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.