NEW MODELS OF COALITIONAL POLITICS
Compass have been kind enough to publish an article by me on their website. Here it is:
The British political landscape has some quite unique characteristics, and it is necessary to have some subtle understanding of how different aspects of the topology relate to one another.
The main progressive political party for a hundred years has been Labour, which is distinguished from European Socialist Parties by its close and organic links with the trade unions. However, the core, traditional working class electoral base of the Labour Party is not sufficient to win a general election on its own, and therefore Labourist politics have always been coalitional in both aspiration and reality; but the First Past the Post electoral system means that broad social coalitions have coalesced within the main two parties, Labour and Conservatives, rather than as coalition between separate political parties.
The relationship between the Labour Party and trade unionism has historically set the boundaries to both left and right of what is encompassed by the Labourist envelope. It has traditionally provided an institutional link with communities of solidarity, and aspirations for social justice; and provided the iconography and mythology of Labourism as an historic and progressive social movement. The paradox of the Labour Party has been its ability to bring together in a single coalition those who wish to mediate the conflict between employers and organised labour in the interests of social peace; along with those who want political action to free the hand of organised labour to prosecute that conflict more effectively.
Labourism has in the past rooted the Labour Party to the particular sectional interests of organised labour; and this has had restrictive as well as progressive implications. Trade unions have not historically seen it as within their remit to oppose imperialist wars, nor to promote environmental sustainability; and it was a long term battle within our unions to introduce an equalities agenda; as in previous eras the craftiest unions defended the interests of their white, male, able-bodied existing members. Although there are particular exceptions, such as the herculean efforts by Ernie Bevin as General secretary of the TGWU to get the Labour Party to adopt Keynesian economics, generally the trade unions have been content to let the political wing of the movement generate economic and social policy.
This historical framework of Labourism has been subject to a number of major shifts in recent years.
Firstly, there has been a cultural and economic shift within wider society so that the iconography and language of traditional labourism has been less and less relevant to an increasingly heterogeneous and socially aspirational electorate. It is less and less likely that Labour could win a general election based upon the political platform of the traditional left, appealing only to those who self-identify with the working class. Labour must do more than maintain its working class support, it must also reach out to build a progressive, electoral coalition with those who see themselves as professional and middle class as well. As an additional complication, the Labour Party has alienated progressive opinion in Wales and Scotland through being seen as less responsive to devolutionary sentiment, and national identity.
The tragedy of New Labour is that it grasped the idea of needing to build a coalition, and the need to recognise the social changes of modernity, but it thought that the way to do so was by triangulating around the socially conservative concerns of swing voters in marginal constituencies, dressing this up as progressive by spin and superficial modernity. This meant that New Labour steered itself away from the more socially rooted progressive aspirations of those concerned about climate change, opposed to the war in Iraq, horrified by racism, and moved by a desire to overcome inequality and poverty. Tony Blair brilliantly built a winning electoral coalition, but it was the wrong coalition, and has left the Labour Party disoriented and lacking its earlier sense of moral purpose.
The second important shift has been the devaluing of the link with the trade unions within the party. The downgrading of the powers of the NEC so that it no longer controls the manifesto, conference nor oversees PPC candidate selection has seen the influence of the unions weakened. OMOV, introduced by John Smith, elevated the interests of passive members of the party over that of the affiliated unions. The result of which is that the party became more swayed by media driven common sense, rather than listening to informed, expert opinion from the unions, who are themselves in daily touch with the real-life concerns of the millions of members
What is more, the actual economic policy of New Labour has been antagonistic to the trade unions’ agenda, not only with particular policies like PFI, but generally by favouring the City of London and finance capital over the interests of real jobs for ordinary people in agriculture, manufacturing, distribution and retail.
The result has been to place Labour in an unprecedented position, where it faces considerable passive exasperation from its key allies in the trade unions; and many centre-left progressives who would historically have been members of, or sympathetic to, the Labour Party are instead attracted to other political parties, such as the SNP, Greens, Respect and Plaid Cymru, all of whom have MPs or MEPs elected.
It is much too late for any bold coalitional thinking from the Labour Party before the next general election, and it would be impossible under the current leadership. But consider that the Green party gets between 4% and 10% of the vote, then what the effect would be of Green party endorsement in two dozen Labour marginals? Perhaps in exchange for Labour standing aside for the Greens in one or two constituencies - in the knowledge that the Green MPs elected would be anyway broadly in agreement with much of the historical values of the Labour Party. Even at a more modest level, it is currently outside the rules of the Labour Party to permit an individual member or affiliated trade union to back the candidate of anther progressive party, even when that other party has a better chance of winning than Labour to keep a Tory out.
It is unclear how bad the defeat will be at the next general election, yet afterwards the pragmatic, radical left needs to orient itself upon the changed reality; we need to work together to see how the broadly progressive majority opinion in the country can be translated into electoral success.
Andy Newman is editor of the popular website www.socialistunity.com and is a National Council member of the Respect Party.
Jacob Middleton in International Socialism
It has become common to deny either the existence or relevance of class to Britain today. Yet the numbers of people who describe themselves as ‘working class’ grew from 51 percent in 1994 to 68 percent in 2002.
from
1: MORI finding on numbers agreeing with statement, ‘At the end of the day, I am working class and proud of it.’ See R Mortimore, Working Class—And Proud Of It! , 16 August 2002t
Is this true? In terms of numbers of w/c if so then
“However, the core, traditional working class electoral base of the Labour Party is not sufficient to win a general election on its own,…”
from above article is untrue.
Comment by non-partisan — 23 May, 2009 @ 2:43 pm
#1 Not really.
Firstly it depends upin how the different classes are distributed throughout the parliamentary constituencies. Those who self-describe themselves as working class tend to be more urban.
Second;y, even of those who self-identify as working class, they may not identify with the labourist iconography of the “working class”
Thirdly, the working class is not ideologically homogenous.
And finaly, this simply is the evidence of history.
Comment by Andy Newman — 23 May, 2009 @ 5:35 pm
A shame your 2nd paragraph gives the game away. The working class and its allies (those whose historic material interests are aligned with those of the w/c; pensioners, unemployed, students, small farmers and farm labourers) are a majority in the UK, the reason the LP doesn’t win them is because the LP doesn’t represent those interests.
But then, your whole article is based on the idea that coalitions are necesary so you can promote the nationalist and reformist projects you so love.
poor excuse tho
Comment by non-partisan — 23 May, 2009 @ 6:49 pm
Andy thinks there is such a thing a radical pragmatic Left.
Pragmatic has always been Labour Nuspeak for right wing policies. Andy asks what might be the result of a sucessful Labour Green electoral agreement.
Lets think it through then.
Electoral agreement Labour gets back in by 3 seats. The Greens win a couple of seats in Sandalsborough and Poridgeship and amidst massive pressure from Murdoch and the right wing media then expel the left and vote with Labour, the LibDems or Conservatives whenever it is pragmatic. The Greens would be a bit like the SDP, dressed up in hemp.
Then massive Murdoch media attacks on economic policies and public sector. Labour is back to their usual Murdoch led choice agenda of Privatisation of the NHS,bailing out the wealthy, War Mongering, Anti Union Laws, Torture,Rendition,sleaze,Labour Lords selling laws for Corporations, arms sales to the saudis etc, etc….
Labours an utterly bankrupt, corrupted, dead end, they resemble a crowd of bald men( “and women”) fighting over a toothless comb.
Remember Labours 1000,000 Iraqi Civilian Dead
Comment by ANIN — 23 May, 2009 @ 6:52 pm
“the Labour Party has alienated progressive opinion in Wales and Scotland through being seen as less responsive to devolutionary sentiment, and national identity”
No Andy, the Labour Party has alienated progressive opinion in Scotland (can’t speak for Wales) through being seen as the party of war, racism and privatisation, through closing schools and privatising council housing, through being arrogant and thoroughly corrupt. People in Scotland have turned to the SNP despite its nationalism, not because of it.
Comment by Tim Vanhoof — 23 May, 2009 @ 8:08 pm
Well we have a good chorus of predictable shrill squeeks from the deluded and bewilidered advocates of class on class politics - for whom the prospct of a Tory governemt is an irrelevance.
But if you did a thought experiemcent and just for as moment imagined that the millions of trade unionists and wider millions of socialy concerned ordinary people were more significant social force than the handful of self-important self-proclaimed “proletarian” vanguardists clustered in their boggle eyed internalised cults, then we might want to consider how we can work to move the whole political compass to the left, to give a more fruitful political context for grassroots trade unions activity, radical campaigning, and developing an ideological challenge to neo-liberlaism.
Comment by Andy Newman — 23 May, 2009 @ 9:04 pm
Compass representing an ideological challenge to neo-liberalism must be a not very funny joke. It’s the type of nonsense that the Blairites were arguing before they got into power. Look what happened to them.
Comment by Ray — 24 May, 2009 @ 4:08 am
But if you did a thought experiemcent and just for as moment imagined that the millions of trade unionists and wider millions of socialy concerned ordinary people were more significant social force than the handful of self-important self-proclaimed “realistic” leaders clustered in their money grabbing power networks and cliques, then we might want to consider how we can work to move the whole career ladder to the left, to give a more fruitful political context for grassroots trade unions activity, radical campaigning, as long as it didnt challenge the political basis of neo-liberlaism.
easy isnt it Andy! and so much fun! to dismiss ideas that trouble you.
Comment by non-partisan — 24 May, 2009 @ 9:38 am
And a “self-important boggle-eyed proletarian vanguardist” is defined as someone who disagrees with the modest and self-effacing Andy?
Comment by Karl Stewart — 24 May, 2009 @ 10:03 am
It is not a question of agreeing with me or not, it is a questioon of social weight.
It simply is a fact that most of the vanguardist far left has almost no social weight, but neverthless has an assumed expectation of leadership.
No “non-partisan” seeks to bypass the whole problem of people’s existing level of consciousness, with some verbal pyrothechnics. But a much more fruitful activisty is to look at how the left can engage with the politicall context as it actually is, and move it to the left.
Comment by Andy Newman — 24 May, 2009 @ 2:10 pm
The process that began with the election of Blair as leader of the Labour Party- the move by the LP away from even reformist socialist politics- meant that a whole host of groupings and individuals have been forced to address the isolation of the socialist left from the overhelming mass of the population, as part of the process of building a mass alternative to Blairism.
Hence the SLP in its early form, the SSP, Respect and others.
Some have suceeded better than others. Some appear stuck in the same useles sectarian mire.
Andy, your contempt for self imortant vanguardism is understandable and healthy, but not everyone who is concerned that your strategy is too dependant on close alliances with forces too far to the centre-left is a useless ultra left sectrian.
Such alliances will often be necessary, but we should not be like the tail wagged by the dog, just because the dog is bigger than us.
Comment by Armchair — 24 May, 2009 @ 2:37 pm
Armchair:
Quite so.
I fully agree that there are differences to be debated, and I am quite open to learning why i am wrong in debate among comrades! my contempt is reserved for those who seek to close down debate with self righteous declaraions of their own revolutionary purity. I am quite happy to debate with those who think I throw the coalitional net too wide.
Honest and sincere comrades can make different tactical and straeegic evaluations, can continue to work together, and can contimnue to debate fraternally.
For example, personally, I am unenamoured by the NO2EU initiative, but I continue too respect many of the comrades and friends involved. It is quite possible to disagree with people without denouncing them.
Comment by Andy Newman — 24 May, 2009 @ 3:33 pm
12 It is quite possible to disagree with people without denouncing them.
Then why don’t you try it Andy?
I don’t try to by pass peoples existing level of consciousness- But recognise that that consciousness is made up of lots of elements including the ideological offensive of capitalisms supporters through thier ownership of the means of communication, and cultural outlets. There are many other reasons that people are not at this point ready or able to take or indeed recognise the needd to act as a class. I could go on.
But the point i disagreed with Andy was you saying the w/c electoral base for the LP is not enough to win elections. I think this is nonsense, the problem is that the LP is not interested in leading w/c in an offensive against cap interests. in fact it represents those cap interests, so forgive me for not bowing down to your ‘pragmatism or realism ‘ in wishing to build alliances with those people like compass who have stood by, and assisted in, the murder of thousands of people in Iraq and Afghanisation, and in the impoverishment of w/c people here in the UK.
You can foam at the mouth about swivel eyed trots all you like- (and by the way i think most readers can see where the venom in these discussions is coming from)
but the truth is many good working class socialists find your willingness to debase the tradition of struggle in the w/c offensive.
Comment by non-partisan — 24 May, 2009 @ 4:49 pm
non-partisan
The challenge for you then is to justify your claim that Labour can win a parliamentary majority based only on the core support of those who self-identify as working class by reference to the actual history of the labour party during the twentieth century.
Because it never has done, nor has it ever tried to. Labourism has since its inception seen itself as a coalitional, national movement, allbeit one that historically sought to also represent the special sectional interests of the trade unions and the working class.
Moreover, we have to take into account the cultural and societal changes since the 1950s, that means that even people who might self-identify to some degree with being working class do not necessarily relate to either the iconogrpahy of labourisn, nor to any other form of working class politics.
Of course we could imagine alternate histories where labourism was not the dominant form of left wing politics in britain for the last one hundred years, and had that been the case then perhaps it would have been possible to have a different form of socialist politics that could have commanded a popular majority.
But that is not waht my artiocel was about. My article was specifically about the actual situation that the labour party, and the wider social project of labourism finds itself in; and how that might be transcended.
Comment by Andy Newman — 24 May, 2009 @ 6:52 pm
“many good working class socialists find your willingness to debase the tradition of struggle in the w/c offensive.”
I have no willingness to debase traditions of struggle, where have I done that?
Why do you identify the vanguardist traditions that I do criticise with the much wider phenomenon of class struggle?
Comment by Andy Newman — 24 May, 2009 @ 6:55 pm
What I actually criticised was not class struggle, but “the deluded and bewilidered advocates of class on class politics ”
class on class politics is a specific reference to the ultra-left forms of communism from the Third Period.
Comment by Andy Newman — 24 May, 2009 @ 7:11 pm
#13 ” by the way i think most readers can see where the venom in these discussions is coming from”
Yes things were reasonably cordial on this thread until we were joined by the extreme ultra-left “Anin” at #4, who in the past has described ordinary members of TUC affiliated trade unions as fascists, and claimed that the TUC was a supporter of the Iraq war.
Forgive me for being exasperated with that sort of rubbish.
Comment by Andy Newman — 24 May, 2009 @ 7:28 pm
14. The challenge for all of us is to defend and advance the interests of the working class and those other sections of our society who lose out in the present organisation of society along capitalist lines.
I think this can best be done by mobilising support whenever and wherever our class and its allies ressist the offensive of capitalism. on this i think there would be no arguement, but its how central this simple point is to any strategy, and what the aim of that stratgey is, is it ’socialism’? or the election of a ‘Labour’ governement? or the least onerous alliance of people and parties that support the current system.
Karl Stewart a regular contributor here, calls for unity among those who want to see ‘a workers government’. Whatever you think of that as a point of unity among revolutionary socialists, it is at least clear. He wants a workers govt as part of the struggle to otherthrow capitalism.
As a product of the TU movt the Labour Party began its life committed to defending the interests of Working people, despite the old clause 4, the LP was never an instrument for changing the character of our society, but attempting to ameliorate its worst excesses. the result of this it could be argued has been far more suffering, exploitation and bloodshed than any violent overthrow might have caused.
Many people have drawn the conclusion (esp since blair etc have virtually destroyed the possibility of the TU’s radilcly changing LP policy) That the LP will only ever produce reforms (Which it does) on the back of, or as a a release from w/c action and or pressure. So the best way to get results from the collection of careerists in the Lp is to deepen and broaden social and political action of the w/c or its historic allies. And by explaining the reality (i know you love that) of todays system and the need to replace it. Not that anyone thinks this will happen overnight (though it is remarkable how when crises develop, just how quickly massive social layers can have and will move into political action.) but that any other course, including building alliances with those parts of the current establishment who are now looking to save thier political bacon.
I know, its impossible to have this full debate here. But at least Andy the recognition that there has been a debate between reformist and revolutionary currents within the labour movement for as long as the labour movement has existed. That without the revolutionary currents, massive social changes and advances would not have happened in the way and at the time they did in Russia, Cuba, South africa and many other places. There have been vistories and defeats but there has always been debate too.
ok last point…
The electoral base of the LP? i think a party that was prepared to tell the truth to workers and to power would have the potential esp in todays crises to reach far beyond the current limits of the ’socialist or revo left’ the fact the way is barred by the dead hand of LP careerists and TU bureacrats is something that will have to be dealt with as the class grows in confidence. They should not be ignored or sidestepped but drawn behind the actions of the class or left behind.
The UK is an imperialist power, the people you are reaching out to( and defend politically) literaly have blood on thier hands.
Ok, you can call me swivel eyed, shrill, an idiot, unrealistic, anything else you want because i won’t argue demographic swings, and coalitions…but remeber to wipe your hands after your meetings.
Comment by non-partisan — 24 May, 2009 @ 7:50 pm
“that will have to be dealt with as the class grows in confidence”
But the working class is not “growing in confidence”.
We are on the verge of a Tory government, the BNP poised to win seats in the European parliamant, and the left almost entirely devoid of influence.
Comment by Andy Newman — 24 May, 2009 @ 8:31 pm
“Many people have drawn the conclusion (esp since blair etc have virtually destroyed the possibility of the TU’s radilcly changing LP policy) That the LP will only ever produce reforms (Which it does) on the back of, or as a a release from w/c action and or pressure. So the best way to get results from the collection of careerists in the Lp is to deepen and broaden social and political action of the w/c or its historic allies. “
Many people???
But the far left is smaller and less infleuntial now than it has been for generations. So that is not the conclusion people are drawing at all.
Comment by Andy Newman — 24 May, 2009 @ 8:50 pm
#17 I’m on your side in this argument but you go too far to call the claim that “the TUC was a supporter of the Iraq war” exasperating rubbish.
If the TUC (corporately not its individual members) wasn’t a supporter of the Iraq War then it wasn’t exactly an active vocal opponent of it, was it? I’d love you to quote at me all the resolutions proving the TUC opposed the war, if they exist, but I’d like to see the evidence that it acted on them too. Because I don’t have any recall whatsoever of the TUC lifting a single buttock cheek of its fat sweaty corporate arse from the labour movement sofa in the attempt to make Blair desist from eager participation in the paramount war crime, or to bring him to proper account thereafter. What it did instead, was look the other way. Which is of course a stain on the TUC’s hands.
Please prove to me I’m wrong, I’d welcome it.
Comment by Strategist — 25 May, 2009 @ 12:33 am