Though Cowards Flinch

It was said earlier in the year that top donors had abandoned the Labour Party, and it became a bit embarrassing when in May it was revealed that Alastair Campbell was the party’s largest private donor.

But this cannot be said anymore, not now Andrew Rosenfeld has given up £1m of his reported £100m wealth, to go towards something called Project Game Plan – the code name given for pumping money into key constituencies.

But who is Andrew Rosenfeld? He is a property tycoon and philanthropist, formerly the chief executive of Minerva, now of Air Capital. Though he was caught up in the “cash for honours” scandal in 2006, he was never ennobled, but his company was the beneficiary of some “favours”, suspiciously under the say so of John Prescott, who denied any knowledge on the loans.

In a blog post worth blowing the dust off, Charlie Pottins of Random Pottins Blog reminds us:

Blair’s deputy prime minister, Environment Secretary John Prescott, the one-time seafarers’ union activist whom he relied upon to keep union leaders happy while reforming the Party, has been caught up in an embarassing disclosure that he approved planning decisions benefitting those who lent money to the Party.

A report in the Sunday Times by Gareth Walsh and Robert Winnett, (“Prescott Caught in Loans Row” , March 26) says: “JOHN PRESCOTT made planning decisions in favour of two property developers who had given secret loans and a donation to the Labour party, it emerged this weekend. The deputy prime minister gave his backing to a controversial £600m scheme proposed by Andrew Rosenfeld, chairman of the Minerva property company, only months after Rosenfeld had secretly loaned Labour £1m last year.

…

“Given the company’s links with the Labour party, critics say Prescott should have stood aside because of the potential conflicts of interest. Prescott, however, insists that he did not know about the secret loans and that he was following his planning inspectors’ advice.” [The quotes come from this article http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2104543,00.html ]

Certainly it does raise eyebrows about what is expected of large, private loans.

No sooner had the Sunday Times revealed Rosenfeld’s intention of donating again to the Labour Party, Jim Pickard jotted down an episode of his very recent past:

Last summer Rosenfeld, former chief executive of Minerva, was quoted in the Sunday Times saying that David Cameron was “the man for the job – no doubt about it“.

Labour had “run out of time“, he mused. “People have had enough. We are tired of the whole Labour message.” In fact David Cameron was “the only person who has the real capability of governing.”

One cannot help but be suspicious again. When there was no question of Rosenfeld’s support for the party he made a secret loan (which was paid back in full, something which cannot be said of all donors caught up in the 2006 scandal) for which a return was subsequently made. It is not beyond the realm of expected curiosity to ask: what does he want this time? Especially now he was hedging his bets elsewhere before the election.

The party should try and avoid dealing too much with large donations, because the interest becomes too narrow. And though it is idealistic to expect a party today to run on small donors alone, one thing Ed Miliband has proved in the past he is good at is finding them. During the leadership race he secured thousands in donations (of which the average individual donation was around £32) – emulating the successful campaign for small donations by Barack Obama, two thirds of whose campaign relied on donations lower than $500.

At a time when large donors were supposedly turning their backs on the party, Hariet Harman said: “It’s not true (that) we have a huge funding problem. It absolutely isn’t. Our outgoings are not more than we have got coming in.” If true, we might like to be a bit choosy with large donors, just in case vested interests should get in the way.

In an interview with Robert Philpot recently, Maurice Glasman – blue labourite – said the solution to building a working class-friendly Labour party can be done by re-creating:

a party that brokers a common good, that involves those people who support the EDL within our party. Not dominant in the party, not setting the tone of the party, but just a reconnection with those people that we can represent a better life for them, because that’s what they want.

Firstly I can see what he means. During Labour’s Blairite years (as of yet not entirely shifted), the task was to capture the hearts and minds of Middle England, while taking support and votes from working class communities for granted (not expecting the far right fringe to cause as much fuss as they have).

For Glasman, trying to re-engage Labour back to those communities will not mean taking a typically left-of-centre approach. 

The “family, faith, flag” mantra of Glasman’s has obviously had some traction with Ed Miliband. In the Sun today can be found an interview with the Labour leader where apparently he declared ‘Red Ed is dead’ “in a bid to dump his left-wing image and win back Sun readers”.

But Glasman’s words are purposefully ambiguous. Are Labour supposed to engage in a battle of rhetoric, repeatedly saying the things that an academic has supposed working class communities want to hear? Or should Labour’s main task be to drop the liberal elitism of old and concentrate on restoring community cohesion in parts of the UK forgotten by metropolitan politicians?

If it’s the latter, and I hope it is, then Labour should have nothing to do with debates set on the EDL’s terms. The party of the working class should be promoting those things which make communities better and safer; creating social spaces where families feel better connected with each other and where mutual trust between all groups be allowed to flourish.

At the moment the EDL is a force that undermines this work. At home it presents itself as a necessary part of the argument on religious extremism. On the streets, their conflation of the moderate, non-violent Islam – that most Muslims in the UK subscribe to – and radicalist elements preached by Anjem Choudary and his small clan of jihadis, cause the very ruptures to society that community cohesion tries to mend.

The Labour party did make a pact with the devil in neglecting its traditional support base, the price of which will be paid for quite some time. But the EDL are no representation of today’s working class communities either.

Some of what Glasman is talking about is rather interesting, but he is in that early stage of influence, trying to capture headlines with bombastic statements. We can ignore a lot of it, and this is one case in point.

You’ll no doubt hear many jokes tonight about Ed Miliband deciding to take his Johnson out, only to stick Balls in the fold – well there will be none of that here.

In fact the TCF tone will be one of mostly joy no doubt. While Mr Balls will fill Johnson’s old post, his wife, Yvette Cooper, the current shadow foreign secretary, will take over the home affairs position.

Alan Johnson has cited personal and family reasons for why this decision has been made. His full announcement is as follows:

“I have decided to resign from the Shadow Cabinet for personal reasons to do with my family.

“I have found it difficult to cope with these personal issues in my private life whilst carrying out an important frontbench role.

“I am grateful to Ed Miliband for giving me the opportunity to serve as Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer.

“He is proving to be a formidable leader of the Labour Party and has shown me nothing but support and kindness.

“My time in Parliament will now be dedicated to serving my constituents and supporting the Labour Party.

“I will make no further comment about this matter.”

Many of us felt that Ed Miliband’s choice when forming a shadow cabinet was playing a safe game; Balls after all came to be seen as a rather radical voice, tearing down many of the claims made by Cameron and Osborne in their attempts to cut too deeply, too fast, without an eye on growth or jobs.

After Miliband’s decision to take a supposedly moderate stance as regards cutting the budget deficit, many on the left were concerned that the Labour Party of the next few years would opt for a cuts-lite programme – but with the announcement of Johnson’s stand down, and Balls to take his place, perhaps we have reached something of a wake-up call. Certainly it will make for good Question Time viewing tonight.

The timing is interesting; some time past the silly season Miliband’s critics were warning him that he was not acting fast enough to make serious blows against the Tory-led government, while remaining comfortable only around the converted (such as the Fabians, whose conferences are where his two memorable speeches have taken place). After the messing around, and moves toward backdoor privatisation of the NHS, the EMA cut and the localism bill, it is apparent that the Labour Party needs an economic narrative themselves, to come from someone other than a Minister who joked that he needed to consult a primer in economics for beginners.

That Johnson was set to lead a soft approach towards cuts, some became increasingly worried that the Labour Party would lose further confidence with the left wing of the party, and be reduced to a rubbish act opposition. I said in September:

For me, out of the two main options – Balls’ growth model and the Darling inspired softer deficit halving programme – the growth argument is the one that holds the most traction. Therefore, I should like to see Ed Balls as shadow chancellor for the Labour Party.

Balls, for all his misgivings, has a level head with the economy; he demonstrated this during his leadership bid, and in his numerous speeches, like the one with Bloomberg, gaining a reputation as someone who will not toe coalition orthodoxy. With any luck his new position will put the willies in the government, and take Labour on course for a narrative on the economy that will yield confidence in Labour run councils to actively oppose cuts that they are being obliged to undertake.

As Paul mentioned back in September, on this blog, while supporting Ed Balls for leader of the Labour Party:

Ed Balls understands this relation between the political and the economic … [he is] a serious challenge to the existing economic status quo.

With any luck Paul will be wrong to say that a Shadow Chancellorship under Balls will saturated by the “conservative instructions of his political master” Ed Miliband. On matters such as the impending damage to our economy, Miliband needs to listen to Balls – perhaps this is the first step of his acknowledging this fact.

Unsurprisingly, the discussion on whether the Left within the Labour Party will reawaken has begun, in spite of Ed Miliband’s “left lurch” denial.

Contrary to what we’ve read in the papers, Miliband’s political direction will not rely on the union leg-up he received, largely because there will be advisors at the ready telling him not to let the tabloids have their cake and eat it too.

A nudge in political direction may occur depend upon who Miliband chooses as shadow chancellor, though it will not be sold as a political direction as such – and rightly so. Rather, the opposition should provide their analysis of the economy as necessary and sensible.

For me, out of the two main options – Balls’ growth model and the Darling inspired softer deficit halving programme – the growth argument is the one that holds the most traction. Therefore, I should like to see Ed Balls as shadow chancellor for the Labour Party.

As for a conscious political direction of the party under Ed Miliband, that path should be quite clear; though it will be somewhat disturbed by the right wing press – as I shall now discuss.

Miliband, when combating the “Red Ed” mantra during interviews, has insisted he stands for the centre ground in politics, but furthermore, wants to redefine what that means.

Alex Barker, in the FT, has noted that: “Britain’s new opposition leader [is] calling time on Tony Blair’s New Labour project and promising to “redefine” the political centre ground around reducing income inequality and raising wages for the poor”.

However, what is quite clear to me is that the redefinition of the centre ground has been influenced by the coalition government already.

In my discussion on these pages about the epistemic closure of the Conservative Party, what I have insisted is that today’s Tory administration is certainly no product of it. This, I conclude, is why it was unable to secure a larger proportion of the vote against an unpopular Labour government, because it spent more time alluding to social ills in a way usually the preserve of the left of centre, instead of those tacky things that pass for Conservative themes today; “uncontrolled” immigration, loss of “Christian” values, the relationship between crime and flailing discipline in schools, and the so-called handing of power to foreigners (i.e. the EU).

(Of course the Tories under Cameron did try and touch on this low politics, for example in Glasgow East, but has largely been characterised as a party, economically conservative, while socially liberal – particularly by Peter Hitchens, who recently described him as a smiling, willing prisoner of the Sixties Leftists).

Subsequently, many things usually considered centre left (crime often being linked to poverty, prison as one of many options for reform, the NHS as a good thing, bankers needing extra checks, not extra cheques), are almost universally accepted, even in the Conservative Party cabinet. Therefore, what goes for centre ground today has been shifted.

There are many strings to Miliband’s bow that he may now reconsider, or saturate rhetoric on, so as to counter the Mcarthy-esque media loons, and petit names dreamt up by idiots such as “deficit-denying, union-controlled, u-turning, decision-ducker” (do see also Panorama on Lord Cashpoint tonight). Those strings include salary differentials in the private sector; opposing VAT rises; becoming tough on greedy banker bonuses and what Polly Toynbee last night called boardroom kleptocracy; reforming the way in which a university education is paid for, where soon leading institutions could introduce fees of about £7,000.

Socially, the consensus marks a progressive shift, which defines the political centre as further to left than at any other time where the Tories have been in government. Where the importance really lays is in the economy, where in reflection of George Osborne’s cutting agenda, the moderate centre might depict something akin to the Darling inspired deficit reduction lite. In order to explore anything more radical than both these options – which ought to be preferable – there is no greater of enemy of the opposition leader than the right wing press.

Ed Balls, in a Guardian comment, made note that the Labour Party were defeated in 1983, not only because of a split, but because the argument on the economy was weak. Frankly, the party has returned to this position, only now it is loose talk by the right which could shape how effective Ed Miliband will be as leader of the opposition.

For this reason, and for the sake of the economy, it is my plea to fellow leftists not to dedicate all their time and energy exploring how meek the leadership of Ed Miliband is, but to focus on countering the low argument made by the right.

Tony Blair chose to counter right wing press by appeasing them and becoming rhetorically further to the right than they were. But his politics have come to an end. It is high time Labour took up the proper fight against the right wing media once more.

Labour have won the most seats from by-elections in Exeter and Norwich. Ben Bradshaw, MP for Exeter, has said “[t]his is a fantastic result for Labour and a fantastic result for Exeter.”

The claim by the Labour Party is that this shows voters already rejecting the coalition’s policies on cutting the deficit.

But it is also worth noting that the “Conservative-run Derby City Council has found itself lobbying against the Tory-led national government’s spending cuts” according to Chaminda Jayanetti for Liberal Conspiracy recently.

It is a strange set up, but the Tories have a minority administration, held afloat by the Liberal Democrats.

In any case, even in the early stages, tensions across the political spectrum have begun to play out as response to the way the Osborne axe has fallen.

As the severity of the cuts pervades through communites, the angry response will not wear political colours, but it should prove to be the impetus by which the Labour Party – post leadership election – set an alternative narrative to cuts. The welfare of people from all sections of society is, after all, Labour’s natural remit.

Reading the Economist this week, I noted an article which might provide the opening lines to the epitaph of Sunny Hundal’s idea (responded to by myself and Madam Miaow) that the right-wing Tea Party movement are somehow more successful at taking control of the Republican Party than their leftie counterparts.

The usual ideas (clichés?) are floated by Sunny – we socialists are all too busy fighting amongst ourselves etc, they’re more pragmatic while we’re more idealistic etc – but in actual fact, the seeming drift of the Republicans towards the Tea Party movement doesn’t change the nature of the Republican Party at all. Fiery rhetoric about slashing state powers on the ground, continuing corporate welfare when not stumping.

The Economist mentions the primary race for Georgia, in which all the candidates addressed the local Tea Party group and did a grip’n'grin. Candidates thought to be ‘establishment’ candidates – like Oxendine and Deal – lost out to Handel, who in her leaflets denounced her opponents, dubbed “the good ole boys” as “politics as usual”. Handel was also recognised to be more popular at the local Tea Party convention. So far, so good for the Tea Party movement, right?

Well, we’ll see. Ms Handel was endorsed by Sarah Palin, darling of the Republican grassroots, and surged ahead in polling shortly thereafter. Palin is the darling of the Republican grassroots and the Tea Party movement; her endorsements carry a huge amount of weight (or at least press coverage, which can amount to the same thing in races loaded up on TV spots) and she doesn’t wield them against Tea Party people – such as her decision not to endorse Jane Norton over Ken Buck in Colorado.

But who is she endorsing? In Handel’s case, whatever the candidate says about “the good ole boys” and ending “politics as usual”, she’s no outsider. One time President and CEO and a county Chamber of Commerce, having worked as an executive for companies like KPMG, she was appointed Chief of Staff for a previous Georgia governor, and from 2007 until 2010 she served as Secretary of State in Georgia. This is a full-time careerist politico, who, incidentally, has received numerous endorsements from the rest of the Republican establishment.

So what effect, really, is the Tea Party movement having on Republican politics? It would be easy to portray the Deal v. Handel run-off in August as establishment v. Tea Party-backed outsider, as the Economist does, but it would also be lazy. They are both political insiders, and actually, so the commentary from local sources seem to suggest, Handel is probably more liberal than Deal, but she has endorsements from well-known conservative figures to bolster her reputation.

My point in all this is to suggest that the Republican grassroots are being diddled in exactly the same way as Leftie grassroots activists. As has been noted with regard to the Labour leadership election, since the stinging criticisms a couple of months ago that most of the candidates fudged the question of gay marriage, more candidates have come out to back it – as it’s likely to be a popular position with a large section of Labour’s base (though very unpopular with another section).

It’s a sop – it won’t change anything fundamental about Labour’s approach, but it allows the candidates to appeal for grassroots support. The Tea Party movement is being used in the same way. At the bottom are people with a some genuine grievances – the belief that immigration results in worse employment conditions, or the wish that NAFTA should be scrapped, for example. Yet Republicans aren’t going to curb immigration, and they won’t scrap NAFTA. It’ll hurt economic growth.

Meanwhile, far from being grassroots-run, the Tea Party movement is basically a network of professional pressure groups which can link national political figures and large emailing lists, and which can fill stadiums with people who believe that these groups are the last-ditch American defence against socialism. The sort of hyperbole common to true believers here would be hilarious if it wasn’t so dangerous – but the candidates they’re backing don’t share any of these beliefs. People who have served in state and national politics aren’t that naive. They are using the grassroots, and will then promote their own agenda once in office.

The odd sop will be thrown to the base, of course – that’s just good politics. But the disconnection between Right grassroots and leadership, and Left grassroots and leadership is exactly the same.

It should be a lesson that, after eight years of a Republican President, the grassroots of the Right – the sort who idealised things like the 9/12 campaign – were disillusioned and pissed off. Two years in to a Democratic Presidency and Congress which promised much and delivered little, the implication of Sunny’s remarks (though he might not see it like this) are that Democratic supporters expected too much – that blame should lie with the grassroots, rather than with tenacious corporate lobbying, a massively funded propaganda campaign, or with obfuscating Senators.

The grassroots American left has every right to be pissed off. They were taken advantage of – and the Republican grassroots will likely be in the same position once Obama can no longer be the whipping boy for every frothing congressional wannabe.

In the UK, we should learn this lesson. Whoever wins the leadership election now – John McDonnell having failed to make the ballot – the result is going to be a disconnection between what the activists of the party want and what the PLP and the trades union bureaucracies settled for. That’s not the fault of demanding activists – as in America, it is the fault of the process underpinning Labour Party politics.

I’m not a Labour Party member, and I’m unlikely to rejoin the Labour Party, even secretly, just to vote for Diane Abbott. Yet I suspect there are few socialists who would not appreciate the re-politicisation of the Labour Party membership.

I have only my own experience and that of others of like-mind to support this contention, but the lack of debate over issues (beyond property development, traffic lights and similar things) at branch and constituency Labour Parties is key to the continuing inability of the Labour Left to engage decisively within its class or within the Party.

Why is there no initiative to change that? I know of several people who sought the position of Political Education Officer within their CLP because they felt they could bring some debate to their CLP. Perhaps it’s time to support them.

A central body like the Labour Representation Committee, backed by the research groups of various unions, the TUC and even (gasp!) Compass, could issue one resolution every week, for debate at branches, to be voted on by the end of the meeting. Information in support of the resolution could be issued much in the way that New Labour issued their talking points bulletins to the PLP (except our version would be intellectually more engaged and honest).

Such debates, in the lead up to Labour’s conference, would provide the opportunity to orient new or depoliticised members to key issues facing the Party and the working class. This will be vital in distinguishing between candidates for conference delegate. But these debates will only happen if groups like the LRC press Party members to regard the proposal of resolutions and the toeing of a socialist line as their duty at CLP and branch meetings.

It might also lead to a wider activism; it doesn’t take an intellectual giant to draw a link between a resolution supporting a national strike (of which there are liable to be a few, and this is just an example in one area) and the potential for actually doing something to support the strike at a local level. If one or two members for each geographically tight region (done by county perhaps) was willing to oversee this development, support to picket lines or protests against job cuts etc would be easier to bring out.

When people see this happening, they’ll be more likely to join, and those who join as a result will be more likely to take an activist role and stance.

Additionally, it might provide a way to establish contacts in those branches which don’t necessarily have a strong Left contingent. One member would be enough to start the debate. Even if that member didn’t feel especially confident running a section of the LRC, passing back contact details to the LRC officers would help in fleshing out that organisation.

From the point of view of a member of the Socialist Party, it may seem unimportant to strengthen Labour’s grassroots. But the reality is that a Labour Party that moves Left will form one arm of a broad coalition of the working class – wherever they stand politically – to fight the Conservative-Liberal government and their cuts.

In fact, there’s an argument to be made that an LRC, forced to the Left by a greater connection to its class, and staffed by committed community and trades union activists – particularly of the younger generation – will feel a pull towards mobilising for mass disaffiliation of CLPs from Labour, if an alternative political organisation can successfully upset the Con-Lib agenda.

Just a thought.

At the Fabian sponsored Labour leadership hustings held last month, Emma Burnell asked the $64,000 question to the candidates, with the chair Gaby Hinscliff challenging them to answer the question in one line: what does socialism mean to you?

The results were not necessarily to be expected.

David Miliband was most indirect, admitting he was happy with the words ‘democratic socialism’ on his membership card, clearly uncomfortable with aligning himself with it; Ed Balls laboured over “collective action” and having no truck with ridding the state, unlike the right who will do anything to resist responsibility; Ed Miliband took the line that socialism is more about being able to criticise and challenge capitalism than actually getting rid of it; Andy Burnham told us he has ‘socialism of the heart’ while Dianne Abbott noted socialism standing with the voiceless and the powerless.

What was to be expected, however, on asking more than one person what socialism means, is the range of different meanings socialism is given. To dispel this myth, it should be reminded that socialism actually means something, and worryingly it wasn’t captured by the potential leaders of the Labour party in their allocated one line answer, nor since.

To find that meaning, a good base is GDH Cole’s World Socialism Restated – a pamphlet published by the Fabian Society in 1956. Cole was an English political theorist, socialist, long-time member of the Fabians, and in 1944 became the first Professor of Social and Political Theory at Oxford – a position later taken over by the great Isaiah Berlin.

Socialism, says Cole, is not something that is historically necessary or determined “but is the embodiment of a social order which all decent men and women ought to want” (p. 5). He reminds us here that socialism is not realised in society mechanically or automatically; one can not expect to see its genesis with our hands on our heads, it must be matched by people demonstrating its urgency and necessity in a world with such disproportionate ownership and empowerment.

Cole’s point here highlights two further things about socialism: that it is the “embodiment” of a social order, and that all people “ought to want it”. Socialism is an embodiment of a social order inasmuch as people are engaged in creating that social order. It is not an order inasmuch as orders keep people in check, but rather the opposite, that people keep the order in check; socialism forms a people centred society.

Cole’s use of “ought” is telling as well; people have not always wanted this social order. Describing these people has always been a point of contention among the left. Are they under a false consciousness, are they displaying bad faith, is it a free choice of men to reject socialism? Cole saw just as well in his day, as we do in ours, that times of plenty in a capitalist society can be joyous. Lending is raised, credit is encouraged, people are spending money, businesses are getting rich, the public sector is spending money, employment is higher and rectifying gaps between rich and poor can be put further to the back-burner. Socialism should not be the enemy of boom, but it must be the enemy of bust, and it is demonstrably so that bust is a product of boom.

The conduct of the financial services in times of plenty produces the conditions in which bust occur. But this is not a problem of the private sector alone, the public sector, too, has been consumed by a delusion to think the coffers will never run dry.

Socialism recognises the need for long term economic stability, which relies so much on central planning – though this should not be confused with the centralisation of everything, or at all with democratic centralism. It beggars belief that the UK economy currently is largely planned (much to the surprise of some hyperbolic critics of capitalism; it is not allowed to run totally free, sometimes governments in mixed economies are complicit in financial travesties. It is important for socialists to recognise this in order to apply correct analysis of the economic system), and is at the beck and call of an independent ombudsman, but quite what they are doing is beyond me (although, the cynic within me suspects that it is not equilibrium and stability that they want, or are paid to keep tab on, but growth, of which I shall now continue).

A capitalist economy promises two things: growth and recession, but it is wrong to assume that since with recession follows job losses that, equally, with growth what follows is fuller employment. Growth can often have too much influence on the conduct taken with spending, which cannot then be matched when the inevitable financial slope takes place. Yet, growth is the holy grail for governments who are running for re-election, as austerity is for the parties running against them. This mere politicking is not recognised in socialism, it is not the proper way in which government ought to operate, which is why it would be ruled out, but this perception is not unique to socialism alone. What is unique to socialism, however, is the way in which production is organised.

“The essence of socialism” so argues Cole, “is not state management or bureaucratic control … but the elimination of the claim of capital-owners to levy tolls on producers and consumers, so as to constitute an exploiting class” (p. 28). One way to ensure this in a socialist society is by enabling the producers themselves to be instrumental in the management of work. The British Labour government of 1945-50 had nationalised coal mines, inland transport, civil aviation, electricity and gas supplies. Furthermore they introduced forms of joint consultation between management and workers represented by trade unions.

This, plainly put, is socialistic. But there is a catch. Cole notes that there were “no fundamental change[s] … in the position of the workers in these industries or in pricing and production policies” as a result of nationalisation. To use another example, something even those on the right are comfortable talking about; in order that front-line public sector workers – such as teachers, nurses, social workers etc – enjoy job satisfaction and employment equality, a good deal of empowerment must be bestowed upon them, but these are empty words unless matched with a great many other things; creativity in work, key decision maker on things in work that affect them – and outside work – wealth equality, equal standing in society.

Those latter points could realistically be founded in capitalist society, and indeed such thinkers as Phillip Blond (as much as many on the left attack, ignore or fail to get past his lousy use of philosophy) who argue for a society based on ownership at the front in a capitalist society attempt to demonstrate this (the problem with Blond for me is not necessarily that he fails to see inequality inherent to capitalism – he makes no bones about supporting hierarchical systems – but rather his fractured idea of the role of the state. For him socialism is the sum total of state management and bureaucratic control, which is a grave error that even leftists need be reminded of). But to curb a financial model that concentrates wealth in few pockets, a socialistic programme of nationalisation and worker empowerment is a necessary requirement.

Inside a mixed economy, to pretend that capitalism itself is not capable of limited empowering of the working class is as mistaken as saying socialism is merely having a welfare state and a public sector (which should say more about the word empowerment, which, as stated, if not matched with other elements, is empty). Capitalism concentrates capital, that is all it does, and if that wealth was concentrated among the working class alone that would still be a capitalist programme. What socialists should oppose about capitalism is not its potential to do things or contain things that socialism would keep (the welfare state for example) but the ideology of concentrating wealth itself, and the lies that some of its proponents spin to keep everything the way it is, such as the capital flight argument. A socialist economy would disperse wealth and production would be geared far more in the workers’ favour.

From the subject of what in capitalist society is useful to socialism, socialists must identify what in parliamentary democracy is useful. Here Cole is at his most interesting and divisive. He says:

Living in Great Britain, I was never in doubt that there were elements in the existing society which, far from wishing to destroy, I must wish to carry over intact into the new society and to develop further rather than to replace … I can see why Lenin felt as he did about Tsarist Russia; but I cannot, and never could, feel the same way about Great Britain” (pp. 6-7)

Cole states outright that he is a revolutionary socialist, but accepts that his choice of words might bring up connotations he would rather steer clear of. “[I]t is all too easy for those who follow [the parliamentary road to socialism] to abandon the quest for socialism and to rest content with such advances towards the welfare state” (p.7) and of course, as Cole put it, “socialism means … much more than a welfare state … [it] connotes equality, not necessarily in the sense of absolute equality of incomes, but in that of a cessation of class-distinction” (p.7) – though in spite of how this might sound, I’m in little doubt that Cole would have supported a high pay campaign, since tensions between rich and poor cannot be ignored simply as different to class struggle.

What Cole sees as revolutionary, as opposed to reformist, about his socialism is that it is people-centred, not reliant on violence or parliament reform alone. For him, the reformist position is too complacent and half-hearted, yet communism is entirely “inappropriate to British conditions and to those other countries in which the parliamentary road was open and freedom of speech and organisation were largely present” (p.8).

Cole calls for solidarity with communist workers in “backward” countries to organise against the capitalist class, and as stated would have stood beside Lenin in Tsarist Russia, but takes the opinion that a socialist society is far more organised society than that a communist one promotes. It is an interesting position, made in distinction to many today who would call themselves socialists, and seemingly more in line with those who appeal to a more liberal/left wing position of parliamentary reform.

But what Cole calls for is honesty among the socialists, about the benefits to be drawn from advanced countries and standards to which the working class can expect from them. If these standards are not met then we ought not to deride advanced countries for this, but those who are in charge of them. Cole identifies derision of the west as a grave flaw by many on the left, usually erroneously appealed to under the banner of anti-capitalism, and I also call this for socialism today.

Socialism in this sense is not a society which should hold a mirror to those of liberal democracies, capitalist or mixed economies, and do exactly the opposite. The lesson from Cole today is most apt; socialism does draw upon elements that could feasibly be achieved inside societies different to socialist ones, but is itself the embodiment of a social order which should benefit all men and women, a social order which mixes fair productive forces with worker power and a social order that doesn’t stop at a programme of nationalisation, but continues to break down relations in society based entirely on class and class-distinction.

Socialism is what it is; you’re either with us or not, and the Labour party could do with returning to it, because from looking at the calibre of the leader contenders, there is left a lot to be desired.

(Though Cowards Flinch has been running a series of commentaries and interviews on the Left candidates for Union positions. We’ve already interviewed Paul Holmes, one of the two Left candidates for UNISON. An interview is forthcoming with Len McCluskey, conducted by Adam, who thinks he’s a good choice – Ed).

There has been some debate recently about whether Unite Deputy General Secretary Len McCluskey, is the right man to be the Left’s candidate in the upcoming contest to elect the Unions first sole General Secretary. After a conversation with Dave yesterday, in which he shared his own concerns over Len’s credibility, I thought I’d try to detail why I think he certainly is a good choice.

The murmurs about his candidacy started as soon as he was chosen as the United Left (a recently formed broad Left caucus in Unite) candidate in September.

As Jim explained over at Shiraz, supporters of Respect member Jerry Hicks were concerned about the way the selection was organised. Hicks and his supporters walked out of the meeting, in what many have rumoured was a coordinated and premeditated stunt, and launch Hicks’ campaign as the independent left candidate. I advise you read Jim’s piece and this post from Kevin Parslow on the Socialist Party website.

As a member of the Labour left, my main attraction to Len is his calls for “21st Century Socialism” within the Labour Party, and a re-assertion of Labour as the genuine Party of the organised Labour movement. As many people are probably coming into contact with Len for the first time, due to his prominent role in the BA dispute, I thought I’d share is speech to the last Labour Party conference. I feel it gives a pretty encouraging evaluation of his position.

“We have a fight on our hands.

“In fact, we have two. The conference season makes it clear that the left faces twin challenges.

“First of all, to ensure that Labour is re-elected at next year’s general election and the Tories sent crashing to a well-merited fourth defeat.

“Second, there is a need to push Labour to finally make a complete break with its neo-liberal hangover and got into that election fighting on policies which will really make a difference to working people.

“In the light of the opinion polls, there is no doubt that the first task is difficult. And some might look at the experience of the last twelve years and argue that the second task is more like a dream utterly divorced from reality.

“But I would argue that both can be achieved. What is for certain is that both must be attempted. Come polling day, it will be a stark choice – a Labour government or a return of the Tories.

“Anyone ducking that hard choice is really retreating into a fantasy world. The great mass of our movement is not going to follow them there.

“The fact is that we have six months to stop a Tory government which will slash and burn our public services, freeze public sector pay and make us all work longer – just in order to bail out their friends in the City, for whom it would swiftly be back to business-as-usual under Cameron and Osborne.

“Of course, that hard fact does not on its own make Labour’s record look any better.

“There is no doubt that gains for working people have been many during Labour’s time in office. And there have been many disappointments too.

“It’s not so much a matter of “is the glass half full or half empty?” but more of “is the glass filling up or draining away?” I believe that recent months, including Labour conference, have shown a modest move away from neo-liberalism towards a more social democratic and interventionist strategy.

“The 50p tax rate for high earners, the action to help the motor industry – limited though it is – the commitment to resume council house building and the resolve to keep spending to protect health and education all point in that direction.

“However, most working people still remain to be convinced that the government is on their side . They see unemployment rising and factories closing, with the dreadful prospect of a ‘lost generation’ for young people, just like in the 1980s, hanging over families and communities.

“Gordon Brown has said that laissez-faire is dead. He is right – or at least he ought to be right. But there are too many signs of the City going back to its old tricks, with obscene bonuses being handed out and regulation being watered down under pressure from the fat cats.

“But the biggest problem is that we are now having the wrong economic debate. Instead of talking about market failure and how to put the excesses of neo-liberalism behind us for good we have let ourselves get dragged into a false debate about public spending.

“Does anyone seriously believe that the public sector was the cause of the economic crisis last year? Or that it was nurses and paramedics, dinner ladies and refuse collectors, rather than greedy bankers who pushed the world economy to the brink of collapse

“The Tories and their media allies have pulled off a masterstroke in diverting debate away from what they, their class, and their ideology is responsible for and making the issue public sector debt instead.

“That in turn has been used as a gateway for the parties to outbid each other in their virility in slashing public spending.

“We must say loud and clear that if there is a public debt problem that can’t be coped with through economic growth – and that is very much open to argument – then the blame lies with the bankers and the cost to the taxpayer of bailing them out.

“It is not just economically wrong, it is politically immoral that we should be talking of public spending cuts because of the burden of solving capitalism’s excesses.

“If we let this argument go unchecked, we will see the obscenity of teachers and doctors being sacked to pay for the crisis made in the City while the villains go back to paying themselves mega-bonuses.

“We should say “no cuts to jobs; no pay freezes; no cuts to pensions and no cuts to services.”

“If we want to cut debt, then there is another way to do it. Dump the Identity Card Scheme completely, tax the spivs and speculators and the rich elite, close the loopholes that cost £35 billion per year in tax avoidance and stop the wars of intervention and get out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

“The economic debate should now be returned to two themes: How we save jobs in the here and now; and how we develop an economic plan to make sure the crisis of last year is never repeated.

“On the first point, I have a few concrete suggestions:

“Use Government Procurement – £175 billion annually – to boost British industry and in particular guarantee apprenticeships as a condition of public sector contracts.

“Work out a real strategy backed by cash – as the French and German governments are doing – to protect skilled jobs in key industries like motors and construction.

“Place a windfall tax on the energy companies, which are ripping off the consumers.

“Turn the house-building plan into action now. Let people see the new homes going up around them before polling day.

“The movement also needs a narrative for the future. If laissez-faire is indeed dead, what is Labour putting in its place?

“I think we need to be proud of our values once more – of the State intervening through control and where necessary ownership to ensure a balanced economy, of action to curb the inequality which is the inevitable result of the free market, of putting peoples interests before those of the City, of saying that making the goods and services we need is more important than making money for a few.

“Those policies and values are the policies and values which can still produce a Labour victory.

“Let’s use every day of the next six months to get that message first to the Government and then to working people that there is nothing inevitable about a Tory victory, if our Party can find the courage to change.

As Britain’s biggest Labour-affiliated Trade Union, Unite could be a powerful force for progressive change within the Labour Party, and indeed society in general, if it had the right leadership.

Looking at this speech I see most of the demands common of the broad left in Britain today, and if these demands can be made from such a prominent position, I feel confident this could be of great benefit to the Left. Clamping down on the city, an end to the wars in the middle east,  opposition to cuts in Public Spending, defence of wages and a reaffirmed commitment to Public Ownership. What’ss not to like!?

I have been deeply troubled by the news as of late, much more so than usual. Industrial action at BA (which Dave has discussed here) and in the Civil Service, with promises of more to come, have got the Right and the media talking about the Unions again, in that wonderfully narrow-minded and ill-informed manner we’re all used to. I have come to the conclusion that my recently held suspicions of a resurgent Thatcherite tendency in the ranks of the Conservatives is becoming more and more obvious.

Even most on the left would accept that Margaret Thatcher was a woman of overwhelming conviction, and that she had a radical vision of how to change Britain. Though many on the left would not associate right-wing positions with radicalism, which is of course deeply flawed. The ideas of people like Thatcher, Milton Friedman and others on the fundamentalist right sought to change society, as they saw it, for the better, where we lefties tend to see them as changing it for the worse.

Whatever your views on the motivations of Thatcher and the consequences of her time in power, we can all agree that she made fairly significant alterations to our social and political landscape.

Her goal was to smash the post-war Keynesian consensus, and return to a more fundamentalist, laissez-faire, model of capitalism. She saw the changes of the post war period as limiting our opportunities in economic performance, and suffocating us with bloated and inefficient big government. As I like to often point out (with a somewhat smug tone), one of the major “successes” of this, as Thatcher herself put it, was New Labour. As she famously said, “we forced our opponents to change their minds”.

Despite the mountain of rubble under which the Tories buried themselves by 1997, Lady Thatcher could rest assure that certain elements of her cause would be safe in the hands of Blair and Brown.

Crucially, they supported her liberalisation of the financial markets. Despite manifesto promises, they supported continued marketisation of Public Services and never put an end to the Privatisation of essential services and national infrastructure.

They bought little or no reform to Local Government, essentially leaving Councils exactly as Thatcher had wanted them, spending agents of the Treasury. And virtually nothing was done to rebuild the skilled base of our once great, and highly Unionised, productive industries.

Our industrial sectors that were the backbone of numerous working class communities were decimated by an economic model that accepted un-unionised global competition as an immutable fact. Thatcher and her successors favoured a predominantly service based economy, where todays youngsters are more likely to be found working in jobs with little potential for advancement and less training in transferrable skills.

I tend to run through this list in my head and wonder, how much exactly did New Labour concede to Mrs Thatcher?  Of course massive changes have been made, not least of all to the funding of our Public Services and eradication of poverty, but I am focusing on the core objectives of Thatcherism, the ones that survived her, and more so on the one that slipped the net.

Despite the tremendous damage Mrs Thatcher inflicted upon the Trade Union movement, she never truly succeeded in crushing them as she so wished. More importantly in my opinion (and in the opinion of many Tories no doubt!), she never managed to break the link between the Unions and the Labour Party, a pet cause of many on the right since Labour’s inception.

The Tories know, as Keir Hardie et. al also understood, that the major strength of the Labour Party is its nominal position as representative of the millions of men and women who are expected to bear the cost of every capitalistic cock up without protest.

That’s what made the Labour Party so special, it was rooted in the organised sections of the class it sought to represent. It was what the ruling classes of Britain had feared since the English Revolution, the previously silent majority organising effectively enough to make their voices heard, and right the terrible wrongs that this country’s majority had endured for centuries.

Although many will argue that this principle has been shunned by the current Labour leadership, which has refused to enact a whole host of policies suggested by various Trade Unions, they are just as vital to the continued existence of the Party, as they were at the beginning of the 20th century.

Most of the Party’s money come from Trade Union member’s, who donate money voluntarily to their respective Affiliate Political Funds. Also, large swathes of our activists come from the Unions, notably USDAW and Unite, who both play a massive role in Labour general election campaigns, with Unite currently running a national phone bank campaign, contacting tens of thousands of voters around the country.

The recent industrial disputes yesterday prompted Conservative Chairman Eric Pickle’s to bring this all up, he whipped himself into the usual kind of hysteria that Tories seem to get themselves into when Trade Unionists try to stand up for their members – which is, ironically, what Thatcher sought to portray as her aim, when it came to supposedly “undemocratic” union bosses and practices.

Pickles demanded that The Labour Party immediately stop taking funds from the Unite Union.

I have become bored of trying to explain the relationship between the affiliated Unions and the Labour Party to excited Tories who have very little understanding of our internal workings. I don’t want to make the whole “The Unions are a Part of the Labour Party” argument again, I outlined it here and George Eaton also wrote a cracking article in the New Statesman, that sums it up pretty well. But its pretty clear that the Tories are now trying to turn the Ashcroft scandal round on us and at the same time revive their favoured boogeyman.

George Osborne also had some words for us yesterday on the matter,

“Gordon Brown cannot have it both ways. He can’t condemn the strike whilst at the same time taking money from the strikers’ union and while at the same time allowing Charlie Whelan, the political director of that union, to have open access to 10 Downing Street.

“In the end it’s a question of leadership for Gordon Brown. He has to cut off the links with the Unite union which is a party within a party now for the Labour Party.”

It is clear from such comments that they are eager to get back to Thatcher’s unfinished business, and break the link between the Party and the Trade Unions for good.

David Cameron has been pretty open about his plans to reform the Union link, and Conservative sources have assured us that this is intended to be a first term priority if Cameron wins the election. If they succeed, they will pretty much destroy the last remnants of the Party’s links to the organised Labour movement, and certainly ensure it will no longer have any hope of serving its original purpose.

This shouldnt be of concern just to Labour Party members, but to all Trade Unionists, whatever their affiliations. This is an attack not on the Labour Party, but on the right of organised Labour to secure formalised political representation for our movement, and is an attempt to finish the work of their revered handbag brandishing leader. We should work to ensure they don’t get away with it.

When the time comes, the words “Taff Vale” will be on more lips than mine.