What is happening to the Labour Party? News today that members of the public registering as individual supporters could be given the vote in leadership elections and at Party conference is an outrage. It makes a mockery of all those people, like me, who have religiously paid our annual subscriptions for membership of a political organization. It makes a travesty of those members of trade unions who have, over the years, consistently supported the Party by paying the political levy.
Peter Hain, the architect to the plan says the plans “… are designed to give Labour the chance to leapfrog the other parties and become a new party for a new political age.” So, the late 1990s we had the “New” Labour project – and that failed, and now we are going to have the “Squeaky clean, very New” Labour Party and guess what folks … it will fail too.
Those in favour of this approach argue it is because union affiliated membership has halved over the years and this will give ordinary working people a ‘say’ in the running of the Party. How short is the human memory? Last Saturday, 500,000 angry people marched through London calling for this Tory government to bring an end to the cuts. These people are our life-blood, our electorate – and many were students, pensioners, trade unionists and socialists – we cannot dismiss them so readily.
Hain goes on to say “If unions could rebuild their membership, they would speak with a stronger voice in society. Despite improved union recognition rights under Labour, they have been unable to do so.”
This is a fundamental bending of the truth. Since the May elections, trade union membership has dramatically increased and continues to grow. Daily, workers are recognizing they need the protection of working together under a trade union banner to protect their jobs, their pay and their rights. With each new member coming through the door, Labour has the chance of a new recruit. The fact the Party has been unable to attract large numbers of supporters says more about how we present Labour to the public than the demise of unionism.
Miliband has argued “The Tory-led government and its current alliance of power with the Liberal democrats does not change my belief that there is a progressive majority in this country.”
I confess I am not so sure. I think at the moment, many people are far more right-leaning than he gives credit for and in his naiveté, assumes Labour is on a roller coaster ride to sudden electoral victory. Well, we thought we would win under Kinnock and we failed. We should have won under Foot and we collapsed totally. The historical evidence tells us the British people are far more conservative. The right have long argued Labour is the natural party of opposition and the Tories, the natural party of power. It should be the job of Labour to reverse this, by educating and informing the electorate about socialist ideals and principles.
Giving a vote to members of MumsNet (however worthwhile the organization) is not the answer, nor is the notion of allowing floating voters who, on a whim, call themselves Labour supporters the opportunity to change policy. I have canvassed on doors before now and heard Labour supporters call for the return of hanging, tough immigration restraint and the castration of paedophiles. Do we truly want this kind of influx into our party?
Miliband must stamp on this report and throw it out. There can be no place for these principles in our great Party and should be shunned at all costs. If we fail, we might as well say goodbye to all vestiges of being a socialist party.
Instead, we should be helping to build trade unions and party branches so they become an effective resistance to this government’s uncaring, right-wing ideology. We should be a political vanguard pushing the cause of socialism on every front.
Above all, we must never lose our dedication to socialism and the trade union movement.
Showing posts with label Kinnock. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kinnock. Show all posts
Tuesday, 29 March 2011
Monday, 7 March 2011
Caring Conservativism - A new kind of Thatcherism
On a separate forum I was reminded of a speech made by Neil Kinnock back in 1984. Now I am no great fan of Kinnock. His witch hunt of the left and the expulsion of honest socialists who were supporters of the Militant Tendency was the second biggest travesty to hit the Labour Party this century (this first being the rewriting of Clause lV of the Constitution of the Party).
Having said that, in this speech he really hit the button.
He said:
As Citizen Dave’s cuts start to bite, his words are as relevant today as they were all those years ago. The poor, the disabled, the unemployed and the ill are all being hurt by Cameron’s plans. But before we lay the blame wholly on Citizen Dave, let us look at who is the philosophical ‘father’ behind these measures – none other than the silent man himself, Iain Duncan Smith.
During his period as leader of the Conservative Party he was ineffectual and lacking any charisma, but as a ‘backroom boy’ he has been central to the development of current Tory policies. His think tank, the Centre for Social Justice, has been at the heart of many of the current policies and for the last few years has acted as a resource to ‘humanise’ modern Conservativism.
The trouble is that it has all been a guise to bring about Thatcherism under another name. The proposed welfare reforms will not bring about a level playing field for all, they will introduce inequality and disadvantage. Meanwhile, leading businessmen will continue to avoid tax, multinationals will continue to make large profits and those with money will continue to milk the system.
Twenty seven years later and we still haven’t learned – you can never trust the Tories
Having said that, in this speech he really hit the button.
He said:
If Margaret Thatcher is re-elected as prime minister on Thursday, I warn you. I warn you that you will have pain–when healing and relief depend upon payment. I warn you that you will have ignorance–when talents are untended and wits are wasted, when learning is a privilege and not a right. I warn you that you will have poverty–when pensions slip and benefits are whittled away by a government that won’t pay in an economy that can’t pay. I warn you that you will be cold–when fuel charges are used as a tax system that the rich don’t notice and the poor can’t afford. I warn you that you must not expect work–when many cannot spend, more will not be able to earn. When they don’t earn, they don’t spend. When they don’t spend, work dies. I warn you not to go into the streets alone after dark or into the streets in large crowds of protest in the light. I warn you that you will be quiet–when the curfew of fear and the gibbet of unemployment make you obedient. I warn you that you will have defence of a sort–with a risk and at a price that passes all understanding. I warn you that you will be home-bound–when fares and transport bills kill leisure and lock you up. I warn you that you will borrow less–when credit, loans, mortgages and easy payments are refused to people on your melting income. If Margaret Thatcher wins on Thursday– • I warn you not to be ordinary • I warn you not to be young • I warn you not to fall ill • I warn you not to get old. |
As Citizen Dave’s cuts start to bite, his words are as relevant today as they were all those years ago. The poor, the disabled, the unemployed and the ill are all being hurt by Cameron’s plans. But before we lay the blame wholly on Citizen Dave, let us look at who is the philosophical ‘father’ behind these measures – none other than the silent man himself, Iain Duncan Smith.
During his period as leader of the Conservative Party he was ineffectual and lacking any charisma, but as a ‘backroom boy’ he has been central to the development of current Tory policies. His think tank, the Centre for Social Justice, has been at the heart of many of the current policies and for the last few years has acted as a resource to ‘humanise’ modern Conservativism.
The trouble is that it has all been a guise to bring about Thatcherism under another name. The proposed welfare reforms will not bring about a level playing field for all, they will introduce inequality and disadvantage. Meanwhile, leading businessmen will continue to avoid tax, multinationals will continue to make large profits and those with money will continue to milk the system.
Twenty seven years later and we still haven’t learned – you can never trust the Tories
Monday, 21 February 2011
Is there space in Labour for a Red?
There can be little doubt that since the Thatcher years, this country has moved more to the right. The political heyday of the left was probably at its summit during the Miner’s strike. On March 12th, 1984 Arthur Scargill declared strikes in the various coal fields and this ultimately resulted in 1,000 pickets attempting to prevent a sole scab bath attendant from entering the threatened Emley Moor colliery.
Since then the Miner’s have been defeated and overall trade union membership has declined in this country. Current estimates put membership at a meagre 24% of the working population and with no noticeable sign of the trend improving.
On top of that, the Labour party, never known for its hardline socialism finally divested itself of its leftward leanings when, in December 1981, a National Executive Committee inquiry team was set up, which reported the following June. The Hayward-Hughes inquiry proposed the setting up of a register of non-affiliated groups who would be allowed to operate within the Labour Party. The inquiry sent a series of questions to the Militant tendency. The Militant general secretary, Peter Taaffe, told the inquiry that the Militant's Editorial board consisted of five people, with an additional sixty-four full time staff.
The inquiry found that the Militant was in breach of Clause II of the party constitution, and that in the opinion of the inquiry the Militant tendency "would not be eligible to be included on the proposed Register". This allowed Neil Kinnock, then leader of the party, the opportunity he needed and mass expulsions of Marxists from the party soon followed.
The drift to the right was followed by Tony Blair who, in 1995 led an assault on Clause lV of the Constitution. The original version of Clause IV, drafted by Sidney Webb in November 1917 and adopted by the party in 1918, read, in part 4:
To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.
However, Blair and New Labour did not want to be held to a programme of nationalisation, arguing that we had moved into a post-industrial era where it was necessary to work alongside capital and not against it.
So, with this kind of history is there truly a place for socialists and Marxists in the Labour party? In many respects it is difficult for those of us on the left. The movement has become fragmented and disorganised. Even the Communist party, once the guardian of the soul of Marxism, is split into various groups and it is hard to identify the philosophical differences.
Of course Socialist Workers Party continues to trundle along, but they have tended to sit more on the fringe rather than contain the bulk of left-thinking individuals. As for the Labour party itself – well with New Labour now consigned to our history books and a new leadership things look slightly rosier for the left. But Ed Miliband is nothing like his father and even though he served his internship with Tony Benn, he is not a Bennite.
Nor should we assume the National Executive, or the National Policy Forum is likely to drift to the left either.
The bastion of hard left socialism in the Parliamentary Labour party is arguably the Labour Representation Committee, but with only about a dozen members, they pose little threat to the more traditional groupings like Tribune or Compass. Indeed, its chair, John McDonnell could not gain sufficient votes to be added to the candidates for the leadership of the party.
So with such anti-left feeling about, why should a Marxist stay in the party? Easy, and there are several reasons:
1. Because there is really nowhere else to go – none of the other groupings offer any real opportunity for power
2. Because it is the Labour party that has direct links with the trade union movement and Marxists should rally around this flag, even when they are in a minority
3. Because the hard evidence shows the UK will not commit to a worker’s revolution – if that was going to happen, it would have taken place in 1984 with the Miner’s strike. Marxists must be willing to compromise and accept the democratic road to socialism
4. It is the duty of socialists and Marxists to act as a political vanguard to fight within the party to change it and mould it into a far more left-leaning and radical organisation dedicated to worker control.
Being a socialist in a social democratic organisation such as the Labour party is not easy, but it is possible – Tony Benn, John McDonnell, Jeremy Corbyn and Dennis Skinner have shown that. As Marxists and socialists we should not give in, we should continue to fight for what we believe to be right.
I confess to being an unapologetic Red - a Marxist and there are many times I think of leaving the Labour party. Certainly I would find more bonhomie with Communists, Socialist Workers, or even the Socialist Labour party. But I stay where I am because this is where I believe I need to be – trying to convince comrades within the party to accept socialist principles.
In many respects it’s a thankless task – but where in any of the writings of Karl Marx did he ever say it would be easy?
Since then the Miner’s have been defeated and overall trade union membership has declined in this country. Current estimates put membership at a meagre 24% of the working population and with no noticeable sign of the trend improving.
On top of that, the Labour party, never known for its hardline socialism finally divested itself of its leftward leanings when, in December 1981, a National Executive Committee inquiry team was set up, which reported the following June. The Hayward-Hughes inquiry proposed the setting up of a register of non-affiliated groups who would be allowed to operate within the Labour Party. The inquiry sent a series of questions to the Militant tendency. The Militant general secretary, Peter Taaffe, told the inquiry that the Militant's Editorial board consisted of five people, with an additional sixty-four full time staff.
The inquiry found that the Militant was in breach of Clause II of the party constitution, and that in the opinion of the inquiry the Militant tendency "would not be eligible to be included on the proposed Register". This allowed Neil Kinnock, then leader of the party, the opportunity he needed and mass expulsions of Marxists from the party soon followed.
The drift to the right was followed by Tony Blair who, in 1995 led an assault on Clause lV of the Constitution. The original version of Clause IV, drafted by Sidney Webb in November 1917 and adopted by the party in 1918, read, in part 4:
To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.
However, Blair and New Labour did not want to be held to a programme of nationalisation, arguing that we had moved into a post-industrial era where it was necessary to work alongside capital and not against it.
So, with this kind of history is there truly a place for socialists and Marxists in the Labour party? In many respects it is difficult for those of us on the left. The movement has become fragmented and disorganised. Even the Communist party, once the guardian of the soul of Marxism, is split into various groups and it is hard to identify the philosophical differences.
Of course Socialist Workers Party continues to trundle along, but they have tended to sit more on the fringe rather than contain the bulk of left-thinking individuals. As for the Labour party itself – well with New Labour now consigned to our history books and a new leadership things look slightly rosier for the left. But Ed Miliband is nothing like his father and even though he served his internship with Tony Benn, he is not a Bennite.
Nor should we assume the National Executive, or the National Policy Forum is likely to drift to the left either.
The bastion of hard left socialism in the Parliamentary Labour party is arguably the Labour Representation Committee, but with only about a dozen members, they pose little threat to the more traditional groupings like Tribune or Compass. Indeed, its chair, John McDonnell could not gain sufficient votes to be added to the candidates for the leadership of the party.
So with such anti-left feeling about, why should a Marxist stay in the party? Easy, and there are several reasons:
1. Because there is really nowhere else to go – none of the other groupings offer any real opportunity for power
2. Because it is the Labour party that has direct links with the trade union movement and Marxists should rally around this flag, even when they are in a minority
3. Because the hard evidence shows the UK will not commit to a worker’s revolution – if that was going to happen, it would have taken place in 1984 with the Miner’s strike. Marxists must be willing to compromise and accept the democratic road to socialism
4. It is the duty of socialists and Marxists to act as a political vanguard to fight within the party to change it and mould it into a far more left-leaning and radical organisation dedicated to worker control.
Being a socialist in a social democratic organisation such as the Labour party is not easy, but it is possible – Tony Benn, John McDonnell, Jeremy Corbyn and Dennis Skinner have shown that. As Marxists and socialists we should not give in, we should continue to fight for what we believe to be right.
I confess to being an unapologetic Red - a Marxist and there are many times I think of leaving the Labour party. Certainly I would find more bonhomie with Communists, Socialist Workers, or even the Socialist Labour party. But I stay where I am because this is where I believe I need to be – trying to convince comrades within the party to accept socialist principles.
In many respects it’s a thankless task – but where in any of the writings of Karl Marx did he ever say it would be easy?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
