This morning's Andrew
Marr show, on BBC, indicated the line of attack that will be made by
the Tory media against Jeremy Corbyn. In the paper review, we had
Jane Moore of the extreme right Sun, then we had Polly Toynbee of the
liberal Guardian, and then we had Ben Chacko of the Stalinist Morning
Star.
So, on the one hand we
have a Tory who can be put up as the natural opponent, but then we
have a liberal, who is presented as a radical social democrat, who
can oppose the Tory, whilst at the same time appearing as the voice
of natural Labour views, who also opposed Corbyn, and finally a
Stalinist supporter of Corbyn, who everyone can thereby associate
with Corbyn, as a bogeyman. The obvious thing, for the BBC to have
done here in the interest of balance, would have been to have had say
Owen Jones, as a supporter of Corbyn, who is not so easily connected
directly with Stalinism. But, the aim here is to keep the Overton
window narrowly prescribed, so as to limit the views to only those of
the Tories, and Blairites on the one hand, with the easily
discredited views of the Stalinists allowed in only as a means of
discrediting Corbyn himself.
We then had Tom Watson
brought on understandably, as Deputy Leader, as Jeremy is busy
setting up the shadow cabinet, whilst no MP's, or other supporters of
Corbyn's own views were included. The aim then was to try to drive a
wedge between Watson and Corbyn, attempting to prove the point that
Corbyn will be isolated, unable to control, Blairite MP's who will
now rebel, in the same way he has been a rebel in the past.
This was followed by
the words of Blairite has been David Blunkett, who was even
described by Polly Toynbee, as part of the “rent a mouth” group
of former MP's without a purpose, who are keen to rush at any
opportunity to earn a buck from the right-wing gutter press, by
attacking the current Labour Party, its Leader, and its members who
have just voted overwhelmingly to reject the failed ideas those
former MP's stood for.
Finally, we had Michael
Gove, who put forward the considered, strategic view of the Tory
Party. This kind of format was carried through on the other
political programmes of the day, such as Murnaghan on Sky News, with
the only difference being that at least they included Dianne Abbott.
 |
| After 1979, Thatcher's Tories were in meltdown, whilst Michael Foot was lifting Labour in the opinion polls to more than 50%. It was only the betrayal of the SDP, which split the vote, which allowed Thatcher to win, along with them rallying around the flag, at the expense of thousands of workers' lives in the Falklands' War. |
That attempt to brand
Corbyn is continued in the hysterical pronouncements of the Tories
themselves. We had Michael Fallon, and Pritti Patel, suggesting that
Labour was an imminent danger to British national security, and the
security of the finances of British families. Perhaps they intend to
start drone strikes against all Labour Party members if they
represent such an imminent threat to national security! About the
only thing these cretins did not accuse Corbyn of was wanting to eat
people's babies, but no doubt we can expect those kinds of stories in
coming months from the Sun, The Star, and the other rags.
Gove, was more
considered, and obviously realised he had to try to cover the gaffs
of his colleagues from the previous day. The clear implication of
Fallon and Patel's comments was that they expect a Corbyn led Labour
Party to quickly mobilise a groundswell of opinion amongst the
population at large, that will remove the Tories from office with
their tiny majority of just 12, and return a Corbyn led government.
Howe else could a Corbyn labour Party actually pose such a threat,
unless it was to assume office?
Indeed, the Tory media
and Blairites have lied quite clearly when they describe the last
election as a disaster for Labour. The Liberal-Tory majority of
around 80 was reduced to a Tory majority of just 12. It was the
right-wing Liberal-Tories who did disastrously in the last election,
having their majority slashed to a wafer, and who saw their
representation in Scotland wiped out. Labour won as many net new
seat in England and Wales, whilst increasing its share of the vote by
twice the amount the Tories did.
Labour only did badly
to the extent that it lost out to the SNP in Scotland, and that it
failed to win enough new seats in England and Wales. It was most
certainly not the case that voters rejected Labour in favour of the
Tories. Their was no shift to the Right across the UK. The reason
labour failed to win enough new seats, is the same reason it did
badly in Scotland. It was not seen as clearly distinct from the
Tories. It is that fact, that now worries the Tories about a Corbyn
led Labour Party.
But as the Sraid Marx
blog points out, it is not just the Cameron's Tories that are worried
by this. The Tartan Tories of the SNP are also worried by it. The
SNP, like the Liberal before them were able to pose as a radical
alternative to Labour, even though they stand to its right. The
Liberals have been exposed on that, and are destroyed as a political
force. But, the SNP, should also have been exposed, had Scottish
labour been doing its job, and had Labour in the UK, been showing a
clear alternative.
The SNP have had 8
years in office in Scotland, and during all that time they could have
been turning their anti-austerity rhetoric into practice. Instead,
whilst continually talking about “Red Tories” in Labour, an SNP
administration, was itself carrying through austerity measures in
Scotland in line with those carried out by the Tories in the rest of
the UK. Its no wonder, that the SNP have announced that they are
looking for a second referendum, because they must now know that they
have a limited shelf life. A Corbyn Labour Party should be clear
from the beginning that we are in a war not just against Cameron's
Tories, but also against the Tartan Tories of the SNP in Scotland. A
wave of newly enthused Labour members and Labour voters in Scotland,
can and should sweep the SNP into the dustbin of history, and if the
left sectarians in Scotland, who have tied their fortunes to the SNP
get swept away with them, then that is their own fault.
Corbyn's Labour Party
should make no concessions, no deals with any of these sects, or
other parties like the SNP, or the Greens. As the workers Party, its
job is to destroy these other parties, and to win over their members,
and supporters. As part of doing that, and dealing with the threat
of the Tory media, and the willingness of the Blairites to feed it, a
crucial role now for Tom Watson, who has committed himself to dealing
with a digital agenda, is to quickly develop Labour's own media and
communications. The Labour Party should have its own TV channel.
The cost of media production equipment now, is relatively cheap, and
many young people only ever watch TV over the Internet. We should
develop an Internet based Labour Party TV station. We have lots of
journalists, writers, directors, and so on, who could make such a TV
channel, a lively, dynamic base for all those newly being attracted
to Labour.
It should be part of
Corbyn's commitment to opening up the Labour Party, encouraging a
diversity of views, and debate. In that respect, there is a lesson
to be learned from the past. For years, during the 196-'s, 70's and
80's spent a lot of time and energy involved in meetings, and various
manoeuvring trying to get motions passed, slates elected and so on,
both within the Labour Party and within the Trade Union movement. In
large part it was useless activity, that only provided ephemeral
satisfaction to a handful of activists, if and when they succeeded.
The right today talk
about the bullying of the 1980's, but as someone who lived through
that time, the only bullying I recall was that of the right. I even
put a motion to my CLP and DLP calling for the expulsion of anyone
who threatened violence, after being threatened with being splattered
against the wall a former Leader of Stoke City Council, simply for
pointing out the fact that the fight he led against the closure of
the Shelton Bar steelworks, had actually failed! I had other leading
Councillors threatening me with being sued, for pointing out that the
toxic waste tip they had just given permission for, posed a threat to
the health of the nearby residents, and every week it was the right
of the party who bullied, and threatened expulsion against those on
the left, whenever they seemed likely to win a majority for their
ideas. If anyone wants to look at who was responsible for the bullying at the time, they should read about the vile campaign waged against Peter Tatchell in Bermondsey, at that time.
But, it was all pretty
much a waste of time. At one stroke, Jeremy Corbyn has achieved in
several weeks, what all of us back then failed to achieve in years.
It has been done the right way around. First a huge number of people
have been won to the cause, and then that vast majority have swept
all before them, without any long manoeuvring and endless meetings
and scheming. Now that mass mobilisation can be carried forward, and
must be carried forward if it is not to stall, to bring about further
change.
There are some changes
that are vital, such as a further democratisation and opening of the
party, as suggested recently. The primary election idea, is crazy.
It worked in our favour this time, but that is not a justifiable
argument for it. To vote for Labour policies, and for labour
candidates, people should be Labour members, they should take an
active part in the parties debates before they vote. All of those
arguments remain valid today, as they were when they were raised in
the past. If we are to have one member one vote, it should be on
that basis, and it should apply to the nomination of the Leader and
other positions too. The PLP should have no privileged position when
it comes to such nomination, or determination of policy over any
other member.
But, apart from that,
the left in the party should not allow itself to get tied up in
endless procedural debates, as it has in the past. The Labour Party
now needs to tie up with the Trades Unions and the Co-operative
Movement. To spread this mobilisation across society, and to deepen
and widen it. We need to turn those organisations outwards to
working class communities, whilst bringing together the party, the
unions and the co-operatives as the immediate solutions to workers
problems.
Conference votes to
demand the nationalisation of this that or the other, are pointless
under current conditions, and will be a turn off for all those
currently enthused. We need immediately achievable solutions. Some
of those solutions will come from building TRA's where they don't
exist, and those TRA's can again be linked up with the local LP, and
Co-operatives, and the Trades Unions. Every time, a workplace is
threatened, we should demand it be turned over to its workers as a
co-operative, as the workers in Argentina have done in many
instances. We should learn from the link up of the US steel workersunion, with the Mondragon Co-operatives, to develop workers
co-operatives across North America, in that regard.
The demand for
nationalisation is a conservative demand for various reasons.
Firstly, it can only be under current conditions a demand for
nationalisation by the capitalist state, which is our biggest enemy.
The whole purpose of the capitalist state is to act on behalf of the
capitalists. It should be clearly distinguished from the government,
or else the mistake made by Allende in Chile will be made. A
government that sought to materially damage the interests of capital
would be obstructed, and if necessary removed by that state.
But, the demand for
nationalisation is conservative for another reason. The clue is in
the name. It is nationalisation by the nation state, and
immediately, therefore, posits the interests of the individual nation
against the interests of other nations, and most importantly the
workers of other nations. By its nature, of creating a specifically
national capital, it divides the workers of that nation from the
workers of other nations. For example, a separate Scottish nation
state, might nationalise the shipbuilding industry, and it would
thereby separate Scottish shipbuilding workers from English
shipbuilding workers. In any recession, it would seek to defend the
specifically Scottish shipbuilding industry against the English
shipbuilding industry. The same thing applies across Europe.
The solution for
workers problems across Europe cannot be found in a reliance on the
capitalist nation state, but only in their own international
solidarity and self-government. We do not need a nationalised
shipbuilding industry, but a worked owned, co-operative shipbuilding
industry, and the same applies to every other industry.
The mass mobilisation,
must be turned in that direction to deal with the problems that
workers face. Rather than simply responding to the Tories austerity
measures with endless strikes, demonstrations, and resolutions for
nationalisation, we should turn that mobilisation into effective
action now. Occupy everything that is threatened, draw up our own
workers plans for production of goods and services in each community.
Restart production under workers ownership and control.
The Blairites say that
we have to appeal to workers aspirations. I agree. We should appeal
to the aspiration to own a home, by demanding, as Corbyn has done
that tenants of private landlords have the same right to buy with huge discounts that
Council and Housing Association tenants have been given. We should
appeal to workers aspiration to own their own businesses by
supporting a workers right to buy the companies they work for, with
the same kind of huge discounts currently given to tenants. We
should appeal to workers aspiration to have decent pensions over
which they have control, by demanding that pension funds, be taken
out of the hands of the banks and finance houses, and placed under
the direct control of democratically elected committees of workers.
Moreover, in addition
to this forward looking aspirational programme, Corbyn's labour party
should commit itself to struggling for an extension of these demands
across Europe, in conjunction with other social democrats, such as
Syriza, Podemos and so on.
I first met Jeremy
Corbyn in 1979, when we set up the Socialist Campaign for a Labour
Victory. The aim was to offer a socialist programme, as the basis
for workers to vote Labour, without in the process simply accepting
the policies that Callaghan had been pursuing. We should do the same
thing today, by establishing a Socialist Campaign for Europe. We
have to remain in Europe, and fight with our European comrades to
bring about the same kind of mobilisation that Corbyn's victory has
created here. It should say, as Syriza did, we are for Europe, but
we are for a Workers Europe, and we start the struggle for it here
and now.
No comments:
Post a Comment