01.10.2015

Both sides are still unsure

For the moment the right is biding its time, writes Tim Keene

In many ways, there was a lot that was familiar about this year’s Labour conference. It was still dominated by the usual crowd - the power-dressing 20- and 30-somethings, obviously employed as minor bureaucrats and advisors or bag-carriers for MPs. They tended to huddle around their sponsors as a kind of sad entourage. You can tell them a mile off from their air of self-importance and ‘seriousness’. Going around the Grand Hotel Brighton I was pretty incongruous in my hoodie - especially carrying a bundle of Labour Party Marxists around with me.

Apart from the LPM contingent there wasn’t a huge presence of the left. There were one or two older Socialist Workers Party activists, including national secretary Charlie Kimber. And there was one comrade selling Socialist Appeal, as well as a few sellers of the rival versions of Labour Briefing.

And there was very little in the way of evidence of the surge of Corbyn supporters over the summer. But that is because the delegates were almost all chosen well before the end of the three-month leadership election campaign, of course. The brochure for the conference even listed all the old Blairites in the shadow cabinet who resigned en masse after the result.

The meetings put on by the unions and the Labour left were generally on easier topics like austerity, with speeches that came over as pretty stale and familiar for those used to going along to events put on by, say, the People’s Assembly. Typically a top table of speakers dominated the discussion, with almost no time for questions from the floor. One of these meetings - jointly sponsored by Unite and the Mirror (!) - focused on a lot of stories about people affected by cuts to benefits and support for the disabled. At this meeting deputy leader Tom Watson insisted that Labour was now officially an anti-austerity party. That apparently puts it “in line” with the advice of the International Monetary Fund, which favours a modest approach of investment to stimulate growth in the economy.

Len McCluskey came over as a strong supporter of Jeremy Corbyn, although he had wanted his union to back Andy Burnham in the race. He urged people to recognise that Corbyn and McDonnell would not be able to “wave a magic wand” and get Labour to adopt the kind of positions we would want. But it was his union, along with the GMB, which was among those torpedoing one of Corbyn’s most important political proposals - the non-renewal of Trident - on the spurious ground that it would cost jobs, despite the ditched motion spelling out clear contingencies to give workers in the military and shipbuilding industry alternative jobs.

In this meeting there was a challenge from the floor, when someone asked comrade McCluskey if it was true Unite might be using contractors, who provided staff for the union employed on zero-hours contracts. He asked the questioner to speak to a Unite official after the meeting.

There was, however, unity throughout the party on the Trade Union Bill, which Angela Eagle described as “vindictive and pernicious” and “ultimately about power”, since it was about “starving the main opposition of the funds it needs”. She went through some of the measures included in the bill, which would ban unions from taking a collective view on where political donations should go and having to notify police weeks in advance on what they plan to write on social media. She said that, while it was important to have “profitable companies”, that was much more likely if there were union laws in line with what exists on the continent.

Professor Keith Ewing spoke about how the bill was like a return to 1927, when the same legislation regulating political funds starved Labour of about 40% of its cash up until the party repealed the legislation in 1945. He thought it would be disastrous this time around, as, based on the current number of sign-ups, it would mean a 90% reduction in income to a trickle of £1 or £2 million a year. By contrast, the Tories had £50 million to contest the 2015 election.

Len McCluskey and John Hendy QC both emphasised how the bill effectively removed the right to strike and would reduce the unions to “collective begging” as purely advisory bodies. Len likened the requirement for picketing workers to wear armbands to the Nazi policy of making trade unionists wear red triangles. He tentatively put forward the view that the unions would have to defy the law over the coming five years, but he did not elaborate on what this would mean - apart from saying they would have to build links with direct-action groups like UK Uncut. But hanging over the conference, including many of the fringe meetings, was this fatalistic atmosphere, with people talking about an “existential” threat to the union movement.

Depressed

Meanwhile, in the fringe meetings put on by rightwing groups like Progress and Labour First, there was a very depressed attitude because of Corbyn’s victory. Rachel Reeves MP talked about the need to “stand up to the Trots.” Mind you, Progress seems to be on its last legs - Chuka Umunna has said it should be wound up and join with the new Labour for the Common Good group - dubbed “the resistance” in the press. He has said that the Progress brand has become toxic.

Labour First, on the other hand, had packed-out meetings and looks like it has become the focal point for the Blairite apparatus that is plotting to retake the party. Jacqui Smith said that she thought Corbyn would definitely “not last until 2020”. On the whole, the right wing tended to hold its gatherings in the secure zone of the Metropole Hotel, where it was harder to get in and see what was going on.

The leftwing groups like the Labour Representation Committee and Campaign for Labour Party Democracy did not seem to be any more central to proceedings than they were in past years. They looked and felt like an opposition despite various speakers having to constantly remind themselves and the audience that they were now part of the party’s leadership faction. They held their events at venues that were obviously booked well before anyone knew the result of the leadership election and so were way too small for the amount of interest they got. Similarly, the fringe hosted by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, led by Kate Hudson, was held far away from the main conference in a tiny room on the fifth floor of a hotel. The room was absolutely packed, even though Corbyn - previously the CND vice-chair - could not attend (he had been advertised as a speaker at several fringe meetings that had obviously been arranged months ago).

The main meetings for those on the left were those put on by the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy, held at Friends House. On every occasion the hall was full to overflowing. It was a bit strange for me to see for the first time the left feeling so confident - and seemingly not quite knowing what to make of the situation. The speeches from the platforms had a familiar feel, but there was something different in the air. John McDonnell went to the second of these meetings after his conference speech as shadow chancellor. He spoke about how important it was to keep the momentum going by bringing supporters into the party. He said that Corbyn was planning a second tour of the country to try and help the new members put down roots locally and keep building support for his leadership. It felt a bit like he was wanting to go on acting like an opposition despite winning, which just reflects how difficult it will be to actually drive a change in political direction in the party.

In the round-up meeting of the CLPD, Martin Mayer and Christine Shawcroft both felt that the tide was turning in favour of the left and this could be sensed throughout the conference. Christine said that, while the right wing were all careerists, this was both good and bad news for the left: bad because they are organised and control a lot of the machinery, but good because they tend to go the way they see the wind blowing. Authenticity was key, and she thought that Corbyn had already completely upended the way politics will be done. With Cameron’s approach rooted firmly in that of Blairism, he will soon look completely old-fashioned, she thought.

Another CPLD speaker said he had been going to conference for 39 years and at last there was now the basis for greater party democracy. He said that it was the CPLD fight that helped the members get a say in electing the leader in 1981 and had now helped establish the principle that led to ‘One member, one vote’. Clive Lewis MP, a young backer of Corbyn who came into parliament in 2015, felt that the CPLD would need a name change, because he thought it was obvious that Corbyn would establish some quite far-reaching democratic changes in the party. He also said that it was really significant that Labour will now start to exert a gravitational pull on the rest of the left and other working class organisations, which, if not leading immediately to lots of new affiliations to Labour, would make working with them a lot easier in future.

Threat

There was, however, quite a lot of trepidation because of the threat posed by an eventual rightwing fightback. One speaker from the floor talked about the obvious parallels between the original 80s ‘Ridley plan’, which meant attacking and taking down the major unions like the NUM and NUR, and the new ‘Letwin plan’, which aimed to do the same to unions like Unite and PCS.

With the party undermined like this, it might be hard to make headway and solidify Corbyn’s position. At the same time, conference was not yet properly democratic and the right had managed to block a lot of motions on reforming the constitution, as well as on important issues like Trident.

But Clive Lewis was optimistic and thought it was unlikely the party would fall back under rightwing control - he was confident the right’s attempt at a comeback would be seen off. A large part of the breakthrough was permanent, he thought, but at the same time, without a lot of support making itself felt from the constituency Labour Parties, he thought there was a big risk of the left in the PLP being “murdered”, metaphorically speaking.

One speaker made the important point that the Labour Party rules were not clear on whether Corbyn would get onto a ballot if there were a second leadership election. He said that the right was already plotting on these lines, knowing that Corbyn would never get enough nominations from the PLP to stand again. He said that everything would hang on how Corbyn performs in the elections next year, because doing badly would embolden the right to make its move. There would need to be a huge effort in the CLPs to pass a motion calling for a rule change, so as to take the calling of a leadership election out of the hands of the PLP alone.

Even so, it seems as though a sword of Damocles is hanging over Corbyn’s leadership, which only a much more organised membership can prevent falling. At the moment it is widely felt that the right is held in check by the strength of Jeremy’s mandate, combined with the hostility of the unions to any new change in leadership.

All in all, I got the impression from conference of a kind of phoney war between the left and the right. Both sides are still unsure of themselves and are trying to size up each other’s strengths and weaknesses. It is clear that the right will want to ditch Corbyn as soon as it can - it will need to make a move before substantial democratic changes can be introduced. The rightwingers are willing to go along with Corbyn’s conciliationism for the moment. But it is not going to stay that way for long.