Time to think again about unity on the left

In a week in which a leading figure on the Labour left bizarrely called for disaffiliation of trade unions from our Party it may seem idiosyncratic to continue to be interested in the fate of another minor Party.

But – having advanced the argument here some time ago – I was pleased to see Owen Jones take to a wide audience the plausible case for Green Party affiliation to Labour.

It was not too much of a shock to see that argument comprehensively rebuffed by the Green Party’s two leaders – albeit their arguments are fairly slender.

Caroline Lucas and Jonathan Bartley justify their continued electoral project on the grounds that they have some better policies than our Party (they already oppose Trident and we haven’t quite got there yet), they exist to challenge an economic orthodoxy based upon a belief in endless economic growth – and they are committed to activism (sometimes including civil disobedience).

Anyone who wants to win the political arguments which the Green Party could still have with a left-led Labour Party must know that what winning will look like will be influencing a left-led Labour Government. Those of us who want to see unilateral nuclear disarmament (for example) would welcome new allies to help us win that argument in the Party and trade unions.

Equally, a real challenge to economic orthodoxy must encompass a renewed attempt to empower democracy against finance – and the only prospect of doing that in the next ten years (or, for that matter in my adult lifetime) is through the election of a Labour Government committed to socialist policies.

If the political and ideological justifications for the continuing Green electoral project (on a national scale) are so slender as to disappear when you turn them sideways, the argument that Greens are activists and that this differentiates them from Labour’s left simply fails to stand up to examination. Since the 2015 General Election and leadership election, tens of thousands of committed activists have been among the multitude who have joined or rejoined Labour.

Lucas and Bartley are looking away from the reality of national politics in Britain in order to justify an electoral project the only material consequence of which (under a First Past the Post electoral system) can only be – outside Brighton Pavilion perhaps – to win enough votes in a few Labour/Tory marginals to provide evidence for those who want to accuse the Greens of “splitting the vote” and letting the Tories in.

This is not a negligible consideration given that the two main Parties are close in the polls, the Tory Government are trying to introduce identity checks to discourage voting by those least likely to support them, the next General Election may be fought on new boundaries of benefit to the political right, and the establishment and their allies (including those within the labour movement) will pull out all the stops to scupper the prospect of a socialist Government.

In these circumstances it may be a hopeful sign that a Labour movement campaign has been launched which – among its objectives – supports the electoral reform which the Green Party leaders suggest is a sine qua non of any future cooperation with Labour. Although our first priorities in Government must be the social and economic policies needed to repair the damage done to working class communities by austerity, we do need to address the need for constitutional change.

This isn’t just about the electoral system for Westminster – which requires the sort of informed debate we did not have in 2012 – but about abolishing an unelected House of Parliament and addressing the absurd and archaic monarchy.

-->

With a once in a lifetime chance of socialist victory in a General Election we all need to be prepared to re-examine long held views – and bring together all those who want to see the transformation of society.

Savaged by a very poorly sheep

https://medium.com/@davidarnold_87226/jon-rogers-should-resign-as-labour-chair-d9e44dd467d7

The incredibly measured and balanced postings on this blog would, you might think, be unlikely to upset anyone.

You would, I fear be wrong.

Above is a link to some commentary (written perhaps after a good lunch) from a comrade who feels that it is unbecoming in a CLP Chair (let alone an LCF Chair) to express opinions which might imply criticism of decisions previously taken by a Labour Group.

I would have responded sooner but no one drew this to my attention. It is (I am sure) entirely coincidental that a "journalist" from the Murdoch press contacted me just after this blog post was published.

The author is of the view that I should resign for having had the temerity to express socialist opinions. He is quite entitled to his opinion.

I don't think I will resign though.

I think that it is, and remains, the decision of local Labour Party members who holds elected positions (rather than that being the decision of - for example- those with paid jobs in the movement).

If Labour Party members in Brighton and Hove want to be led by those whose response to controversial decisions by the Labour Group will invariably be one of respectful silence then they will have that choice at each AGM.

If anyone supported me to be. Chair of either Brighton Pavilion CLP or the Brighton and Hove LCF in the expectation that I would be quietly supportive of whatever Labour Councillors did, regardless of Party policy, then I can only apologise (though if that was anyone's expectation then I doubt they were paying attention).

What we need is not silly sniping from the sidelines from those who absent themselves from decision making in the Party but a considered debate about how Party members can assert our appropriate authority in relation to decision making (currently) by the Labour Group.

Today I was happy to Chair a discussion about the Democracy Review organised by the Regional Office at which Party members had a constructive discussion about how we improve our decision making. I was sorry not to see my blogging critic there.

I welcome criticism but would welcome even more criticism which was meaningful and constructive. Until then I invite my critic to stand for election.

The Labour Party is changing and all who want to see socialism are welcome to be part of that change.


Sent from my iPhone

No longer sub judice - UNISON can act. Will it?

http://employmentappeals.decisions.tribunals.gov.uk//public/Upload/05Feb2018(revised8Feb).pdf

This Thursday the appeal against last year's decision by the Assistant Certification Officer was finally heard by the Employment Appeal Tribunal and reached its predictable conclusion.

No one can now claim that the matter is sub judice and that UNISON cannot therefore consider the decision through its lay structures.

Although the passage of time since the decision was published has seen the retirement of the Regional Secretary of whom the Assistant Certification Officer was so critical (and the departure from UNISON of other participants in this saga) it is not too late for the Union to learn from the decision and to respond to the recommendations which its representatives requested.

The Union has made some changes to its election procedures - but not with a view to increasing democracy or to guarding against the sort of misconduct which marred the last General Secretary election.

I hope that NEC members (whatever view they took in that election) will now insist upon a thorough review informed by the very clear and straightforward decision of the Assistant Certification Officer.

As a rank and file member I shall watch with interest.

Sent from my iPhone

Policies not personalities

As flattering as it is to have extracts from this blog quoted elsewhere, it is a shame when people treat debate about policies as if it were about personalities.

What matters about politics is how it impacts upon peoples’ lives, not who holds which political office.

What a local authority does is important. Who leads a local authority is much less important.

I wrote the last post on this blog in order to express my opinions (my personal opinions) about some policy issues in Brighton and Hove.

The separate question of who leads the Labour Group is a matter for members of the Labour Group.

More important than my opinions (or those of any individual, Councillor or otherwise) on substantive policy questions is the procedural question of how the Labour Group relates to the Labour Party. We have yet to get this right and we need to change.

Just as we need to work together in the local Party to develop a manifesto for the 2019 Council elections, so we need to find ways to work together to ensure that the policies agreed by our Labour Group reflect the views of Labour Party members.

We cannot undo things that have already been done, but from now onwards we need to ensure that – particularly where policies may be controversial within the Party – decisions are not made by the Group in isolation from the wider Party.

These detailed issues about how policy is made are much less likely to attract headlines, or interest, than a misrepresentation of policy debate as being about personalities, but these are the issues which should concern Labour Party members. 

Labour in local government is changing. Now is a good time to catch up.

I haven’t been blogging so much recently since there is less to say (in public) about leading the local Labour Party than there used to be about criticising the leadership of a trade union (although I wouldn’t want anyone to think those criticisms are not still valid – I wish well to all those candidates in the forthcoming elections for UNISON Service Group Executives who are supported by UNISON Action Broad Left. Union members need and deserve better).

However, on a day when it is clear just how uncomfortable it is for some of Labour’s elected representatives to come to terms with the leftward shift in our (mass) membership and – consequently – our policies it is necessary to say something. The rightly criticised Haringey Development Vehicle was simply a particularly extreme version of the “innovative” approach to swerving austerity by engaging with private sector or third sector providers which has been the hallmark of “New” Labour in its dotage.

I have witnessed the perennial failure of such “innovation” too many times. (It is not, of course, innovative to take services out of direct public sector provision. The very reason that the London County Council was established was because the former Metropolitan Board of Works, which managed delivery of public services by the private sector, was corrupt and inefficient. Pushing public services into the private (or so-called “third”) sector is just going back to “Victorian values”).

The truth is that you can never get a quart out of a pint pot, whether that pot is labelled “partnership”, “shared services” or even “cooperative” or “mutual”. It isn’t “innovative” to pretend otherwise, it’s just desperate (and wrong).

If you try to transfer public services to a charitable trust in the hope that there are tax advantages (i.e. dodges) to charitable status (or that this will open up income generation possibilities unavailable to a public authority) you won’t just find that the extra costs of keeping staff in the pension scheme will outweigh these benefits, you will also have to excuse taking governance of that service away from genuine accountability to elected Councillors and giving it in perpetuity to the “great and the good” who are trustees.

If you create a joint venture company with the private sector (and don’t kid anyone that isn’t what Housing Associations truly now are) so that the company can build “affordable” homes which are not Council homes then, whilst you avoid placing unrealistic demands on the Housing Revenue Account, you set out on a path which, whatever good it does, does not build (any number of) new Council homes. I was in at the birth of a joint venture company in Lambeth which was (at the time) the largest privatisation in the history of English local government. I also witnessed the slow failure of this ill-considered “innovation”.

Public services matter very much. They underpin civilisation. They are best provided by public servants, employed by the public sector, governed transparently and managed to deliver services rather than deliver “shareholder value” to anyone (or to support “third sector” entities which are never accountable in the way in which local authorities are).

I do understand why social democrat (and even – which is quite different – “New Labour”) Councillors sought out “innovative” ways to avoid the consequences for local government of the austerity policies of successive governments. No one wants to admit that they don’t have the power to do what they want to do.

However, where we are now in this country, with the real prospect of a socialist Labour Government, we don’t need such “innovatory” compromises. We need to develop in detail the policies to implement the improvement of public services for our working class communities to be funded by taxation of the rich and the corporations.

And where we are now in the Labour Party, with a (mass) membership of socialists who demand to be respected and heard, we need Labour Groups who can grow out of the isolation of the past and engage in an inclusive and democratic process of policy development which engages with our Party.

Everyone who can be part of this future must be welcome within it. We socialists must not and will not “purge” opponents as we ourselves have been treated in the past. We will simply encourage democracy and empower ordinary Labour Party members to take decisions for themselves.

Those who do not want to join us in building socialist politics for the twenty first century need not do so, and they will be best to join those who are stepping aside – but that will be their choice. All those who came to the Labour Party to make life better for our people should stay right here and join us in giving effect to our shared beliefs.

Thinking further about the Labour Party Democracy Review

Having fallen victim to “’flu’-like symptoms” I find myself laid up and that I therefore have time to think further a bit about the first phase of the Labour Party Democracy Review (about which I blogged a few days ago).

Perhaps the most entertaining feature of what could otherwise be quite a dry topic is the plaintive whining of those who used to call the shots in the Labour Party and who, without any hint of irony, complain about factionalism.

Whereas Progress have nothing constructive to say about the review, the faction about which they complain offers detailed suggestions about what to say concerning Young Labour and Women’s Conference.

For those who want to do more than cut and paste Socialist Resistance have published something of a historical perspective on Labour Women’s Conference and New Socialist gave some perspective on Young Labour (about which the NEC appears in any case to have taken some pre-emptive action anyway).

Whilst the BAME Labour site has nothing to say on the topic at present, Jewish Voice for Labour has published an interesting piece – which also highlights existing shortcomings.

Those who have lived their lives in factional struggle within the Labour Party (whether on the left or the right) will see the Democracy Review as being about control of the Party apparatus, as if that were an end in itself (because there are those for whom politics is about position).

However, the question of power within the workers’ movement is not irrelevant – it’s just that the answer to the question is never an end in itself but a means to the end of social transformation.

Therefore the Democracy Review offers those of us trying to build the Labour Party at a local level the opportunity to engage our mass membership in debate both about the nature of the movement we are trying to build and the transformation which we hope to achieve. 

Update on 4 January

I am indebted to a friend and comrade for pointing out to me that the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy have circulated some suggestions to CLP Secretaries to inform debate on the first phase of the Democracy Review.

-->