06.06.2007
Brown's left cover?
Labour's deputy leadership election has met with a pretty muted response from the left. This is hardly surprising, says Mary Godwin
Nothing more clearly demonstrates the degeneration of what little remains of the old Labour left and its current deep crisis than the failure of John McDonnell to muster the necessary 44 MPs to back him as a candidate to fight Gordon Brown for the leadership. This debacle exposed not just the pitiable weakness - and in some cases treachery - of the parliamentary Labour Party left wing. It also confirmed the abject cowardice and servility of the big union bosses, who will do nothing that might damage their chances of licking a few crumbs from under the master's table. When Gordon Brown is duly crowned as Blair's successor at Labour's June 24 special conference, they will be in the front row to heap praise on the new boss and stress the unity of the Labour Party. In reality, that 'unity' is no more than a generalised subordination to the diktat of Downing Street.
Among the groups and sects comprising the organised left there are, of course, those who secretly rejoice at McDonnell's failure to get his name on the leadership ballot paper. It provides the comrades of the Socialist Party with useful ammunition to argue that the Labour Party really has undergone a qualitative transformation to the point where it is a purely bourgeois, thoroughly capitalist party, which has betrayed its working class roots and heritage. Such a party, they say, can no longer be considered a site of intervention for socialists and working inside it is a diversion from the 'real' struggle. Their answer? To create from scratch a sort of old Labour mark two, a comfort zone for nostalgics, who 'remember' a Labour Party that never actually existed. For these comrades, the long march from entryism has ended in the wilderness and theirs is a useless perspective.
Likewise, the Socialist Workers Party takes comfort from McDonnell's failure as proof that "hopes of reclaiming Labour are fatally flawed" (Socialist Worker June 2). Of course, the SWP is self-evidently correct to say that Labour cannot be 'reclaimed', if by that it means that it is futile to try and turn the clock back to a largely mythical Labour past. Pity the poor dwindling band of brothers and sisters still toiling away in their CLPs and unions with this holy grail as their quest. Their dreams are in tatters - again. But the SWP's 'answer', of course, is Respect, and that is no answer at all.
Marxists must surely see the Labour Party as still being a vital arena of struggle for socialists. Why? Because our single most important strategic task as Marxists and revolutionaries in this country is to win the working class from Labourism. The Labour Party is much more than its rotten governmental and parliamentary apparatus, much more than a supine and craven union bossocracy. It embraces thousands of grassroots activists and rank and file trade union members. Their disillusionment with Blair and their sense of betrayal and impotence is the party's worst kept secret. They are disgusted by the lies which Blair told in order to lead Britain into a shameful war. They understand that whatever the Blair/Brown project may be for, it is not for their good or for the good of all, but only for that of the few. Brown is no fool. He understands that he simply cannot merely replicate Blair's autocracy and his arrogant, open contempt for any kind of dissent. Brown's success is contingent on winning back the party's core support.
It is this which makes the current deputy leadership contest more interesting and more important than the political beauty contest which it appears to be in the mass media. It actually matters who wins, not so much in terms of the concomitant post of deputy prime minister - if this pretty meaningless non-job can be done by John Prescott, it can be done by anyone - but in terms of the relationship between the party's leadership and its base.
Of course, all six of the contenders in the deputy leadership election are busy burnishing whatever 'leftwing' credentials they can cobble together in order to maximise support. It is not a pretty sight, though it does have its amusing moments. Only one of them has, from an objective point of view, much prospect of at least posing left in a sufficiently convincing manner to meet the self-written job description of bridge-builder, and that is Jon Cruddas.
Jon who?
Cruddas has been the Labour MP for Dagenham since the June 2001 general election. He has never held government office. It would be interesting to know why, but this could actually work to his advantage, in that he cannot be factionally pigeon-holed as a Blairite/Brownite. From 1989 he worked as a professional Labour Party apparatchik: first in the policy department, then in the general secretary's office under Larry Whitty and Tom Sawyer, where he played his humble and loyal part in ensuring the death of clause four and pushing through party reforms like 'one member, one vote'. Significantly, his last job, from 1997 to the time he entered parliament, was in Downing Street, where he served as a deputy political secretary in the prime minister's office - effectively Blair's link man with the trade unions.
So why is Cruddas standing and on what platform? The best way to begin is to let the man speak for himself. On his campaign website he tells us that this election is a "chance for the Labour Party to reconnect with its membership and supporters". He believes that Labour "has lost its way" and needs to "get back on track" by changing the way the party is run, its policies and how it campaigns: "I believe we must return to our core values and rebuild the party in our communities. In the next few months we will build a grassroots network in every part of the country; not only to campaign for this election, but to rebuild the wider party. This campaign will allow our members to once again unite around the central values of equality, fairness and a rejection of the politics of hate" (www.joncruddas.org.uk).
Banal stuff, as it has to be, but reading between the lines makes it clear that Cruddas is setting himself up as the real unity candidate, who can bring the troops back on board by reshaping the balance of forces between the top and the base. Of course, the bridge-building role, a useful part of New Labour's mythology of inclusiveness, was that notionally exercised by John Prescott in his persona as a 'real member of the working class'. But it can just as easily be notionally exercised by a colourless apparatchik in a suit, especially someone who has good links with the big unions.
Like any candidate in this election, Cruddas must be judged at least in part by his voting record. It is mixed, to say the least. We are definitely not dealing with a John McDonnell. On the plus side Cruddas has voted for equal gay rights, against replacing Trident, against the Israeli bombing of Lebanon last year, against some new restrictions on asylum-seekers and so forth. He has been a particular advocate of greater rights for and protection of agency workers. He opposes tuition fees and does not like public schools (from whom he advocates removing their charitable status) or foxhunting, which is, naturally, de rigueur. He also advocates (in nebulous terms) some restoration of trade union rights.
But on the negative side - and it is very negative - he was until recently a strong supporter of the war on Iraq and against calls for the investigation into the basis of the Iraq war by means of an independent public enquiry. He is also a strong supporter of Labour's anti-terrorist laws, with all their negative implications for democratic rights and freedoms.
On the war, like that well known fake left, Mr Michael Meacher, in his curious bid to get nominated for the leadership contest that never was, Cruddas has also had to turn a somersault and put on the sackcloth and ashes: "I saw the case for removing a tyrant who was a threat because of his weapons of mass destruction and who had already used them against his own people. I now state unequivocally that I was wrong, not only over the original premise, but also on account of the consequences since. If the Democrats in the US can begin to debate a framework for withdrawal, why can't Labour in this country?" (Morning Star May 25).
A cynic would call these weasel words, translatable as follows: 'Fair cop. I was for regime change; there were no weapons of mass destruction; we're losing the war and it's time to talk about getting out.' To take the only principled leftwing position on the question and demand troops out now would put him beyond the pale. On BBC's Newsnight, he merely reiterated that "It's time to plan a withdrawal." No doubt Bush and Blair have already done that - at least in contingency form. But it is as far as Cruddas dares to go.
In the same interview, he was asked why, if he stands on a left alternative to New Labour neoliberal orthodoxy, did he not sign up to John McDonnell's leadership campaign? His answer is revealing: "I held out until a late stage, until it was clear that he wasn't going to get enough votes, since even Campaign Group members were signing up for Gordon Brown. There was a strong argument for a contest, but it wasn't going to happen" (ibid).
No cynic's translation is needed to show up these words for what they so obviously are. John Haylett of the Morning Star tries to help the 'left' candidate out by writing: "Those who back Cruddas believe that he would have isolated himself by supporting a doomed McDonnell challenge and that the policy priorities that he [Cruddas] champions would have been 'drowned out' and discounted" (ibid). Well, that's all right then. When a notionally leftwing Labour politician declines to associate himself with the sole potentially significant left challenge to Blairism in years, that can be justified on grounds of pragmatism.
Small wonder that John McDonnell's name does not figure in the list of 49 nominations from Labour MPs, nor, interestingly, does that of Jeremy Corbyn, but many of the usual suspects have signed up. His support from constituency Labour Parties is also quite strong, with 68 CLPs, second only to Hilary Benn's 77. For what it is worth, the other contenders obtained CLP backing as follows: Harriet Harman, justice minister - 60; Alan Johnson, education secretary - 45; Hazel Blears, party chairperson - 36; Peter Hain, Northern Ireland secretary - 23.
Union man
Cruddas's strongest card lies in the significant backing (including financial support for his campaign) which he is receiving from Unite, the amalgamation of the Transport and General Workers Union and Amicus launched on May Day this year, and the country's biggest union, with some 1.4 million members. Joint general secretaries Tony Woodley and Derek Simpson obviously believe that Cruddas, with his background, is the right man to help them get an entrée into Brown's Downing Street.
The May-June issue of the T&G Record devotes a full page to Cruddas, highlighting his struggle against the influence of the British National Party in his east London constituency and depicting defections from Labour to the BNP by working class voters as evidence of disenchantment among traditional supporters who feel that the Labour Party has "deserted them": "In areas like mine, we've got thousands of people who are vulnerable, insecure, isolated; and don't feel as though they've got a Labour Party in their historic role of articulating their interests and providing remedies to them."
He also draws attention to his work with trade unions and campaign groups to tackle the abuse of agency workers, especially migrant workers, arguing that Labour's policy direction is casting the people adrift and that the party has lost its way. He describes Labour's performance on council housing, a particular Cruddas hobby horse, as the party's "one outstanding public policy failing". You could say the economic and social interests of workers are finding some expression in Cruddas's interviews and speeches on the official hustings - but only in a vague, folksy sort of way. His criticisms are measured, calculated to create sufficient pink water between this 'outsider' and the other contenders who are seen as tainted by their participation in Blair's cabinet.
It should also be mentioned that Cruddas has received the endorsement of Ken Livingstone. Remember that it was good old 'red Ken' who sacked John McDonnell as his deputy on the Greater London Council back in 1985 after the latter called on him to defy the Tory government by illegally refusing to set a rate for the GLC. Evidently, Cruddas's brand of leftish Labourism is more to the mayor's taste.
And it may even be to the taste of Gordon Brown, if he is serious about doing at least some token repair work on Labour's damaged relations with the trade unions and the alienation felt by many at the grassroots both inside and outside the Labour Party. Cruddas has not harmed himself by saying that he is not interested in the post of deputy prime minister (which the deputy leader is normally called upon to fill), despite the fact that it would bring a seat at the cabinet table. Doubtless he would submit to having this greatness thrust upon him if that is what Gordon and the party wanted. Most of all, Cruddas has succeeded in giving the impression of being a safe pair of hands and, whatever the outcome of this contest, it will do his prospects for preferment no harm at all.
If he is successful we can expect an early Brown-Cruddas initiative along the lines of the 2004 Warwick agreement, which, by means of some meaningless 'concessions' and sweet talk, allowed the union bosses to delude themselves and their members that the unions actually have a voice in Labour Party policy making.
The Morning Star tells us, "It's got to be Cruddas"; Socialist Worker sees him as "the only candidate worth supporting" - hardly a resounding endorsement, it is true, but an endorsement nevertheless. We beg to differ. The SWP said something similar about the current deputy leader, John Prescott, a decade ago. In what way can Cruddas be considered "worth supporting"? In order to provide 'left' cover for Brown, as Prescott did at first for Blair?
Jon Cruddas cannot even be compared with John McDonnell, who, for all his shortcomings (and they were many), was at least a consistent left Labourite. More importantly, if enough MPs had had the guts to ensure McDonnell's name was on the ballot paper in a challenge to Brown, this would have opened up real possibilities for the left, and not only within the Labour Party.
The Cruddas candidacy, if successful, would probably close off rather than open up the issues he currently claims to be so passionate about. Messrs Woodley and Simpson should not expect an invitation to beer and sandwiches at No10 any time soon.