Can the forward march of Labour be restarted?

.

The situation that the left finds itself in after the defeat of the McDonnell bid for the Labour leadership is a complex one. A bit of a debate has broken out about this around a statement issued by Socialist Resistance (SR) This was published on Liam Mac Uaid’s blog :

The key passage is: “McDonnell’s defeat throws the Labour left into serious crisis. No spin can hide it. The project of reclaiming the Labour or the idea that the Labour Party is a fruitful arena for the left to work in have been dealt a devastating blow.

“All this has implication for Respect, which should be taking the initiative to open or re-open a dialogue with those on the left who are currently not in Respect as to how they see the way forward.

“The Morning Star and the CPB are a case in point. They are likley to find it increasingly difficult to cling to a policy of reclaiming Labour. Apparently a new discussion has already opened up on this internally in the CPB. The Morning Star had already called a conference in June on “Politics After Blair” at which the issue will now be unavoidable.

“But Respect needs to be open and flexible in this situation to any new forces from the Morning Star or the trade union left. It should do whatever is necessary to ensure that new forces have space to make their influence felt. If it can do this it could break it out of its current impasse and open up a new stage of development.
“Respect’s task in this process is to turn the tide of politics back towards the left. Rebuild ideological and practical opposition to the market. Work with the left in the unions to build an independent pluralist left alternative alongside the struggle to regenerate the unions and rebuild trade union strength and organisation.”

To which I posted a comment to the effect that SR are making two mistakes: i) in not understanding that Respect is not a vehicle around which left unity can be built; and less explicably ii) that SR seem to completely fail to understand the political perspective of the CP.

I concluded my initial remarks by saying that currently “the building blocks for any serious alternative to Labour are utterly absent, but where the situation isn't hopeless either.”

Given the undemocratic manoeuvrings in and around Respect, the media galavanting of George Galloway, and the dispersal of the layer of left social democrats who had aggregated around the Socialist Alliance in various parts of the country, then I would characterise Respect thus: “Who is Respect? Galloway or the SWP? Anyone else? Will either of those forces play the productive role you are calling on them to play? If there is no actually existing force within Respect who will steer the organisation to play the role you think it could play, then how could it happen?

“Even were the SWP or Galloway to have a damascene conversion, would anyone on the activist left trust them? No-one is going to join Respect, or particularly want to work with them. The whole project is basically an embarrassment now.

“If we are looking for a left unity project, then we have missed the boat. The wave of left activists who left the labour party after Clause IV and over the Iraq war could have been attracted to an organisation that respected labour movement norms of behaviour. But were never going to be attracted to respect.”

SR are utterly self delusioonal if they believe that the CP or any significant left from the unions would touch Respect with a barge. Even were the Political Committee of the CP so minded, and I have no reason to think they are, then the membership would probably not agree to it.

The failure of McDonnell’s campaign has produced unhelpful knee-jerk reactions from Respect and the Socialist Party that the Labour Left should join them in their equally unsuccessful campaigns outside the Labour party. They remind me of the mayor of Amity, swearing that the water is safe. For example Thornett writes: "It¹s right to say to the Labour left, and those like the CPB (and some of the trade union left) who have clung to a Reclaim Labour policy for so long that after the McDonnell collapse the only rational conclusion in the cold light of day is that the Labour left has no useful future in the Labour party. There is no point in saying anything else."

In fact this approach is completely misguided. Instead of looking at whether we can reconstitute the greatly diminished left around already flawed projects, we need to take stock of the current political situation.

The overwhelming features are i) that the right within the Labour Party are utterly triumphant, and their victory is structurally irreversible. ii) The Labour party has failed to make the same shift to the right with its electoral base – the enduring progressive and social democratic attitudes of labour voters was well described recently on the SWP blog, Lenin’s Tomb ; iii) that the far left have failed to break that progressive base away from electoral loyalty to the Labour party; iv) the unions – on the whole - maintain ideological and political opposition to New Labour values, as can be seen by the way the unions make the running in opposing PFI, Academies and private equity. v) the structural problems of the unravelling British state.

So how can we seek to harness the positive aspects of the current situation to strengthen the left?

Alan Thornett has replied to me and asked whether I think Respect’s genuine electoral successes are the “wrong type of voters”. In a sense they are, but not in the sense he implies. Respect has done well particularly with that minority of voters for whom the war is the overriding political issue, but for the majority of the working class that is not the case, and opposition to the war has been subsumed into the general cynicism about politics.

This is where SR’s misunderstanding of the CP’s position is clear, because the CP are talking some sense over this issue:

As Robert Griffiths, the CP General Secretary: recently wrote : “But what is needed now more than ever is for the trade union movement, once again, to take on its historic responsibility to ensure the existence of a mass party of labour. For all the assistance that socialists and communists can render, the unions alone have the human, financial and organisational resources, as well as the class interest, to take the necessary steps.

“Together with the non-sectarian left, they need to work out a political strategy which takes account of current realities. For example, most major unions remain affiliated to the Labour Party and are unlikely to leave it in the near future.
“The first steps in this direction might be for all the major unions to affiliate and participate fully in the Labour Representation Committee. Deals between union leaders in smoke-free rooms to win resolutions at Labour Party conference are not enough. The active involvement of unions and their members in the LRC would be the clearest declaration of political intent.

“The LRC could itself go the extra mile and allow full membership status to socialist organisations including the Communist Party, respecting their right to participate independently in elections in return for an agreement not to campaign for the dismantling of the Labour Party through further union disaffiliations.
“In their relations with the Labour Party, unions should stop all financial, logistical and political support for MPs who consistently vote against key union policies. “

SR are correct to highlight the Morning Star conference as important, not least because the CP still able to punch above their weight, and alongside John McDonnell, we also have Ken Livingstone and Jon Cruddas attending. At the deputy leadership hustings at GMB congress last week Cruddas came out in favour of starting to renationalise public utilities.

The Labour Left were crushingly defeated in the PLP, but the McDonnell campaign has gathered together a nucleus of activists, who are less isolated and more motivated than they were before the campaign. It is as fruitless for us to argue with then that they should leave the party as for them to argue we should join it – comrades need to come to their own conclusions.

The way forward is for all the left, inside and outside the Labour party, to promote the trade unions in exercising their own political voice. By and large, the unions will not abandon their stake in the labour party until they have exhausted its historical usefulness. But currently they are not making enough demands on the party, and so not testing the usefulness of the link.

The Labour Representation Committee could become a vehicle for the unions to exercise collective political voice and if a substantial section of organised labour is to draw the conclusion that a party of labour needs to be refounded, as they effectively did in 1931, then the LRC could be the body around which that debate tales place.

Of course there are serious obstacles, not least of which is the LRC’s requirement for Labour Party membership, which is a serious obstacle to many grassroots trade unions and community activists. But again the way forward is for local trade union bodies to affiliate and open a dialogue about being able to send delegates who are not individual LP members.

In the meantime, we have largely missed the boat in England of building an electoral alternative to New Labour. There may still be a case of standing against Labour, but this can only be done by building grassroots links first, not by building the roof before the walls like Respect and the CNWP have done.

There is serious work that can be done, but the vehicle for that work is not Respect nor the CNWP, the focus remains where it perhaps always should have been, with organised Labour in the mass organisations of our class.

Where Next for McDonnell supporters?

A good outcome from the McDonnell leadership campaign is that it has put a lot of the Labour Party left into active contact with each other, and I recommend the new collective blog, Labour Left Forum , that has got off to a good start. In particular I found the post Which Way Forward for the Left quite realistic and sensible.

But how it strikes me as an outsider is that the Labour Left seems to organise around Labour Left Briefing, and through the Labour Representation Committee (LRC) and the McDonnell campaign, which are structures that are actually OUTWITH and independent from the Labour Party, but as a peculiarity they require LP membership to participate in them.

To really operate as a Labour Party left they have to organise WITHIN the Labour Party structures, seeking to control wards and CLPs, getting union branches to send left delegates to the CLP, get on the council, forming a left caucus of councillors in town halls, having a left block on the NEC (which means breaking from the Brownites in the Grassroots Alliance). Have a clear left slate for the National Policy Forum elections, with alternative policies that they want to pursue. Forcing their issues onto the conference floor.

I think the argument about whether socialists should or should not be in the Labour Party is a futile one: comrades are going to come to their own conclusions one way another based upon their own experience. However much hot air and ink is expended on the issue, we are not going to convince each other. The approach of the Socialist party and Respect to say McDonnell’s defeat shows you are wasting your time come and join us, is unhelpful in the extreme, But similarly the approach from some of the Labour left, that all of those who have decided not to be in the party are incorrigible sectarians and ultra-lefts is equally unhelpful.

If the Labour Left is going to build on the McDonnell campaign they need to build practical activity. They must work to develop specific left policies and campaigns, sometimes in cooperation with the socialist left outside the Labour party: then these can be promoted through the movement, the unions and the single issue campaigns.

But they also need to promote them through the Party. Only if they can demonstrate success in winning commitment to left policies from the Labour Party, and then implementing left policies in local councils under left control, can they demonstrate that work in the Labour Party is effective. I see that John McDonnell is writing a position paper to discuss where next for his supporters, I will be interested to see what practical strategic steps this spells out.

To be frank comrades, the rhetoric of “its hard but we just have to keep beavering away till it gets better” is wearing thin.

A crushing defeat.

The next Prime Minister’s campaign manager, Jack Straw has said: "We are delighted that the party is uniting behind Gordon and giving him such overwhelming support."

Overwhelming indeed, with 308 MPs nominating him, and the speaker and deputy speaker of the house probably would have done, parliamentary convention prevented them.

MPs nominating Brown included fairly frequent left rebels like Bob Marshall-Andrews, and centre left rebel Kate Hoey nominated no-one.

Any sensible electoral strategy against Brown would have sought to split the centre away from the hard Brownite/Blairite right. But instead the hard left ran a campaign aimed only at their existing core constituency – an approach that was always unlikely to get sufficient MPs nominations.

In truth of course, there were few other options, as since the death of Robin Cook there was no credible electoral candidate for the centre left. Further evidence of the way the right in the party has structurally and irreversibly underpinned its dominance.

There was some truth in Michael Meacher’s rationale for putting himself forward on the basis that McDonnell could never get sufficient MP nominations, but he was in no better position. Indeed his policy platform was almost indistinguishable from McDonnell’s, and there are other issues that undermine his credibility with some activists.

Could the defeat for the hard left have been any more overwhelming? They have failed to achieve a contest, with a crushing majority of MPs rejecting them, and the right attracting the votes of even the soft left. This is an utter rejection of the Labour Left, even more remarkable after ten years of PFI, privatisation, inadequate pensions, imperial war, growing inequality and a terrible housing crisis.

McDonnell failed to achieve the support of any major union, and on the NEC, when a motion was moved to reduce the required number of nominations only two members voted for it. Even two of the left’s own members on the NEC voted against it. Indeed the apparently high votes of the left for the Grassroots Alliance for the NEC are shown to be illusory, because Anne Black who appears in their list is actually a right wing Brownite!

The Labour left need to seriously consider what their strategy is now. Strangley the last issue of labour Left Briefing before the leadership election was declared had no discussion of what they should do after the McDonnell campaign.

Part of the difficultly is that within the Labour Party the ideological victory of the right is almost total, that there is no alternative to neo-liberalism, privatisation and deregulation. What is more the constitutional changes in the party and reduced powers for local government make it very hard for the left to influence policy or debate or build a base.

The aspects of hope is that the Labour Party may have irrevocably been won for the right, but the political views of its electoral base have not followed and are now to the left of it. And the unions articulate political opposition to PFI, private equity and inequality.

We need to turn the tide of politics and rebuild ideological and practical opposition to the market. It is therefore vital that we work with our strengths and encourage the unions in finding their political voice.

John McDonnell: Another world is possible

As it looks more and more likely that McDonnell won’t get the nominations to get on the ballot form due to a gutless tightly whipped PLP who won’t think for themselves, and also the high threshold makes it increasingly unobtainable.

A coronation ensues for one Gordon Brown therefore democracy has been bumped off by mass toadying by the PLP.

But hey, as they say, it aint over till it’s over.

Looking at Gordon Brown’s website. His priorities include:

Britain number one for education
An NHS that earns the trust of patients and staff
More affordable housing
Every child the best start in life
Stronger, safer, more cohesive communities
Tackling climate change
Better work-life balance
The challenge of terrorism and security

That makes eight priorities: are there priorities between the priorities. More to the point how is Brown going to achieve these goals and what do they represent? What is meant by “every child having the best start in life”? As poverty increases among working age people Brown will have workfare and lifelong debt waiting for these children. That’s assuming they do not get asbo’ed and sent to prison.

What of the future? Part of the problem is the Left is so fragmented. In the LP, we need a Campaign group that works together much more cohesively and orientates towards the activist base in the unions as well, with a counter whip if necessary. We also need people to emerge from their democratic centralist shells and to push forward struggles in as united a way as possible, whether the struggles are inside either wing of the labour movement or outside in campaigning organisations. We also need a clear ideological account of what the Left is and how to fight neo-liberalism.

Finally John McDonnell has proved himself as a leader of the Left who can open up political room for the Left to put forward its ideas. There is an opportunity still to build on what has been achieved.

John McDonnell will be taking on Brown....

The waiting has finally ended... Step forward John McDonnell. Thankfully Michael Meacher stepped down in favour of John. The media is making comments like, "hardly a household name", "just who is John McDonnell"? Well, unsuprising really but I have to say that I am very pleased John has got this far.

I saw John speak at the hustings at Labour Against the War and he was much more impressive than Michael Meacher. McDonnell at least talked about his vision for uniting the left over his campaign and to bring LP activists together while Meacher rattled off a shopping list of proposals. McDonnell was voted for unanimously. He has also got Tribune and Unison (Scotland) supporting him and by all accounts he did well debating at the Fabian Society last night.

To be honest, it will be hard work to get the nominations but fingers crossed. I will continue to support the campaign and hope comrades will do as well. At least this campaign highlights the Left, left -wing ideas and the bringing together of activists. And debate and discussion back into the public domain.

There was coverage of the Deputy Leadership contest as well on the news with bits on Harriet Harman and Hazel Blears ("she bores me to tears"..). Interestingly, there was a bit on Jon Cruddas and emphasis on his trade union backing..

I am off now to get drunk and to raise a toast to John McDonnell (well, that's my excuse)!

McDonnell versus Meacher: the tension builds...

Well, the anticipation at the outcome of the gunfight between Meacher and McDonnell at the Portcullis House has not been sorted. Instead we have to wait until Monday for the outcome as backing was, "too close to call".....

So no hearse, unfortunately, to take away Meacher and his ill thought-out spoiler of a campaign. I makes no bones at my contempt for Michael "9 houses" Meacher for having the ill grace to stand. He may be better known to the Left but what are his accomplishments which make him stand out against McDonnell. Diddly squat.

To adapt the lyrics of The Beat: "Stand Down, Michael, Stand Down"...

Monday awaits for Round 2.....

Jon Cruddas in the press

.


In an interview on GMTV on Sunday, left candidate for the Labour Party deputy leadership Jon Cruddas branded Tony Blair as delusional for saying that last Thursday’s defeats for Labour were a “springboard for future success”

Jon warned that the party is in “real, serious trouble”, having lost around 500 councillors. One of the reasons that Cruddas’s campaign is so important is that he understands the importance of how Labour needs to address its progressive electoral constituency, rather than spin policies for undecided voters in middle England. As Cruddas notes, the councilors are “the core activists, and they have been defeated”.

It has been a good few days for Jon’s campaign, with an extended interview in today’s Independent , where he comes over very well. Particularly in his recognition that the party needs to change direction, and be more supportive not only of left policies but also of the unions: “We can't go down this route of a "virtual party" where members are just cheerleaders for people at the top. We need to involve members much more. If they had been listened to over issues like top-up fees, or the need to build more council houses, we would be in better shape now. … It's up to us to change. And we do have to change. Labour's lost half its members in 10 years. we can't pretend that it's just one of those things. I'm not going to spout a load of platitudes but people deserve better from us, we have to show you that we've changed. … Trade unions form the bedrock of a free society and the basis of our party and the wider labour movement. As a party, we've treated the unions badly over the last few years, that needs to change”

He also had a recent column in the Guardian “For too long the demise of the party has been treated as a convenient truth for those wanting to circumnavigate frustrating party structures and impose policies but the result has been the pursuit of an agenda that is neither in tune with our members or the country at large.”

Of the declared candidates for Deputy Leader, Cruddas is the one who progressive activists and trade unions should back to send a clear message to Gordon Brown that a change of direction is necessary. The beauty of the Deputy Leader campaign is that it allows a debate about policy and direction that the unions can participate in, without explicitly breaking from Brown. We need to recognize that for the big unions, their leaderships are going to make a calculated decision to back Brown, whatever, just to keep the doors open.

The worry I have is that most of the labour left have not grasped the significance of Cruddas’s campaign. There is not a single mention of him in this month’s Labour Left Briefing. It seems these labour Left activists have an exaggerated estaimation of the importance of the individual members of the party, and are ignoring the wider significance of the party's grounding in organised labour and the affiliated unions, where the Deputy leadership contest may well be more important than the leadership contest.

There are many dangers for the left of focusing entirely on John McDonnell’s leadership campaign, not least because he may not get on the ballot paper.

I am a supporter of John McDonell; my union branch (Wiltshire and Swindon GMB) is backing him. But some of his campaigners seem to be neglecting the fact that he will not win, and they need to prepare an end game. There is also a lot of moralism from his camp towards those activists who do not hold indiviudal membership of the Labour Party, that is entirely counterproductive. (For example the argument that the votes of individual members count more than the votes of members through affiliated u nions - this would only be true if McDonnell could win - whereas as his campaignn is really only to consolidate and demonstarte opposition, then votes in the unions are in fact more importnat than the individual members, as the unions can still exercise influence, whereas the rule changes have made the structures open to individual members entirely toothless)

The attacks on Michael Meacher are also entirely counterproductive and naïve. Michael’s campaign may be problematic, but there is no need for McDonnell’s supporters to join in the criticism of Michael. The public criticisms that Meacher is making of Blairism are correct and should be entirely welcomed, whatever the wisdom of his leadership challenge. By sniping at Meacher, and questioning the foundations of his support, the McDonnell campaign are feeding into the Life of Brian culture of the left.

The significance of Cruddas is that the hard left John McDonnell cannot win, and may not even be able to get enough parliamentary support to get on the ballot paper – but the left still needs a campaign to the left of the current party leadership, to tactically break the Party’s centre ground away from the Blairite/Brownite right.

The task at this stage is to use the leadership and deputy leadership campaigns to give the best possible platform for progressive politics opposing the neo-liberalism of a Brown government. Yes, an important component of that will be a significant vote for McDonnell. But whether or not McDonnell gets on the ballot, there will be a Deputy Leadership contest, and it is inexplicable to me that the Labour Left are not banging Cruddas’s drum more loudly

Why the left should back Jon Cruddas

I want to return to the issue of whether the left should support Jon Cruddas for deputy leader of the Labour Party. Not only is it increasingly likely that there will be no left challenge to Gordon Brown for leader, but as I have argued before, the dynamic of the Labour Party means that Cruddas’s candidature for deputy leader actually makes it less likely that McDonnell (or Meacher) will get support from the 44 MPs that they need.

Unfortunately, the forthcoming leadership election and deputy leadership contest has generated as much heat as light in blogland, about the relative merits of being in the Labour Party as an individual member. This is largely a futile argument, as we are not going to convince each other, and the key issue is how the left can work together and support each other.

I think the correct position was very well expressed by Rob Griffiths, General Secretary of the Communist Party (CPB), in a debate with me two years ago: “As far as we are concerned we will do all we can to support those in the Labour Party, and do everything we can to give unity and to help to give clarity to that fight within the Labour party and the affiliated trade unions against New Labour. There is also the important area as well of the left outside the Labour party. We will certainly be committed … to contributing as much as we can, not to the point where we will attack those in the Labour party who continue to work for left policies and socialist polices in the Labour party - we will be in solidarity with them. We won't join in any attack on those, but we will work with others on the left to try to build as much unity as we can in the left outside the Labour party. … And we would argue to both sets, we have good friends in the Labour party, we have good friends and allies outside the Labour Party, and we think, by and large, while we will continue to debate our differences of course, we believe it is futile to attack one another and say you shouldn't be over there you should be over here. We will be arguing that the left outside the Labour party should be showing as much solidarity as they can with the left inside the Labour party, and we will be arguing with our friends inside the Labour Party that they should be as much joint work, and common work and unity as possible with those outside the Labour party.”

Now of course the Labour Party leadership, and deputy leadership, contests are an issue for both those with individual Labour Party membership, and also for those of us in the affiliated trade unions.

In January there was an important article in the Morning Star, by editor, John Haylett, that described the situation we are in very well. “The trade unions, which remain the largest storehouse of pro-Labour sentiment, personnel and finance, bear key responsibility for what happens to the party that they created. They have already been conned once by the Warwick agreement, of which Hans Christian Andersen must have seen an early draft and based his Emperor's New Clothes on it. It delivered nothing for working people other than an increased level of disappointment and alienation. Today, for the labour movement, the status quo is definitely not an option. Change must come or, as Dagenham MP Jon Cruddas suggests, we could see the demise of Labour, leaving the field to barely distinguishable pro-business parties funded by the rich and by taxation. Indeed, it is difficult even to find evidence that a party of labour - rather than a neoliberal imposter party that bears the name Labour - still exists. The unions have links with most Labour MPs. Those links must be activated to let these MPs, half of whom have never broken ranks to speak out against new Labour's pro-business, pro-war agenda, know what is expected of them.”

Haylett puts it very well: “Unless Labour changes course, adopting a political approach such as that put forward by left leadership challenger John McDonnell, the future is bleak not only for Labour's short-term electoral hopes but for its very future. ”

I am sure we would all like to wake up the day after the labour leadership result is announced and find that John McDonnell is Prime Minister. But if we look at the actually existing possibilities and ask ourselves what would be the most progressive outcome and context for the continuing struggle against New Labour’s neo-liberalism, then that is probably a Gordon Brown victory, with Jon Cruddas elected deputy leader, or at least securing a very credible vote. (And make no mistake Gordon Brown PM is a preferable option to David MiniBlair PM). Of course if McDonnell does manage to get on the ballot for leader and secures a creditable vote, then that is even better still - but we all know he cannot win.

As I have argued before, “The union leaders want influence, and also want a change of direction. They will reason that backing Brown keeps them close to him, and they could maximise pressure on the new PM by backing a deputy leader closer to the unions’ agenda. As has been shown at the last two party conferences, the union leaders are very disciplined (or spineless, depending on your perspective) at sticking to their own agenda, and not supporting left initiatives over Iraq, etc. Cruddas himself has a good prospect of being not the “left candidate” but the “unions’ candidate”, in the same way that Callaghan was for leader. I think those union leaders wanting to pull Labour towards their own agenda may back Brown and Cruddas.”

So why does Cruddas suit the union leaders' agenda? It seems many on the left have missed the fundamental dynamic. The Labour Party has institutionally embedded neo-liberalism into its DNA, yet this places the Parliamentary Labour Party in a prolonged structural antagonism with the Party’s base of support within the Trade Unions. Triangulation also means that Labour Policies are not engaged with the priorities of working class voters in safe seats, which leads to apathy, disengagement and even some voting for the BNP.

Despite his background as a Blaitite, Cruddas does understand this dynamic, and has spoken against it. In his epilogue to the Rowntree Trust’s report (PDF) on the far right Cruddas wrote: “The originality of New Labour lies in the method by which policy is not deductively produced from a series of core economic or philosophical assumptions or even a body of ideas, but rather, is scientifically constructed out of the preferences and prejudices of the swing voter in the swing seat. It is a brilliant political movement whose primary objective is to reproduce itself – to achieve this it must dominate the politics of Middle England. The government is not a coalition of traditions and interests who initiate policy and debate; rather it is a power elite whose modus operandi is the retention of power. … … At root the gearing of the electoral system empties out opportunities for a radical policy agenda. On the one hand, policy is constructed on the basis of scientific analysis of the preferences of key voters; on the other, difficult issues and the prejudices of the swing voter are neutralised. Labour have become efficient at winning elections and being in government yet within a calibrated politics where tenure is inversely proportionate to change. As a politician for what is regarded as a safe working class seat the implications of this political calibration are immense. The system acts at the expense of communities like these – arguably those most in need. The science of key seat organisation and policy formation acts as a barrier to a radical emancipatory programme of economic and social change.”

Get that: “a radical emancipatory programme of economic and social change” It doesn’t matter whether or not Cruddas is sincere, or whether he will deliver. A vote for him is a vote for a change of direction from New Labour towards: “a radical emancipatory programme of economic and social change”

He may or may not be a socialist, but he is attuned to the broad social democratic agenda of the trade union leadership. If Cruddas wins, then that is a much better context for the unions to exercise influence over the direction of the Labour Party, or if they fail in that to develop alternative avenues of influence. It is my firm view that the Labour Party cannot be rescued, but whether or not I am right, the best outcome will be a result in the leadership and deputy leadership elections that demonstrates that we want to see a change of direction.

War: what is it good for...

Thousands of people marched today against war and scrapping that useless but expensive pile of metal called Trident. I marched behind a CND banner there were lots of other banners from the peace movement, Greens, anti-war, trade unions, and shock! horror! even Labour Party ones.

By the middle of the demo I seemed to be marching with singin' and dancin' hippies (one teenager I heard mutter, "I can't stand hippies"!). Hurrying along, I ended up in the spliff and trance section with lots of young hip gunslingers. Unfortunately the spliff didn't end up in my direction (maybe 'cos I looked like someone who remembered the 1980s..). I ended up going off to the pub (cheers, mine is a double vodka) as opposed to going to the rally (sorry... it was an abdication of comradely duty!)....

I am sure there are plenty of committed politicos who are made of sterner stuff than me who did listen to the speakers in Trafalgar Square. Oh and the weather was rainy and muddy indeed.

Labour party, controversy revisited!

Arguments about the Labour Party seem to be all over the blogs at the moment. Not only has Louise made a very spirited argument in favour of socialists being in the LP in this blog, but former member of the Socialist Resistance editorial board, Tami, has joined the Labour party. Louise is correct to point out that there are many socialists networking together in the LP, in for example the John4Lleader campaign, labour Against the War, etc. It is the policy of this blog to recognise and support the efforts of all socialists and encourage cooperation. We dio recognise and support the efforts of our friends and comrades in the Labour Party to oppose Blairism, right in the belly of the beast so to speak!

But what is really going on with the Labour party? Liam has responded to Tami. But I think the discussion does need to look in more detail at what is going on the LP.

Firstly, Sorry, the cartoon is not easy to read, but I like it anyway, and think it is worth persevering with. The sign on the top board says "socialism" and the cautious bloke is the Labour Party. This appeared in Socialst Worker in 1974, the year I joined Keynsham Labour Party as a precocious 13 year old. Part of the reason I reproduce the cartoon is to remind ourselves that there was a time when significant numbers of workers actually thought that the LP would one day bring about socialism. In those days most party members would have described themselves a socialists, even if they may not have all agreed what it meant!

I think that the decision of hard left MP, Alan Simpson to resign his seat at the next election is a serious blow to the labour left, and also shows the limits of the John McDonnell leadership campaign. Simpson is likeable, consistently left wing, has impeccable green credentials and is a regular correspondent for the Morning Star.

I have argued before that McDonnell’s campaign is extremely important: “The task facing the left is a very difficult one. Firstly, we must do all we can to strengthen McDonnell’s campaign, to put ourselves in the best tactical position. But we also need to further the debate within the unions that New Labour is now a different creature, and one no longer deserving the support of organised workers.”

But also that the left noises from Jon Cruddas may well block McDonnell’s candidature, given the dynamics of the Labour party: “If the deputy leadership contest looks like taking on the characteristics of a real debate about the legacy of New Labour, and the future direction of the party, then this may reduce support for an actual challenge to Brown. What is more, the argument of whether or not Brown becoming leader unopposed will be seen as a coronation is likely to be overtaken by media attention to the deputy leadership, which will become a leadership contest by proxy, in the same way that the Healey/Benn contest was.”

Recently the Australian socialist Dave Riley asked that someone should give an assessment of just how significant McDonnell’s campaign is, and he raised the comparison with the way Jesse Jackson’s campaign for the Democratic nomination galvanised support way beyond the Democratic Party. This was also true of the 1981 Benn for Deputy Leader campaign that dominated political life in this country, and had a deep base of support in the unions, and the women’s, gay and black liberation movements.

Even the most cursory glance at McDonnell’s campaign shows it has none of this resonance. I wish it did but it doesn’t. Even Simpson was not overtly backing him, and was linked with the Meacher leadership bid.

The strongest argument being put forward by those socialists who think we should all be in the LP, is that there is no viable option outside in England and Wales. Well they are not wrong there! But there are very deep seated structural problems with forming an alternative to Labour, not least of which the FTP electoral system, the British disease of trot groups on the Healy/Grant/Cliff model, general disillusionment with electoral politics, and cynicism, all of which reinforced by the historical legacy of the defeats of the last 20 years.

The relevance of this is that most of these factors also militate against a revival of the Labour left, but with the added obstacle of the overwhelming crushing victory of the neo-liberal right within the party, who have irreversibly and structurally embedded their victory into the party’s DNA. The rules and constitution have been changed to eliminate the levers that the left used to exercise influence, the conference is a meaningless rally, the social composition of the membership has shifted hugely towards managerial types, the neo-liberal and imperialist policies mean that outside blogland and the bizarro anachronisms of places like Hackney where all the ex-Trots live, no activists under 30 would look at the party as anything remotely progressive. Ward meetings are sparce and poorly attended, and the party apparatus is an empty shell in most of the country. Millbank prevents left candidates being selected and what is more the reduced powers of local authorities have removed the base from which the left has in the past built support from the bottom up.

The union link now exists more in form than in content. Whereas in the past union branches used to send delegates to GMC meetings in each CLP this practice has almost disappeared, lay activists and even full timers are much, much less likely to be LP members than they ever were before. The most striking thing about the last few LP conferences, has been how the big four unions have almost intervened in the conference rather than participated in it - pursuing their own agenda without participating in the wider issues like Iraq, not even pursuing their own unions polices. The only concession won by the affiliated unions was the sop of the Warwick agreement before the election, none of which polices have been implemented.

Meanwhile the LP link with Unison is certainly impeding that union in resisting privatisation. Compare the RMT (non-affiliated) - who continue to campaign for a publicly owned rail service, with the capitulation of the CWU (affiliated) over Post Office privatisation around "Shaping the Future".

The trickle of socialists into the LP – and it is no more than a trickle exaggerated by the Internet- is I believe based upon desperation. When Brown is elected leader there will be need for calm reflection.

Why Socialists should be in the Labour Party.....

Currently there is a debate raging about whether it is the correct strategy to be in the Labour Party. There have been arguments which state that it is not and that the Labour Left is dead as a dodo. As a Labour Party member and a supporter of the John4Leader campaign I want to put forward my position which argues that Socialists should indeed be in the LP and campaigning for John McDonnell.

Comparisons have been made with the challenge to deputy leader by Tony Benn in 1981. There was a high groundswell of support for the Benn and figures (not precise) were around 40,000-80,000 militant activists who joined the LP and who were interested in the class struggle and supported an orientation to the labour movement.

My political background is the fourth international and during that historical period the IMG (International Marxist Group) took a position to work as entryists within the LP. The IMG took a long time to get into the LP in the early 1980’s. When it did it kinda fell in: the line did not change as the result of a conference decision and the IMG ended splitting over whether to go into the LP with a view to linking with the labour left. Certainly the tendency around Brian Grogan that wanted to have the membership to all get jobs in “industry” i.e. factories was extremely hostile to work in the LP.

The IMG thus paid with its political existence with its original ultra-left take on working in the LP. The take that the IMG had on the LP during the late 70’s and the very early 80’s was the usual one that it was a reformist dead end and that what was needed was something called a “revolutionary pole of attraction”…maybe this is a term from quantum mechanics it had little practical use in orientating or indeed attracting any of the many people coming into leftwing politics at the time.

Maybe, to jump a political era or two, Respect is what a revolutionary pole of attraction is like. The IMG, which prided itself, usually with a good deal of justification, as a political group that could analyse the political dynamics of a situation with Leninist objectivity fell into the trap that many who refuse to have anything to do with the LP do. This mistake is that because the LP is such disaster for the class we must keep ourselves pure and have nothing to do with it. This is the logic that has always underlined the position of the SWP towards the LP, although the SWP strangely likes to support left campaigns within the LP such as the Benn-Heffer campaign in the late 80’s and currently supports the John4leader campaign.

What the IMG and some of it’s successors came to realise was that the best place to challenge the politics of the LP was from within the LP, as Walter Wolfgang managed to do with one superbly timed word this is the best place from which to directly challenge LP whether in its equally rotten old or new varieties.

Within the LP there was a political space to argue for socialist politics. What I would also argue is that the Left did have an influence on the structure of the LP such as support for self-organisation and autonomous campaigns such as Women’s sections, Black sections and lesbian and gay rights. And the Left were light years ahead over these issues than the Left groups outside the Labour Party

The political situation is absolutely different but the arguments are the same. There isn’t the same large number of LP members with an orientation to the class struggle but that means the Left has to fight for change. Yes, that involves a hard slog and the long haul but the LP is an important springboard. If you go away from the Labour Movement you are striking out into nowhere fast. Again, look at Respect and the CNWP.

Figures show Labour's membership fell slightly in 2005 to 198,026, half the number of members in 1997. But so is Respect membership falling and why aren’t disillusioned LP members running into the arms of Respect or even the CNWP? They aren’t…

I don’t have the number regarding how many people have rejoined the LP due to the John4Leader campaign or whether it has regenerated LP activity. I can only use anecdotal evidence. On a personal level, the campaign has increased my interest and energised me into doing something positive. It is also worth reiterating that (yes, it was unofficial) 59% of TUC delegates at last year’s conference voted for John McDonnell as leader.

The Labour Party is still the bourgeois workers party but it does still have the link with the trade union movement though the Blairites would dearly love to wriggle free of that commitment (putting a cap on political donations which would include the trade unions).
That is why it is necessity to work within the trade union movement and the LP and preserve that link.

In conclusion, the question I want to ask socialists who are hostile to rejoining the LP is, what exactly are you doing instead? I get criticised for being a member of the “pro-war”, “neo-liberal” LP but I reject these politics and the politics of Blairism and many others do as well. I do feel like a political dissident in the LP but where else is there to go?

I am not simply arguing that it is the LP or nothing but there is a solid challenge to Blairism. To take a position that says the campaign is a dead end as McDonnell aint gonna win is daft as we know that BUT the John4Leader campaign can precisely act as a springboard and re-energise the Labour Left. Yes, the fallout from the Labour leadership challenge could have negative repercussions on the left but equally it could also be the start of something new. Something positive and dynamic maybe?

Why hang around outside when you could be inside fighting with other socialists and making a big noise in British politics?

Will Cruddas eclipse McDonnell?

It seems to me that the more Jon Cruddas talks up his left credentials, the more negative impact this will have on John McDonnell’s campaign for leader.

Cruddas himself has a background as an ultra-Blairite, with a reputation of being able to maintain a good relationship with the unions. He was parachuted into a safe labour seat in 2001.

However, over the last couple of years he has increasingly distanced himself from the Blair project, and the whole New Labour strategy of “triangulating” around the issues that effect swing voters in marginal constituencies. Cruddas instead is arguing for policies that directly benefit labour core working class support.

The question here is not whether he is sincere, or whether he will deliver, but what is the political context, both of the election itself and afterwards.

We need to understand that Cruddas will probably (and however bizarrely) be the front runner left candidate for deputy leader – and that he will represent his campaign as being both loyal to Brown, and also demanding a change of direction from New Labour.

If the deputy leadership contest looks like taking on the characteristics of a real debate about the legacy of New Labour, and the future direction of the party, then this may reduce support for an actual challenge to Brown. What is more, the argument of whether or not Brown becoming leader unopposed will be seen as a coronation is likely to be overtaken by media attention to the deputy leadership, which will become a leadership contest by proxy, in the same way that the Healey/Benn contest was.

The three constituent parts of the Labour Party need to be discussed separately.

In electoral terms the MPs are very important because they are the gatekeepers who determine whether a candidate has the threshold of support to get on the ballot paper. Apart from literally a handful of hard left MPs, most of them have some aspirations to career advancement, and will want to be seen to be backing the winning leadership candidate, or at least won’t want to be associates with bad boy McDonnell. The chances of 44 of them backing McDonnell for leader is predicated upon there being a perceived need for a contest, and John attracting support wider than the committed left. But if the deputy contest is seen as being a real one, then why risk possible negative media coverage of the leadership contest, which may open up the idea that the party is divided, just when Cameron’s Tories are leading in the polls?

The union leaders want influence, and also want a change of direction. They will reason that backing Brown keeps them close to him, and they could maximise pressure on the new PM by backing a deputy leader closer to the unions’ agenda. As has been shown at the last two party conferences, the union leaders are very disciplined (or spineless, depending on your perspective) at sticking to their own agenda, and not supporting left initiatives over Iraq, etc. Cruddas himself has a good prospect of being not the “left candidate” but the “unions’ candidate”, in the same way that Callaghan was for leader. I think those union leaders wanting to pull Labour towards their own agenda may back Brown and Cruddas.

The individual membership is the least significant part of the party nowadays. McDonnell’s active support base is measurable in hundreds at most. (Which is not to say he might not get a reasonable vote (15% or so?) if he is the only challenger to Brown.) Actively backing McDonnell is to reject the strategic direction that the party has taken ever since Kinnock became leader, and only a very few will do so. Something has been made of the small numbers (re)joining the party to support McDonnell, but let us put that in perspective – Benn’s deputy leadership bid was based upon some 80000 leftists joining the party.

In my opinion, the reasonable vote that the grassroots alliance gets for the NEC elections in the constituencies is a safe protest against Blairism, within the context of overall domination of the party by the right. The left has no organisation at ward and CLP level in vast swathes of the country. Again, even in McDonnell stands, many members will want to demonstrate unity in the face of the Tories, and can signal their desire for change by voting for Cruddas.

For the left, inside and outside the party, the question is what is the best possible outcome of those that are actually on the agenda. The best possible result would be for McDonnell to stand, and do reasonably well. The next best thing is a strong vote for Cruddas, particularly from the unions. If Cruddas wins, or comes close, that will increase the leverage of organised labour over Brown. (It matters not one whit that Cruddas himself would be sure to disappoint as deputy)

(BTW, there is a very different take on this over at the epigone Lenin’s blog. This correctly identifies that Cruddas may be a stalking horse who prevents a real left candidate, but draws the incorrect tactical conclusion: it misses the point that if Cruddas becomes identified as the left candidate, then effectively he is the left candidate. I also disagree with the assessment that the UAF is a broader campaign that Searchlight.)

TU4John

Information......



Unfortunately, I couldn't make the TU4John meeting last night but don't despair as there's a good report by Marsha Jane over at Union Futures about the meeting and there's information about the new TU4John blog.

Socialist Youth Network

John McDonnell's leadership campiagn sent out the following yesterday:

SOCIALIST YOUTH NETWORK
YOUTH WING OF THE LABOUR REPRESENTATION COMMITTEE
SICK OF NEW LABOUR? INSPIRED BY JOHN MCDONNELL'S CAMPAIGN? UNDER 30?
THEN JOIN US ON 13TH JANUARY...
Dear Comrade,
I'm writing to let you know about the Launch Conference of the Socialist Youth Network on 13th January 2007 from 10am-4pm at ULU, Mallet Street, London WC1E 7HY (near Euston Square / Goodge Street tube stations).
SYN was set up by young supporters of John McDonnell's leadership campaign. We bring together young socialists and trade unionists from across the country. If you're 30 or under and either a member of the Labour party or no party at all, then we want to invite you to join us.
The Conference will launch the leading organisation of the young Labour left. Over the coming year, we'll be at the forefront of fighting for workers' rights, free education, against the war in Iraq, anti-racism, the environment, and many other issues.
John McDonnell, Tony Benn and Katy Clark will be among the speakers addressing our historic Conference.
Joining SYN costs just £3 (unwaged) / £5 (waged). Conference registration is only £5. You can either register online here: www.socialistyouth.org.uk, or by sending in a cheque made payable to Labour Representation Committee to: SYN, c/o G10 Norman Shaw South, House of Commons, London SW1A 2JF.
Please visit the website for more details: www.socialistyouth.org.uk

Labour NEC elections

Ballot papers have now gone out to all individual members of the Labour Party for the NEC elections. This may well be the last election before the next leadership contest, and given Gordon Brown’s enthusiasm for a new generation of weapons of genocide, it is an opportunity for progressive members of the party to give him a slapping.

So it is quite simple. If you are entitled to vote then use it.

As soon as you get your ballot paper vote for Walter Wolfgang. Vice chair of Labour CND, and vice president of CND. It would be brilliant if Walter topped he poll, sending a clear message for no Trident replacement. Wolgang remember was the pensioner bundled out of conference last year for opposing the war!

Then also vote for Mohammed Azam, Ann Black, Gaye Johnston, Chrsitine Shawcroft, and Pete Willsman. Together these make up the Grassroots Alliance slate.

But that still isn’t quite enough, you also need to mandate your conference delegates to vote for Ray Davison (East Devon CLP) for the NCC (CLP section); and for the CAC (General Section) vote John Boughton (T&G).

As I wrote recently, the Labour left seem to have no realistic strategy for advance, but at least these elections give an opportunity to show that even within the Labour Party the hold of neo-liberalism is not complete