image As part of the publicity campaign for the weekend’s Progressive London conference George Galloway had an article on the Guardian website which was reprinted on Socialist Unity. In it he reminds readers of the Victorian levels of inequality in his constituency and the unwinnable war in Afghanistan. Two  things over which the Labour Party has had an opportunity to exercise some influence.

Respect is standing parliamentary candidates in more than the three seats he identifies but the candidates’ objectives in all of them will be to provide an alternative to class inequality, war and racism. It’s what’s left unsaid in the article that is interesting. Referring to the 2008 London elections he argues that a progressive coalition emerged. This would have been the campaign to re-elect Ken Livingstone as mayor of London. Jumping to 2010, and by extension the participants in the Progressive London event George Galloway says “we are engaging across the board with those who want to defend traditional Labour values” and “those who want a fairer and more just society need to band together and stand on principle”.

We’ll take for granted a familiarity with the guest list and the records of the participants. What the article opens up is a space for reflection on what the purpose of an organisation of Respect’s modest size and profile has to offer in the months before and the years after the election.

To a certain extent George Galloway is arguing that its function is to serve as the real Labour Party in those seats it is contesting, defending the traditional Labour programme. This is something he does incredibly well and without that strand to his politics he could never have unseated Oona King. However what Respect has failed to do is to have much of an impact on influencing the debate on economics or Labour’s rightward shift. If anyone has managed to emerge as the comprehensible voice of economic theory it’s Vince Cable of the Liberal Democrats and they are as much in favour of cuts as Peter Mandelson.

If Respect, or any other small left of Labour current, is to have a chance of shifting the terms of political debate it’s self-evident that it will have to start looking for alliances. But with whom and to what end? A perspective of being a small pressure group in Labour’s slipstream is not an appealing one but that is the logical consequence of uncritical engagement with many of the forces represented at Progressive London. The structure of an event like that prevents real political clarification as it is premised on the idea that everyone at it is more or less in agreement on the fundamentals.  Sooner or later the question has to be put “wouldn’t you have more influence over Labour policy if you were in the party?” As happened with Ken Livingstone this establishes a trajectory of returning to the Labour fold. Yet the evidence of the post John Smith years is that the cabal around the leader can do pretty much anything they want irrespective of either party traditions or the majority sentiment of the membership.

That’s the major reason Labour has seen a decline in membership. Combined with its neo-liberal drift that’s leading to an erosion of its working class base which opens up both a space for parties like Respect and a debate in the unions about an alternative political representation. The strong possibility of a Tory victory will lead to a consolidation of Labour’s working class vote in all but a couple of constituencies and temporarily mute the debate around union support but that does not invalidate the medium term project of building a class struggle party to its left. George Galloway’s article and the recent one by Salma Yaqoob are both contributions to a discussion about where Respect locates itself both in relation to those sections of Labour which are willing to differentiate themselves from its neo-liberal direction and forces outside the party which are likely to come into struggle with whichever government is elected.

Only an imbecile (or a Tory) would prefer a Tory to a Labour victory. A Conservative win would adversely affect the balance of class forces for years. That’s not a part of the  discussion. The real issue is whether or not Respect uses the elections to set itself up as a mini Labour Party in exile, rather like those members of the Church of England who are getting ready to return to Rome or whether it takes the chance to build itself as a possible pole of attraction to all those who are revolted by New Labour for exactly the reasons George Galloway set out. The strategic choice being posed is a return to Labourism or creating a party of struggle which fills the void in British working class politics. Putting the question in that way helps you work out who your friends should be. They probably won’t include Harriet Harman.

14 responses to “Anyone for a ginger group?”

  1. Dirty Red Bandana Avatar
    Dirty Red Bandana

    Liam, this is a fascinating and insightful take on the debate about Respect’s direction. I think you miss out a couple of calculations in your critique of Galloway’s article.

    The first is the likely impact of the general election on Labour’s core support. Is Brown capable of mobilizing this support in time? The logic of the last month is that he cannot because he remains a prisoner of the neo-liberal ideology at the heart of Blairism. The Hoon putsch and the Chilcot inquiry bring this home spectacularly.

    If Labour cannot deliver its core support, there is the real chance of the party breaking in at least one direction (the most obvious is the Blairites leaving for pastures blue). This would open a debate about the future direction of the social democratic project, one that Respect should engage. We could interpret Salma Yaqoob and George Galloway’s articles and participation as intended to start this engagement.

    The second calculation missing is what happens when the austerity programme begins. Will Labour’s core support simply support cuts? Will there be large scale anger and protests? The indications are already emerging as Cameron rapidly back pedals on shock therapy, aware of how it will play electorally.

    The point about pushing for the maximum representation of Respect in the Commons and councils rather than seeking alliances before the general election (you do not make it clear when you believe this should happen) is to provide an organized focus for that opposition. We could interpret the participation as part of the bridge building in preparation for that scenario.

    Electorally, Respect is the best placed left of Labour organization to deliver this focus. The election campaigns certainly feel that way at the moment – the audience is wider, more open and more contemptuous of the three old parties than I have ever experienced.

    Like

  2. No, we need an anti-capitalist workers’ party.

    Like

  3. Btw, yesterday’s RTW conf was very succesful;

    http://www.righttowork.org.uk

    Like

  4. Good one Liam. I was debating this point rather generally in regard to the NPA and Die Linke when I seemed to be at sixes and sevens…that is until I had an epiphany.

    A problem on the left is that the strategic outlook presumes that it has to be either/or — the sort of Galloway brand of new Labourism or a boutique socialist party more or less constrained by sectarianism.

    Frankly this sort of rigidity scares the hell out of me as it more or less insists that it has to be my way or the high way — a “new” Labour Party sustained by electoralism or a shambolic refoundation of the type of far left org that exists today. Die Linke versus the NPA.

    That’s the way Galloway baits it too isn’t it? Them or us?

    The associated complication, is, I feel, that the far left orgs — such as the SWP at least — would agree with this POV. That maybe a “reformist” party is indeed very feasible along such lines, but it will by necessity have to be reformist. and Labourist. “So be it. We may even intervene in it. That’s why we must sustain our own separate organisational and political existence and hold regroupment at bay.”

    To my mind these are functionalist rather than dialectical arguments and while that approach is adhered to — one that relies on an either/or schematism ( real revolutionary politics vs dumbing down, collaborationist politics) — you will not be able to to begin to create an “anti-capitalist workers’ party” because you will be proceeding without that intention.

    Like

  5. Spot on. You took the words right out of my mouth, Dave.

    Like

  6. If you think Galloway is pushing a brand of “New Labourism” then I fear your conception of what constitutes the left narrows to vanishing point.

    The direction Respect is going in is precisely to register an electoral breakthrough and engage in a wider debate about the post-election future of the labour movement with a view to building a more powerful radical left.

    This won’t happen by declaration. A left response to the economic crisis has been pushed by a variety of actors, including energetically by Respect. It’s not for the want of trying.

    But to affect big politics we need both an electoral, party, breakthrough and development of wider alliances – plus, of course, real life events involving real masses of working people would help.

    The critical question in Liam’s piece is what is the main orientation for Respect – the hard left groups, or Labour’s historic electoral and mass base?

    For a party with Respect’s profile and localised bases, it should be the former. I think for serious groups like the SWP it should be too.

    Get the main orientation right, and it’s possible to deal with the further complexities.

    Like

  7. I see that “new Labourism” is uncapped in the comment by Dave Riley. The point still stands. Respect is a party of the radical left.

    Its evolution and ability to grow will depend on how it performs at the election. It is that that will in the immediate future determine the weight and influence of all strands on the left.

    If Respect wins seats and Labour loses the election two arguments will be strengthened:

    1) That a serious radical left is possible outside the Labour Party

    2) That radical left ideas can gain mass political support. That argument would then be a factor in the post-election fallout in the Labour Party. But in all liklihood it would be marginalised in a battle between the Blairites and Brownites, probably represented by Ed Balls.

    Respect would be very well placed to make organisational and political inroads into Labour’s disillusioned supporters – millions of people.

    The main argument most certainly will not be whether Die Linke is too right wing!

    Like

  8. Nas, I think you meant the opposite of what you said here:

    The critical question in Liam’s piece is what is the main orientation for Respect – the hard left groups, or Labour’s historic electoral and mass base?

    For a party with Respect’s profile and localised bases, it should be the former. I think for serious groups like the SWP it should be too.

    i.e, or audeince shouod be the latter : i.e Labour’s historic electoral and mass base

    Like

  9. I’m with Andy on this one. Down with the renegade Nas!

    Like

  10. Here’s our report of the rather more interesting SWP right to work conference on Saturday

    http://www.permanentrevolution.net/entry/2950

    Like

  11. Indeed, Andy: there’s a good reason why using former and latter is frowned on in style guides!

    Like

  12. Have only just seen this. Nas is right that Liam makes a number of serious errors in his logic.

    For one, Liam says:

    “The strategic choice being posed is a return to Labourism or creating a party of struggle which fills the void in British working class politics.”

    This is very revealing because it is an utterly false dichotomy. Respect can do both and is doing both. It can reach out to the broad left of British politics AND put forward radical policies that they hope will win it increased working class support. The objection seems to be that this big tent, coalitional approach, is prone to include elements that we strongly dislike and with whom the left should have no relation to. Harriet Harman is singled out here as objectionably New Labour. But there are two very real fights going on in the country right now. One is between Labour and the Tories. The other is between Blairites and Brownites. Respect should not and is not indifferent on either.

    I don’t see why this is so hard to grasp.

    Like

  13. “Harriet Harman” is lazy shorthand for “contemptible former radical who has become very right wing”.

    You’d would have to be seriously ultra left to be neutral on the question of who wins the next election but I’d love an explanation of the philosophical chasm separating the Brownites and Blairites. It’s lost on me.

    Like

  14. Manchester Trades Council just put videos up of Right To Work conference:

    http://www.manchestertuc.org/recent-activities/125-videos-right-to-work-conference.html

    Like

Leave a reply to tlc Cancel reply

Trending