Labour Splits
In this prediction, I looked at the possible developments if Labour elected Long-Bailey, Starmer or Lewis as Leader. We now know that Labour elected Starmer. My comment in that regard was,
“The best hope for Labour's right and soft left, is to rally around Starmer. As an anti-Brexit candidate he has the potential to mobilise the support of the centre-left, and a significant portion of the core membership. But, Starmer will almost certainly be led to try to restore some discipline and control.
Starmer is a former Pabloite Trotskyist, but there is no shortage of such people from the Left that have made the journey over to the Liberals and Right. Some drifted into the social-imperialist Euston Manifesto Group, and into Blairism, some traversed all the way to the Libertarian Right. He will seek to remove the influence of those Stalinoid elements behind Corbyn. He will be led to make an alliance with the centre-right of the party. A similar process to that of the 1980's, during which Kinnock gutted the party, by expelling large numbers of members, and closing down branches and CLP's would be undertaken. Whether Starmer set out to do that or not, the combination of a revitalised right and centre, regaining control at local level and in the party machine, combined with the passivity of the majority of the new membership would create a dynamic he would not be able to resist. In reality, this would destroy Labour too.”
Well that panned out much as described. Starmer set about removing the Corbynite apparatchiks so as to regain control of the bureaucracy. He re-jigged the NEC to gain control there. Corbynites were removed from the Shadow Cabinet, and to emphasise the nature of the alliance with the Right, the Shadow Cabinet itself was stuffed full of right-wing pro-capitalist careerists. Those Blair-rights within the party machinery that had sought to undermine Corbyn, along with Labour's election chances, in 2017, were paid off handsomely.
To emphasise the alliance with the Right, and the growing mobilisation against the Left, which represents the vast majority of the party rank and file, Corbyn himself was suspended on flaky charges of bringing the party into disrepute. When the party's disciplinary committee reversed that decision, Starmer, emphasising the nature of the action as a political provocation, basically declared UDI for the PLP from the party, and refused to restore the whip to Corbyn. In itself that is a cold split. It signifies the Right declaring that it will refuse to accept the domination of the party, which, despite the weak organisation of the Left, continues to have a majority for the Left. That Left majority was shown in the elections for the NEC, despite splits within the Left, and despite the new election procedures that ensure that the Right got some of their candidates elected.
It was also shown in the rapidity with which CLP's began to pass resolutions in support of Corbyn, and calling for his reinstatement. But, the nature of his suspension, as a provocation, was also quickly shown, as the party leadership, and their new bureaucracy, began suspending CLP officers and members for having the temerity to discuss the suspension, as well as the EHRC Report. Angela Rayner exposed the true nature of this strategy, when she announced that they would be prepared to expel thousands and thousands of members. It also exposed the true nature of the use of charges of “anti-Semitism”, as a means of attacking the Left, and creating conditions for these thousands and thousands of expulsions.
Similarly, whilst Starmer had won the support of many rank and file members on the basis that, unlike Long-Bailey, he opposed the economic-nationalism that had done for Labour under Corbyn, manifest in its position on Brexit, having removed Corbyn, Starmer quickly became an even bigger Brexiteer than Corbyn. The reason for that move is clearly in order to strengthen his alliance with the Right of the party that has run scared from the loss of seats in former Labour strongholds in the North and Midlands. Starmer and the Right calculate that the millions of progressive voters who came to Labour in 2017, to oppose Brexit, will stay with Labour, even if it now drops its anti-Brexit stance. They calculate that by accepting Brexit, and jumping on the bandwagon of jingoism, they will win back reactionary voters in those former “Red Wall” seats.
That is unlikely, for two reasons. Firstly, polling shows that rather than Brexit going away as an issue it is becoming more entrenched. Two-thirds of voters are either militant Remainers or militant Leavers. That is a higher proportion than during the referendum, or the last election. As the consequences of Brexit become manifest that is only likely to intensify further. For Labour to argue a pro-Brexit position is electorally insane. Militant Leavers are not likely to come back to Labour, but Militant Remainers, as they did in 2019, are certainly likely to vote against Labour, or abstain. And, Labour's problems in those Red Wall seats do not just come down to Brexit. Brexit is just an indication of the generally reactionary views held by a sizeable chunk of voters in those areas. Even if Labour could get away with adopting a reactionary stance on Brexit, it will not get away with adopting the kind of reactionary positions on women's rights, the environment, racism, homophobia and so on that would be required to garner the votes in those areas. In this respect too, therefore, Labour is split.
Labour faces a similar problem to that the Liberals always faced. In parts of the country the Liberals had to present themselves as free marketeers, to win votes from Tories, whilst in others they had to present themselves as social-democrats with a liberal social conscience, to win votes from Labour. Labour is trying to present itself as socially reactionary but economically progressive. The problem is that many of those who voted against Labour in 2019 are not just socially reactionary, they are also economically conservative, or reactionary. They are the children of Thatcher, who bought Council houses, opposed the Miners Strike, and so on. They opposed Corbyn, not just because of his social policies, but also because they saw his economic policies as too social-democratic.
Starmer has been saved because the government imposed lockdowns have put a lid on the class struggle, and political organisation. Most obviously, that is manifest in the fact that Labour Conference did not happen. Had there been a Labour Conference this year, it would have been a centre for opposition to the unfolding witch-hunt against the Left. There would have been a flood of motions calling for Corbyn to be reinstated, and so on. But, there would have been resistance on a range of other issues. The vast majority of party members are militant Remainers, for whom Starmer's collapse into nationalism and jingoism, for example, his support for the Tories protection of British war criminals, are anathema. Its likely that there would have been a significant movement demanding defence of free movement, as well as criticising the collapse over Brexit, though Starmer would have relied on support from UNITE to save him on this latter issue.
Had Labour conference gone ahead, the underlying divisions in the party would have hastened the process of split, because its clear that the Right, from their stronghold in the PLP and party bureaucracy, are not going to accept the party rank and file asserting its control. Its clear where the spearhead of the Left has to be. It has to be to push through all of those democratic reforms that should have been implemented after 2015 under Corbyn. It requires mandatory reselection, but it also requires that the Left gets organised and starts removing right-wing Councillors, and party officers, here and now. Again, that is being frustrated as lockdowns have stamped out such political activity.
But, its clear that the Right will not sit by and watch the Left replace them, as and when activity resumes. Whatever the pretext, when the Left starts to take over all CLP positions, and begins replacing right-wing Labour Councillors, the Right will launch into those thousands and thousands of expulsions to prevent it. As I said at the start of the year, elements of the Right have already called for the expulsion of Momentum. The actions of Momentum itself have contributed to the defeat of the Left and resurgence of the Right, but it is an indication of the direction of travel.
If the Right are able to get away with these thousands and thousands of expulsions, then the conditions, today, which are not those of the 1980's, makes the organisation of those masses of members into a new party or, as suggested, them flooding into the Greens, a possibility. If, on the other hand, the Left gets organised begins to get control of CLP's, removes right-wing Councillors, and begins deselecting MP's, then the Right will simply take the existing cold split of the PLP from the party, and turn it into a formalised break. They will declare themselves to be the Labour Party, taking the name, and party machinery with them.
No comments:
Post a Comment