07.07.2004
Good start made
Dave Lewis reports from the foundation of the Labour Representation Committee, a new alliance of Constituency Labour Party activists, trade unionists and left MPs
The Labour left continues to make progress, even if at a painfully slow pace. The meeting to establish the Labour Representation Committee - described by John McDonnell MP as “the most important event for socialists in a generation” - still displayed too many of the negative features seen over the past few years. The top table was heavy with speakers, squeezing the time for contributions from the floor; conference documents were unavailable until the day itself, making serious discussion and amendment impossible and, apart from pretty basic agreements for local coordination, few concrete plans were made.
Nevertheless, the gathering of some 350 delegates in the TUC’s Congress House in central London (another 100 apparently pre-registered but did not attend) marked a tangible step forward. Out of it came a definite organisational structure - a 40-strong coordinating committee - and a provisional constitution that (significantly) allows for “associate membership” of the LRC (alarmingly, John McDonnell told the conference that this constitution offered simply a “working solution” put in place until next year’s conference: again, snail’s pace progress).
This ‘associate’ provision for non-Labour Party bodies is an important recognition of two things. First, it is vital that workers’ organisations such as the RMT or the Fire Brigades Union which currently find themselves outside Labour are kept within the orbit of working class politics. We have already seen in the RMT’s flirting with Plaid Cymru in Wales how the simple fact of not being affiliated to Blair’s party confers no merit in itself. It can actually be a manifestation of a degree of political disorientation, as well as anti-Blair militancy.
Second, that the Labour left needs a conduit to bring the energy and numbers of activists outside the party into their own struggle with the Blairites: without this, it is doomed, frankly. Speaker after speaker - starting with Mick Rix of Aslef, who opened and closed the conference (his coherence declining markedly during the day, it must be said), spoke of the need to “rebuild” the party, not simply “reclaim” it. The damage inflicted on the basic infrastructure of the party by the right - it has been “hollowed out”, according to the CWU’s Maria Exall - was such that just mobilising the anti-Blair forces that currently inhabit the organisation will simply not be enough to win.
A real weakness in this context is the reluctance of some major unions - particularly the ‘big four’ of Unison, Amicus, the Transport and General and GMB - to commit to the LRC. This is particularly pertinent in the case of the GMB, whose executive has just voted to decline Labour’s request for a £744,000 donation towards its general election campaign and instead will back, on a “case by case” basis, only those MPs who “share the union’s aims and values” (not necessarily restricted to the current 130-strong GMB Labour group).
Despite their leadership’s absence, rank and file activists from the ‘big four’ were present in the hall, alongside a number of RMT and FBU members. This indicates the potential for the LRC to play an important unifying and coordinating role for militants across unions, alongside activists from the CLPs - few in number though these comrade now are. So, although the positive indicators were primarily organisational - the creation of a coordinating committee, a working constitution with the provision for “associate membership” - this was an encouraging day for partisans of the working class movement in general. The missing ingredient in the mix, however, is politics.
Far too much time was taken up with - for that audience - uncontroversial speeches from the platform. Mick Rix started the day by telling us that he believed that the “birth of an organisation” was “badly needed”, since regaining the “trust of those who want representation” was vital to the future of Labour. To this end, the comrade assured us that the day would not see a procession of “prepared speeches” - an idea received with a degree of scepticism by more experienced comrades in the seats around me.
In fact, much of conference time was eaten away by invited speakers repeating the same, pretty basic message. Indeed, after three virtually identical quarter-hour speeches that essentially informed us that socialists oppose discrimination, Jeremy Dear of the National Union of Journalists replied to what he rather exaggeratedly termed a “fascinating debate”.
Of course, this is hardly an exclusively Labour left problem: the general democratic culture of the left inside and outside the party is frighteningly low. As the Labour left sets about the work of ‘rebuilding’ their party, it is essential that they begin constructing the politics they are fighting for. The failings of the past must be honestly assessed, the needs of the present fearlessly evaluated and future goals mapped out. That demands, not ritualistic, top-down speeches and meaningless pep-talks, but no-holds-barred debate … which carries with it the inevitability of differences and quite possibly sharp disagreements.
This approach was criticised by Tony Benn when he spoke to us: “The real difference I have with the Weekly Worker is that you seem to see everything in terms of pure ideology,” he said. “But you also have to give people hope. There is too much nit-picking on the left. There are too many socialist parties and not enough socialists. And, while you say you want unity, you don’t bring people together by attacking them … Splitting is hopeless; it leads to demoralisation and defeat. We desperately need unity.”
Of course, our model is not left Labourism and its utopian dreams in the next Labour government. That does disappoint and breed demoralisation. We base ourselves on the general theory and brilliantly successful practice of Bolshevism, which was, yes, accused by its critics of being nit-picking when it came to matters of theory and being unafraid of, and sometimes even welcoming, splits.
In that spirit we very much welcomed the intervention of Stuart Watkin of the RMT and the Labour Left Briefing editorial board. His was perhaps the most pointed speech of the day. Instead of trying to patch things up with Ken Livingstone after his disgraceful call for union members to scab, comrade Watkins went on the attack. He forcefully reminded conference that the “first commandment” of trade unionism was: “You don’t cross picket lines”. The anti-union agitation of Livingstone - once widely perceived as the leading figure on the left - would not be forgotten and meant in practice he had “crossed the line”.
Thus, as its rebuilds itself, the Labour left must differentiate itself politically. Criticising an opportunist as crass as the treacherous Livingstone is pretty uncontroversial - comrade Watkin’s stirring words provoked a warm burst of applause from the overwhelming majority of the delegates. (Although some comrades looked very uncomfortable. Approached for their comments on the day, Socialist Action members - who have constituted themselves as pilot fish to Livingstone’s Great White - looked distinctly uncomfortable. A wimpy “No comment” seems to be their agreed line). However, the history of Labour is replete with people who started out on its left and by the end of their careers have morphed into overt traitors.
For instance, the ‘Save our party’ conference of the Labour left in 2003 - a preparatory meeting for the LRC launch in many ways - met under images of Kier Hardie, Clem Attlee and (more oddly) John Smith.
Yet at the LRC launch comrade after comrade echoed Mick Rix’s words in assuring us that the long-haul process we are starting out on is one of “rebuilding” a party of the working class, not simply “reclaiming” the one that existed.
If that is so, then - given the bleak history of the 20th century and the defeats visited on our class - the question must be confronted as to why we need a Labour Party at all? Why don’t we look further afield for political inspiration than the likes of pro-imperialist, pro-capitalist, anti-socialist politicians like John Smith and Clem Attlee? There are two German gentlemen we might usefully make a start with, for example …
The LRC is up and running. If branches are established, if there is a regular publication, if there is no-holds-barred debate, if genuine links are forged with others on the trade union and socialist left, then the LRC will certainly provide a useful focal point for Labour activists and the ‘awkward’ trade unions, whether they remain inside, have chosen to end their support for New Labour or have been expelled by the Blairites.
The Labour Party certainly remains a vital field of struggle. One that can neither be ignored nor circumvented. Billy Hayes of the Communication Workers Union estimated that there was less support in the unions for a split with Labour than there had been in previous years. Perhaps, along with Blair’s growing unpopularity within the Labour Party, this will allow the LRC to catch some wind in its sails.
It is likely to prove a long political haul, but it is a beginning.