“Back the Left” and Labour loyalism
There’s an interesting article over at Socialist Unity, discussing the list of candidates being touted as the group to vote for – in thirteen of the six hundred odd constituencies anyway. It’s one of those things, one suspects, where a couple of lesser lights and nobodies want to get their name some publicity, so they come up with this list of rather self-evident lefties like Dave Nellist or John McDonnell and put it out there in blogoland.
Stuff like this, where people are advocating support for individual candidates spread across multiple organisations, is a stop-gap measure obviously. It is unsustainable, especially in a context where parties like the Greens are going to run candidates against socialists. That’s not happening at parliamentary level, but it is happening at council level and leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
More importantly, it’s a stop-gap measure because it divides the forces of the anti-capitalist Left across several parties, replicating effort and subtracting from the critical mass of any given group. This makes it all the harder to share out tasks across many shoulders, to populate and enliven meetings and to gather together sufficient funds for particular activities required to grow any organisation.
The white elephant in this particular room is of course what to do in all the other constituencies. Where no alternative exists, vote Labour. Brown and Darling et al are capitalists, they want to increase opportunities for business at the expense of the workers and they want to take away the opportunities the working class has left, as a vestige of the post-war welfare settlement. But the Tories will do worse.
Of course quite a few Labour Party loyalists will bemoan a vote for anyone else. This blog (and arguments we have with people on Twitter) regularly feature the complaint that a vote for anyone other than Labour is really a vote for the Tories. This is a case of misdirected anger, one suspects, almost as bad as those people who demand that we ‘smash the Labour Party’, as though the existence of the Labour Party is what is standing the way of building a mass workers’ party that will campaign for socialist policies.
There was a comment on this that I wanted to reproduce from Socialist Unity though, which accurately sums up how I feel:
“In many parts of the country you can vote for a left candidate and be part of a campaign to build the left and have no chance of risking a Tory victory as the Tories come a distant third. A simplistic blanket – vote Labour – is as unhelpful as any other simplistic blanket demand. People should look at each constituency and make their minds up from the facts on the ground.
While the left should not be indifferent the outcome of the next election – and prefer a Labour Victory to a Tory one – it is not our responsibility (nor are we able) to try and rescue a discredited Labour adminsistration that seems incapable of taking the steps needed to save itself.”
The last part is particularly important: it is not our responsibility (nor are we able) to try and rescue a discredited Labour administration that seems incapable of saving itself. We, the socialist Left, aren’t able to save it because there aren’t enough of us and very few people who vote take notice of us anyway. It’s not our responsibility to save it because we should be socialists first, loyal to an ideal. That ideal is not served by a Labour government, and if it were, said government would have taken steps to save its own Left reputation.
Which hasn’t happened. All we recognize is that while Labour is not socialist, it’ll be less harmful to us (as socialists, as workers, as taxpayers) than the Tories. So we’d prefer a Labour victory – but we are not the arbiters of that. If Labour Party members want a Labour victory they should ask why the people considering standing against Labour are getting any sort of echo at all from working class constituencies, and petitition Labour leadership accordingly.
That this won’t happen explains a lot both about the self-deception required to remain a Labour Party loyalist and about the utter decay of the democratic accountability within the Labour Party.
Hi Dave,
Thanks for a thoughtful article. If people want to know more about the statement, the signatories have an online group at: http://bit.ly/backtheleft
I’m not sure if what we are doing is unsustainable. It’s obviously inferior to having an authoritative single electoral organisation but it will be hard to get the parties in which these candidates are members to make a non-aggression packs. Developing united action around the single best-placed candidate in each constituency where these is a left option actually reduced the divisions on the left, rather than extending it.
Our statement gives 13 candidates as examples, but there are others. There are nine other left candidates discussed on our website and, certainly, more to come.
Two separate points:
1) As you know from my writings on the subject, I don’t think it’s responsible for the left of 2009/10 simply to say that the rise of New Labour was a terrible think but that it’s nothing to do with us.
Certainly as a generational/personal matter it’s not the responsibility of younger people now agitating on the left and sick to death of Labour, so such a reaction is understandable (and linked somewhat of the PennyRed school of generational betrayal theory, which I’ll be addressing in a forthcoming post).
But as an organisational matter, I think it’s vital for the left (all of it, not just those still in Labour) to recognise the its own responsibility for the rise of New Labour in the late 80′s into the mid 90′s, through its failure to organise sustainably and create a force within Labour and the trade unions to combat the shift to neoliberalism of the Labour leadership.
A failure to do that, in favour of a reliance on new ‘heroes’ like Salma Yaqoob and whoever else is on the list is simply to start to repeat the mistakes of the 1980s. For Salma Yaqoob, read Derek Hatton or Ken Livingstone.
A focus on individual attribuites over organisational strength is the first step on the road to, for example, the Greens voting for massive cuts in services and salaries as part of a ‘pragmatic coalition’ (as in Ireland). And then there’s the LibDems.
2) You set out well how a focus on 13 constituencies out of 600+ constituencies lacks ‘nuance’. The other nuance though is that we know perfectly well that the election will be decided one way or another in something between 40-100 marginals (I can never remember pundit’s exact figures on this, and beat correction, but do know that it’s a fairly small percentage of the overall).
My own view is that left activists should consider carefully vote splitting in these more marginal constituencies.
I just don’t get the logic of accepting that a Conservative government will do more damage to the livelihoods of working class people than a Labour government will (and in terms of policy there are clearer dividing lines this time around, with some rays of hope for limited leftward shifts in some policy areas), and then effectively saying that taking steps to protect working people from the more damaging government is not the responsibility of the left.
I’m all for the development of left alternatives as long as they are organisationally grounded, and if they are in places where they can realistically win, then no big problem, but otherwise I do go with the mainstream Labour view that a vote for a leftwing candidate who can’t win, at this coming election and in the marginals, is actually doing a disservice to the working class. That would apply even in the absence of what I contend at a) above, but is reinforced if you accept a) above.
In reply to 1), I’m not arguing that it the rise of New Labour is nothing to do with the Left. But I don’t think that anything laid out above is a reliance upon individuals, as RESPECT clearly was. The “Back the Left” idea is simply triage – it lacks nuance in that it doesn’t approach what to do in the other constituencies, the marginals. In which instance, I’d consider who we’re electing before I decided to vote Labour. Though it bears saying that many of the most egregious New Labourites have secured themselves fairly safe seats – something that bears pointing out.
As for how, exactly, the Left bears responsibility for the right-ward shift, that’s another debate.
On 2), when I say that it is not the responsibility of the Left to save this Labour government, what I’m really driving at is there’s no point in Labour activists getting pissed off with people outside Labour who support other groups. That’s not the fault of the people in question, it’s the fault of the Labour government – and that’s where people should direct their anger.
“it is unsustainable, especially in a context where parties like the Greens are going to run candidates against socialists. That’s not happening at parliamentary level, but it is happening at council level and leaves a bad taste in my mouth.” Your information is wrong.
Firstly, Greens operate on a local party basis we are not top down like allot of parties – this is something allot of more traditional left groups cant get their heads around. We cant make pacts nationally its just not possible, issues like this need to be discussed with individual local parties.
Manchester Green Party are one of the largest Green Parties in the NW and since last year we have put it out there that we are open to discussing these type of issues but the truth is the left groups here just havent gotten their act together in time. In areas where the Greens have built up positive relationships with parties through campaigning together we will strive accomodated them or at least agreed not to undermine each other but only RESPECT have taken us up on the offer. We are on the Steering Committee of Convention of the Left and have repeatedly stated our position on this.
Might be worth reading my last blog piece on the matter : http://www.greengayle.com
Excuse me, my information is not wrong, Gayle. I can point to the specific council and council-constituency in which it is happening. Kindly don’t arrive on my blog and inform me I’m wrong – I sat in a packed hall while one of your elected councillors told me why she disagreed with the decision but was bound to accept it.
A couple of things then I wont come on to your blog again.
This is the first Ive heard about what your talking about. What constituency and council constituency? My point was these arrangements need to be based on reltionships built with local parties through camapaigning together, trust and a credible alternative. These agreements will vary as there is no over arching green decision making process that accomodates national pacts.
Btw, wonder when was the last time a socialist group other than respect made that kind of an effort for the Greens – NO2EU/BNP/Greens. We lost by 0.3% and now have Nick Griffin representing us – now that sticks in my throat. Anyway, all this sectarian crap isnt helpful.
Telegraph Hill, Lewisham. This happened before in (I believe) 2006, when the Greens went from standing one candidate to standing three, one of which was against an SP councillor who won a seat in 2002 and topped the poll in 2006. The SP got a second councillor elected in 2006 – and their third candidate came narrowly short of securing the third seat. Each candidate for the Greens got about half the number of votes of the lowest scoring SP candidate.
I fully agree that relationships should be built between local parties. Both myself and Paul, the other major contributor here, and a Labour Councillor, place a very great stress on local democracy. But we’re still socialists. And the decision by one ‘left’ group to stand against another, where the other has a chance of ousting New Labour, is simply unsupportable.
There isn’t any element to this which is sectarian; the failure to agree electoral tactics is a political difference that will render any relationship between groups sour. But the idea that this happens because the SP hasn’t gotten it’s act together on a “son of NO2EU” is laughable.
On the matter of when socialist groups have made “that kind of an effort for the Greens” (what kind, exactly? Campaigning for, advocating a vote for?) well I’ve voted Green at one local and one national election. I’ve worked for a Green. And I’m a member of the Socialist Party in good standing. It’s simply not the case that socialists are opposed to any co-operation with the Greens.
On the matter of when socialist groups have made “that kind of an effort for the Greens” (what kind, exactly? Campaigning for, advocating a vote for?)
Check out my depressingly accurate piece called : Response to the NO2EU Slate for the Euros.
SP may have lost the chance to get an extra Cllr(dont the Greens have 5 in that area?) but we got stuck with Nick Griffin representing us…..
You miss my point. Next year, 2010, Lewisham is up for re-election. At the next election, the Greens will be standing three candidates in the Telegraph Hill ward, where there are two SP councillors and the third candidate polled double the Green Party candidates. So this is not a past issue, it’s one that may allow NL or god forbid some other party to grab the seats.
Whether or not the Greens have councillors in other wards is irrelevant.
I won’t be reading your response to the No2EU slate – I advanced my own arguments at the time, and since the Green Party wasn’t standing on a socialist platform, and doesn’t have the backing of the trades unions, I think it was the right idea that someone should have. The problem being, of course, that there were THREE socialist platforms, each with its own deficiencies.
Seems to me that the solution for the anti-capitalist left is twofold: firstly to form a unified multi-platform party outside of the control freakery of the SWP with safeguarded positions for independent and widely agreed non-sect members to form a ‘control commission’ style constitutional body.
Secondly, to campaign for an election system that results in Labour being susceptible to pressure from its political left as well as its right, as well as squeezing the tories out of media dominance and the ability to avoid triangulating themselves.
Thirdly, campaigning for the reform of the trade union laws which hinder grass roots organisation, and campaigning for better political education and greater democracy within the trade union movement itself.
As a non-member of the far left and a non-member of any sect, the first recommendation here is not my responsibility, but on the second two my interest in a healthy left in general overlaps with such people and groups.
Dave, on the above, would you a) implement democratic centralism within the Labour Party and/or b) call for a vote against Labour despite this being banned in the rulebook?
Sorry on the above also a greater say for lay membership.
So many problems with what you’re talking about Tom.
Firstly, a “control commission” is exactly the sort of body which the SWP have – they actually having something called that, if I recall correctly. As for ‘safeguarded positions’, surely that jars with your problem with term limits and the whole idea that the membership should be in control at all times?
Secondly, I do not foresee any electoral system in which Labour is susceptible to pressure from its Left. The political Establishment is simply not built that way and by the time sufficient class pressure can be built up to change it, the question of formal democracy is moot anyway because much more fundamental problems – like ownership of the media – will be challenged.
Thirdly, absolutely.
As to your questions, I would indeed implement democratic centralism within the Labour Party. I would dissolve the NPF and make conference the sole arbiter of policy. Conference would also be given the authority to elect the leader, deputy leader and ‘cabinet’ of the party, forcing people to engage with trades union branches and CLPs if they want any say.
In the interim, I absolutely call for a vote against Labour. I will vote Labour in this constituency because I think it’s important that Labour remain ahead of the Lib-Dems here in Canterbury. But in other constituencies, such as Birmingham, Coventry or Brighton, depending on who stands for Labour, I think that other parties are the way to go.