16.10.1997

In the wilderness

Around the left

The old Militant Tendency always presented itself as the authentic ‘Marxist’ wing of the Labour Party. As Peter Taaffe wrote in 1981 in Militant: what we stand for, “Marxism has always been part, and an important part at that, of the Labour Party right from its inception.” An exaggeration of course - but this did not prevent Militant from engaging in a Manichean struggle with the rightwing leadership ‘infiltrators’ for the ‘socialist’ soul of the Labour Party.

Even though it was brutally kicked out of the mother party and has had two name changes - Militant Labour, Socialist Party - since then, and stood candidates against the Labour Party, there seems to be a little part of SP that is forever Labour - the ‘real’ Labour Party in exile, like Jesus in the wilderness.

This comes across strongly in last week’s The Socialist. In one of two articles, comrade Peter Taaffe describes Roy Jenkins as “one of the traitors who defected to the Social Democratic Party in the 1980s” (October 3). Apparently Roy should have remained loyal to Labour - like Militant.  

The comrade gets even more prickly when discussing Blair’s comments praising Lloyd George and lamenting the split between the Liberal Party and the Labour Party:

“He clearly has no understanding of how the labour movement and Labour Party took shape ... The Liberals, then as now, could not make the concessions demanded from the unions without disavowing its class base. These objective factors forced the unions to form their own party, the Labour Party.”

Tony Blair knows exactly what he is saying. He is not being stupid, whatever comrade Taaffe might think. Blair wants to make sure that such a ‘mistake’ is not repeated - ie, allowing the Tories to dominate an entire century politically. Hence his ‘New Britain’ vision to realign British politics, with coalition politics removing the working class - and the Tories - from the agenda. That is how the script goes anyway, and Blair’s 179-seat majority gets it off to a good running start.     

But comrade Taaffe fails to understand this, as is made clear by his article ‘The Blair-Ashdown ‘lovefest’ ‘. The comrade seems outraged that Tony Blair is attempting a major and radical shake-up of British politics. Blair has “hatched plans”, as comrade Taaffe puts it, to introduce proportional representation and cuddle up to the Liberal Democrats.

In usual Socialist Party style, the comrade has to rely on a mixture of unsubstantiated gossip and dubious, uncredited sources to bolster his thesis. We are told that “in the run-up to the general election Blair reputedly spent more time with Ashdown than with most of his frontbenchers” (my emphasis). Where is the evidence?

Comrade Taaffe cannot leave it there. He goes on to declare, “We now learn that on the morning of May 2, just after Labour’s triumph, Blair phoned Ashdown. According to Blair confidantes: ‘Tony was a bit disappointed’ at Labour’s 179-seat majority in the election.” Taaffe seems unable to detect a wee touch of irony here.

“But Blair’s massive majority meant Blair now had no excuse to include Lib Dems as a means of maintaining Labour in power,” argues comrade Taaffe. Yes, he actually is arguing that Blair was genuinely “disappointed” because his majority was so big. He somehow fails to realise that Blair now has all the “excuse” he needs to remodel Britain from above, to ‘modernise’ Britain - ie, state power and a thumping majority. Blair wants to build a new consensus through constitutional reform, including proportional representation.

Comrade Taaffe, however, sees a more cynical motive: “The plan to change the electoral system is in expectation of a big collapse in electoral support for New Labour. Blair calculates that only a coalition with the Lib Dems could then help New Labour cling to power.” The comrade, getting out his well polished crystal ball, informs us confidently: “Blair’s attempts to roll back the wheel of history will fail.”

To enlist history on his side he quotes Tony Benn to the effect that a coalition government could result in a future split, as it did during the 1930s when the Independent Labour MPs stood against Ramsey MacDonald’s National Government. “But that assumes that the Labour Party of the past remains intact,” comrade Taaffe cleverly points out. To cheer up SP members, he concludes - albeit a bit cryptically - from all this speculation:

“A coalition government, rather than leading to a split as in 1931, could be the signal for the creation of a new mass party of the working class, if one has not been created beforehand. Working people will find no answer to their problems within New Labour or from a Labour government. Events and the intervention of those like the Socialist Party will assist workers in drawing the conclusion that it is necessary to create a new, mass working class party” (my emphasis).

What are we to make of this? Does this mean - perhaps - that the SP will not engage or intervene in any left split from New Labour and instead get on with the far more important work of building a “new, mass working class party”? Does the SP think that it is now the custodian of ‘real’ Labourism?

Once again, Militant/SP is trying to be all things to all people.

Don Preston