28.03.2007

McDonnell and lesser evilism

None of the large, Labour-affiliated unions have come on board the campaign to elect John McDonnell leader of the Labour Party, and even some of his Socialist Campaign Group comrades are not backing him. Jim Moody looks at the reasons for their reticence

Last week Peter Mandelson, erstwhile prince of darkness and nowadays a top Eurocrat, entered the Labour leadership debate. He opposed any coronation of Gordon Brown and called for younger MPs to be given their day. Seen as something more than part of the long-standing grudge match between Mandelson and Brown, his intervention is clearly part of the strategy of moving David Miliband into the position of where he is seen as the natural choice to replace Tony Blair later this year.

Mandelson, Blair and the hard-core partisans of New Labour are worried that Brown is not New Labour enough. The chancellor has gone out of his way to cultivate an image of 'real Labour', if not 'old Labour', in an effort to secure the support of the trade union big guns. While voting consistently for the entire New Labour agenda, he has been careful to distance himself from any talk of breaking the union link and retained a certain ambiguity on the drive to privatisation. People like Mandelson would definitely prefer a fully-fledged Blairite at the helm.

Just as David Cameron seemed to come from nowhere, after his candidature was promoted by the then Tory leader, Michael Howard, Miliband too could well come up the back straight on an inside rail to pip the others to the post. Supposedly, Miliband is in two minds about standing against Brown, "fearing a contest would come too early for him and split the party. Mr Blair, however, believes there is no downside for Mr Miliband in standing" (The Guardian March 26).

Despite terrific problems in the last few weeks, that thug at the home office, Dr John Reid, has not ruled himself out either and might just see his way clear to muscling in on the contest, as it develops in the coming weeks. As a leading member of the war criminals' cabinet under Blair, he is as well qualified as Brown, particularly in doing his master's bidding as home secretary, in which post he most recently spewed out more crap this week, announcing tough community sentences. However, he hardly exhibits the charisma for voters that the slicker Miliband has in spades.

Gordon Brown himself fears that he might be opposed by a Blairite. He also knows that a Brown versus Miliband contest could be extremely tight and he could do without the possibility of losing votes to his left. John McDonnell, were he to make it onto the ballot, would be certain to pick up a good deal of votes from the rank and file in the party and affiliated trade unions, despite the opposition of most union leaders, including those on the left. This could conceivably let in his Blairite opponent.

So it makes sense for the Brownites to do what they can to derail a McDonnell candidacy. Currently, the John for Leader campaign admits that no more than 22 MPs are committed to nominating their man, but, publicly at least, the McDonnell camp has confidently predicted winning the same number again and more - he needs the support of 45 MPs, including the candidate, if he is to make it onto the ballot paper. Thus, it is quite conceivable that Michael Meacher's decision to stand is part of a clever scheme to lure away potential nominations from comrade McDonnell and thus swing the odds back towards Brown. Meacher cannot expect to get on the ballot himself - his only other motive for standing would be to promote himself at the head of a bloc of 'responsible' leftwingers deserving of recognition and future jobs. Which, in fact, amounts to the same thing.

Twist and manoeuvre as they may, MPs' parliamentary shenanigans would be less important if others in the Labour Party were more forthright. They might exist in the Westminster bubble, but they do have to face reckonings with party members and the trade unions - if, that is, enough of them were to bring pressure to bear. However, especially worrisome in regard to this lack of pressure from outside parliament is the position of those supposedly on the left. Among the 22 MPs pledged to McDonnell are David Drew and Ronnie Campbell, who feature on the 'Why we're backing John' section of the John for Leader website (www.john4leader.org.uk). Neither are among the 24 members of the Socialist Campaign Group of leftwing MPs, which means that at least four SCG members are not as yet supporting their chair, comrade McDonnell.

One of them is Alan Simpson, who on March 25 announced he would not be seeking re-election as an MP. According to The Independent, he was "threatened by Jacqui Smith, the chief whip, for saying that Gordon Brown as Mr Blair's successor would be like Uday taking over from his father, Saddam Hussein". The paper quotes him as saying: "My worries about a Brown leadership are that it would turn out to be worse than Blair's." Sadly, comrade Simpson still fails to endorse McDonnell, simply contenting himself with the observation that, "The party does have other choices of direction, but it isn't clear that either John McDonnell or Michael Meacher will be able to secure the 44 MPs' nominations that would force a leadership contest. This would leave us with a shoo-in of Brown" (The Independent March 26). His stubborn refusal to back the McDonnell campaign had not a little effect.

There seems to be a great reluctance on the part of some left MPs to declare whom they are supporting. Do they not understand that the more who declare publicly, the more the waverers can be persuaded to come on board? When she was contacted by the Weekly Worker earlier this week, even Diane Abbott MP, who is secretary of the SCG and a member of the Socialist Campaign Group News editorial board, felt unable to comment on any aspect of the leadership contest, yes, including whom she would support.

Ken Livingstone and his coterie of Socialist Action and other placemen has steadfastly refused to come out for the McDonnell campaign. The shadowy Socialist Action clique has moved ever further rightwards since they bedded down in safe berths courtesy of the London taxpayer. The SA excuse for a website (www.socialistaction.org.uk) makes no mention to the Labour leadership battle - but, then again, the last article posted (on 'Venezuelan socialism') is dated May 2006.

It just shows how little these Labour deep entrists care about socialist politics compared to their bloated salaries as Livingstone's advisers (Redmond O'Neill and John Ross, for example, each receive well over £100,000 as Ken's bag carriers) - they cannot even be bothered to maintain their 'socialist' website.

All in all, leading lights and many of the lesser minions on what passes for the Labour left seem to be keeping their heads down. Since they lack the courage and honesty to explain openly their motives for failing to support comrade McDonnell, we can only speculate as to what they might be. I would hazard a guess that they go along with the reasoning of such union lefts as Tony Woodley and Derek Simpson, leaders of the TGWU and Amicus. Much as they say they admire comrade McDonnell, he hasn't a hope in hell of getting elected. In fact, since he could take votes from Brown and let in the Blairite candidate, it would be better if his name did not appear on the ballot paper.

I have to say that this support by proxy for Gordon Brown is an example of the left's lesser evilism taken to new extremes. Perhaps it is only to be expected from union bureaucrats, who are used to waiting by the table of those marginally more likely to throw a few crumbs in the direction of their members. But what about so-called revolutionaries?

But what do I know? - the 'Marxists for Brown' are sure as hell not letting the working class in on what they are thinking and going to do. Such reluctance to come clean expresses all the worst aspects of left Labourism and none of the requirements for working class leadership.

What John McDonnell's campaign has achieved in full measure, despite the drawbacks of its programme, is to expose the hollowness of a whole swathe of Labour lefts. While McDonnell's platform is hardly Marxist, reeking as it does of nationalism and constitutional moderation, it must be emphasised that it does go completely against the grain of Blairism.

The same cannot be said for the wretched Meacher, whose intervention has a good chance of ruining McDonnell's chances: his is a spoiling tactic that helps the right of the party as a whole, whether or not it is intended to aid only the Brownite wing.

It most definitely cannot be said either for Brown, who, despite the hopes of the lesser evilist left, continues to be slavishly committed to the interests of finance capital, albeit tempered with real Labour 'values'. The trade union bureaucrats will, though, be sorely disappointed if they expect a return to the days of beer and sandwiches at No10.

As for Defra man, 'Bird Flu' Miliband: if he stands in response to Blair's urgings he will be aggressively committed to Blair's permanent revolution - ie, further privatisations, PFIs and an unbreakable alliance with US imperialism. Doubtless that is why important sections of the transatlantic ruling class and its media so favour him. Rupert Murdoch's News International empire would readily throw its considerable weight behind the 'fresh, vibrant and photogenic' Miliband.