Socialism 2009: Eight questions to a Labourite
This was an interview I did with a Labour Party member from the south-east, who attended the Socialist Party’s Socialism 2009 event, to see what he thought of the whole thing from an outsider’s perspective.
So, Dan, tell us about your role in the Labour Party and about what wing of the party you stand in.
I am ICT and Assistant Secretary for the Southampton and Romsey Labour Party, which involves wrestling with the cumbersome WebCreator software to try and give us some kind of active website. I am also on the Committee of the Southampton University Labour Club, and a local government candidate at the 2010 elections.
In terms of what ‘wing’ I stand in the Labour Party, I don’t like to give myself an ideological title, my political views vary based on the issues. I am a member of Compass as I support their positions on Trident and tackling inequality, but also have views which may well be considered to the right of the party, on crime for example. I would consider myself a socialist, but perhaps my view of socialism is not the same as others.
You attended Socialism 2009. How would you characterize the conference? Is it much different to the sort of Labour conferences you’ve attended?
I’ve been to several Labour and Unison events, and there is definitely a difference from the kind of discussions that I’ve had at them. I found Socialism a mixed bag in terms of events, I enjoyed the Rally, and I enjoyed a panel event that included included Dave Nellist, along with the RMT, AGS, LRC, the Greens and Respect. However, I found the seminars less interesting, and I did detect hints of sectarian differences on the left, notably in the debate about the need to form a new anti-fascist organisation outside of UAF, which seemed foolish to me, and a tendency to hark back to the glory days of Militant with little vision for the future, as I found very prevalent in a discussion entitled “Is Cameron the new Thatcher?” in which no debate on this issue was had, but fluctuated between the days of Liverpool Council and a current dispute involving Leeds binmen.
Can you explain how the Labour and UNISON events differed from the SP event?
Free meals and accommodation! In all seriousness this seemed more ideological and theoretically focused whereas Labour and union events are more policy-focused.
You mentioned the “Is Cameron a new Thatcher?” session which you attended. What about the first Sunday session you attended, on fighting the BNP? What message did you take away from that?
I found it very unimpressive. I am a member of Unite Against Fascism and found the party’s criticism of it odd, given I have found it a very positive and commendable experience. Particularly I am concerned with regard to the Socialist Party’s attitude to “no platform”, with most members at the event refusing to support it, and the Welsh secretary of the SP arguing it needs to be “reassessed”, the BNP “exposed” and a new anti-fascist organisation created. Very troubling and sectarian.
Do you think anything could have been done to improve the discussion in the sessions?
I wish there had been more intervention from the chairs of the various sessions as they quickly descended into a hazy boredom with various ambitious SP members wishing to voice not their ideological opinion but promote some unimportant event that occurred in their area.
Obviously, being a member of Labour, you think that the place of the Left is in the Labour Party. But was there anything during Socialism 2009 which might have convinced you that Labour needs to work with groups like the Socialist Party?
I wouldn’t be opposed to a working relationship between Labour and these organisations particularly the disaffiliated unions, but I think the real question is do factions like the Socialist Party want to work with us? There was a real atmosphere at the debate on the crisis in working-class representation, created by SP members that suggested the Labour party as a political force for leftist politics was over and that it was no longer in the interests of these organisations to consider Labour as a viable group to work with.
One of the things I like to focus on is political theory, on my blog. Did anything at Socialism 2009 bear out any political theories you have, or present evidence to refute them?
I have to be honest, I’m not as well read on political theory as I should be; I tend to find the contemporary and practical application of politics more interesting than the writings of theorists.
What sessions would you like to see on the agenda for next year?
I’d like to see less about the past and more about the future, the implications of a left of Labour coalition, and the benefits and problems it presents. I would like to see less of the harping back to the days of Militant, and more on how the Socialist Party can bring about realistic changes to politics.
The SP is right about UAF – they are useless. What’s the SP position on Searchlight/Hope not Hate? I’m guessing they are denounced as Labour stooges.
I agree that UAF are useless. I said that to Dan as well. Not sure about the SP’s view of Searchlight / Hope Not Hate – but I’ve never yet heard the SP denounce anyone as a “Labour stooge”. About left MPs within Labour, the SP members who spoke at conference were universally in favour of defending them – John McDonnell and Jeremy Corbyn in particular.
What I didn’t get was the impression above that SP members were denouncing No Platform. Nation of Duncan explains that session further: http://nationofduncan.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/socialism-2009/
Thanks Dave, I was about to mention that! SP members were certainly not denouncing No Platform, mostly questioning it’s relevance, and I probably have a harder line than most on the question.
This is an interesting interview and it sounds very much like Dan was in the same session I was. If this is true I think it’s an unfair characterisation of the debate, particularly remarks like this:
notably in the debate about the need to form a new anti-fascist organisation outside of UAF
This was only raised as a query by one comrade from Wales, who is not the secretary of Socialist Party Wales incidentaly, and was not a substantial part of the debate.
“There was a real atmosphere at the debate on the crisis in working-class representation, created by SP members that suggested the Labour party as a political force for leftist politics was over and that it was no longer in the interests of these organisations to consider Labour as a viable group to work with.”
Speaking as an unaffiliated socialist, with no current ties to any group, I must mention that this attitude is not only present within the SP. Labour as is cannot be described as a leftist party (based on policy, not the views of individual MPs) and while it is perhaps a little strong to suggest that Labour is not “viable” to work with or support, a move away from seeing Labour as the central force behind leftist action at either a local or a national level would, in my opinion, result in greater success.
JohnnyRed @4: I think you hit upon the core of the argument here, and I think Labour party leftists (for there are many) need themselves to move away from the idea that because the LP exists it retains the right to be seen as THE central force. The Labour left has to earn that right.
I’ll pick this up in comments on Dave’s final post on Socialism 2009 (the ‘future of the eft’ post).
On your point about identifying a party by its policy and not the view fo its MPs – yes, fine, but MPs make up only a small percentage of the party, and the party operates at sub-national levels.
I’m interested in your sefl-assignation as a nono-affiliated socialist. Why? Indeed, is it possible to be an unaffiliated socialist? Is’nt it a contrdiction in terms? Not trying to be narky here – just trying to understand what it is about standing outside any organisational structure at all which makes you more effective as a socialist.
“I’m interested in your sefl-assignation as a nono-affiliated socialist. Why? Indeed, is it possible to be an unaffiliated socialist? Is’nt it a contrdiction in terms? Not trying to be narky here – just trying to understand what it is about standing outside any organisational structure at all which makes you more effective as a socialist.”
I never claimed that my current lack of affiliation with a socialist organisation made me more effective (quite the opposite is true!) but am currently mulling over my options. As some background, I’m 20 years old and was a Lib Dem until around 6 months ago, and haven’t got around to joining anyone else. My point was that rejection of Labour is by no means an SP viewpoint, but a widely-held view by those of us on the left of the political spectrum.
Ah, thanks – that makes it clearer. Perhaps I was trying to read to much into it.
Yes,I recognise that the dismissal of Labour as a leftwing force that matters/relates is widespread, and it’s good (well useful) to hear it confirmed so directly. The problem for the left within Labour is that we tend to assume that simply because we’re here, we matter. That’s no longer necessarily the case (though it can be), and we need to make it so rather depend on our now besmirched name.
More later.
Having only ever seen New Labour, and never having been a Labour Party member, I cannot claim to comment from any privileged position, but only from my own limited observation of what goes on in the public sphere, as well as the sort of things that come up in this and other good leftwing blogs.
Having said that, my own personal rejection of the Labour Party in its current form is, however, not an isolated incident and I have had many discussions with, for example, other socialists in university who are similarly disillusioned.
If I can speak with my student hat on for a minute, it should be noted that Conservative Future (formerly the Young Conservatives) is growing quickly in numbers, if not in actual activist members, and have a fair amount of support amongst what traditionally would have been Labour or at least Liberal supporters at my age. I do not wish to put too much emphasis on youth but it is an ominous sign when the traditionally lefty/liberal student body is already embracing Tory principles.
That’s interesting. One of the key reasons Dave and I blog together here is to explore some of these Labour/broad left issues as openly as we can; Dave, in general terms, takes a more sceptical view to the chances of labour ever becoming a serious (and acceptable) force of a class-focused left again and it’s his and others’ healthy cynicism that forces my own exploration of what Labour needs to do in practical terms to makes itself at all acceptable to a new generation of people who only really identify the labour movement with a) NL b) Iraq c) sleaze.
I’m the first to admit that in terms of student politics (about which Dave has strong views) I really don’t know, as it seems to be a bit of a semi-enclosed world, which I don’t understand, but about which I don’t want to get cynical-through-ignorance-of-the-real-dynamics. It may be, for example, that the growth of CAs in universities is likned to the idea of a ‘debating chamber’ rather than to any development of long-lasting political affiliations, but I don’t know.
At uni (as in many local Conservative Associations, in fact) the student Tory association was mainly a drinking club. It claimed to have more members than the Labour Club did (in my day we had about 150), but we had far, far more active members who were actually political, came to meetings, engaged in campaigns, etc.
Tim puts his finger on it. In terms of politics, most Conservative Future groups do relatively little.
Yet it wouldn’t surprise me, as the NUS succeeds in depoliticizing student politics, to see groups like CF swell in numbers. I don’t know if they’ll ever translate this to control of the NUS, but their ‘independent’ candidates certainly wreak havoc trying to pull legs off the NUS spider by having different SU’s disaffiliate.
Bottom line is this: the less ‘political’ becomes the student body, or the less issues that hurt students are challenged effectively by the NUS – and it has essentially abdicated any sort of campaigning role these days, then the fast rises the Right, the socialite element of the political.
The far right sweeps in, with its colourful, reactionary ways, to fill the void left by the left. Now where have I heard that before?
(Tim – if you are here – I missed your comment on the stage 4 of 5 post (concept of campaigning). i do apologise – simply missed the email notifier. Yes please – i’m at paul.cotterillATusaDASHisdotcodtouk.)