The Labour Right’s creepy crush on former military men

You’d think that Blairites would be wary of ex-military personnel. After all, Tony Blair unites most War on Terror veterans on one thing only: a deep contempt for Tony Blair. But this isn’t the whole picture when it comes to Labour.

In recent days, ex-special forces soldier-turned-defence minister Alistair Carns has been touted a possible replacement for Keir Starmer. Starmer is currently hanging on to power by a thread after revelations about Peter Mandelson’s friendship with serial child-rapist Jeffrey Epstein.

Someone has even reportedly registered a webpage for Carns’ leadership bid, according to the centrist New Statesman. The paper describes Carns as a “dark horse”, adding that:

Supporters believe that his background as a colonel in the Royal Marines will help Labour win back support it has lost under Starmer.

And this is the key point. It is Carns’ background as a colonel in the Royal Marines that makes him a good shout. Not his commitment to democracy, or ethics in public life, or his values. He may have all of these, but Carns is appealing to some on the basis of his military credentials. That reveals something important which well-meaning socialists may miss about the nature of the Labour Party…

Labour party’s military fetish

Carns’ main draw is the nonsensical view that a former military man could sort out Britain’s political mess.

If I even need to say it again, there is nothing about military service which guarantees someone will be a good MP. At least no more than someone being a good nurse, or binman, or, God forbid, journalist.

I mean…have we already forgotten about Johnny Mercer? And let’s not forget the track record of the British military in Iraq — an abject failure and a stain on Blair and new Labour.

But weird soldier fetishism isn’t new and often rears its head. I first noticed it with Labour security minister Dan Jarvis, a former Parachute Regiment officer who served in Afghanistan.

Jarvis’ military credentials were routinely flaunted as if they qualified him to lead the country — even during the Corbyn days. And almost always by people, including journalists, who’d never worn a uniform.

Now there are all kinds of explanations for this. I enjoy the lowbrow ones. For example, Blairites are basically fantasist dweebs who read too many Andy McNab books. Or perhaps the authoritarian nature of the military appeals to their own Stalinist leanings. Or it could be a residual sense of our own imperial history that makes some  yearn for the power and status which accompanied those times.

These might all be true in part. But I also think that soldier-worshipping holds up a mirror to the Labour Party. It reminds me of a passage in Richard Seymour’s book ‘Corbyn: The Strange Rebirth of Radical Politics‘ (2016).

Seymour asked, at a time when Labour’s future was being fought over, if the Labour Party is Marxist (we can laugh now)? Or is it, as Tony Blair said at the time, built on some sort of dusty English Methodism.

Seymour’s answer is that it was neither:

What seems to have more enduring significance for the distinctive shape and trajectory of the Labour Party is its origins in Victorian Liberalism.

This offers a far better explanation of why the party is so in love with militarism and war. It’s because the party is still operating on Windows 1870.

Seymour goes on:

In fact, whatever else changed about the Labour Party in this era, one of its abiding attributes was to be the priority it accorded to the interests of the ‘nation’, and the deference it accorded to extant constitutional arrangements and military commitments.

He adds that:

Those Labour MPs who, today, find simply unthinkable the break-up of the United Kingdom, the repudiation of Trident, and the end of the ‘special relationship’ with the United States, are in fact authentic legatees of their party’s traditions.

The truth is, Starmer and his allies, are right in their assessment that the Labour Party — a militarist party of capital and empire — is theirs by right. And with this in mind, why wouldn’t centrists get excited about Carns as a candidate?

While it might seem a little out of date, that book is worth picking up ten years on. Because it leaves you in no doubt that the Labour Party was never ours to begin with. And, in all honesty, given it is wedded to empire to the degree that it is, why the hell would you even want it anyway?

Featured image via the Canary