Nothing brings out my sense of territorial ambiguity quite like watching the British Labour Party conference.
On the one hand, Labour had to be forced by the courts to allow membership in Northern Ireland, and has no plans to stand election candidates here. So we can’t vote for them.
On the other hand, Northern Ireland is part of the UK, which has a Labour government. A number of important issues are not devolved to Stormont including defence, taxes and benefits, foreign policy, and currently policing and justice. In addition, constitutional matters remain in the gift of Westminster (although matters are rather more complex in the case of NI due to the involvement of the Irish Government), as we have a devolved rather than a federal system. So what happens at Conference does matter to us here in Northern Ireland.
I was impressed by the content and political astuteness of Gordon Brown’s speech yesterday, and I hope it’s the start of a comeback for him and for Labour more generally. I wasn’t so keen on the straight steals from Obama’s campaign. When Michelle Obama told us all what a great guy her husband was, I thought thank goodness we’ll never see that in UK politics – and it took a month for the idea to cross the pond. And as for ‘it’s not about me’ – when I heard a commentator on Radio 4 saying Brown needed to make ‘an Obama of a speech’, I don’t think he meant Brown needed to make Obama’s speech.
However, I’m not sure if I’d join up again even if Labour did operate a fully functioning party in Northern Ireland. In any democratic socialist party, there’s always a tension between pragmatism and idealism and, in British Labour, pragmatists have been in the ascendant since the mid 1990s. (I would say that in Irish Labour the idealists are currently more in evidence.) The next couple of years could see a change in public opinion about the balance between individualism and collectivism, in response to the economic situation. Jon Cruddas already has some interesting ideas about restructuring income tax. So perhaps idealists have a chance to have greater influence, given the changes that will be necessary to respond to the credit crunch, oil shortages, and global warming. The question is whether that influence is best exercised from within, or from outside the party.
Nothing brings out my sense of territorial ambiguity quite like watching the British Labour Party conference. 
30 comments:
I thought the Guardian was fairly coy about the Obama lifts today. I think you're absolutely spot on about the issue of territorial ambiguity. And clearly that's why the LP doesn't organise in Northern Ireland. It works many ways. I joined the LP in London in the early 1990s for a brief period. What else does one do in such circumstances? I hope you're right about the ILP having idealists in the ascendant.
WBS - Yes, I was surprised at the Guardian but assumed they didn't want to embarass the LP by pointing out the obviousness of the read across - but what I can't decide is whether Brown's scriptwriter(s) thought the politically informed public would see it and be impressed, or wouldn't notice?
And yes, there is the question of what to do if not in the LP. I'm too old for selling papers in the rain! My observation on the ILP was based on the Wexford conference last year, especially the democratic socialism vs. social democracy debate.
PS: Ciaran says I'm slightly wrong about the constitutional position, will amend tomorrow.
I think the LP do organise now in NI and the NI party sent a delegate to Conference this year. This issue of organisation is determined, and the next issue is the right to stand for elections.
Howard
Howard - yes, I know the British LP allows membership here, as does the Irish LP, of which I am a member. But not being allowed to stand for elections is a pretty big hole in party political activity, without which a party is just a pressure group, IMO.
I think the British Labour Party has moved so far to the right since 1997 that it no longer represents social democracy let alone democratic socialism. Its leadership is completely at odds with the party base, which itself has been haemorraghing badly, and its structure is preventing the democratically agreed policies of the conference being adopted by the government.
I really see no point in Labour existing except for as a vehicle for keeping out the Tories. It is certainly not useful for implementing any worthwhile leftwing vision. It might even be acting as a bulwark against any meaningful leftwing politics because no groups to its left are thriving under the current electoral system, unlike in Germany where the SPD are being challenged by The Left, which threatens to bring disaffected SPD politicians into an alliance of those to the left of the party.
While not as likely now was before the conference, if Labour was to be wiped out it would be left as a leftwing rump of politicians who supported John McDonnell's campaign and those generally of the soft left- New Labour politicians and cabinet members are projected to lose their seats in many areas. If that was the case the post-Nu Lab party could act as a vehicle for building a real leftwing party much like the SDP did for the centre ground when Labour was too far to the left for the electorate who didn't wish to vote for Thatcher.
If the Tories were to get in at the next election in the middle of a recession, they would be hamstrung by their devotion to free-market policies of the sort that have caused the current crisis (not to mention the fact that they are funded by hedge funds and the City in general). The Tories would not be equipped to implement the state intervention needed to solve the current problems and if they decided to cut spending an electorate used to 11 years of high public spending would be in for a nasty shock. A leftwing party not tainted by the rightwing excessed of New Labour would be in a good position to profit from that.
Jenny
I agree candidates is the big step. I'd be optimistic that argument can be won. Standing candidates for election is a very natural, after all they are the government and determine all the big things like whether we go to war, they determine monetary and fiscal policy, and even on devolved matters they set the reference points for standards for health and education system and so on.
nineteensixtyseven
I don't think the Labour party has moved so far to the right on the basic question of commitment to public services and anti-poverty.
Its important to remember that when Tony Blair was PM, Gordon Brown did a lot of work to reform the welfare system and it should be remembered that he put a lot of money into it, including the Working Family Tax Credit scheme, the minimum wage, and other initiatives around child poverty. There was also a lot of investment in schools and the health system. So I think saying that Labour are not social democratic is not correct.
Howard
Howard,
While the anti-poverty measures are welcome there has been nothing done to narrow the growing gap between richest poorest which exacerbates social problems no matter how much money is taken from ordinary people and given back to them again in the form of tax credits, the City has been allowed to run wild and public sector workers are being kept below 2.5% while bonuses for the superrich are left untouched. The government hasn't got the nerve to tax the immoral profits of the energy companies profiting from the misery of people struggling to heat their homes and it has only just relented on its opposition to an equal treatment bill for agency workers. All the while essential services are being privatised, Post Offices are being closed and schools are being opened up to corporate control via City Academies. The 10p tax fiasco was just one symptom of a tax system stacked against working and lower middle-class people and the government has had 10 years to fix this by introducing a higher rate of tax on those earning over £150,000 but has refused to do so. Then there is the caving in over non-doms and the pathetic attempts to outdo the Tories over inheritance tax.
If that is social democracy then that settles the social democracy vs democratic socialist debate for me anyway.
On the issue of hospitals Labour did well to fix up the damage wrought by the Tories but a lot of it was via PFIs and that will come back to haunt the country while making a few contractors very wealthy indeed. Again, the minimum wage was much needed but even Boris Johnson is supporting a Living Wage and Labour are very slow to respond. Could do better would be my verdict.
Wow, a real debate - I've held back from commenting for a couple of days because I'm sympathetic to both points of view. Labour is never radical enough for me either, but you have to take the people with you and Labour's ambivalence about a socialist agenda has meant they've not done that since, oh I would say 1945. Yes, Labour coudl have done more, and made some collassal mistakes, which is why I question whether the best place to be to try to get a more socialist society is inside or outside the party. It's the perenniel dilemma for the activist, as WBS also highlighted.
As I said, I would like to think the current economic woes will make people think more collectively and this may provide an opportunity for putting forward more socialist policies.
Jenny,
That has usually been the case with Labour but I think it is a first that the electorate is, on the issues, to the left of Labour even if they wouldn't put themselves there themselves. On the issue of Post Office closures and privatisations the public don't want it; greater competition in the NHS, they don't want it; a tax on energy companies, people want that; ID cards, not wanted; scrapping the 10p rate, deeply unpopular even with those who didn't suffer from it; Iraq War, not supported by the majority of people.
In 1997 Labour won a landslide and they have been losing massive support in every general election since. I believe that is not from people turning against what Labour stand for, it is from Labour turning away from what the people thought Labour stood for in 1997 which was fairness, public services and an end to Tory sleaze. This is borne out by the sheer numbers of members that have left the Labour party in disgust and the number of unions who no longer fund them or are being faced annually with de-affiliation motions.
People are supporting Cameron not because he is Thatcher in a suit but because he has managed to appeal to the social instinct of people and to move into areas that were once solid Labour party territory. He obviously will be just another Tory prime minister but he is managing to persuade people otherwise. Deep down people wanted Labour but without the Blair baggage and that was why Brown had such a bounce; Brown has cruelly let them down but now was soon as he is speaking in social democratic terms with regards to the current crisis, people are suddenly paying attention again.
In short, I believe people are not ambivalent to the vision which Labour are putting forward, they are ambivalent, or downright hostile, to the idea that Labour can, and has been, implementing it over the last 11 years.
Hmmm, not entirely sure the British people are waiting to discover their inner socialist - but if this is so, 1967, how do you suggest going about it?
I don't think it's a question of people discovering their inner socialist, it's more the socialist principles they always had that Labour has reneged on - as 1967 says in his first para. Many people are bitterly disappointed at the way Labour has cosied up to big business, increased the gap between rich and poor and neglected public services. And currently of course, allowed the banks to lend and borrow like lunatics for so long they're now threatening to wreck the whole economy.
Jenny,
Nick is right. People are not going to suddenly fly the Red Flag but their disappointment with Labour is from the government being too right-wing and authoritarian, not from being the progressive hope that was promised in 1997. A lot of people vote Labour only to keep the Tories out but even that line of reasoning is weakening.
As Lord Desai often says, people will not turn away from capitalism until it has lost the ability to renew and invigorate itself, and that there has to be an alternative working within the system ready to provide a model for a new society. All we can do I suppose is to sharpen our ideas, agree on a broad progressive consensus and win the battle of ideas (Gramsci's 'war of position') so we are ready when the time comes. In the meantime reformism will do!
Nick - I would like to see the evidence of these statements, as my PhD supervisor used to say. People may well want more regulation of financial markets now, but ask them that a few years ago when they were collecting their payouts for demutualisation and it would have been a different story.
1967 - Onward with the war of position, absolutely. But how? Where are the vehicles, if that's not a mixed metaphor. Gramsci was spot on about winning the arguments, but the problem I have is that we need structures in order to do this. If not a political party, then some form of campaigning body (but they always seem to get marginalised and/ or taken over by the chattering classes)
For a start; trade unions, grassroots campaign groups such as the London Citizens, larger projects such as the World Social Forum, local citizen groups campaigning for public services and political parties. Even the Russian Revolution happened from the bottom up from workers' committees and the Soviets but those structures were formed out of necessity in terms of the political, social and economic conditions of Tsarist Russia. Arguably the conditions are not present to give impetus to such grassroots initiatves but this will not always be so. I'm very sceptical of having top-down structures dictating a programme, it has to be more organic than that.
The top down or bottom up argument is interesting, as in a way we need both and they have to meet in the middle! For example, I do think political parties and campaigns have to show leadership, in the case of political parties by having strong ideological positions. But at the same time you have to listen and react to what people think and what people want, but not always by doing what they want. It's tricky. (I found all that out when I was a local councillor 20 years ago)
So if we are all slaving away in our grassroots organisations, there needs to be some way of coordinating and focusing what we're doing, and I've always seen that as being a valuable function of political parties. Although it doesn't work like that in NI because other factors come into play.
PS: there is another post shaping up over this debate, either here or at Irish Left Review, on praxis and political change...
I agree with that totally, Jenny. There is a reciprocal relationship between top and bottom. It's all about striking that balance.
So much better put than I did!
I don't think that it is a good idea for the British Labour Party to stand candidates in NI when the role of the British government has clearly moved in recent times to being neutral. Once the main UK parties are involved in NI elections the situation changes to these parties being de facto 'unionist'. For the same reason I don't support a merger between Fiann Fáil and the SDLP (even though it would be good if something could bolster that declining party).
I accept the argument that NI is part of the UK and is affected by government decisions but it can also be argued that it is insulated from the wider UK (and indeed Irish and European) economies because of the bloated public sector.
The ultimate destination is unknown but joint sovereignty would seem logically the only way to offer something to everybody. In my view the British Labour Party organizing properly in NI would only muddy the waters.
Hi Aidan, I understand your point, but see some of my other posts to get an idea of where the Irish LP at any rate is coming from, i.e. not wishing to perpetuate the sectarian divide in NI politics. The logic of your position is that NI should have its own political parties rather than be linked to any other jurisdictions, which I think woudl be a shame as it would continue the parochialism which is leading the NI Executive to continue not to meet despite the severe problems of the world economy. But given that other Labour parties are not interested in organising in NI, and it's not acceptable for many of us to join the SDLP, a seperate Independent Labour party may be the only alternative to continuing to having no cross-community democratic socialist representation in NI.
I also dislike the idea of joint soveriegnity becuase it actually makes NI a colony of 2 states.
"…a seperate Independent Labour party may be the only alternative to continuing to having no cross-community democratic socialist representation in NI."
There have been quite a few attempts at this over the years since the demise of the old NILP, all of them sadly failing. My problem with this is that it doesn't really think big enough. Such a vehicle would be adequate for contesting local government and Assembly elections but it would be little more than a drop in the ocean when it came to trying to influence decisions where it matters - Westminster. One possibility would be the CDU/CSU model that the Ulster Unionists appear to be looking into in forming an alliance with the Conservatives (or to use an example from the Socialist International, the arrangement between left parties from Belgium's Francophone and Flemish regions). If the UK Labour Party isn't interested in organising over here it might be more open to some kind of loose alliance. Let's face it, Labour are in no position to be turning away potential supporters.
And Aidan, don't worry about muddying our waters. We need them muddied!
JG - Yes, I know about the history and that's why 'independence' is the worst option, and it's a good point youmake about Westminster. But in order to work, the 'alliance' would have to be with BOTH British and Irish Labour, or you'd be back to the old 'which side are they on' problem which is stopping us moving forward with either Labour Party at the moment.
The response to this post is making me think that we need an event in the new year, once Irish Labour have told their Northern members to piss off, which they will, to discuss 'Where next for Labour in NI'. I'm going to Australia for a couple of months but will be back in January and perhaps could get a group together to organise this?
"…the 'alliance' would have to be with BOTH British and Irish Labour, or you'd be back to the old 'which side are they on' problem…"
Nothing there I would disagree with. However, both the London and Dublin parties would need to be actively involved in helping to build such a vehicle in the province. Simply letting people here do all the work for them to eventually pass down their blessing would be a bit meaningless. For example, the Conservatives are rumoured to be offering the Ulster Unionists a cash injection in each constituency to help boost their election funds as part of any merger/alliance. It's a pity that similar enthusiasm is not being displayed by our own 'comrades'.
JG - spot on. But I suppose the Tories have never had the ideological confusion about the North that Labour parties have had. To the Tories, NI is part of the UK and that's that. For both British and Irish Labour, there is a huge ideological and emotional view that there should be a united Ireland, but at a practical level they know it's unlikely. So they want us to go away because we're too complicated.
"I also dislike the idea of joint soveriegnity becuase it actually makes NI a colony of 2 states."
That depends on how it is structured. The north could send representatives to Dáil Éireann. There would be some all-Ireland things handled by the Dáil. Clearly there would be some northern issues which the Dáil as a whole would decide on in conjuction with Westminster.
I certainly don't mean joint sovereignty with the two sovereign governments imposing their will on the north.
I see it as a way for Irish people to (finally) have an all-Ireland political identity while allowing unionists to keep a link with Britain and send MPs to Westminster to have the same influence on UK politics that they now have.
We mustn't be too parochial. Political participation is not reducible to Stormont.
To me its essential to be participaring the Westminister-determined issues that affect us. Tax, war, monetary policy, fiscal policy, international development. These are all the biggest debates.
To be properly partipating we must have a chance to vote for and against the main policy agendas that are set at Westminster level. There is currently no possibility of electoral participation in Labour party politics. We are not properly participating but this participation is surely essential.
Howard
Howard - I agree that we need this participation, and it's interesting that SDLP MPs have no formal link with the PLP in Westminster (as far as I know) even though they are meant to be fellow members of the Socialist International, and the LP won't stand candidates here in order to protect the SDLP's position. Which is, of course, because a nationalist party con't do that.
Incidentally, I've just learned that the Irish Labour Party won't be extending it's electoral operations to NI - a post will follow on this when I get the text.
Jenny
Do you think Irish labour are taking the same fright that FF took when they first looked into the matter? Are they both keen not to hurt the SDLP? Or, is it more practical that they simply see costs and no gains?
Oh, and nationalisation of banks must today be added to those policies also set at Westminster that affects us all :)
I really must get on with a post about the banks!
I've seen the draft from the 21st Century Commission now. The section is very long so I'm thinking about the best way to post it. But the main points are (i) the SDLP is Labour's sister party in NI, and its PES and SI partner (ii) the SDLP must be supported, especially now that FF are not coming North, so that people in NI have the change to vote for a social democratic party (n.b. not democratic socialist) (iii) nothing will be gained by an all-Ireland Labour Party as an alternative to the SDLP; I think the message here is 'protect the brand' (iv) NI politics and society must change and both should become less sectarian but the reality at the moment is that this is not happening and so it's not the time for fundamental change (v) of course if the SDLP did decide to merge with FF after all, Labour would look at supporting a party with links to both Irish and British Labour (i.e. even then they won't come North in their own name).
So that's that, then.
Post a Comment