Swimming against the Establishment Stream
Straight back on the campaign trail last night and at long last I was able to get to the open meeting convened by Birmingham Trades Council that I missed in December as a result of train delays.
This well attended meeting was an enthusiastic discussion of current government policies and the alternative political programme rank and file members of our movement want to see implemented by a Labour Government.
What is clear from this and all the other meetings of activists I have attended is the huge contrast between what grassroots members are experiencing on the ground and the analysis and statements made by the Labour Party elite in Westminster.
If you listen to members of the Labour and Trade Union movement and members of the general public they tell you straightforwardly that what is turning them off the Labour Party as evidenced in poll after poll is the policies. They were promised so much, expected so much and hoped for so much but have been disillusioned by the delivery of so little.
Like any other representative of the Labour Party I can recite from Labour Party briefings the long list of achievements under Labour but it just doesn't wash any more. Iraq, privatisation, health cuts, public sector pay and job cuts, pensions, housing costs, presures and long hours at work, insecurity and fear of crime and many other issues crowned by allegations of sleaze are just thrown back at you.
Rank and file members can see this, why can't the Labour elite?
Instead yesterday we witnessed three stereotypical reactions to the perceived sleepwalking of Labour into electoral crisis.
On one extreme in testing the water for his putative leadership challenge John Reid presented us with the classic argument that it's not the New Labour policies that are alienating our support but the fact that we haven't gone far enough with them. This "if in a hole keep digging" strategy somehow doesn't inspire.
The other response is portrayed in the approach taken by John Cruddas' campaign and reflected in the article in today's Guardian based upon a poll commisioned by this extremely well funded campaign. This policy free aproach seeks to avoid upsetting anyone politically by concentrating on the organisational collapse of the Labour Party, the decline in Labour membership and the lack of activity of the party on the ground. This approach avoids virtually any reference to policies for fear of rocking the policy boat or being exposed as having voted for them or being seen within Westminster or the media to be anything but "mainstream."
The argument that the malaise of the Labour Party is mainly organisational not political just reverses the reality.
Labour Party membership and the commitment of Labour Party has declined dramatically because of the immense disillusionment if not anger of Labour Parry supporters with many of the policies voted for by Labour MPs and implemented by a Labour Government which they fought so hard to have elected.
To adapt the Clinton campaign slogan "It's the policies stupid!"
Even the muted and much coded response from the Brown camp seems to admit that there is a need for policy change with references to being in a policy "rut" over issues like Iraq. Nobody gives any credibility to these attempts at triangulation as Brown's role as the architect and advocate of these New Labour policies is blinding obvious to everyone except the occasional trade union general secretary desperately casting round to justify their personal support for Brown.
At last night's meeting in Birmingham a member of the Labour Party expressed his support for our campaign because, as he said, this campaign is the only one explaining the need for policy change and offering an alternative policy programme.
That's what we will continue to do and we will continue the programme of meetings for activists around the country to engage rank and file members of the movement in development of policies and campaigns.
Of course it is frustrating not gaining as much coverage as we would like in the national media but this will always be the case. We are not part of the establishment, not part of that Westminster dinner party circuit of MPs and media. We never will be.
Also we do not offer the safe option to allow the safe channelling of members frustration to allow them to let off steam to no effect.
Our campaign is a direct challenge to the ideology, the policies and the centralised organisational dominance the New Labour estabishment. It is a serious project for developing a strategy for 21st century socialism in Britain. That is what makes it exciting but of course makes it all the more challenging. Of course we are swimmming against the establishment stream but all the evidence demonstrates that we have majority support in the grassroots of our movement. We need to give people more confidence in that support. Steve Biko once commented that the most effective weapon of the oppressor was the mind of the oppressed.
A key role in the coming months is to explain to members of our movement what a gigantic opportunity and what power they will have in their hands very shortly through this leadership campaign to reclaim our party and reunite the government with its supporters.
This well attended meeting was an enthusiastic discussion of current government policies and the alternative political programme rank and file members of our movement want to see implemented by a Labour Government.
What is clear from this and all the other meetings of activists I have attended is the huge contrast between what grassroots members are experiencing on the ground and the analysis and statements made by the Labour Party elite in Westminster.
If you listen to members of the Labour and Trade Union movement and members of the general public they tell you straightforwardly that what is turning them off the Labour Party as evidenced in poll after poll is the policies. They were promised so much, expected so much and hoped for so much but have been disillusioned by the delivery of so little.
Like any other representative of the Labour Party I can recite from Labour Party briefings the long list of achievements under Labour but it just doesn't wash any more. Iraq, privatisation, health cuts, public sector pay and job cuts, pensions, housing costs, presures and long hours at work, insecurity and fear of crime and many other issues crowned by allegations of sleaze are just thrown back at you.
Rank and file members can see this, why can't the Labour elite?
Instead yesterday we witnessed three stereotypical reactions to the perceived sleepwalking of Labour into electoral crisis.
On one extreme in testing the water for his putative leadership challenge John Reid presented us with the classic argument that it's not the New Labour policies that are alienating our support but the fact that we haven't gone far enough with them. This "if in a hole keep digging" strategy somehow doesn't inspire.
The other response is portrayed in the approach taken by John Cruddas' campaign and reflected in the article in today's Guardian based upon a poll commisioned by this extremely well funded campaign. This policy free aproach seeks to avoid upsetting anyone politically by concentrating on the organisational collapse of the Labour Party, the decline in Labour membership and the lack of activity of the party on the ground. This approach avoids virtually any reference to policies for fear of rocking the policy boat or being exposed as having voted for them or being seen within Westminster or the media to be anything but "mainstream."
The argument that the malaise of the Labour Party is mainly organisational not political just reverses the reality.
Labour Party membership and the commitment of Labour Party has declined dramatically because of the immense disillusionment if not anger of Labour Parry supporters with many of the policies voted for by Labour MPs and implemented by a Labour Government which they fought so hard to have elected.
To adapt the Clinton campaign slogan "It's the policies stupid!"
Even the muted and much coded response from the Brown camp seems to admit that there is a need for policy change with references to being in a policy "rut" over issues like Iraq. Nobody gives any credibility to these attempts at triangulation as Brown's role as the architect and advocate of these New Labour policies is blinding obvious to everyone except the occasional trade union general secretary desperately casting round to justify their personal support for Brown.
At last night's meeting in Birmingham a member of the Labour Party expressed his support for our campaign because, as he said, this campaign is the only one explaining the need for policy change and offering an alternative policy programme.
That's what we will continue to do and we will continue the programme of meetings for activists around the country to engage rank and file members of the movement in development of policies and campaigns.
Of course it is frustrating not gaining as much coverage as we would like in the national media but this will always be the case. We are not part of the establishment, not part of that Westminster dinner party circuit of MPs and media. We never will be.
Also we do not offer the safe option to allow the safe channelling of members frustration to allow them to let off steam to no effect.
Our campaign is a direct challenge to the ideology, the policies and the centralised organisational dominance the New Labour estabishment. It is a serious project for developing a strategy for 21st century socialism in Britain. That is what makes it exciting but of course makes it all the more challenging. Of course we are swimmming against the establishment stream but all the evidence demonstrates that we have majority support in the grassroots of our movement. We need to give people more confidence in that support. Steve Biko once commented that the most effective weapon of the oppressor was the mind of the oppressed.
A key role in the coming months is to explain to members of our movement what a gigantic opportunity and what power they will have in their hands very shortly through this leadership campaign to reclaim our party and reunite the government with its supporters.
posted by John at 9:02 AM
20 Comments:
'Public' not 'pubic' sector pay cuts. You're right though.
i generally like the combative approach although im not sure if i quite share this level of vitriol towards the jon cruddas campaign. what do you mean by that sly 'well-funded' crack? well funded and thus secretly in the pocket of evil big business? well maybe but if you have evidence of it lets hear it.
cruddas's record on the crucial issue of housing and battling the bnp on the streets is second to none. just cos he has given interviews in the spectator a couple of times and the guardian likes him is no reason to dismiss him completely. or am just naive and is this what people said about prescott in '94?
lets see some solidarity with the only other left leaning campaign, unless you have a preferred candidate for deputy leader?
I agree. Jon Cruddas is being supported by the same people who are considering supporting you but I feel very annoyed by your cheap shot at him and am not sure if I want to support a candidate who should be focussing on attacking new Labour instead of the soft left. I hope this was the first of the last attack you make on Jon Cruddas please.
And that's "Jon" not "John" Cruddas.
which Helen was it above?
not I
just in case anyone's in any doubt the mainstream journos from the BBC,CNN, SKy and papers like The Mirror and Guaridn etc are perfectly well aware of John's campaign, at conference they did feature him though not at all enough and some of us were wearing campaign t-shirts; including when we were interviewed. I spoke to all the mainstream journalists I could find including those from The Daiy Politics, several other moslty BBC political correspondents including Jeremy Paxman and asked if they could make sure they feature John's campaign as well as generally commenting on the issues each day such as the Brown/Blair/Clinton set-piece speeches and the actual business of conference such as issues debated e.g. housing. It was probably easier than ever for a leftie like me to get chosen to be interviewed this year as views seemed to be polarised between loyal Blairites and us with not much in between so the journalists could neatly interview a "for and against" pair of people who had been in the audience of each speech etc instead of having a person with the middle view as well as usually happens. I always take care to say I'm still in Labour as Labour is where it's at not Respect or other lefter party and we don't want to split it but then make the criticisms necessary on whatever the issue is. I even had a chat with Robin Oakley of CNN while holed up in the pass office queue. I explained my personal situation to him re:childcare and work and he said I was blocked at every turn (due to New Labour policy).
In casr anyone's wondering a lot of people at conference were cross that Murdoch's Sky tv had been allowed to sponsor the conference passes and I'd agree with that but they are good at getting to the story first and have actually given John quite a lot of coverage in the past few years inronically enough including an hour long news special where he answered topical questions on Iraq etc with Polly Toynbee and Twiglet and thingy I'll think of it in a mintue and broadcast during last year's (2005) conference.
I know John has challenged Brown to a debate but a journalist I know thinks Brown will just decline. He certainly shouldn't!
A Kennedy-Nixon style tv debate would be brilliant and particulary in the light of today's news that Brown has spoken out over Saddam Hussein's execution wheras Blair has remained silent (see The Mirror's daily Schtumometer for how long!)
Jo,
Don't you think that you're overreacting just a tad here? Firstly, John McDonnell clearly does concentrate his energies on attacking New Labour's record - we're talking about a single paragraph critique out of a blog with dozens of posts here.
Secondly, why not try engaging with the points he's raised? Is there anything you disagree with? In my view, pointing out that Jon Cruddas is running a policy-free campaign is, well, stating the obvious. The problem with Cruddas bemoaning Labour's collapse in membership is that he completely misses the point. People have ripped up their party cards over Iraq, attacks on civil liberties, Foundation Hospitals etc - in other words, policies which Jon Cruddas wholeheartedly supported. How do you think a candidate who backed the policies that have driven people away is supposed to win them back? Cruddas knocking on a few doors talking about how Labour needs to reconnect with "local communities" and other empty rhetoric isn't going to win them back - he will only achieve that by promising a real break from New Labour.
I hope "Cruddasites" won't complain if Cruddas wins and alienates his former supporters by remaining true to his current political record (i.e. backing almost all of New Labour's pro-privatisation and pro-war policies). If he does win, then I'm afraid that I'm putting in my "I told you so" here first.
I agree, Cruddas' campaign has nothing of substance in it - most people realise he is trying desperately to imply he has some vaguely leftish values whilst maintaining his strong careerist stance by actually supporting no clear policy - other than those that will keep him in with Brown & help to further his own career. He needs to be exposed for what he is - his work against the BNP's great, but it doesn't change any of the above. Plus, if he is so pro-social housing why does he wholeheartedly support the New Labour stance on it? Come off it!
I agree also. I've been a Labour member for ten years now (and I should have got round to joining much before that as I've been Labour ever since I was unwittingly indoctrinated by a socialist A level Politics teacher!)and I've never seen John Cruddas' name put to any policy or initiative I would agree with! I's hardly heard of him to be honest.
is the election going to be May??
Thanks for that. I will no longer be voting to for John McDonnell.
Jo, you seem to move from messageboard to messageboard bigging up Jon Cruddas - do you work for him or are you perhaps related? Or maybe we should add an 'n' to your name!
Jo I'm sorry my comment above about Jon Cruddas was a bit short and to the point, I was going to add that I'm sure he's well known for some aspect of New Labour or in his region but my general impression remains the same notwithstanding, my point being that until the recent coverage of him re: the election I would have had to rack my brains to think what topics I had seen him speak on in the House/Conference etc etc. However I had to curtail what I was writing abruptly because a child needed my attention, I had to make a split second decision as to whether to post what I'd already written or not and maybe I I should have qualified it in that I was also going to go on to say that there will similarily be people who haven't heard all that much about John McD's various particular policy interests such as the public sector to name just one but I think most people would know he is anti-war and one of the Labour "rebels". Might write a bit more in a bit, writer's cramp and I'm still thinking about the NHS programme that was on tonight.
have just re-read the comments above and the point about the BNP -of course I hope it's a given that we're all naturally working against them in Labour either locally or perhaps in Unite Against Facism for instance so here's one example where we're all on the same side. But it's not enough to do this and then support for instance the basically privatised housing policy as has been said above, as you have to look in to the effects of these policies. I could write more about this or you could just look at the Defend COuncil Housing website for a start but I'm not writig much tonight so suffice to say just a couple of things.
Today I received an email from a local parents group I'm asking for toys, nappies, toiletries etc for the resident's of the local Victorian hostel which is where my Tory council put all the people who have nowhere else to go as they basically believe that's all that's good enough for them. Our former PPC who is a qualified social worker is always helping pregnant women and the like get out of this obviously unsuitable accomodation. Ok it's a Tory area but we have been in government since '97, surely we can do better than this?? This sort of situation is not going to be solved by decreasing the available supply of social housing in good repair which is effectivley what the current policy is doing unless they finally listen to their own members conference majority votes for a "fourth option" i.e. for the housing supply to remain in house. If you start selling it off even at low cost most of it will either end up reposessed or it will price even more peeople out of the market so they will end up in damp flats/Victorian hostels and the like. By the way when I was in Germany in 93-4 students were still eligible for council flats and they tend to study for a much longer time as they their courses over a longer time while working part-time to help fund themselves, no-one starts a professional job i.e. post uni until their late twenties so these factors must affect the supply so ours is not the only way of doing things by the way. My Mum slept three to a bed with two of her sisters in a council house in Sussex after her Dad died and they lost their house back in the sixties as they were only allocated a three bedroom house for seven people; I sometimes wonder if the situation is much better now as for example although Mum's brother got his own boxroom I know there are many families where brothers and sisters have to share even when they are far too old to and situations like aunts having to share with nephews and so on. If we bribe council tenants with phoney consultations into voting for ALMOs unless they don't want their housing repaired to the decent homes standard we are just hoodwinking them into reducing our council housing supply to almost nothing and there will always be people who will need subsidised housing.
I also notice that New Labour tend to preach to the converted by using long speeches on fighting the BNP and supporting the Olympics to keep other more controversial issues off the agenda.
John is right that we'll never be part of the establishment as it is now and nor would we want to be!
Some homework for any "third way" supporters reading this: apart from you theory that we have to do what you call "what works" for the greater good in policy making answer me what you actually find wrong with the concept of socialism as an ideology???!
Answers on a postcard please!
Jo,
The fact you refuse to even engage with the points raised about Cruddas shows it all. Is there any rational basis for your support for Cruddas?
How about this paragraph from 'Fit for Change', the pamphlet Cruddas co-authored with John Harris:
"The settlement of the party’s federal structure along lines that
have been taking shape for the last two decades. Labour’s decisionmaking
bodies – the National Executive Committee (NEC), the
National Policy Forum (NPF), the annual conference – should be
founded on a model in which a third is given over to the membership,
a third to the unions, and a third to a new force made up of MPs,
MEPs, Labour representatives in local government, and socialist
societies."
In other words, he supports reducing the union's vote at Conference to a third. Are you happy voting for a candidate who wants to even further reduce the trade union link with Labour?
And let's get another thing straight. Cruddas is the easy option for those who want to salve their consciences by voting for a "left" candidate without actually having to frighten the horses. It doesn't actually matter THAT much who's Deputy Leader. What matters, as Tony Benn says in today's Guardian, is that there is a leadership contest.If not, we're been disenfranchised asParty members in having a say. Frankly, they can fight like rats in a sack for the Deputy job but it will mean nothing unless we have a debate on labour's future. And Cruddas , decent though I'm sure he is, ain't that debate.Let's notbe distracted andlet's keep lobbying our MPs to nominate a serious candidate from the left.
I wouldn't call The Guardian left wing any more! It may be in name but if you read it closely you will detect a Blairite bias in what they don't tell you rather than what they do.
(the above typo was corrected by me, I must be going nutty).
I wouldn't call The Guardian left wing any more! It may be in name but if you read it closely you will detect a Blairite bias in what they don't tell you rather than what they do.
(the above typo was corrected by me, I must be going nutty).
Just on a point of fact, Jon Cruddas has always supported a level playing field for, and more investment in, council housing, and criticised the govt for not providing it. Even the most cursory piece of research will show that.
Broadly speaking, housing, education and immigration have made up three policy issues on which he has a long track record of speaking out and sometimes rebelling on. On other issues like foreign policy one has to be a bit more sceptical, but then again the deputy leader is hardly likely to be running that.
Still, for precisely that latter reason I'd suggest the left is best off not getting too far in to the deputy leadership one way or the other. Let's just see how it develops and focus on the more important leadership race.
Maybe Jon should focus on the more important leadership race too & put his money where his mouth is & back John McD - surely he would if he feels so strongly about social housing?
Cruddas seems alright with you John.
Bear in mind also that his proposal will give the unions more NPF and NEC strength, and that the MPs/MEPs section would include councillors, among whom there is potential for a decent left vote.
Unions and union power are essential Labour movement, but it is by no means limited to the unions. Being on the left does not necesarily mean putting everything back the way it used to be. Socialists must keep their minds open to new left solutions.
el tom
the left dosen't want everything back to the way it used to be it has modernised. Read a copy of the LRC policy booklet "Programme for a Real Labour Government" mentioned previously on this site which is essentially a summary ofJohn's manifesto - see www.l-r-c.org.uk for details and for the longer versions of policies detailed in the booklet. The LRC is essentially the think tank for those of us on the left who would like to reclaim the party to make it properly "Labour" again which will mean working with the trade unions and ensuring that the party is democratic at every level - no more policy forums or conference decisions being ignored by the leadership for a start. The party's problemns aren't going to be solved by just getting it's members to simply do canvassing and be school governors etc but then ignoring their views, often formed from work-related eperience in for example the public sector either. Lots of people have said to me that they have done plenty of this sort of volunteering for Labour but then they feel like and often do drop out when their views are then ignored. A former PPC I know was the only who stayed to do canvassing after New Labour training day (they decided their time would be better spent doing general canvassing) but who is going to canvass at six o'clock in the evening when they thought they were going to be learining things at a training day that day; the party must not insult people's intelligence like this!
You can't say the decline in membership or the financial crisis is organisational: they had the finances and the membership well organised in 1997 but they have mismanaged it in many ways -policywise they have alenated their membership and they spent too much money on canvassing materials and spin generally e.g. flashy adverts and cd roms for doomed election campaigns such as when poor old Frank Dobson had to stand against Ken for London Mayor. Once New Labour were in power they should have had confidence in themselves to govern; they didn't need to keep spinning. When the Tories are in power they don't feel the need to keep justifying themselves (some of them arrogantly still believe in a supposed God given right to rule so the less said about them the better).
Just to take one policy example the New left as we can call ourselves were already "green" and ethical long before the media finally caught on recently and big business are starting to _M and S have just launched an eco-policy. (How green it will actually be remains to be seen but at least it's a step in the right direction and others should follow suit. Things can change you know otherwise we'd all still be bear-baiting in our spare time!
Post a Comment
<< Home