The work on maintaining the coalition of interests that resulted in a 43% vote for the delay of PiP continues. Our ambition is simply to construct a working relationship between “classic” left, possibly the “soft” left (including union and PLP left establishment) and our unique brand of “radical centre”. The first and last of these appear to be in perfect accord based on a rare mutual frankness and respect. The “soft” left takes a little longer to make decisions but the logic of co-operation is clear.
Our talks with our comrades to the left indicate that we all have more to gain than lose by sticking together but that we need to remain differentiated to mobilise our respective constituencies. The logic of this is three-way co-operation on elections to every part of the Party with some way of equalising the representation between the groupings at all stages. This should result in a majority for what may come to be called New Labour left, whether we radical centrists like it or not. The left could well, in turn, be the majority within New Labour left. So there is everything to play for.
What we all need is a workable “resistance to tyranny” slate for the NEC and the National Policy Forum — opposed to the Progress/Labour First machine and those more royalist than the king in our Party. We can do this if we keep our collective nerve and no-one gets greedy. The social democrats in the Party can only win if the opposing vote is split. We should certainly think medium term rather than short term: perhaps a “three-year pact” to take us through to the next Manifesto. Under these circumstances, Labour Reform would find it much easier to commit to no “sell-out” in return for a left commitment to some degree of collective discipline.
We have our own constituency which sees itself as a modernising force for democratic accountability and it will make its own views clear at our General Meeting on November 29th! If I am still in office on November 30th, as you read this, we will know that the circle has been squared.
Solidarity is a key value to all of us but we must all be able to concentrate on what unites us and to respect what is likely to be a cause of difference. We must also avoid fighting old battles and move on to new territory. Labour Reform will not get involved in attempts to reverse PiP but we will fight very hard to make PiP work for the ordinary Party member and activist. In good faith, we will continue to support those courageous small groups of advisers and bureaucrats inside the Party machine that are sincerely interested in giving all of us a voice.
Remember at all times that PiP is vague enough to be engineered in a radical way if we only have the shared discipline to do so. Not only the NEC places and the NPF places, but the motions permitted to Conference under PiP are all issues on which we might selectively unite. Philosophically, centralisation of power is a shared issue and we may well share similar views on the current manipulation of regional and local government. What is happening in London could happen anywhere in the UK regions.
Furthermore, a commitment to subsidiarity and locality, to opposing “flexible labour market ideology” and a critical (but constructive) stance on radical welfare reform will also tend to unite all classes of democratic socialist.
Although Labour Reform has no firm policy agenda, writing privately as a prominent “right-wing” member, it remains hard to see how we can tackle any of these issues without a sensible shared critique of the obsession of the Chancellor’s advisers with maintaining an anti-taxation philosophy. Formal taxation is simply being replaced by back-door hypothecated taxes in any case.
On the other hand, Europe, petty nationalism and constitutional reform split all three trends within the left/centre and we (LR) can play a role in creating a working consensus. We are convinced that in all these areas open, transparent debate amongst members where we have shared core values and without the interference of professional lobbyists and irresponsible journalists can lead to democratic socialist solutions to otherwise intractable problems.
On other issues, expect constructive disagreement — for example, Labour Reform members tend to be more sympathetic to public/private partnership and wealth creation through managed markets, more concerned with community co-operation and less interested in “political correctness”.
The Radical Right in the Party is like the emperor with no clothes. The speeches we heard at Conference were triumphs of mental vacuity. A constructive, disciplined co-operation between three of the four great strands in the Party (I exclude the social democrat) could ensure a return to our core values without our losing the opportunity for Labour (and not a Lib/Lab Coalition) to be the natural party of government.
We must also accept that the trade unions and the constituency movement have different interests but that this is no reason not to see a long term future for co-operation. Labour Reform representatives and the unions were aware of each others’ position at each stage throughout the delay campaign. We have not and will not condemn their 96% block vote against us. Their first duty was to their own agenda.
The question is now — will we see three machines within our Party with a union interest playing hard to get between democratic socialists and the social democrats? LR is fully prepared for the unions to take that view but they must be warned in no uncertain terms: tolerance towards old-style fixing will not last long. Democracy, accountability and transparency are values in themselves.
From our perspective, the trade unions are the parents of sensible modernisation and we hope that a new compact between them, us and the left will restore balance to our Party in support of a reforming socialist government. But if they try to be the AFL-CIO to Blair’s Clinton, they may be undercut from below.
But on one issue, let there be no doubt. There is much talk in the left press about planning for secession, a new party under new electoral arrangements. LR is dedicated to opposing this proposition. We still feel that the Labour Party remains the only vehicle for democratic socialism and that its lurch to the neo-liberal right is a temporary aberration that can and should be corrected.
However, if the Party comes to be nothing more than the nineteenth century Liberal Party re-born for the next century, be assured that most of us will not follow that route. Let me make this clearer. If our values are to be betrayed, this must be seen to have become inevitable before we split. Let democratic socialists then find another home with as clear a conscience as possible, and with as many members and with as united a programme as they can muster. Premature splits are infantile and serve only those special interest groups who claim, absurdly, an ideological quick fix solution to the problems of a complex world.
Within two decades of Ramsey Macdonald’s betrayal, Clem Attlee had overseen the creation of a welfare state. That lesson, that politics is a long game, should drive us together not apart.