http://labourleftforum.blogspot.com/2009/01/what-is-to-be-done-roadmap-for-left.html

Lastly, I understand all the things you don’t want to see. But I can’t help coming back to the fact that a better Labour government is better than this one, and is better than a Tory one. So things we can do to improve a Labour government – even when we don’t get everything we want; even when the New Jerusalem is still a long way below the horizon – is worthwhile. So the strategy is at once ambitious and optimistic and rather prosaic and humble. We are fortunate that the latter is also the most realistic path to the former. But I suspect I’m not bringing you with me… I’ll do my Labour Left Forum post now and you can come and slag it off!

The buildings may continue to stand, but everything in them needs to change – root and branch. The democratisation of the civil service, the abolition of the monarchy, the destruction of capital – and these things won’t be accomplished through parliament, they will be accomplished inspite of parliament – since in order to bend parliament to our will, all of these things would already have had to occur.

In between times, parliament is a useful platform but to think that on the basis of capitalism a genuine anti-statist, socialist, anti-capitalist party will win a parliamentary victory is delusional. And this is not to say “wait for the revolution”, this is to say, it is by revolution that we will achieve these things and now is the time to build towards that end.

I feel old today, what with the knees, but aminvigorated somwewhat by clever, serious, committed youngsters up for the fight not amongst ourselves – that’s just the serious-playful developmental stuff – but on the stuff that matters. Like Dave in another post somewhere or other, I’m more optimistic than imbued rationality suggest I should be.

Have a butcher’s at Luke Akehurst’s blog entry for today. We don’t want to feed those sorts of fires – if for no other reason, talk of tactical retreats, etc. is not helpful.

I certainly wasn’t suggesting that we could (or would want to) bring over somebody like Luke.

But I don’t mind sharing a party with him. I want him to be marginalised in it for the next 25 years instead of me, but I’m relaxed with the concept (indeed with the necessity) of a broad church.

I’ll give you a shout when I’ve put my thoughts on Labour Left Forum. I’m not ignoring your syndicalist stuff – will happily discuss it in a different context – essentially for now, I’ll just point out that parliamentary activity does not negate extra-parliamentary activity; something like the LRC is there really to pull the two together, which is what I think needs to happen. Parliament can play a part and only needs to be rendered irrelevant if it remains anti-democratic and anti-working class, which it doesn’t have to.

While we’re talking about fanciful thinking, ‘none of this will matter after the revolution’ is not a great antidote to it.

In the 1960s, there was a view amongst Party members that Wilson had betrayed them. Consider just how strong that view is now, not even among Party members but amongst the working class people we need to build into a cohesive movement. Consider how much more inimical to such a movement New Labour is compared to Wilson.

If it ever happens that we look like we’re getting somewhere, how long do you think it’ll be before New Labour-style parliamentarians jump ship to the Lib-Dems or worse, to the Tories? The media will batter us and though we might control the manifesto, our election defeat will mark the high water point for socialism in Labour and low point for Labour in parliament.

But in any case, I don’t want to repeat the 1940s welfare settlement. I don’t want to repeat the Bevanites. I want to abolish capitalism, remove the need for parliament and devolve the power of government to the shop floor and the street. The LRC is holding the umbrella that keeps the rain off those of us who want these things, in Labour – but even if the LRC was to reconquer the Party, there’s an enormous amount of its supporters who aren’t as radical as its leader.

Central to the notion of the LRC within Labour is the dream of forming a parliamentary government. Well we saw how well that worked out for the activists of the 1980s when they took control of any number of councils, relying not merely on their radical members but on a great number of right-wing loyalists who, as it turned out, had more in common with the Heath Tories.

In some respects this is tied up with this ‘real’ Labour notion you’ve been referring to. ‘Real’ Labour is parliamentarist and is seen as parliamentarist. Eventually, as in 1926 and 1931 (and 1984) that is what will divide its representatives from a portion of its activists and which will defeat it.

But again, this comes down to fanciful thinking; with about a third of the CLPs in the country defunct, Conference powerless and the NPFs controlled by hackery, you’re still a long way from pointing out to me where the renaissance of this ‘real’ Labour is coming from. If you really believe slightly varying our presentation is going to bring over people like Luke Akehurst then I am scratching my head in disbelief.

Moreover, Left=losing elections is about right. Our counter-hegemony will not be built on winning parliament, it will be built on using the shop floor to make parliament irrelevant – and that is anathema to any of these ‘ontologically challenged’ types.

Dave – I’m fairly confident that many – indeed most – socialists already are either signed up to what you’re calling my Plan A, or are removed from it because of a fear of a possible Plan B. That is not to denigrate the non-Labour left; indeed if we apply the term liberally then there is a reasonable number of them, though it must be remembered that many of the smaller organisations are VERY small and it is quite a small world, largely engaged in conversations with itself. For that reason and others, I welcome the Convention of the Left (though I think we need to make sure that it isn’t presented outside as the foundations for yet another new party; I appreciate that that isn’t what it is).

You seem a little selective as to when to be tactical and when to be dogmatic. In other words nobody is suggesting the abandonment of critical faculties – I’m not the thought police! If you believe Labour can’t be saved, believe it by all means; I respectfully disagree. But I’m afraid that it’s simply the case that there is no possibility for the success of a ‘reclaiming’ strategy if it’s accompanied with a ‘and if you don’t let us reclaim you we’ll take our bat and ball home’.

A couple of New Labour types have said to me, in the last few weeks, that if John McDonnell were to ever become Labour Party leader they’d leave the party. My reaction to their face, of course, is – well cheers for that, I’ve sat through your right-wing leaders and carried on campaigning throughout, but you’d leave as soon as a leader I wanted got elected, there’s solidarity for you (etc, etc.) But actually this is the key:

Most people outside the party see us as ‘real Labour’ and much of the rest of the party mainstream as – in one way or another – careerist, compromising, soft, unprincipled, etc (with varying degrees of fairness!) Now, much good it does us, but it is still the case. Even inside the party that notion lurks under the surface. The people who spoke to me recently were embarrassed to admit they didn’t have our staying power; it was a source of some shame. Even the masters of bastardising the language to put themselves in the driving seat of history – the likes of Blair himself – can’t quite disguise it from their vocabulary – “we can’t do everything”, “some people are disappointed by the speed of change”, etc. Of course this missed the real cause of disappointment (and anger) quite substantially, but it continued to support the idea that there was somehow an authentic Labour voice, that Blair didn’t speak with it, and those who did were located much further to the left.

Of course, one reason why the LRC occasions some hostility a little to our right – other than our fantastic policies and ability to smash all their arguments! – is precisely because the language and iconography of the LRC feeds from and into that notion. It’s the notion of Labour getting back to its roots; reconnecting with the grassroots and its founding principles; of ‘real Labour’ and ‘reclaiming’. I think its an effective tool – though we have to swerve to avoid the potholes of ‘nostalgic’, ‘old’ and ‘turning back the clock’.

I understand why people might be frustrated by this. Take Luke Akehurst – much as I disagree profoundly with the man on most things!! – he inherits just as authentic a Labour tradition as I do. We may not like each other’s traditions, but they both have ‘roots’, both could fairly be described as ‘real Labour’.

But this little weapon we have is far too potent a one to abandon. As well as those New Labour types who say they’d leave, there are others who cheer and grin when they hear a tub-thumping left-wing speech – they’d like to embrace it but they’re scared to; they sing the Red Flag with gusto; as Labour people they are suffering from ontological insecurity; they’ve been told so often that left=bad; left=losing elections that they believe it; but they also can’t escape left=passion; left=principle; left=Labour. Just little shifts in our presentation and our accessabililty could bring them our way.

If the network of CLPs has broken down, then we damn well need to put it back up again. Because remember, that existing organisation has such potential. It might take us 50 years to build a network so potent. The Bevanites, when organising outside parliament, worked entirely through CLPs and it was very effective. We have a much stronger, more organised and developed extra-parliamentary organisation than they had; re-activate the activists and we are in business.

This is one of the issues I have with allowing people to stand outside the constituency in which they live. They arrive to stand, and if they’re lucky a few good people will point them towards a pre-existent network. But all the hard work, of getting union branches to affiliate and send representatives, of getting workers to participate, is largely ignored.

I’m sure, if you’re selected, you’ll do great work Susan. As I said to you last time I saw you, if you win, the Whips will sit down and cry. But if the point is to build a movement, its telling that ours can only determine where we have resonance to build on when one of our members takes a leap in the dark to stand for PPS.

The network of CLPs has broken down to a great extent; that’s how far on the back foot we are. And while I appreciate the value of optimism, I think a realistic assessment of our position sits better.