Moving on - is there life after Labour?

 

Is there life outside the Labour Party if you are on the left? It’s a question that’s taken on something of an existential quality lately. For those determined to stay within Labour those contemplating life outside are raising questions which they don’t necessarily want to answer. Perhaps my characterisation of remainers as suffering from a form of ‘Stockholm Syndrome’ was rather too blunt. But what is not in question is that a once, and briefly, united left is now splintering.

There is no doubt that when Jeremy Corbyn won the leadership in 2015 it energised the left in ways that had not been seen since the miners strike. It was not so much that many of the older generation of lefties who rejoined the party suddenly converted to a belief that the party could become socialist, more that in a period that had seemed unrelentingly bleak, Corbyn became a beacon of hope. It gave the left in and outside the party something to get behind. A common cause that was more concrete than just a vague belief in socialism.

Youthful exuberance

Whilst some people are dismissive of Corbyn’s appearance at Glastonbury in 2017, the spontaneous outpouring of youthful exuberance showed that he had managed to capture the imagination of a generation. A generation, incidentally, that not too long earlier had been dismissed as largely uninterested in politics. For the first time since Militant had controlled the Labour Party Young Socialists young people were flocking into the party, many of them members of Momentum. Some of those young people, such as Lara McNeil, Jess Barnard and Hasan Patel now have positions within the party.

We should not overstate the youthfulness of Momentum. Contrary to popular mythology Momentum was not a youth organisation, many of its members were older, former members, or even those who had endured Blairism. The point was that a socialist grassroots campaign grew almost immediately Corbyn became leader. It was a coalition of young, old and middle aged. A coalition of those who had spent years attempting to force Labour leftward, those who had given up and those new to politics but inspired by Corbyn’s radical vision.

But, as the left united around Corbyn’s ascension so the right-wing fought back. Shocked by the size of his victory they began resigning from frontbench positions they had not even been offered. As we now know the conspiracy against Corbyn was coordinated by Labour staffers who were rewarded for their mendaciousness by SirKeir. The conspiracy ran deep and included Labour MPs, the Board of Deputies, the Jewish Labour Movement, the press (particularly but not exclusively The Guardian), the People’s Vote campaign (in reality a front organisation funded by Blairites and Blair himself to destabilise Corbyn), the broadcast media (honourable mentions here to Laura Kuenssberg, Robert Peston, Newsnight and, of course the star turn Panorama). The reality was that the opposition to the Official Opposition consisted of the entire establishment determined to deliver a Tory Government, but as importantly to stop the left in its tracks. And, of course, they succeeded. This was ideological warfare and they won because although we had more troops they had more effective weapons at their disposal.

The left inside Labour split almost immediately following the General Election defeat of December 2019. As soon as Corbyn announced he was resigning it was clear that no credible alternative existed to take up the mantel. Richard Burgon might have won sufficient support but he decided to throw his weight behind Rebecca Long-Bailey who, lets be honest, had neither the charisma nor the history to energise a left that had just had hope snatched from its grasp.

SirKeir’s victory, in which many former Corbyn supporters fell for the promise of ‘electability’ was the opening salvo in a renewed war against the left. Almost from his first utterance it was clear that what SirKeir was offering was a false unity based on the total surrender of the left. And, there is now no doubt that the party is being restored to where it was in 2010. A centre-right party chasing Conservative voters.

Worth staying?

For the left, particularly those who have joined or rejoined since 2016 this has raised a dilemma. In short, as the right tighten their grip and ditch the policies from the last manifesto, is it worth staying? Much of the rancour directed at leavers is coming from those who joined prior to 2016. This is understandable. They were in the party when it was controlled by the right and they fought, in an extremely hostile environment, for left policies and to get left-wingers into positions within the party. Inevitably, they feel abandoned by those who have come in when things were good and now appear to be deserting the ship the first sign of an iceberg. Again, that is an understandable reaction.

Some are no doubt incapable of seeing the point of any activity which does not include getting a Labour government, any Labour government, elected. Others are floundering. Still hanging on to a belief that Labour can be won back to the left. That all it is necessary to do is to “stay and fight” and that a failure to do that is running away, or leaving the battlefield mid-battle as one comrade told me this week. Lenin, who knew a thing or two about leading successful revolutionary campaigns once wrote: “Before we are completely routed, let us retreat and reorganise everything, but on a firmer basis. “ This was good advice. The path to socialism, whether it includes the Labour Party or not, was never going to be straightforward. A defeated army rushing straight into another battle, because that is what they do, is likely to face even more defeats. With all the tools at their disposal the right will not worry too much about skirmishing with their left flank who they will simply swot away.

Those who don’t want to stay and face defeat after defeat are not deserting, they are accepting the reality of the situation. That is also an understandable reaction. The party is, quite simply, not the party they joined. To be told, as we seem to be regularly, that by leaving we are, in some way, aiding the Tories, is quite ridiculous. Elections are not won or lost on number of members but votes cast. Staying and fighting may seem noble and heroic, but it is also futile. We could, of course, regroup whilst remaining in Labour, but staying will also involve all the activities which constitute being a Labour member, most of which will strengthen the right whilst draining the energy of the left. How many left wingers knocked on doors for Jess Phillips, Margaret Hodge, Ian Austin, Luciana Berger, John Mann, Rosie Duffield on the basis that any Labour MP is better than a Tory?

It is important to recognise a couple of things when considering your political future. For those who are intent on staying and fighting within Labour the chances of success are far less than they were in 2015. The “success” of Jeremy Corbyn was not so much becoming leader but rather getting on the ballot at all. Never again will the right gamble their future in the name of allowing members a choice. The left will be frozen out to neuter them at every level of the party. It should be unimaginable that a former leader would lose the whip, but so determined are the right to purge the left that by changing the rules a Blairite has been made Chair of the NEC in favour of the FBU’s Ian Murray who signed an open letter calling for Jeremy Corbyn’s reinstatement. Such disloyalty to SirKeir will not be tolerated. CLP’s who support Corbyn are being suspended and harassed. There seems little doubt that the left will find the terrain very unpromising in the battle to influence the future direction of the party.

Where to?

The next question is “if you’re leaving where are you going?” I’ve considered this a lot over the past few weeks. Some time back I decided I would neither vote for, nor campaign for candidates who were hostile to the left. Any Labour candidate who has not supported Jeremy Corbyn not just as leader, but in terms of the harassment he is now suffering does not deserve the support of a left that is very often the backbone of the party’s ground troops. But, by the next election I will not be a member anyway, though in Wales we have Welsh Government elections next year and I have already decided that I will not be voting Labour. I have not yet decided who to vote for, but I will only campaign for candidates and parties with whom I fundamentally agree. Which might even mean spoiling my ballot.

I think it’s worth saying that I am not a fly-by-night member who is only interested when things are going well. I first got involved in politics, as a Labour member in 1983. I left the party in 1986 and did not rejoin until 2017. So what did I do in those intervening 31 years? After a brief flirtation with the Socialist Workers Party, I became what can best be described as an independent socialist. For those whose only political activity has been in the Labour Party I can confirm that being outside the party certainly did not mean I was not involved in politics. 

Being outside Labour did not prevent me from being involved in campaigns against poverty, in campaigning against the poll tax, in campaigning in trade unions, or attending marches against racism, the Iraq War, nuclear weapons, attacks on abortion rights, austerity, education cuts and in support of the NHS. I continued to attend political meetings and wrote letters to newspapers (which occasionally got published). Until Jeremy Corbyn became leader it never occurred to me to go back to Labour (despite a very brief fling with Arthur Scargill’s Socialist Labour Party when it was founded) or, more importantly, that by not being a member I was helping the Tories to win. Indeed, for half the time I was outside the party we had Labour governments, and for the entire time I have lived in Wales Labour have been in government.

I would not argue against others joining one of the left groups. The Socialist Party (formerly Militant), the Socialist Workers Party, the Communist Party all might offer a home to Labour leavers seeking a party. Chris Williamson has joined forces with ex-Labour MP Dave Nellist in the Trade Union and Socialist Coalition, whilst Stop The War’s Lindsay German and John Rees set up Counterfire after breaking with the SWP. But, these are not electoral parties in the way Labour is, so joining is a different type of political experience. For me, I might be tempted into a left organisation but I would need convincing that it was open and democratic with a genuine commitment to its own members and the wider class struggles.

A new organisation?

I’m not over worried about being partyless but I would like an organisation that did not expect me to stand on street corners selling papers or run around trying to get people into parliament. I value the connections I have made on Twitter, Facebook and through this blog (I don’t intend to stop blogging) but I would like a more loose knit coalition of like minded socialists to meet up online with on a regular basis with no particular agenda other than a commitment to discuss socialist ideas and ways of taking them forward. I’m not particularly looking for a leader to follow, but neither am I looking to lead myself. What I don’t want is a repeat of the early days of the Socialist Labour Party which became an interminable sectarian squabble between various groups who turned up with a pre-formed agenda that they then tried to enforce on everybody else. Whether such an organisation is viable I have no idea. If it exists I’m yet to find it. 

I’ve never considered the Labour Party or electoral politics as the be-all-and-end-all of political activity. There are no doubt great struggles to come and almost certainly the Labour Party will have very little part to play in them. The Tories (with their massive majority) and the Labour right (having seized back control from the left) are both triumphalist in their own way. For all that, the external environment is not good for the establishment forces. The pandemic, Brexit, the climate crisis, an economic downturn exacerbated by Covid-19 all point to major problems ahead. The Labour Party has never in its entire history been at the forefront of campaigns to alleviate poverty and inequality, the impetus for reform has always come from outside the party. Black Lives Matter, Extinction Rebellion, and trade union action have all provided more effective opposition than Labour in the past year.  Being more efficient or responsible, as Labour propose, may play well with the centrist controlled sections of the media but it will do nothing to end a crisis which is likely to be worse than the 1930’s. There will be campaigns, both small and large, both local, national and international. If socialists take to tearing each other apart because we have different ideas about the way forward that will certainly play into the Tories hands. The strength of the left has always been in our ability to put our factional differences to one side and by creating a coalition founded on solidarity and socialist principles to build a genuine unity capable of taking forward the interests of the most exploited sections of society.  

NB An earlier version of this post had Jeremy Corbyn winning in 2016. It was, of course, September 2015. Thanks to Chris Rogers for pointing this out.

The Poverty Trap

 

According to the United Nations Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, around 14 million people in the U.K. live in poverty, many of them children. The Manchester United and England footballer Marcus Rashford wrote in October as part of his campaign to secure free school meals during holidays:  “These children matter. These children are the future of this country. They are not just another statistic.”

Discussions around poverty tend to be dominated by the technical aspects of poverty. How many people are affected, how much (or little) they have to live on, how poverty impacts on health and crime. These things are not unimportant but poverty is also a moral issue. It concerns the type of society we want to live in and, typically, it is a debate conducted by those who are not in poverty - politicians, academics, professional footballers, journalists. If the voices of the victims of poverty are heard it is as “case studies”.

I was hopeful that in this article I could provide a voice for those living on low incomes. I made two appeals on Twitter for people to contact me, but only one person came forward - Erica from North England (a pseudonym). She told me that she had been in poverty “pretty much all my life, to varying degrees. Had some pretty desperate times and some easier times.” I know that she had tried desperately to get work, but in a pandemic that is not easy. The problem is that once you are in poverty it is easier to stay poor than it is to get out of it.

It makes you question your self-worth

Here I should perhaps say something about my own background. First the disclaimer. I am not impoverished. I’m not wealthy either, but through a series of fortuitous events I managed to land on my feet. But, landing on my feet only happened following a period out of work and falling into greater and greater debt. I can well remember sitting in my council flat, worried that the next knock on the door would be debt collectors. On one memorable Saturday morning two fairly aggressive men came in to repossess my television. I could not afford to pay the interest on my debts, let alone pay off what I owed. It was a period in which my self-esteem suffered immensely. I felt second class because, to all intents and purposes I was second class.

As Erica told me: “It makes you question your self worth, hurts your pride and dignity, affects your emotional well-being.” This becomes a push and pull effect. In order to get out of poverty you need the confidence (as well as the resources) to turn your life around. But poverty, especially long-term poverty, drains your belief in yourself. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. You are in poverty because of your failures, not failures of the system.

The belief that we are the result of our own errors is pernicious and surrounds us. When I was unemployed I was constantly seeing stories in the press about scroungers who did not want to work. I met literally hundreds of unemployed people during my three years on the dole, and not one of them wanted to be unemployed. As Chair of a local Union for the Unemployed I would visit people’s homes and would find myself offering moral support to people who were often in tears because they could not provide for their families. The longer they had been out of work the less possessions they had in their houses. I vividly remember one house in which there was not a scrap of furniture and we were sitting on fruit boxes.

Essentials aren't exclusively food

Charlotte Hughes documents the condition of the poor in her hometown of Ashton-Under-Lyne some forty years after I managed to escape the dole. Her blog ‘The Poor Side of Life’ is a weekly horror story of life for those who have fallen between the cracks. In a recent post she says: “The fact is that essentials aren’t exclusively food. Essentials also mean gas, electric, clothing for children and ourselves.” Indeed. People forget that food allows you to subsist, but it does not allow you to live. Benefits, now Universal Credit for most people, barely provide a subsistence amount. For far too many people it is still a choice between eating and paying a bill. And, the idea that people on benefits should have any sort of social life remains anathema, demonised by the press, media and politicians.

In the recent parliamentary debates about child poverty, prompted by Marcus Rashford, the usual stereotypes were trotted out. The Conservative Neil Parish who in addition to his £85k MP’s salary also has rent income of over £10k a year and “employs” his wife as a Secretary does not believe poor people can be trusted to feed their children “..there is no doubt that it is hugely challenging for the poorest in society to get food at the moment. .. some of these families are very challenged, .. if we give them money, it does not necessarily get to food for children..” 

Brendan Clark-Smith another Tory landlord took the opportunity to remind the house that: “When did it suddenly become controversial to suggest that the primary responsibility for a child’s welfare should lie with their parents, or to suggest that people do not always spend vouchers in the way they are intended?” Whilst Kieran Mullan whose additional donations in the past year amounted to £29,500 argued: “..to pretend that further increasing the role of the state directly in feeding children is a solution is mistaken. Yet again, it sends out the signal that our communities do not have to look after each other.” Whilst Dean Russell, who pocketed over £10k in consultancies last year claimed: “The facts are that the Government have been ensuring targeted support for vulnerable children, both now and into the future, ensuring that the right support reaches the right children at the right time.” Kevin Hollinrake who receives an additional £50k from his second job as a director in addition to his over £70k of shareholding’s was very keen to deny: “..that it is the Government’s job to make sure children do not go hungry. I differ there, and I think lots of my constituents differ there too, because they would be appalled by the prospect of the Government interfering in their daily lives to make sure their children did not go hungry.” Jo Gideon, who is also in receipt of excess of £10k of rental income to top up her wages, made the following point: “..one child hungry is one too many. Any suggestion that an hon. Member would think otherwise is deeply offensive.” She then voted against the motion to prevent children being hungry.

It is interesting that whilst the Tories inevitably rail against so-called benefit cheats they had little to say about their four former colleagues named in the Panama Papers which detailed how wealthy individuals were using offshore accounts to avoid paying tax. They were Michael Ashcroft, Tony Baldry, Michael Mates and Pamela Sharples. Also ‘embarrassed’ by those revelations was former Prime Minister David Cameron. Tories it seems have an aversion to people impoverished by their policies but see cheating the tax office as a legitimate way of maximising income for their rich friends.

For the Conservatives, the vast majority of whom came from stable, relatively wealthy (in some cases extremely wealthy) backgrounds, who attended private schools and have never stood in front of a cash machine worrying that there would be no money in their account, it is easy to see poverty as the fault of individuals. It is easy to believe that if only the poor tried a little harder they could pull themselves up. Erica told me that in some ways she felt her poverty was her own fault: “I'm a smart girl but I was bored at school and didn't pay attention, didn't do well in my GCSEs and that has shut a few doors throughout adulthood.” This is not an unusual reaction from people who have fallen foul of a social system that needs poor people. Does Erica think that Boris Johnson tried hard at school and that he, Rees-Mogg and others are in their positions through their hard work and talent? I know she doesn’t. But, if you have wealthy parents who can buy you a place at Eton and ensure you go to Oxbridge, then your indolence and lack of any discernible talent are rewarded in ways that Erica could only dream of. Charlotte Hughes summed this up well in a recent blog: “The fact is that the Tory party has always been cruel and judgemental. They believe that the working class person is responsible for their own poverty, and they fail to acknowledge that they are the ones responsible for this.”

Poverty affects workers too

The problem is that it is not just rich Tories who believe that poverty is a moral failing on behalf of the impoverished. Ordinary people, who are themselves struggling to make ends meet tend to see poverty as some failing on the part of others. When I spoke to unemployed workers on a regular basis they would often tell me that unlike others they really wanted to work, and that their unemployment was not their fault. Even those living in the most desperate conditions can end up blaming others in similar conditions for their poverty, whilst seeing themselves as “innocent victims”.

Great Britain is rated as one of the top thirty wealthiest nations in the World according to Global Finance Magazine. But, as the Equality Trust has pointed out the distribution of wealth is very uneven with the richest 10% of households owning 44% of all wealth, whilst the poorest 50%, by contrast, own just 9%. Poverty is not simply confined to those without work.  In 2018 Consultancy U.K. reported that in research carried out by Vitreous World 78% of people in work had to use payday loans, credit cards and unplanned overdrafts to make ends meet each month. That figure has certainly got worse since the pandemic hit. The Monster Jobs Index showed in 2018 that 49% of workers had little or no confidence that their jobs were secure in the following six months. Again, the pandemic will have made that worse. Poverty is not just a consequence of unemployment. A job is not the guarantee of the better life we might once have believed.

These are the statistics that hide the personal anguish of not being able to buy shoes for your child or being denied a night out with your friends or sitting in the cold and the dark because you have no money for the electric meter. Reducing people to statistics means that we can discuss poverty without naming the estimated 81,000 deaths attributed to welfare refusals. The website Calum’s List provides details of some of them. I have previously listed some of the details. But here I want to just give some names: Stephanie Bottrill, 34 year old Philip Herron, Jodey Whiting, Elaine Morrall. These are real names of real people who died as a result of their poverty and the DWP’s refusal to do anything about it. These are not names from a Dickensian novel or report from the 1930’s but deaths attributed to poverty in the U.K. in the 21st century.

You might think, especially if you glance at Hansard, that there is cross party support for ending poverty. That the sentiment of Danny Kruger MP, a Trustee of Catch 22, "a charity that works at every stage of the social welfare cycle to build resilience and aspiration in people and communities", and the recipient of over £30k in donations last year, that “no child should go hungry in this country. That is something that we all agree with in this House” would be so uncontroversial that ending poverty would be, if not the number one priority of government, at least in its top three. It is as if poverty is a mystery that our elected representatives cannot quite work out how to solve. But, poverty is no mystery at all. It is hardwired into the capitalist system. 

Most people do not have family wealth that they will inherit or any wealth other than a small amount of savings they might accumulate in their lifetime. According to CNBC the average inheritance in the U.K. is £48k whilst the median (what most people can expect) is £11k. To pay inheritance tax you have to have an estate (all your assets) worth over £325,000. In 2017-18 only 24,200 people were liable for that tax. In other words, the transmission of wealth, real wealth, between generations is limited to a very small number of individuals, whilst most people might get a cash bonus of up to £11k on their parents death, many more will receive next to nothing. The result of this is not only to cement the social position of the very wealthy but to ensure that those born into poverty are denied a route out of it that the rich can take for granted. And, this is not an accident.

Liberalism provides cover for poverty

Ruling classes in all social systems have always guarded their positions jealously. They protect their power, their wealth and their status and preserve it for the next generation. In our system this tendency to protect their interests has trickled down from the ruling capitalist class to the middle class who do so much to maintain the status quo. John Rawls, the American philosopher who developed a theory of justice and was interested in inter-generational justice could not bring himself to admit that the class system was the result of systemic acts of injustice rather than the result of everybody pursuing what he described as their “individual good”. Liberalism thus provides the intellectual cover for endemic poverty by presenting “the poor” as a talentless mass to be acted upon.

Poverty has a role to play in a class system. It reminds workers that whatever crumbs they might get given can be taken away. The majority of workers are one bad decision away from being plunged into poverty. And, contrary to popular myth, it is rarely them that are making that decision. When petrochemical group Petroineos announced it was axing 200 jobs at its Grangemouth refinery last week, do you think it’s primary concern was the welfare of the 200 families whose incomes are set to plummet? Petroineos is a private company with an estimated net worth of £15 billion, captains of industry, and yet that has not stopped them requesting millions of pounds from the Scottish government. It was founded by Sir James Ratcliffe whose net worth is, according to Forbes, $18.2 billion. He was knighted in 2018 after supporting Brexit whilst relocating to Monaco to ensure his own European citizenship.

Capitalism exists to make money for capitalists. Some of their wealth is allowed to trickle down to their functionaries. But, and this point bears repeating, individual capitals have no intrinsic interest in society beyond its role as a market for their products. Capital will always seek to reduce their costs (including taxation) whilst increasing their profits. This means that despite their claims to be pious or altruistic capitalism is not a system with morality at its heart. Erica, in thinking about the future said: “they need to look at a proper living wage, or even Universal Basic Income. Tax credits only prop up poverty wages from unscrupulous employers. ” This is undoubtedly true, but that investment can only be made by government and it can only do that through progressive taxation which most governments are unwilling to do.

Charlotte Hughes details exactly why relying on government intervention does not work. “They (people new to benefits) didn’t realise how cruel and callous the system can be. The DWP certainly aren’t there to help anymore..I’m certain that many of these people that have been refused help thought that they could find a job. I’ve heard this thousands of times when talking to people outside the Jobcentre. In the first few weeks people have hope for a better future but that soon wears off. The reality that there are no jobs kicks in pretty soon. People sell or pawn their possessions and many lose their homes because they can’t afford to pay their rent or mortgage.” 

One problem we face is that, as has always been the case, poverty is treated as a private tragedy rather than a public outrage. As socialists we have to realise that poverty is an endemic feature of the capitalist system, not an oversight. Of course, we have to help impoverished people if we can, but charity is not the answer. The only answer is to see poverty and under-employment as the disease and socialism as the cure.

Whilst you’re here. If you like what you’ve read please subscribe by using the widget at the top right.

You could also do worse than subscribe to Charlotte Hughes blog: https://thepoorsideof.life

If you are still hanging in the Labour Party, don’t forget to sign the petition to have the whip restored to Jeremy Corbyn. It’s here: https://www.change.org/p/restore-the-whip-to-jeremy-corbyn

Power Games

With the NEC results now released one more gambit in the “but if you’re a socialist you must be in Labour” playbook has fallen. As the right now clearly control the NEC, which is surely a relief to SirKeir, any pretence that the left can regain control of the party has surely evaporated.

Of course, it was not a terrible defeat for the left. It was never going to be. The bulk of members are still those who joined to support Jeremy Corbyn, but with the NEC now firmly in the right’s grip it leaves the left with nowhere to run. Any suggestion that the party can be swung back to the left is now dead and buried. Not that this will stop people from trying. But as the BBC’s Iain Watson noted: “..after Friday's results Keir Starmer seems set to retain a working majority on the executive.” And Labour List’s Sienna Rodgers, usually a reliable source, also began her report by declaring that “Keir Starmer has increased the strength of support for his leadership”.

In the CLP section, which has previously been a stronghold for the left, 5 of the 9 candidates were from the Grassroots Voice slate. In addition to Laura Pidcock - Gemma Bolton, Yasmine Dar, Nadia Jama, and Mish Rahman were elected. But this has to be tempered with the return of the virulently anti-left Luke Akehurst who topped the poll, and the re-election of Johanna Baxter and Gurinder Singh Josan who are Starmer loyalists. The ninth member is Ann Black who is neither left nor right (or what is called soft left) but tends to support the leadership in most things. The left can take comfort from winning the Disabled Members rep Ellen Morrison and Youth Member Lara McNeil. But in Wales Carwyn Jones added to his impressive post-First Minister portfolio (he currently has 5 jobs) beating left-winger Mick Antoniw.

A major victory?

The maths of the NEC are constantly changing but it is difficult to regard this as anything but a success for SirKeir who now has the NEC effectively in his pocket. His majority is slim, but with many members still resigning or being expelled, that is likely to be temporary. The left will seek to turn defeat into victory by pointing out that 5 is more than 4, but the fact is that with only 2 CLP members of the NEC the right had already shown that they can outmanoeuvre the left on all the important issues. Andrew Scattergood, Chair of Momentum took to Twitter to announce that the results were a “major victory” for the left. The Morning Star, quite implausibly, headlined their report “Left-wing Labour slate records upset in NEC elections”. Quite how it was an upset is hard to see when almost everybody predicted that they would get 4 or 5 members. 

The cry will now turn from “we must unite behind the Campaign Group” to “we must unite behind Laura Pidcock”. Those who argue anything other than devoting their time to the internal politicking of the party will still have to put up with the refrain “if you leave you are doing what the right want”. This has become the equivalent of saying “if you stop banging your head on a brick wall, you are doing exactly what the wall wants”.

For many the obvious answer to losing the leadership election and now the NEC election will be to see these as technical issues. We lost because we miscalculated. We didn’t play the game as well as we could. What we need to do is redouble our efforts to provide Laura, Gemma, Yasmine etc more support next time. But, whilst that is a strategy it is exactly the strategy that the left have pursued for years, mostly without success. The thing to remember is that whenever the right have control they change the rules to frustrate the left. Allowing Corbyn to win and allowing thousands of socialists into the party was an error. They were overcome with their own success and this made them sloppy. They are not likely to make that mistake again. 

They have already begun the process of ditching the manifesto, despite SirKeir’s promises not to do so. They changed the rules to ensure the left could not gain a stronghold on the NEC. These were not mere technicalities these were a dominant faction using their power to unite the party on its own terms. There is no room for compromise. The speed with which full time staff seen as loyal to Corbyn were removed and replaced with SirKeir loyalists is testament that they mean business. People on the left know this, they know the environment has changed, that it has become more hostile, yet they still remain. They carry on passing motions and attending rallies as if nothing has changed. As if this is just a ripple on the surface of the pond rather than a tidal wave engulfing the entire party.

Stockholm Syndrome

Eventually it becomes obvious that there are people who fashion themselves as socialists who are so devoted to the Labour Party that it looks like a form of Stockholm Syndrome. This is the name given to people who begin to identify with their captors. And, my oh my, how people on the left have been captured. The name was coined in 1973 when two men held four people hostage during a botched bank job in Stockholm. After they were released the hostages refused to testify against their captors and even raised money to help their defence.

At my CLP meeting this week (Cardiff North) an emergency motion was proposed in solidarity with Jeremy Corbyn. Despite attempts by the right to prevent the motion it was eventually passed. But, apart from me, no-one who spoke was critical of the right of the party for its witch-hunt or of the EHRC. And, having passed it the Communications Secretary, a man who used to wear a Jeremy Corbyn t-shirt, announced we should not send it as it would result in officers being suspended at a time when they were needed for the 2021 Welsh Government elections. Although he might be seen as particularly spineless, that attitude - be careful not to upset the party hierarchy - came across loud and clear in the discussion. 

The symptoms of Stockholm Syndrome, according to Healthline, are:

1. The victim develops positive feelings toward their captor.

2. The victim develops negative feelings toward those who      try to get them away from their captor.

3. The victim begins to feel that they have the same values       as their captor.

All of which is very close to the way people in the Labour Party often talk about “the party”. Their feelings about being in the party are so intense that they cannot imagine life outside of it. Of course, people with the political version of Stockholm Syndrome can see that there are fundamental problems with the party, but in the face of all evidence to the contrary, believe it can be changed. The party appears as all encompassing and for many the thought that they might not be able to take part in tedious meetings and pass futile motions strikes at their very core. People leaving the party often talk about leaving as if they have left an abusive relationship.

I should say I’m not necessarily convinced by people who use the “domestic abuse” analogy to describe relationships within a political party. Of course real abuse can take place. Sexism, racism, harassment and bullying are an unfortunate feature of life in many organisations. But to talk of people’s desire to remain in a political party as akin to domestic abuse seems to me to rather overstate the case. It also seems to me to trivialise the extent or the nature of genuine abusive relationships which can ruin people’s lives.

Stockholm Syndrome, however, does seem a relevant way of explaining people’s reluctance to see that the party they think they are supporting was only ever a fiction. Of course we can only take this analogy so far. Joining and leaving a political party is a voluntary act. As far as I am aware the Labour Party does not send press gangs into working class estates kidnapping likely looking candidates as members. Though if people keep resigning they may have to consider doing so, though no doubt they would prefer the press gangs to hang about outside private schools. But the reaction of some people on the left is one of shock and hurt that others can see that politics is wider than the Labour Party. Their sense of betrayal is palpable and suggests a commitment to the party that is far more than just political. For many people being in the party seems to become an integral part of their identity. They have positive feelings about being in the party that are only slightly balanced by their negative feelings toward those who would encourage them to leave.

Compromise and Denial

Being on the left in the Labour Party has always meant compromising on whatever socialist principles drove you into politics in the first place. Having said that few people start out as revolutionaries, most are reformists. We join the Labour Party because we believe that through parliament we can bring about changes to society. But experience should teach us that if we desire socialism neither parliament nor the Labour Party will deliver it. This leaves us in a no-man’s land (apologies for the sexist terminology) where we are in a party that we know cannot deliver our ultimate goal. For many people a form of denial is necessary and this means that staying in the party becomes akin to a crusade to save the party and take it back to its supposed socialist roots. We hark back to a time when Labour was socialist and truly represented the working class. Like most mythical pasts this one is seen through red tinted glasses and ignores the reality that Labour has only ever been interested in parliamentary power. Staying inevitably means compromising even further. Instead of working for socialism we begin to work for a “socialist government”. But all the time we keep up the pretence that the ultimate goal remains something we call “socialism”.

A “socialist government” comes to mean one committed to welfare reform, nationalisation, progressive taxation, and the rest of the 2019 manifesto. All of these things are desirable but all could be delivered whilst leaving capitalism essentially intact. They are progressive liberal policies far removed from socialism and, for the current leadership of the party as undesirable as giving up their first born for ritual slaughter.

This is where the Stockholm Syndrome really kicks in. Having failed to win the leadership or take control of the NEC the next goal will be to pass motions for and obtain delegates to the next conference. Those who refuse to see the point of this are seen as traitors to the cause. They are not just traitors to the left (although I’ve seen that implied) but to socialism. Anybody who suggests that playing this particular game is fruitless are told, ad infinitum, that by leaving the party they are helping the Tories. It’s important to see the amount of psychological bullying taking place here.

Leavers, we are told, are abandoning Jeremy Corbyn. They are abandoning the Campaign Group. They are aiding the right wing of Labour. They are helping the Tories. They are giving up on socialism. None of these are particularly political reasons to stay or leave, they are simply shaming. The effect is that by abandoning the fight, you are running away. Those who say, “but what has this to do with socialism?” are accused of being cowards.

Victims

I’m not going to suggest that the real cowards are those who cannot bring themselves to leave as I don’t consider them cowards. I do, however, consider them victims. Their anger at those who see no hope in the party is genuine. But being genuinely angry does not mean they are right. They have so imbibed the philosophy of the party as a form of saviour that they see those who attack it as the enemy. Socialists who won’t support Labour become as much the enemy as those who support the Tories. Perhaps more so. This is consistent with a belief that their values are consistent with the values of the party. These values are rarely expressed, incidentally, in anything other than vague terms. It is rather ironic that those who talk most about Labour’s values are the right-wing who never define them but whose actions suggest that they see them as far removed from socialism as possible. 

At the same time the Labour left tend to see themselves as victims. Victims of the right who are trying to purge them from the party and victims of the left who refuse to stand by them as they make a heroic last stand. Staying within the party, and leaving is impossible, means that the left cannot help but be held hostage by the right. Ex-Momentum Chair and outgoing NEC member Jon Lansman sums this up really well: “I will work to elect Keir as Prime Minister at the next election as hard as I can. If I disagree with things he’s doing, I will do it as constructively and comradely as I can… I don’t want the Labour Party to fail, and I hope that nobody in Momentum or on the left of the Labour Party wants Labour to fail. There is certainly no alternative to the Labour Party when it comes to getting into government and implementing transformative policies.”

This from a man who set up a movement dedicated to securing a left leader and pursuing left policies. But, the clue to his Stockholm Syndrome is in that last sentence. “There is no alternative to Labour,” is the constant refrain of those who cannot see beyond a parliamentary road to socialism. Although he refrains from describing those who believe otherwise as traitors it is there, implied in his “hope” that “nobody on the left wants Labour to fail.” The point is that Labour succeeding is the sine qua non of left activism in the party, even when that success takes the movement as a whole backwards. The reality is that those who see themselves in opposition to the right now will, come the next election, be out knocking on doors on behalf of candidates who despise them in support of a manifesto they barely believe in. That, in my opinion, is the ultimate betrayal. Not of your comrades but of your own beliefs.

The Great Election Myth

There have only been two stories in the news this week. The lockdown in England (this despite the fact that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland were already in lockdown) and the US Presidential election. It’s hard not to get drawn into caring who ends up as President and not just because the American President is one of the most powerful men in the World. More than this though the President is chosen by the votes of almost 140 million Americans. At the same time as the Americans were voting to make Joe Biden / Donald Trump* (delete as applicable) their President they were also choosing members of the Senate and House. It is a display of democracy in action. But, and here’s the rub, whoever is President much about America will remain the same.

In a democratic decision with a slightly smaller electorate if, like me, you are still a member of the Labour Party you should have received your online ballot form for the National Executive Committee (NEC) elections recently. It’s a secret ballot so I’m not supposed to tell you that I voted for 9 left-wing candidates including the Momentum/Grassroots Voice slate. I would like to explain to you exactly how the single transferable vote (STV) system actually works when you have multiple votes. But, it is fairly complex and technical and, hey, we have lives to live. Suffice to say that for all the energy expended by the left (and possibly the right too) that the end result is likely to be that Labour’s right will retain their narrow majority.

If voting changed anything they’d abolish it

Elections are exciting. They offer the possibility of change. They allow us to see just how popular our opinions are with an electorate who we will have spent considerable time and effort trying to convince.  They are, so we are told, the lifeblood of democracy. The ability to vote and be voted for are what makes our society free. Those who do not believe in elections, we are from time to time reminded, are authoritarian dictators who threaten our way of life. I’m sure we have all repeated these obvious truisms whilst at the same time agreeing with the title of Ken Livingstone’s 1988 book: “If voting changed anything they’d abolish it”. So what is going on here?

Although we have a variety of elections, the ones we get most excited about in the U.K. are general elections. And, nowhere is it more obvious that the entire charade is a big con trick designed to present the illusion of choice whilst narrowing the debate to variations on a narrow theme. The myth of elections, and it is a myth subscribed to by both left and right party activists, is that elections allow you the opportunity to choose between competing visions of the way society should look. 

It is certainly true that the Conservatives tend toward a vision of a business-led free market economy in which ‘personal responsibility’ is the cornerstone of social policy. The Labour Party, except for a brief period under Jeremy Corbyn and perhaps even then, takes an approach to government which places far more emphasis on state regulation and intervention. I’m not going to compare the Liberal Democrat’s, Greens or Scottish National Party not because they are unimportant but simply because the same basic myth endures there too. Each are offering variations on a predetermined theme. 

The fact is, therefore, that parliamentary elections in Great Britain and for that matter most of the so-called democracies, offer only a narrow choice between slightly more or less state intervention. As Wilkinson and Pickett note in their excellent book ‘The Spirit Level’ (2009): “Mainstream politics..has abandoned the attempt to provide a shared vision capable of inspiring us to create a better society. As voters, we have lost sight of any collective belief that society could be better. Instead of a better society, the only thing almost everyone strives for is to better their own position - as individuals - within the existing society.” In America the Presidency is a competition between two, usually white, millionaires promising to do something about diversity and then ruling primarily in the interests of the white majority.

Inequality matters

This is not unimportant. As Wilkinson and Pickett show how we deal with issues around inequality can make a huge difference to the lives people are allowed to live. As they note: “Inequality is associated with lower life expectancy, higher rates of infant mortality, shorter height, poor self-reported health, low birthweight, AIDS and depression.” (P.81) To which list we might now add susceptibility to COVID 19. In this context what policies the government of the day pursue matters. If you are currently on universal credit and a new government comes in with policies that either help you into better paid work or increase the level of the benefits you receive that is not an insignificant change in your life. 

But, the history of all democracies, perhaps the World, is one of decreases in poverty levels followed by periods of greater poverty. As Susan George (not the actor) wrote in the 1980’s in response to the question why, given that they profess to dislike poverty, inequality, pollution etc do “they, I mean those ill-defined groups in positions of power” not do something about it? The answer then, as now, is a simple one “it is not in their interests to change anything that would simultaneously reduce their power, prestige or profits.” (George, 1986, p.271) Democracy is not a goal, in and of itself, it is a convenient myth that allows ordinary people the illusion that they have some control over systems that many people do not even realise exist, let alone want to change.

I am often frustrated at how people with, relatively, comfortable lives can simply ignore the suffering of others. Even worse than just ignoring poverty and inequality people find it easy to blame those whose main function in life seems to be to remind others that there is a “lower” they can sink to. Of course, one of the most pernicious myths of all is that your place in the social hierarchy is determined by your individual character. Voting, we are often reminded, is equal. Your vote counts just as much as the managing director of a large multinational corporation. At one level this is true, but if you were the manager of a large multinational corporation (if any are reading this do get in touch) your ability to influence government policy is infinitely greater than even those of us who have taken the trouble to join a political party.

Some people on the left have tried to convince me of the importance of membership of the Labour Party. One of the arguments they use is that through my involvement with the party I can influence the direction of the party. I have only ever been a member of the Labour Party so cannot speak to how these things work in other parties. But, in the Labour Party votes taken at branch and constituency meetings which had policy implications routinely disappeared into a democratic black hole. If there was feed through to the Shadow Cabinet (I was never a member when we were actually in Government) I can’t recall ever receiving that feedback. Even motions sent to party conference disappeared into that oblique system of party management called ‘compositing’ which seemed to have as its main function ensuring that the party leadership were not embarrassed by too many motions with which they did not agree. However, the fail safe if constituency activists managed to sneak something radical past the compositing committee was the block vote held by, predominantly, right-wing union leaders which was used to keep Labour firmly embedded in the centre ground. The left use the myth of democracy to keep people obsessing about internal elections in the forlorn hope that if enough of us join the party that we will transform it into a socialist party which will transform Great Britain. This fails, in my opinion, to recognise both the nature of the Labour Party and the nature of the parliamentary democracy to which the party is committed.

Parliamentary democracy

There is a website called The History of Parliament which tells us that the Westminster Parliament first came into being in 1386, a long time ago. Indeed, the Houses of Parliament pre-date capitalism by about 350 years (there is no exact date for the beginning of capitalism as it was more of a process than an event). But, capitalism changed the meaning of Parliament by slowly opening up the franchise until in 1928 the vote was given to all adults aged over 21. It was not until 1969 that the franchise was extended to eighteen year olds and there it has remained since, except in Scotland and Wales where the devolved governments are now voted for by all aged 16 or above. 

Every extension of the franchise was fought tooth and nail by those who already had it. If women, or workers or young people were to get the vote it would signal the end of democracy. It is a strange feature of democracy that the only way to defend it is to ensure it is not too widely available. As the LSE’s Jo Murkens has argued: “The motivation behind and purpose of the Reform Acts of 1832 and 1867 were anything but democratic. .... They were anti- democratic measures that served to strengthen government and the House of Commons and to create legal obstacles that working class men and women still had to fight to overcome.” The point being that democracy was ceded only to prevent a greater threat. Over time, of course, as the franchise was extended so the story of universal suffrage came to be told as one of progressive liberalism and the fact that the predecessors of the current House of Lords overwhelmingly opposed every step in the direction of democracy is conveniently airbrushed out of history with suffrage’s opponents being presented as cranky and in a minority.

Of course, what is now obvious is that those who opposed universal suffrage really had nothing to fear. Since 1920 the Conservatives have been in power for 73 years. Small periods of Labour domination have not heralded the ‘revolution’ they feared but rather brought in a series of reforms that have, on the whole, proved beneficial to the capitalist economy. Marx once described how the capitalist system required what he termed a “reserve army of labour”. In Capital he describes how those employed are constantly forced to work harder in order to create more and more surplus value. In order to keep wages down there is also a “reserve army”. The balance between these competing parts of the labouring classes is essential for the enrichment of the capitalist class. 

“The overwork of the employed part of the working class swells the ranks of the reserve, whilst conversely the greater pressure that the latter by its competition exerts on the former, forces these to submit to overwork and to subjugation under the dictates of capital. The condemnation of one part of the working class to enforced idleness by the overwork of the other part, and the converse, becomes a means of enriching the individual capitalists.”

Capital, most ably represented by the Tories in Britain, is greedy. Not only does the nature of the system seek to keep wages low, but in order to extract the maximum surplus value also seeks to ensure that other parts of the system are designed to maximise their profits. This includes such things as health and safety which are usually opposed on the grounds that they are “inefficient”, meaning that they cost money. Taxes are also seen as a burden on businesses hence corporation tax must be kept low to enable entrepreneurs to do what they do best - make money for themselves. And, things such as social security and the health service, whilst desirable, do not appear to individual capitals as their responsibility. Things such as pensions are still a relatively new innovation. The first state pension was only introduced in 1908 and was paid to those aged over 70. According to ONS “In 1908 when the State Pension was first introduced for those aged 70 and over, a woman of this age was expected to live on average an additional 9.3 years, and a man 8.4 years, meaning pensions needed to last around 9 years.” The pension age was reduced to 65 in 1925 and then for women to 60 in 1940. Every reduction had opposition from those who could most afford to live without state help. The current pension age is 67 (for women and men) set to rise to 68.

There is no parliamentary road to socialism

The point is that Government can bring in measures to alleviate the conditions of those who have to work for a living. But, they can reverse those conditions when it suits them. What this means is that government is one of the levers in a liberal society used to maintain the status quo. The media play an important role in supporting this status quo, and trade unions and the right to campaign offer a counter-balance. Elections are not unimportant and to be sure, it is better to have a socially liberal government than a rapacious pro-capitalist one. But neither can lead to socialism. The election of a radical socialist party could provide an indication of popular discontent with the social system, but if parliament was to fall under the sway of those who would seek to dismantle it there are other levers the capitalist class can use to restore the “natural order”.  The reality is that we live in a liberal political and economic system. Parliamentary democracy is not essential to maintain the power and privilege of the elite but it is a convenient way to beguile people into thinking their views actually matter, whilst at the same time the elite carry on as if nothing has changed for two hundred years.

For some no doubt this narrow choice is unproblematic for it leads to one of two conclusions. One is to withdraw from electoral policies altogether. Some 33% of registered adults in the U.K. did not vote in 2019 where it could be argued there was, for a change, clear water between the two main parties. The other, very fond on Labour’s left, is to argue that what we need is more left-wingers in Parliament to bring about the radical change the country so desperately needs. I confess that I once held this view myself. I am not constructing an argument here for abstention. Too many lives were lost to gain the vote for us not to use it. Neither is this an argument to leave the Labour Party. I’ve made my position on that issue clear previously. It is rather an argument that whilst supporting the most socially liberal candidate at elections (which may or may not be the Labour candidate) the left, by which I mean those who seek a change from capitalism to socialism, should not place their faith in parliament to do anything but manage liberalism. 

Parliamentary elections are capitalism’s way of conferring legitimacy on an illegitimate social system. They are not meant to be, neither have they ever been, a legitimate means to overthrow capital. It took the capitalist class a while to realise this. They are not, after all, the brightest people on the planet despite what they might like to tell themselves. By tying up their opponents in a 4 or 5 year cycle of electioneering they distract thousands of activists who might otherwise be working for their downfall. It is a neat trick. There are plenty of people who will tell you that unless you support Labour (or the Democrats if you are American) you are helping the Tories. What that argument fails to recognise is that, with a few honourable exceptions, the Labour Party (and Democrats) are full of conservatives who have no interest in liberating the working class or bringing about the end of capitalism. The proof is to be found at the way they recoil from genuine working class led movements preferring to deflect everything onto parliament.

Elections are fun and they are exciting but they are not plebiscites on the social system. So long as we keep our eyes on the long game (socialism) then it is okay to engage in the short game (whichever election is happening currently). Sadly far too many people who profess to be interested in the long game devote their entire lives to the short game and rather than bringing about the end of liberalism encourage a belief which helps to maintain it.

While 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.

Also, Labour Party: Reinstate Jeremy Corbyn - Sign the Petition! https://www.change.org/p/labour-party-reinstate-jeremy-corbyn