So, after
nine months, during which time the right-wing of the Parliamentary
Labour Party, and their external supporters, in organisations such as
Progress and Labour First, and amongst the Tory media,
have been plotting as to how to unseat Jeremy Corbyn, and to overturn
the massive mandate he has from the party in all its sections, they
now seem to have decided on the means to achieve it. It appears a
typically undemocratic, and gutless manoeuvre, which demonstrates
just what an elitist bunch they are, and the extent to which they are
removed from the party, and from the reality of the working-class in
modern Britain.
The outline
of their coup is clear. First, they imagined that Corbyn was as
spineless and gutless as they are. They hoped that by applying
continual pressure on him through the PLP and via the Tory media,
they would force him to stand down. That failed, and threw their
chicken coup into disarray. The reason they hoped to get Corbyn to
stand down was clear. In any new contest, they knew they would lose,
and would probably lose by an even larger margin than last year,
strengthening Jeremy's position, and posing the stark question to
them of how long they could remain in the Labour Party themselves.
In fact,
having failed in their coup attempt, it backfired. Tens of thousands
of people who were aghast at their antics, joined the party to
support Jeremy against the plotters. Demonstrations of thousands
more erupted spontaneously across the country to support Jeremy, and
denounce the plotters. Constituency Labour Parties, including thatof Angela Eagle, passed resolutions supporting Jeremy, and calling on
their MP's not to support the “No Confidence” motion
initiated by the plotters. Indicative of the disregard for democracy
that the PLP have, most MP's ignored the votes passed by their own CLP's and branches.
It was clear
that in any fair election, Jeremy would win hands down. But, its now
clear that the plotters next strategy is to stand Angela Eagle as a
right-wing candidate – though she will, of course, be described as
a moderate by the plotters and the Tory media – and to try to
prevent Jeremy from being on the ballot by bureaucratic means. They
have delayed, it seems, whilst they try to ensure that they have
sufficient support on Labour's NEC to push through an interpretation
of the rules, which would prevent Jeremy being automatically on the
ballot. It seems they must now think they have such an NEC majority.
The first
thing to do, therefore, is for the trades unions to ensure that their
representatives on the NEC do not allow that to happen. It is also
up to Labour Party members in socialist societies and elsewhere to
put pressure on other NEC members to prevent Jeremy being
bureaucratically kept off the ballot. Preventing Jeremy being on the
ballot is not just against all concepts of natural justice given that
he has only just been elected by such a huge majority, but it also
goes against the legal advice that the LP obtained recently, which
suggests that the requirement for nominations only applies to
situations where there is a vacancy, and to challengers to an
incumbent, not to the incumbent themselves. The requirement for a
minimum number of nominations was intended to prevent frivolous
challenges to an existing leader, not as a bureaucratic means of
unseating a democratically elected leader, especially one so recently
elected by such a huge majority!
There has
been a lot of talk about legal challenges that might arise in the
event of Jeremy being kept off the ballot. However, socialist
principle requires that we do not settle our internal affairs through
the bosses courts. The plotters claim that they are parliamentary
democrats. In that case, let them prove it. The question of the
Labour Party's rules is one that should be resolved through
its own internal parliamentary democracy. The sovereign parliament
of the Labour party, in that respect, is its conference. If the rules
on the leadership election are unclear, then they should be made
clear by the convening of a special rules conference, before any
leadership election occurs.
Such a
conference could be convened in a matter of weeks. There is no rush
for a leadership election, because Parliament is about to go into its
Summer recess. But, of course, the reason the plotters were
desperate to unseat Jeremy now, is precisely for that reason, and
ahead of any changes in the party's rules that might be carried
through at this year's annual conference.
There is no
rational reason why a leadership contest should not be postponed
until after such a Rules Conference, because the reality is, whatever
the plotters might think, that if they were to push through their
bureaucratic plans to keep Jeremy off the ballot, then at the annual
conference, there would likely be a motion to overturn the leadership
election result, to call for a re-run of the election with Jeremy on
the ballot, and to clarify the rules making it clear that, in such
future elections, the incumbent is automatically on the ballot, should
they choose to stand. In fact, in my opinion, the rules should be
changed so that the privileged position of the PLP is removed. If
its one member one vote, then that is what it should be, and any
challengers should be required only to obtain nominations from the
party itself, not just from the PLP.
And, of
course, if the plotters keep Jeremy off the ballot, not only would
any such rigged election quickly be overturned by the members acting
through conference, but it would also virtually ensure the passage of
further rule changes introducing mandatory reselection of MP's, as
well as setting off a firestorm of such deselections of members of
the PLP, who have acted so petulantly and self-servingly, at a time
when the focus should have been on attacking the Tories.
The plotters
know that, if Jeremy is on the ballot, he will win by a huge
majority, and their own position will then become untenable. They
would, in practice, have to at least splinter from the party, setting
up their own parliamentary group, which might keep them in a job for
another four years, but would mean they were consigned to history
after that. They must think they have a majority on the NEC.
But, if an
election between Jeremy and Angela Eagle does take place, what would
be the real basis of it? The plotters continually talk about Jeremy
being a nice man, but that they can't support him, simply because he
does not have leadership skills. That again simply demonstrates how
spineless and gutless the plotters are. They cannot even come out
openly to oppose Corbyn, and the majority of the Labour Party, politically. Why, because the politics of the plotters are failed
politics. They are the politics of Blair and Brown.
On the most
important issues, it was Corbyn who was on the right side, and his
opponents that were on the wrong side. We have just had the
publication of the Chilcot Report, which was a damning indictment of the Blair government, and the way he took the country to war in Iraq.
Jeremy Corbyn was a vocal and principled opponent of the war. John
Prescott, who was Deputy Leader, at the time, has come out to say
that he now thinks that Blair took the country into an illegal war.
But, Angela Eagle was a loyal follower of Blair, at that time, and
voted for the war.
In any
leadership contest, we should ask whether she apologises for her part
in taking the country into an illegal war, and all of the suffering
it caused to the people of Iraq, and the surrounding states, that
have now been over run by sectarianism, and Islamist terrorism, as
well as the suffering to all of those British families that have lost
their sons and daughters in that war, or whose sons and daughters
have suffered terrible injuries. A motion is to be put to
Parliament, holding Tony Blair in contempt of Parliament. Jeremy
Corbyn has said that he will probably vote for such a motion. We
should ask Angela Eagle if she too will support such a motion.
More
recently, Angela Eagle, and the other possible leadership challenger,
Owen Smith, abstained rather than opposing the Tories' Welfare Bill,
that cut billions of pounds of benefits from the disabled and poorest
in society. Yet, they claim that they have changed, in recent months, following Jeremy's election. They now claim that they have had a
Damascene conversion to his policies of anti-austerity and so on.
How can anyone believe that when they only so recently failed to
oppose the Tories cuts and austerity measures? How can we believe
that when they were quite happy to go along with such cuts proposed
by Alistair Darling in the last Labour Government, and failed to
provide any opposition to Tory austerity measures, proposing the need
for austerity themselves during the period after 2010?
Back in the
1980's, when the People's March for Jobs came through Stoke in 1981
and in 1983, as a prominent Labour and trades union activist – I
was a Stoke City Councillor in 1983 – I helped make the local
arrangements for the march. A number of marchers bunked down in my
house. One of them was Lol Duffy, who on another occasion gave me a
ride on his motorbike, from a conference in Oxford, so that I could
get home just in time to catch a plane to go on my holidays. Lol had
been a shop steward at the Cammell Laird shipyard in Birkenhead. When
the yard faced closure, Lol was at the forefront in opposing it, and
was even jailed for taking part in an occupation of the yards.
But, like
most trades union activists at that time, Lol was also an active
Labour Party member, heavily involved in Labour Party campaigns in
the area. There are many similarities with the current situation.
On the back of his long-term commitment, his standing within the
community, and his clear socialist principles, Lol became the
official Labour Party candidate in Wallasey in the 1987 General
Election. Like Jeremy Corbyn today, even getting to that position
had not been easy. Despite the strength of support locally, and
within the Wallasey CLP, Lol faced continual opposition from the
national Labour leadership, under the domination of the right-wing
Kinnock.
Wallasey, at
the time, was a Tory held constituency, but the campaign that Lol and
his supporters waged came close to overturning the Tory majority.
Wallasey had been a Tory seat since 1918. It was occupied by Lynda
Chalker, a prominent member of Thatcher's government. But, as a
result of Lol's campaign, which mobilised people from across the
community, estates and workplaces, Labour's vote rose by 39% in the
election, and Lol was just 279 votes short of winning. But, it was
no thanks to Kinnock and the Labour leadership who tried to undermine
his campaign throughout.
A large part
of the campaign against Lol, as the official Labour candidate, came
not from the Tories, but from within the Labour Party itself,
initially in the form of the odious right-winger Frank Field, who was
the MP for the neighbouring Birkenhead constituency. Field, much
like the plotters today, slank around various Tory newspapers
spreading poison against Lol. He wrote a letter to an anonymous
“constituent”, which then appeared in a local paper. The letter
said,
“I
can tell you in the most definite terms that I shall not be
supporting Duffy. I have refused to appear on any platforms with him
and I hope Cammell Laird workers similarly will refuse to give him a
hearing when he tries to gatecrash on our factory-gate meetings
during the election campaign."
I
had a similar experience myself. In 1983, I was selected along with
another socialist to stand in the Burslem Central Ward of Stoke on
Trent City Council. I unseated a sitting right-wing Labour
councillor for the position. He immediately left the Labour Party to
stand as an Independent Labour Councillor, with the full backing of
the local Tory media, and many other right-wing Labour Councillors,
who put up his posters in their windows, rather than official Labour
posters. We launched one of the biggest most active campaigns the
ward had seen. Both myself and Jason Hill, the other Labour
candidate, were returned with huge votes, and huge majorities, much
larger than had been seen in the ward for decades, despite a
relentless campaign by the local press against me, particularly, for
months ahead of the election. The previous Labour councillor sunk
without trace.
In
1989, I was selected to stand for the County Council, in a different
ward, after I had moved house. The Regional Labour Party, found a
technicality to overturn the selection meeting, and the Branch Chair
was told by the Regional Organiser that if they selected me again,
they would close down the Branch. In the end, I decided not to
stand, rather than see the branch closed down. It was not until
1997, that I again was selected, and was elected to the County
Council with 60% of the votes cast in the election!
Similarly,
despite the tremendous success that Lol and his supporters achieved
in Wallasey, it was not long before Kinnock and the right-wing of the
Labour Party began to move against him. By the time the 1992 general
election came along, Lol had been suspended from the party, along
with many of the other activists. The Constituency Labour Party had
been suspended, and a new “safe” candidate was imposed
upon it, by Kinnock and the right-wing Labour leadership. That
“safe” Labour candidate imposed on the party, by Kinnock and the
Labour right, was Angela Eagle.
In
the years since, that process of undermining party democracy has been
continued by the party leadership. The main reason that the PLP is
at odds today with Corbyn, is that Corbyn has been elected by the
party members, and is reflective of them, and of Labour voters,
whereas the PLP is composed in its large majority of right-wing,
careerist MP's that were imposed on local parties over recent years,
by the Blair/Brown party apparatus.
The
solution to that is to bring the PLP into alignment with the party
itself, and with Corbyn as its Leader. That means that we will need
to have a wholesale clear-out of all those careerist MP's, and the
selection of a new set of Labour MP's that are more reflective of the
party.
An excellent and illuminating piece of writing.I wish you the best of luck in the coming struggle.
ReplyDelete