Was Labour ever socialist?

Whether Labour is, will be or ever was a socialist party is one of those issues that tends to be as much an article of faith as any kind of objective analysis. If you are in the Labour Party, and especially if you are on the left, it is a temptation to see Labour as a socialist party that has been derailed. This leads to an incredible amount of time, effort and some intellectual gymnastics to establish a symbiotic relationship between Labour and socialism.

As the historian Henry Pelling notes the origins of the party lay not in radical socialism, but in parliamentary reform.  However, as Tony Benn amongst others has noted, the idea that the origins of the Labour Party do not include Marxism and socialism (however defined) is equally false. The much vaunted broad church of Labour has always been an uneasy alliance between those who see parliamentary reform as an end in itself and those for whom parliament is merely a means to the greater goal of the establishment of a socialist republic. 

The Labour Party was a very different beast in it’s early days. Labour’s leader in 1918 was one William Anderson, who according to Ralph Miliband, freely admitted that if “a revolution be the conquest of political power by a hitherto disinherited class, if revolution be that we are not going to put up in the future with what we have put up with in the past, then the sooner we have revolution in this country the better.” Jump forward 100 years and the present leader of the party would most likely say “I’ll have to read the small print before deciding whether having an opinion is likely to win over Daily Mail readers or not”.

What is interesting about the debates which took place in the party until 1929 when Ramsay MacDonald became the first ever Labour Prime Minister, is that they were mainly concerned with two things. First, how to gain power. But, second, what they were gaining power to do. That second question was invariably framed as a discussion of what socialism actually meant.

Ralph Miliband makes an interesting comment regarding the commitment to socialism of the trade union leaders, who effectively controlled the party at that time and still wield considerable influence to this day:

“..when it came to deeds, they made it clear that they had no intention of allowing the movement they controlled to embark upon militant courses they had always deemed disastrous, Nor had most of the political leaders of the Labour Party any such intention.” (Ralph Miliband, Parliamentary Socialism, 1972,p.60)

Labour was a parliamentary party and believed strikes were dangerous

The reality of the early Labour Party was actually quite simple. Away from office, or the possibility of office, it was unambiguously socialist. But, the closer to government the party became the less committed to socialism, and the more committed to reform. The change was not so much that the party hierarchy were opposed to socialism, but rather that they were intoxicated by the possibility of power. This was well illustrated in 1923 when the General Election resulted in a hung parliament. Then Labour Leader MacDonald was under pressure from the left of the party to take office and attempt to implement a socialist programme. At a meeting at the Fabian leader Sydney Webb’s house a different plan was proposed. Philip Snowden, who was to become Chancellor of the Exchequor, recalled the thinking:

“We might use the opportunity for a demonstration and introduce some bold socialist measures, knowing, of course, that we should be defeated upon them. Then we could go to the country with this illustration of what we would do if we had a socialist majority. This was a course which had been urged by the extreme wing of the party, but it was not a policy which commended itself to reasonable opinion. I urged very strongly to this meeting that we should not adopt an extreme policy but should confine our legislative proposals to measures that we were likely to be able to carry. We must show the country that we were not under the domination of the wild men.” (Ralph Miliband, Parliamentary Socialism, 1972,p.101)

In short, 1923 and the temptation of office was the first in a long line of sell outs by the right wing of the Labour Party. Those who supported socialist policies, which were now part of the party’s constitution, were considered ‘extreme’ and ‘wild’, unlike the ‘reasonable’ men who were prepared to baby sit capitalism for the Tories whilst they sorted themselves out. Sound familiar?

No Labour Government has ever fundamentally attempted to alter the economic and social system of the UK. The most radical Labour Government of the 20^th Century was that of Clement Atlee, but as Michelle Mioni has detailed his policies were decidedly not anti-capitalist. What the Atlee Government achieved should not be under-estimated, but it was not driven by a Marxist agenda or anything close to it. Indeed, whoever had won the election in 1945 (and it was widely expected that it would be Churchill), would have had to implement at least some of the welfare legislation. 

Arguably the high point for Labour was the sixties when Harold Wilson was leader and won 4 General Elections. Wilson was not afraid to use the rhetoric of socialism. However, as Simon Basketter argues in a retrospective piece in the Socialist Worker:

 “He faced the same choice as every Labour leader—whether to confront the rich and represent those who elected him, or to back British capitalism. And like every Labour leader, Wilson chose the latter.”

At least Atlee and Wilson believed that socialism was worth mentioning, and not something to be ashamed of. By the time Tony Blair became Prime Minister in 1997 the very word ‘socialism’ had become an embarrassment, and whatever else his supporters claim for his legacy being at the forefront of anti-capitalist struggle was not ever part of it.

Debates about the orientation of the Labour Party have been endemic since the inception of the party. Whilst the early incarnations of the party contained many who were avowed socialists, the nature of the party has changed down the years. The famous Clause 4 Part IV was, so we are led to believe, a blueprint for socialist transformation. As Tony Benn remarked at the end of the seventies: “Whatever problems may lie ahead, no one in the movement doubts that progress must be made, first to bring labour into a truly equal partnership in controlling industry and then in reorganising, so that those who actively create the wealth can shape the processes by which it is done and determine (within the framework of law and the needs of the nation) how the surpluses should be applied to develop our manufacturing, productive and service industries.” (Tony Benn, Arguments For Socialism, 1979, p.43)

Labour has always been a broad church and remained so even during the Blair years where huge efforts were made to remove the last vestiges of power from constituency delegates. It was Blair’s assault on Clause 4 which represented a watershed moment in the Party’s history.  No longer was the party committed, on paper at least, to “secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry”. Now, if you look on the back of your membership card (assuming you haven’t burnt it recently) you’ll find this instead:

“The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few, where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, and where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect.”

The Guardian was typically anti-socialist

The abandonment of Clause 4 (actually Clause 4 Part 4) was as much symbolic as anything. What Blair and his right wing cronies were saying to the electorate was that Labour no longer believes in old fashioned notions of socialism and collectivism, but rather is a modern party that believes, despite the words ‘common endeavour’ in individuals ability to succeed in an economy owned and controlled by a few billionaires. 

For those ex-Corbyn supporters now supporting Starmer, Simon Hannah’s words are worth repeating:

“Blairism was a package of measures designed to erode and eventually cut the link  with the working-class base of the party, the better to serve the needs of the global elites. Most of the newer members fervently believed in the new ideology; many older Labour members went along with it as the price they had to pay to get back into government.” (Simon Hannah, A Party With Socialists In It. A History Of The Labour Left, 2018,p202-3)

It is often overlooked that Part 1 of Clause 4 committed the party to “organise and maintain in Parliament and in the country a political Labour Party.” This constitutional commitment clearly lays out the idea that Labour is, first and foremost, a parliamentary party. Bearing in mind that when this was written in 1918 Labour was some considerable distance from winning an election having just 36 seats in Parliament and attracting only 13% of the electorate, it was an important clause directing the party’s efforts.

The real significance for our present debates is that when push came to shove paper commitments to socialism proved far less important to Labour’s right-wing than the possibility of taking office. In office, the party were more socially liberal than their competitors but within very strict parameters. There was no sense at all in the early years of the Labour Party that it would use office to do anything other than what remained in the interest of the dominant ruling classes. And, we might ask: what has changed? The answer is that today’s right wing leadership have abandoned the idea of socialism altogether four years before an election because they believe that they must show clearly that they are reasonable and the party is no longer in the hands of extremists. 

If you are tempted to think that it is Starmer or perhaps Blair who is responsible for turning Labour away from socialism, think again. It was clear by 1923 that the Labour Establishment, personified in the shape of Ramsay MacDonald, who eventually split the party for his own personal gain, was far more concerned with courting the British establishment than the British working class. The problem for Labour has always been that parliament has only so much power as the establishment permit it. So, gaining the keys to Number 10 may well give the illusion of ultimate power but the price of those keys has always been to abandon any hope of changing the system in a fundamental way which would undermine the dominance of the establishment.

Which brings us back to the question of whether there really is any point in anybody who has socialist ideals remaining within a party that, whenever tested, has backed away from socialism? The answer is that it is not just what people in the party think it represents but what people outside of it, Labour voters, believe it represents.

Since 1922 Labour has consistently received the votes of over one quarter of the electorate. The vote ranges from 27.6% (in 1983) to 48.8% (in 1955). Both those elections were lost incidentally. The number of voters ranges, over the same period, from 4 million to 14 million. Of course, the franchise has been extended a couple of times since the 1920’s, but the point is that millions of our fellow citizens retain a belief in the Labour Party as an organisation that represents their best chance of social justice. We spend far too much time, in my view, worrying about people who no longer vote Labour (if they ever did) and not enough time reassuring those who remain loyal that the party is genuinely concerned about them.

Since 1983 an average of 10.5 million people in the UK have voted for Labour. In 2019, the most recent General Election, 10.2 million people put their cross next to a Labour candidate. In 2017, it was over 13 million and by far the most important reason, according to one poll, was the policies in the manifesto.

As I have previously said, Labour is as much an idea as a party. For the average Labour voter Labour represents an ideal of social justice, a commitment to people like them. Most voters do not spend their time on social media looking at the political threads and pages. If they are on social media at all, they are sharing cat videos and recipes with far more enthusiasm than they are searching for left wing blogs (my recipe blog gets far more hits than this one!) Ordinary people do not, on the whole, attend political meetings, watch the news channels all day, or spend much time between elections thinking about political ideology, or indeed politics of any description.

If those of us on the left decide to leave the Labour Party we will not take 10 million voters with us. If we choose to stand against the Labour Party we will be lucky if we take 10,000 voters. Labour is not, nor has it ever been, a socialist party if by such a thing we judge it by its deeds. At best, it is a reforming liberal party, at worst a conservative party of social reform. Labour’s policies and strategies are not decided by the bulk of the membership who would, if allowed, drag them to the left. Rather they are imposed upon us by a Labour establishment whose only real change since the 1920’s has been that they no longer think that socialism is even worth arguing against.

But, for all that, those with socialist views are still drawn to the Labour Party. If you want to meet with others who share socialist views, then the Labour Party remains a good place to start (though, of course, there are plenty of smaller parties as well). The major difference between socialists in Labour and elsewhere is that in Labour you do have the opportunity at election times to engage 10 million people or so. At election times, and sometimes in other crises, ordinary people look to Labour for support and inspiration. Without an active left they will receive neither. 

I don’t personally believe that Labour can be a parliamentary socialist party. It can be a parliamentary party or a socialist party, it will never be both. However, it can be a parliamentary party which includes socialists. Those socialists will raise ideas around socialism and push the careerist wing of the party to use a different type of rhetoric. It can also be a place where those attracted to socialism can share ideas and practice, learn about the history of our movement and develop practical solutions to the problems which face the people who look to Labour for salvation of one kind or another. In the wake of the defeat of the Corbyn project it is tempting to see all as doom and gloom for the left, but this is  a place where the left have been on many occasions in the past and have emerged stronger as a result. The important thing is that wherever people are, inside or outside the party, that we remember that others on the left are not our enemies, but our allies in the continuing struggle to create a just society.

Why you’re here: if you like what you’ve just read why not use the subscribe button on the top right to get notified of future posts.
Defend Jeremy Corbyn against slander. If you can afford a small donation to Jeremy’s defence fund you can do so here.

Energising Labour’s membership

Every time Labour loses more than two elections in a row they are written off as doomed to eternal failure. In a widely read, and very influential piece in the periodical Maxism Today, published in 1978, the “Marxist” historian and Communist Party member Eric Hobsbawm described how the forward march of Labour had been halted.

The Labour vote had been declining because the old assumptions that the working class would always vote Labour were no longer true. The Labour vote was declining as was trade union militancy. Membership of the party was declining. Labour, was doomed and although Hobsbawm never said they could never win an election again, it was clear that he felt the party could only win by substantially changing the way it oriented itself. His analysis seemed to be validated by the 1983 election in which the party led by left-winger and self-declared peace-mongerer Michael Foot was decidedly rejected at the ballot box. The present day parallels are not hard to see.

But, as Mark Twain once remarked on reading his own obituary “reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated”. Not only did Labour win in 1997, it also won in 2001 and 2005. It came within 2,000 votes of winning again in 2017. There is nothing inevitable about Labour losing.

But, as true as that is, and accepting as I have suggested previously, that the Conservatives have a built-in advantage in the current system, the ability of Labour to win is as much (if not more) about whether the Conservatives lose as anything Labour actually does. If I were Sir Keir I would be less concerned about debates on the left of the party than the fact that despite their obvious incompetence the Tories are still a clear 10 points in the lead according to opinion polls.

All this is by way of introduction to a recognition that for all our successes in the past couple of years, the left need to carefully consider how we go about the business of being Labour Party members and how we use our membership to promote socialist values and policies.

It is easy to argue against the carefully thought out plans of others as I did last week. Far more difficult to put forward a constructive way forward of your own. So, over the next few weeks that is precisely what I am going to try to do. Last week I argued that sidling up to the establishment (as part of a plan for Labour renewal) could only backfire. It is as likely to lead to a loss of support and credibility amongst Labour voters as it is to win over Tory voters who seem, at least currently, fairly enamoured of their first team. However, as was pointed out to me by Anne Laird (read her excellent response to my critique of Rose Shillito here), in my enthusiasm for disagreeing with the plan, I under-estimated the importance of the role of re-energising a membership which still stands at 550,000.

The role of members is absolutely vital and one of the problems with Labour is that it has tended to see its members as passive consumers of policies and commitments rather than active creators of those policies. 

Much of course depends on how members, ex-members and potential members view the party apparatus. One of the most inane ice-breakers used in political focus groups asks respondents to describe the party as if it is a car. But regardless of its inanity the metaphor is useful. If the Labour Party is a car then the problem for those who want to change direction is simply one of who is in the driving seat. More importantly it is one of leadership, both the actual leadership and all the supporting roles. What this means for the left is that we tend to spend an inordinate amount of time trying to grab the wheel, as it were, without realising that the mechanics have fixed the vehicle so that it always has an annoying tendency to lurch to the right.

Besides, I’m not sure that a car is the best metaphor, perhaps Labour is more like a train. An underground train. Perpetually caught going round and round in circles, doomed to forever repeat the mistakes of the past over and over again.

Where do the members fit in to all this? Labour membership entails little more than filling in a form, generally online these days, and agreeing to pay a membership fee, usually by direct debit. What is obvious is that it is not necessary to have actually spoken to another living person to do so. You see Sir Keir on TV, you are inspired by his oratory and you fill in your form (and yes there is a hint of sarcasm in there somewhere). There is no requirement to even attend a single meeting, to deliver a single leaflet or to canvass a single door. Indeed, joining Labour does not even entail you having to have any particular socialist leanings, although the rules do not allow you to support another party at election time.

What this means is that people join the party for a variety of reasons and with a range of pre-conceived ideas ranging from believing Labour is a vehicle for revolutionary change to hoping Labour will help sort out the rubbish in their street. Some people’s membership is a means to a potential career, for others a means of meeting like-minded individuals, for others akin to a charitable donation and for others a way of acquiring political skills. There are plenty of other reasons which inspire people to join.

Party activists are a minority of the membership

Once inside the Labour Party and in possession of a membership card, new members are left to decide for themselves what level of activity they are able to commit to the party. For those who enjoy the cut and thrust of meetings there are plenty of committees, sub-committees and working groups to get involved with. For those who are looking for a place to debate politics and to learn about socialism the opportunities can be more restricted. 

Some people join the party and devote most of their “political time” to their trade union, or to other campaigns, leaving little time for Labour, especially between General Elections. The commitment to Labour, then, is variable. Those who like to run for office tend to assume that everybody has that particular mindset, and often fail to realise that they are the anomalies not those who see running for office as something other people do.

It is difficult to understand why people join a political party but then do not engage with it. In the most recent leadership election only 72.4% of eligible members actually voted. In other words over 150,000 people who could have voted failed to do so. In the Deputy leader election, where the left actually stood a better chance of success, only 68.75% of members voted. With the NEC elections looming it will be interesting to see the turnout.

Of course, none of this has anything to do with socialism, or for that matter even challenging the Tories. It is simply a reminder that having a mass membership means very little if those members are largely passive. My branch has over 400 members yet the average branch meeting struggles to get more than 15 members to turn up. Despite this the Branch has positions for over 30 officers, none of whom, according to the minutes, gave a single report in the previous 12 months. My point is that branch life in many Labour Party branches is effectively moribund.

There are a number of possibilities here. One is that people joining the party are too busy fighting for socialism elsewhere to get involved in branch life. The other is that joining the party is as much “fighting” for socialism as many people are going to do. The reality is probably somewhere in between. But, one thing that is obvious in my own branch and CLP is that the majority of active members, meaning those that turn up, do not see the struggle for socialism as anything they need to worry about in the immediate future. I am a member of only one branch so I would certainly be interested to hear if other people have different (or similar) experiences.

I agree with those who argue that we need to re-energise the membership. With over half a million members, that is a huge resource just sitting there. As I’ve said not everybody who joins wants to be an ‘activist’. I suspect at least partly because what they have heard of activists will not have been complimentary. On the other hand, it is likely that most people who join Labour do want to change society. Most members, including those on the right of the party, can see that our current social arrangements could be improved so that they work for everyone. It was perhaps one of the wiser moves of the Corbyn era to adopt the slogan (first used by Blair incidentally): for the many, not the few.

But, a pithy slogan and clever PMQ’s performance really is no substitute for an active, engaged and passionate membership. Why then has the Labour Party been so poor at energising it’s own members. Passive membership is almost sewn into the very fabric of the party. Activists tend to be suspicious of new members, never sure whose side they are on. Rather than welcoming and encouraging them new members are largely left to find their own way into the party.

Party membership is not actually this exciting - why not?

Both left and right see members as, essentially, a stage army to be wheeled out for elections. There was certainly a desire within the Corbyn leadership to involve members more, but it often ran into a brick wall at local level where the right were actively pursuing a counter-revolution against the left take over of “their” party. Left activists, whether knowingly or not, can see activism, and by default credibility, as a measure of how busy a person appears to be. Simply taking up a position that nobody else wants can give you esteem, which is correspondingly denied to those who are not interested in such positions. I have taken positions in the past, and don’t have any desire to do so now. Does this make me a bad member? My commitment to socialism has not waned, but the energy I have to pursue that commitment certainly has. Which is why I honestly think that the Labour Party has to change to be more welcoming to younger people who want more than a lot of boring meetings and elections to posts which then achieve nothing.

Will we see Sir Keir get this reception?

So, what is to be done? The most important ingredient in energising members is to give them something to be excited about. I can’t speak for others but personally the feeling I get from Sir Kier is one of boredom, rather than the excitement that was generated by the previous leadership. I cannot see Glastonbury welcoming Sir Keir with the same enthusiasm as Jeremy, can you?

But in the absence of strong leadership this means that the induction of new members has to be the responsibility of local activists. When I first joined the Labour Party many years ago I was the only new member in our ward. We were largely stagnant in terms of growth and it was only my enthusiasm that put me in touch with other members, some of whom turned into life long friends. But, according to my current CLP officers 300 people have joined my local party in the past 4 months. That is a lot of people. 

Obviously, social distancing prevents any face to face events and some of those members will be happy to remain paper members. But the left is no better than the right at encouraging the participation of new members. For example, do we know the Twitter, Facebook and Instagram accounts of all existing left members? Yet, surely this is a relatively easy way to contact new members. Perhaps such basic means of putting people in touch is happening and I just haven’t been invited.

Does anybody phone new members for a welcome chat? Joining a political party is a daunting experience. It is up to those of us already in the party to ensure that new members are made to feel welcome and comfortable. This must involve political discussion, both formal and informal. It also means accepting that new members may not arrive as the finished article. They may well have beliefs and ideas which many of us have moved on from or been challenged over. In making members welcome we must allow space for their growth and not impose our, hopefully, more sophisticated understanding of issues to become a means to drive them out. 

Energising members is not simply what the members can do for the party (canvassing, leafleting, taking positions, attending meetings etc) but what we can do for those new members. I can well recall my own journey from Tory-hater to socialist. It wasn’t without moments of anguish as my views were gently challenged by people who became friends and shouted down by people who became, if not enemies, certainly not friends.

Activity in the party should not be reduced to attending meetings where little is decided and canvassing for manifestos in which you have made little input. Ideas are the lifeblood of politics yet they are almost entirely absent from Labour life. It is certainly the case that many members are waiting to be told if not necessarily what to think, what to think about. If we want members to put themselves out and give up their time at election times we have to find ways of involving them in the decision-making not only of what is in the manifesto, but at every level of the party. To be honest, I’ve read my fair share of boring, stodgy, bureaucratic documents and I would add to those most policy documents that I have seen.

I have certainly seen and heard people being dismissive of passive members who don’t turn up or vote. But, I wonder how many of those doing the complaining have gone out of their way to be welcoming to members, and to encourage them to take part. And, I don’t mean sending out a mass email telling them that these things are important.

I am not suggesting here that I have all, or even any, of the answers. What I suspect is that there is an issue with involving members in a meaningful way. This arms length approach to members is embedded in the culture of the party. People can, if they are forceful enough, push through this to become active members, but many are waiting for just a small sign of encouragement. The current leadership seem to be wary of any democratic involvement of the membership and whilst complaining about that might be therapeutic, it leaves ordinary members isolated and potentially disillusioned. If the Labour Party is to be a genuine member-led organisation then it has to change. If the leadership don’t want or won’t support that change that does not prevent us working on a different culture at a constituency level, or in left organisations associated with the party.

6 point point plan for a Labour victory

There has been considerable debate on social media recently about the Labour Party. Much of the debate has focussed on whether to stay in or not. I would like to put that debate to one side for the time being, and consider what the Labour Party should do to win back it’s lost voters. In particular in this blog I would like to examine a Twitter thread from Rose Shillito (@rozzleberry), which claims to be a 6-point plan for Labour’s renewal.

The first thing to note is that this plan was written in January so prior to the leadership election, or the Covid crisis. However, it was republished last week, so presumably Rose thinks it is as relevant 6 months later as it was on New Years Day. Either that or she had such a hangover from December that she thinks it is still January 1^st! (Correction: Rose has let me know that she did not republish the thread, though it was a pinned tweet. Happy to clarify.)

I cannot find out much about Rose except that she has 7.6k Twitter followers, but only follows 3.8k. She uses the words “common sense” in her profile, for which see last week’s blog. She is white and I’m going to take a punt, middle class. She is obviously well meaning and would prefer all wings of the party to bury their differences and just get on with one another. In a recent post she talked of bringing together progressive left with progressive right, which I have to say is a bit of a stretch. Even getting the left to agree is difficult, getting two wings of the party to collaborate when we now know the lengths the right will go to undermine the left is either the mark of a great optimist or of somebody who is politically naïve.

Her 6-point plan didn’t receive too much attention back in January, but as the divisions within the party have grown seems a reasonable place to start an analysis of left-leaning centrist thought. Rose’s six points are in short form:

1.  Reframe the narrative

2.  Rebrand the message

3.  Reconnect with our working class base

4.  Refine our manifesto

5.  Re-engage the electorate

6.  Rebuild our relationship with the establishment.

For Rose the problem is that we are presented, presumably she means by the media, as something we are not. In her expansion of point 1 she says clearly “The Labour Party manifesto is not hard left.” As she rightly points out the manifesto commitments in December were fairly mainstream in many European countries. But, I cannot recall any Labour spokesperson ever claiming that the manifesto was anything other than mainstream. No Labour frontbencher appeared on the Sunday politics shows and said “This is our hard left manifesto”, or even “This is our left-wing manifesto”.

Like many, and I’ll use a shorthand term here “liberal socialists” Rose seems to find it hard to believe that the media actually hate the Labour Party. They particularly hate the left in the Labour Party who, despite being nice people who just want a fairer World are, in the eyes of many journalists, dangerous revolutionaries who seek to destroy the Britain they know and love.

Rose has the answer to this problem though. All we need to do, she says, is “rebrand the message”. According to Rose “We should play down our commitment to socialism and repackage our economic ethos as compassionate capitalism”. Essentially, the plea here is to dodge the accusations of being ‘communists’ by making it clear that we are a pro-capitalist party that just wants a bit of wealth redistribution.

In essence, this is simply repeating exactly what the strategy of Labour has been since at least 1945. The idea that Labour has ever been a revolutionary socialist party is a convenient fiction invented by tabloid headline writers. But, equally, the idea that people in the U.K. will not vote for anything labelled ‘socialist’ is a piece of so-called common sense not supported by the fact that 10-13 million people voted for Labour led by Jeremy Corbyn who the press had made clear was a socialist with dangerous and anti-patriotic ideas. There are plenty of examples of the way in which Labour, and Corbyn specifically, were misrepresented by the media (for an example see Media Lens) but the most blatant piece of imagery was that of BBC’s Newsnight who presented Corbyn in what appeared to be a Russian hat against a red backdrop of the Kremlin. 

There are two points to remember here. First, people voted for Corbyn’s Labour regardless of the labels placed on him by the media. And, second, we cannot think of the media as neutral. We can only shape their agenda by watering down what we believe in, and even then come a General Election they will willingly tell outright lies in order to favour the Conservatives. Jonathan Cook has written repeatedly about journalistic integrity (or lack of it) but this piece on Emily Maitlis is pretty accurate in its analysis of media socialisation.

Does this mean that we cannot present our message more professionally? It would be irresponsible not to look at ways to improve the message in order to reach the intended audience. The problem for Labour is it tends to believe the audience is every potential voter. In fact, a good one-third of voters will never vote Labour even if we present ourselves as the fluffy, lovely, kind and compassionate party. As I outlined in a previous blog it is important to be realistic about who can be won over.The existence of floating voters who veer between Labour and Tory is not supported as strongly as some would like to believe by studies of voters. As the Electoral Reform Society has noted “parties target their resources on a small number of floating voters in marginal seats”. What this means is that the importance of floating voters is given far more prominence than their numbers warrant.

So, basically, Rose wants us to abandon our commitment to our deepest held values to convince voters who were never going to vote for us in the first place that we are no threat to them. Analysis of voting reveals that on average 38% of the electorate always vote Tory. They are, essentially, a lost cause.

But, Rose whilst wanting to, let’s be generous and say, amend our message, also wants to win back what she describes as “working class” voters in our Northern heartlands. She believes that the loss of 60 seats was mainly down “to the decision to renege on respecting the referendum result”. Whilst Brexit was clearly implicated in the December result, as I’ve said previously many of those seats were lost prior to 2017 by the Labour Party taking them for granted. The disillusion with Labour dates back to the Blair years and can also be located in the manufacturing decline forced through by the Thatcher Government, and subsequent promises of regeneration that were never delivered. If Brexit was a symptom of a malaise, the disease was a shift to the right in the attitudes of people who blamed the left for the destruction of their communities. Winning these voters back, or those who deserted the party in Scotland will not be as easy as pretending we are no longer socialist or have embraced capitalism.

For Rose, like many in the party, the manifesto has become the defining point which explains, with other factors, our poor performance (though actually in 2019 Labour received more votes than it had in 2010 or 2015). The problem is that paring down the manifesto, whilst maintaining some of the policies (which is what Keir Starmer promised to do before he was leader), simply leaves us open to questions on things for which we no longer have a policy. The policy of paring back assumes that the majority of voters actually read manifestos. I’ll be honest, I’m a member and I never read the manifesto. Apparently I’m not alone. According to research carried out by BMG some 67% of voters do not read manifestos, and nearly a quarter of younger voters did not even know what a manifesto was.

The real issue with manifestos has actually nothing to do with what is in them. It is, rather, a peculiar game played by political journalists who like to pretend that every spending commitment must be met by either a tax rise (for Labour) or a welfare cut (for the Tories). If it is the case that the media are out to discredit Labour with far more enthusiasm than they do the Tories, then it is difficult to see how simply losing policies is going to stop them. Rose, like most people in the party, rather liked the manifesto until December 19^th, then decided it had too much in it. Despite that, she wants to retain some of our boldest commitments: green industrial strategy, fully funded NHS, nationalisation of key industries, social housing and a commitment to end austerity. That appears to be a pared down manifesto, but still we are going to be constantly asked “how will this be paid for?” Either Labour is the party of ‘free stuff’ or the party of high taxation, and simply pretending that we are not is not going to convince a skeptical, and inherently hostile, media.

But Rose seems to be, at least partly, aware that we cannot rely on the media to convince the electorate. That’s why we need to “re-engage the electorate with a nationwide campaign of grassroots activism”. This relies on Labour, with its reduced manifesto and embarrassment to be called socialist, retaining most of the members who joined because of its commitment to socialism. It is likely that a number of members will prioritise winning over principles, whether the electorate will is another issue. Rose suggests, in typical middle class fashion, “If you donate to a food bank or volunteer at a homeless shelter wear your Labour badge with pride.” It would be unfair to suggest that Rose approves of food poverty or homelessness, she would not be in the Labour Party if she did, but it is interesting that her vision of Labour members is neither impoverished nor homeless. More to the point, Labour should not be about glorifying our charity, but doing away with food poverty and homelessness once and for all. But, such talk may sound a bit too much like socialism or, Marx forbid, communism for a party that is rebranding itself to appeal to the establishment.

It is the idea that we must be embraced by the establishment that is perhaps the weakest part of this plan. It is necessary to understand who the establishment are and how their interests are different to ordinary peoples to see why much of Rose’s plan is as unworkable as it is, to Rose’s eyes at least, just common sense. A shorthand name for the establishment is the Conservative Party, but we used to refer to them as the ruling class. I can understand why those like Rose who believe the establishment should be treated as floating voters would want to deny the existence of class conflict. But, it is undoubtedly the case that we have a class with power, wealth and entitlement and we have a class who have nothing but their own labour power. The interests of these two classes are not, nor can they be, the same. The establishment will only accept Labour as the dejure rulers of British capitalism on condition that they are no threat to the defacto ruling class and their privileged position. 

It is not an unfortunate oversight that some 14 million British citizens are living in poverty, according to the United Nations. Nor was it just an editorial oversight that meant the UN Report which damned the Government was virtually ignored by the entire media. When it was featured it was mainly to coordinate a personal campaign against Professor Philip Alston, the reports author. 

If the conditions for Labour getting elected are the patronage of the establishment, a refusal to even mention socialism, let alone practice it, and a manifesto that is written to appeal to the ruling class, then it is hardly worth voting for them at all. Whilst Jeremy Corbyn was leader it was difficult to maintain that all the parties were the same. But, it was that belief that saw Labour under Blair lose 4 million voters, including starting the rot in Scotland, and in the North of England. 

Labour wins votes when it is bold, and when it’s policies are attractive to young and working class voters. 

 In 2017 Labour received nearly 13 million votes. It did not hide its anti-establishment agenda, it’s belief in a form of socialism nor its intention to challenge the status quo that had ruined, and continues to do so, the lives of millions of people. We now know that in addition to the Parliamentary Labour Party working doggedly to overthrow the members choice as leader, and unreconstructed Blairites working everyday to destroy Corbyn, that the Labour establishment in the shape of full-time employees were determined to prevent a Labour victory (I’ve written about this here, but Novaramedia’s Aaron Bastani has also written about its contents, as has the always interesting and provocative Craig Murray). We lost in 2019 partly because of Brexit but also because the establishment and its cronies in Labour threw everything at us to ensure their continued dominance. It is demoralising to realise that so many who had joined the party because of Corbyn then swallowed the myth of electability that saw Keir Starmer, the architect of the disastrous Brexit policy, emerge as leader. 

I have spent some time on Rose Shillito’s six-point plan not because she is a major figure in Labour but precisely she is the type of ordinary member who cares passionately for the party, and desperately wants to see a Labour victory. I suspect that she represents a view held by many who believe any Labour victory is preferable to a Tory one. But, and here’s the rub, the view is misguided, in my view, on so many counts, some of which I’ve outlined here.

The Labour Party is more than just a political party. It encapsulates the hopes and dreams of millions of people. A vote for Labour is not a vote for an entrenched establishment but a vote for hope and for change. As strange as it may seem that remains the case even when Labour sells itself as embracing values more commonly held by the Liberals and Conservatives. For those of us on the left doctrine is important, perhaps more important than we let on. We believe that voters are swayed by ideas promoted by the media. We believe, therefore, that the ideas must be correct. Sometimes we believe so passionately that we forget that the majority of ordinary people for the majority of time are barely thinking about politics at all. They really don’t know the difference between Ed Miliband, Jeremy Corbyn or Keir Starmer. They know that there is such a thing as ‘the establishment’ but most of the time, beyond having a feeling that they don’t like them much don’t really know who or what they are. This is the background to debates about what the party should stand for.

If I am correct that people vote for Labour regardless of what it stands for then why does it matter whether we are pro- or anti-establishment? The fact is that the closer aligned to the establishment Labour become, the less attractive we become to ordinary voters. We may be more attractive to the establishment but governing with their permission means accepting their values. It is held, particularly by Labour’s right and their supporters in the media, that Jeremy Corbyn was a disaster as Labour leader. But, objectively that is simply not true. Corbyn took a party that appeared to be in terminal decline within 2,000 votes of an election victory. He was responsible for an influx of members making Labour the biggest party in Western Europe. But, impressive as that would be, Corbyn’s success was in shifting the terms of debate. If the party’s right was not so obsessively anti-left, it would see that they had been presented with an open goal. A mass membership prepared to work on the ground, a manifesto that with minor tweaks was capable of delivering a huge popular vote and an anti-establishment agenda that was tailor made for the emerging environmental and black lives matters lobbies. Faced with an open goal the right picked up the ball, and walked off the pitch prepared to cede everything to a party that stands in direct opposition to everything Labour is supposed to stand for.

It matters what Labour stands for because it helps shape the debate. The more to the left Labour places itself the harder it is to argue that there is no difference between the parties. But more importantly the more leftward we are, the more the political establishment moves left in order to discredit us and to maintain the illusion that they are the friends of ordinary workers. Cosying up to the establishment as Rose suggests and Starmer appears intent on doing is bad politics for it blurs the distinction between good politics and bad politics. But it is also bad politics because conceding more ground to the establishment does not make Labour more electable but rather makes them indistinguishable to the Tories.

We may need a six point plan to re-energise the Labour Party, but I’m sorry to say this is not it.

End note: After publishing this blog post I contacted Rose Shillito via Twitter and offered a right of reply. She declined. She then called me “clueless” on Twitter and promptly blocked me. I am sad about that outcome as in her original tweet she had explicitly said she would welcome comments.