26.09.2019

Politics of the past, politics of the future

Bill Hodgson of Labour Party Marxists reports that, although in terms of numbers the right was hardly in evidence at conference, there were big clashes and latent possibilities.

Frankly, this year’s conference was rather shambolic - with debates frequently overrunning time and constant arguments over procedure, making delegates feel even more frustrated than normal. The chairing was particularly poor, if not downright amateurish at times. All this highlighted, yet again, the gaping democratic deficit at conference and in the party as a whole.

For instance, in the Saturday ‘debate’ on rule changes to the constitution, the chair raced through the 27 proposals and farcically delegates only got to see the NEC’s seven proposals on that very morning as part of the 225-page review of the Conference Arrangements Committee report. Unless you were a speed reader or Commander Data then there was no chance of knowing what the hell was happening. Effectively disenfranchising you.

The main issues that dominated conference were Tom Watson’s political future, Brexit, clause four and education. Making Brighton buzz was the attempted assassination of Tom Watson by Momentum’s owner-cum-dictator, Jon Lansman, submitting a motion on September 20 to the National Executive Committee to abolish the post of deputy leader. To state the obvious, one assumes he must have consulted Jeremy Corbyn’s office. However, thanks to Claudia Webbe turning up 10 minutes late, Lansman’s gun misfired. Wendy Nicholls had to rule that the motion did not have the required two-thirds majority. The vote was 17:10. With Webbe it would have been 18:10. Jeremy Corbyn, Gandhi-like as usual, intervened in the spirit of ‘party unity’ and proposed a ‘review’. Tom Watson lives on as deputy leader - for the moment.

As for Brexit it took a dramatic new turn on September 24 when the 11-member Supreme Court floored almost everybody by unanimously ruling that Boris Johnson’s decision to prorogue parliament was “unlawful, void and of no effect”. One consequence of parliament’s return was that Jeremy Corbyn had to hot-foot it back to Westminster - therefore his traditional final-day speech had to be brought forward a day, taking up the deputy leader’s slot. The party offered Watson the chance to address conference the following day, but he turned it down - for good reason. In the words of London’s normally dull free newspaper, Metro, supporters of Labour Party Marxists, Labour Left Alliance, Labour Against the Witchhunt and others “were said to have been planning to either boycott the speech altogether, or stage a mass walk-out when it begins. A speedily produced leaflet by LLA circulated at conference also explained that some delegates were planning to stay and sing ‘Oh Jeremy Corbyn’ instead” (September 24).

LPM very much doubts that Watson was relishing the prospect, especially as his rightwing allies in the PLP would not have been around to offer their solidarity - far more interested in resuming their efforts to undermine Jeremy Corbyn in the House of Commons.

Brexitland

Anyway, at conference the party’s contortions over Brexit have become even more extreme. Fairly or otherwise, Jeremy Corbyn has been widely mocked for advocating a ‘neutral’ stance in any post-election referendum - or ‘creative’ ambiguity’, as it used to be called.

To that end, on Sunday night the NEC backed by 16 votes to 10 a motion tabled by Corbyn saying a Labour government would negotiate a “sensible” leave deal with the European Union and within six months would put it before the people in a referendum alongside the option to remain. But, according to the statement, Labour would “only decide” how to campaign in such a referendum at a one-day special conference. This would be held at the end of a three-month period during which Labour would try to negotiate its own Brexit deal - with Corbyn himself, it seems, playing the honest broker carrying out whatever the people decide.

As is always the case with Brexit, for some this statement does not go anywhere near far enough. Labour should be the party of ‘remain’ pure and simple like the Liberal Democrats, who are now committed to revoking article 50 if they win the general election. That, of course, is not going to happen, which means it is the same old ‘remain’ position.

For others, however, the leadership/NEC line is an insult to the 17.4 million who voted to leave the EU, offering them a non-choice between ‘remain’ and Brino (‘Brexit in name only’), as in reality this “sensible” option entails remaining part of the customs union and keeping a “close” relationship with the single market - not to mention contributing to the EU budget, accepting the continuation of free movement, and so on. As many Brexiteers point out - with a certain logic - what then is the point of leaving the EU? We might as well stay in - at least you get a vote.

After the usual bureaucratic haggling into the early hours, two motions were presented to conference, along with the NEC statement. Composite 13 said Labour “must reflect the overwhelming view of its members and voters” who want to stay in the EU - therefore the party will “campaign energetically” for remain in that referendum, while “recognising the rights of those members who want to argue another view”. Alternatively, composite 14 endorsed the leadership’s approach, although it did not explicitly say the party’s referendum stance should not be decided until after the special conference - a fudge.

Rather, the motion declared, Jeremy Corbyn has made the way forward “abundantly clear” by backing a public vote between a “credible” Brexit and remain - at the same time seeking “maximum consensus” around policies “for the many, not the few”. Again doing his Jesus act, Corbyn said he would “go along with whatever decision the party comes to”.

Before the conference debate on Brexit, the press was full of stories attacking Jeremy Corbyn because he “relies” on the union block vote to “crush members” who support remain. But it was not so straightforward. Unison voted for the ‘back remain now’ motion, whilst Momentum’s National Coordinating Group came in behind the Labour leadership’s ‘delay’ position. But curiously, it transpired that Momentum’s owner did not approve of the NEC statement and called upon delegates to “feel free to vote with their conscience”. Proving that irony is not dead, Jon Lansman described the NEC statement as a “travesty”, because there had not been any “discussion” or “consultation” with the membership. If there were a prize for hypocrisy, Lansman would win it hands down, given his dictatorial running of Momentum and participation in the witch-hunt. Welcome to the politics of Brexitland.

In the end, for all the hoopla about a Unison revolt against the Labour leadership, both the NEC statement and composite 14 were passed - Corbyn loyalism won out. Supporters of composite 13 staged a little protest, demanding a card vote. But the chair overruled them, saying the show of hands clearly indicated that the motion had been defeated - which, leave aside the block votes of Unite, GMB, etc, seemed correct.

Emphasising the absurdity of it all, the conference vote might not even determine Labour’s position anyway, as party officials sheepishly admit. The decision on what goes into the manifesto will be taken nearer the time at a ‘clause five’ meeting, where the NEC, shadow cabinet and union leaders will agree the text of the document. You might even think it was a waste of time going to conference.

Neither the NEC statement nor the motions were worthy of support, as they remain trapped in the bourgeois politics of remain/leave - which would only be reinforced by another referendum. The reformist politics of remain and the nationalist slogans of ‘leave’ have split the working class right down the middle. Rather, Labour should be fighting for internationalism and genuine working class politics to challenge capitalism.

Clause four, rewritten under Tony Blair in 1995, carries a totemic status for both the right and left. Therefore, in the opinion of Labour Party Marxists, it was correct to support the rule change that would have reinstated the old Fabian 1918 clause four, striking a blow against the Blairite right.

The NEC, however, sensing that this might well have gotten a majority, suggested to set up a ‘working group’ instead - a recipe to kick the issue into the long grass, of course. Jim Kennedy, chair of the Organisation Committee, told the movers: “Rest assured, your voices will be heard” - while telling delegates to vote against. The rule change was supported by a slim majority of CLP delegates (56%), but as over 99% of affiliates (union and socialist societies) voted against, the constitutional amendment fell.

Abolished?

Naturally, Marxists are opposed to private fee-paying education - instead fighting for genuine comprehensive education that unlocks human potential and creates well-rounded individuals. But under capitalism it is a profound mistake to equate that with universal state education, a sausage factory obsessed with competitive exams, which ultimately is just another form of oppression. Let’s face it, most find school a pretty miserable experience.

In the run up to conference, the mainstream media made a big fuss about a supposed proposal to “abolish independent schools” - the ‘politics of envy’ indeed. It was widely reported that John McDonnell was fully behind the motion, which was successfully passed at conference. Alas, it was not as radical a demand as it might sound - though LPM cannot claim to be surprised.

The main motion on the subject (proposed initially by three CLPs: Battersea, Bolton and Southport) was headed “Labour Against Private Schools”, which is also the name of a campaigning group - correctly pointing out the gross inequality and privilege that emanates from institutions such as Eton and Harrow. For example, while only around 7% of children attend private schools, something like 50% of judges, government ministers and university vice-chancellors - not to mention “news columnists” - were educated outside the state sector. The motion added that “The ongoing existence of private schools is incompatible with Labour’s pledge to promote social justice” and calls on the party’s general election manifesto to include “a commitment to integrate all private schools into the state sector” (my italics).

However, when it comes to the concrete measures needed to bring about such ‘integration’, these are limited to the “withdrawal of charitable status and all other public subsidies and tax privileges”. In fact, according to the motion, Labour will “ensure universities admit the same proportion of private school students as in the wider population”. In other words, private schools will not be abolished - let alone grammar schools, which in the words of David Flack from Rayleigh and Wickford CLP “are the disease that infects our educational system.”

Actually, John McDonnell did not call for abolition - please restrain your amazement. In his comment in favour of the motion, he pointed out how “our society is grotesquely unequal”, some of which derives from “inequalities in education”. He correctly stated that in public schools “large amounts of money are spent on a privileged few”, but he did not go beyond what is stated in the motion.

In fact there was also another motion proposed by Isle of Wight, which called on Labour to “place all private schools into local authority ownership and control”, but this is part of a much broader set of policies dealing with education as a whole - including, for instance, the abolition of “academies, academy trusts and free schools” - so it does not go into detail on what exactly would happen to private schools once they were under “local authority ownership and control”. Would they still charge fees, for example?

Despite this regrettable lack of clarity, it is clear that these motions were supportable - which LPM delegates did, of course.

Rousing

With a definite spring in his step, Jeremy Corbyn’s - hastily edited - speech to conference on the Tuesday was possibly the best speech he has made in a long time - populist in the best sense of the term.

Described as “rousing” by the Guardian, the Labour leader slammed what he called Johnson’s “born-to-rule government of the entitled” - calling upon the prime minister to resign for having “misled the country”. Going on, he attacked Johnson for thinking he “could do whatever he liked just as he always does” - the man “thinks he’s above us all” being “part of an elite that disdains democracy”. Trying to reverse the narrative put out by the ‘revolutionary’ right, Corbyn rightly mocked Boris Johnson’s claim to be anti-establishment as a “shameless bid to turn reality on its head”. In reality, he said, Johnson and the Tories” are “not only on the side of the establishment: they are the establishment”. Johnson and his friends, Corbyn pointed out, can never be on the side of the working class, as “supporting the people might hit them and their super-rich sponsors where it hurts - in their wallets and offshore bank accounts.”

Predictably enough, Corbyn used his speech to set out Labour’s stall for government. He announced a new plan to set up a state-backed manufacturer of generic drugs, to bring down the medicines bill for the NHS, and highlighted a string of other policies the party hopes will go down well on the doorstep, including a “green industrial revolution”, free prescriptions, Crossrail for the north and free personal care for the elderly.

Jeremy Corbyn also claimed to have a “different view of leadership from the one people are used to”. Yes, he believes leaders “should have strong principles that people can trust” - but they “must also listen and trust others to play their part” because “there are leaders in every community driving change”. So not Boris Johnson then.

Corbyn wants a general election, of course - but when? He argued that it needs to take place “as soon as this government’s threat of a disastrous no deal is taken off the table”, as required by the Benn-Burt legislation that passed into law before Boris Johnson “illegally” closed down parliament. Somewhat understandably, Corbyn made a strong defence of his Brexit stance approved by conference - much to the displeasure, you can guarantee, of Emily Thornberry and Keir Starmer.

Talking of Sir Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary, he had a bad conference - throughout it looking as miserable as sin. He got a frostily indifferent reception whenever he spoke, which is hardly surprising, given that his delivery was about as exciting as a speak-your-weight machine on flat batteries. Is he the future leader of a national government? Maybe.