the big stuff. Own compromises. Don't be petty. Combine force with fairness and honesty. Focus on Conservative cronyism and callousness. Position themselves against the animus of the right and the bankrupt puritanism of the hard left. Preach a new politics of the collective good and local activism. Appeal to people’s better natures, not class division or national negativity. Above all, offer a riposte to the helplessness of 21st-century individualism that squats on all our shoulders. It sounds dramatic to use a word such as messiah in politics. It also sounds potentially dangerous. Labour doesn’t need a demagogue. It needs someone who personifies that alchemic mixture of strength and compassion that is the best of the movement. Who that person is and where they can be found is anyone’s guess. Angela Rayner has a certain indomitability, but could never win and hold the centre ground. Andy Burnham might have eyes you can swim in, but I don’t think he can lead Labour to the promised land. Until Labour finds its next messiah, war in the wilderness is all it will know. MORE FROM GQ #[When it comes to politics, predictions are for chumps. But that's what makes it fun]([→](#) #[Ed Miliband: ‘I wish I’d been bolder']([→](#) #[Is Alan B’Stard the new face of the Conservative Party?]([→](#) INTRODUCING... GQ Recommends GQ’s edit of all the best products, deals and launches, from fashion and grooming to tech, home and fitness, delivered straight to your inbox in our new newsletter [SIGN UP NOW]( [Twitter]( [Facebook]( [Youtube]( [Vero]( [Instagram]( [Unsubscribe]( |[View Online]( Queries about this email? Contact datacontroller@condenast.co.uk Condé Nast Publications 1 Hanover Square, London W1S 1JU © The Condé Nast Publications Ltd [Our Privacy Policy](