Where next for the Scottish Labour Left?

By Martyn Cook

With Neil Findlay MSP standing for the leadership and Katy Clark MP standing for the deputy leadership of the Scottish Labour Party, there came a real shock of possibilities, which electrified the Labour Left in Scotland in a way that hadn't been felt for some time. Following a bruising referendum campaign in which explicitly class-based politics had been absent from both the dominant Yes or No campaigns, here was an opportunity for the Labour Left to unashamedly place its agenda front and center. 

There was even, whisper it, an outside chance we could win. The electoral college, after all, has done strange things in the past (just ask International Rescue's own David Miliband). Could Findlay and Clark perhaps perform the almost unthinkable and take the top jobs in Scotland? 

Defining a win 

You know the outcome by now. The party leadership's preferred candidates in Jim Murphy MP and Kez Dugdale MSP won both crowns after a brief, but intense, campaign. Both won the votes of the parliamentarians and the membership, with the unions and affiliates opting more for Findlay and Clark. There's no point hiding it: by taking 55.77% and 62.9% respectively, Murphy and Dugdale won and won well. So yes, disappointment for the left. 

The above snapshot undoubtedly portrays a fairly glum position for the Labour Left. Factor in the referendum hangover – the SNP surging ahead in most polls and seeing an explosion in their membership numbers – and you may begin to think there is little hope for attempts to organise the left in Scottish Labour. Is there any fertile ground for creating a radical anti-austerity alternative through Scottish Labour? 

Before those questions are asked, we must take a step back and look at what we define as a win. The SNP lost the referendum, but anyone looking at them now would think the opposite is true. That is because, as the SNP know, not winning isn’t the same as suffering defeat. In politics, you can define your own wins, and seize momentum. There are many battles in a war for hearts and minds. To judge our success we need not to look at a snapshot result but our overall trajectory: after all we are and should always be seen as a movement. 

Take a look at where the Scottish Labour Left has come from in the height of the last Labour government, to where we are now. The left is more organised, and motivated than it ever has been. The only possible conclusion that can be drawn is that we are have gained and continue to gain ground. It is our narrative, and language, and our principles that are in the ascendancy. 

The last time that the Labour Left was even capable of putting forward explicitly socialist candidates running for leadership positions was the early 80s, under the late Tony Benn. Since then, left candidates have failed to even get on the ballot paper, as any potential candidates have to secure a set number of nominations from Parliamentary colleagues before they are even allowed to run. In this campaign the left not only managed to get two candidates on the ballot papers, but also were able to bring the debate to the assumedly anointed candidates in what was a real contest. 

Wider audience 

For the first time in, well, decades, we have elected Labour representatives arguing for massive redistributions of wealth to fund public services, starting a mass council house building program, scrapping Trident, and taking major utilities and railways back in to public ownership. This message was spread not just amongst the Labour membership, but penetrated into the public debate through national TV and press, extending our arguments to a much wider audience. We know these arguments are what is needed, but they are now also popular – with the majority of voters also endorsing these same policies according to most social attitude surveys. 

With such an appealing platform both old and new volunteers became engaged and came forward to pledge support for Findlay and Clark, through two well-organised, effective campaigns that garnered huge support from the wider labour movement. 

So why wasn’t all this enough? Anecdotally, most volunteers from either Findlay's or Clark's campaigns will be able to cite you a common refrain. Often members would say how much they supported the policies the left candidates put forward, but believed that in Murphy (with his seniority and now infamous referendum 'Irn-Bru box tour' portraying him as a street fighter) and Dugdale (with a high profile newspaper column and frequent TV presence) were the ones to take the fight to the SNP.   

Was this just a lack of conviction from members?  Perhaps for some, but the very real and imminent threat of electoral annihilation will inevitably make many to look to what seems the more pragmatic and less idealistic options. We on the left don't believe that the delivery of the message is the main problem - it's the message itself we need to get right, and it was radical change in policies that the left candidates stood on: the same policies and ideas that the newly elected leadership has seized upon. 

It may be that Scottish Labour can scrape by though the general election, and I don't expect the result to be as devastating as the polls currently suggest. What we need to do is continue to press for a bolder, more radical policy agenda if we have any desire to avoid the fates of Pasok in Greece or the Socialist Party in Spain. It is interesting to note that due to the vibrancy and resonance our campaign struck we were able to define the parameters of the debate, and in doing so found that even Murphy was forced in to taking up the mantle of arguing on a social justice basis, increasing taxation on top earners and building new homes. 

A small concession, perhaps, but it also provides a glimmer of what can happen when the left is seriously organised. That is the real aim for us now. The Labour Left in Scotland, organised around the Campaign for Socialism group in particular, will be holding a series of meetings to reflect and build on the campaigns for the leadership, with the first being a public meeting at the STUC on Sunday 1 February from 10.30am. By keeping the network of volunteers and organising within our local parties we will keep the momentum from the campaigns going, so that it won't be just glimmers of victory that we see from now on.

Confessions of a Centrist

By Mike Cowley

“Some of the extreme language that is used on the Left actually frightens people who would otherwise want to back us. Attlee was known for speaking of ‘workmanlike plans’ to justify revolutionary proposals such as the creation of…the NHS, whereas if he had shouted his head off about the need to ‘smash the state’ it might have put people off…a society that peacefully opted for policies that put people before profit, and won a majority for this, would be infinitely more revolutionary in its impact.”

Tony Benn, ‘After New Labour,’ 2002 

The British Left has long sustained an implacable defence of the right to confront the state’s monopoly of violence. To demur, it is argued, is to concede the battle before it has been joined. No ruling class has ever recoiled from the mobilization of the state’s ‘armed men’ in defence of its interests. Socialists, while declining to relish the call to arms, nonetheless defer to the inevitability of violent, even armed insurrection as a means of prosecuting a vision capable of the overthrow of a system none too fussy about the human toll incurred by the defence of its privileges. No serious analysis of revolutionary strategy ever discounted a recourse to meeting force with force. It was a given, the Left’s default setting, an invisible, assumed meme untroubled by critical eyes.

Beyond Left orthodoxy, specifically within that tradition exemplified by Martin Luther King’s philosophy of militant nonviolence, we can of course identify consistent attempts to codify strategy based on a refusal to emulate the state’s impassive might. It is this position that I hope to recommend, if not in its totality then at least in principle and as an option to Socialists for whom such considerations may still represent the equivalent of raising the white flag alongside the red.

Given King’s very personal experience of US state aggression – police brutality, wrongful arrest, official indifference, even collusion with racist thuggery – his strategic and philosophical rejection of physical force as an effective means of confronting racism, poverty and segregation can hardly be accused of articulating an easy option available only to those who find themselves in historically propitious circumstances. King was not attempting to shy away from the barricades, nor circumvent head on conflict. In fact at any one point of the 1950s/60s high point of the civil rights movement, US prisons incarcerated hundreds of activists. Beatings were commonplace, and murder a real and ever present threat. But King’s pacifism, evolved and honed in the heat of battle, became a tightly argued principle of the movement he led. It sprang from a religious conviction, and in that sense can be considered a matter of personal and spiritual faith. King’s beliefs though were in essence primarily political, not theological, and he was obliged to defend their merits against those sections of his community – the Student Non Violent Co-ordinating Committee, the Nation of Islam and latterly the Black Panthers – who regarded their application as limited, even self-defeating.

King was determined to face down the dominant power structures by disarming them ideologically. In struggle black people would not conform to racist stereotype, but would conduct themselves with discipline and dignity, peacefully and militantly staring the agents of white supremacy down. It would be Jim Crow, frothing at the mouth and swivel eyed with atavistic rage, who would blink first. The nobility of a people in revolt would be exemplified, and sharply contrasted in the public mind with the racist demagogues of the US states.

In addition, if racial justice and solidarity were to be secured the terrain upon which it would take root had to be sown with love, with a vision of shared humanity. Revolutions should be redemptive; victories won on the basis of superior force – at the ‘end of a barrel of a gun’ – were doomed to failure as fractured, embittered and grieving polities refused to buy into the victor’s dreams, and instead prepared for retribution. 

There are parallels here with traditional, long established and widely deferred to Socialist theory. 

Marx and Engels regarded Britain in particular as a model of Socialist potential. With its educated, unionised working class and advanced industrial and technological capacities, British capitalism had unwittingly but inevitably created its own ‘gravediggers.’ Nations where these variables were either absent or at earlier stages of maturation offered their domestic Left less traction with which to foment rebellion. Historical circumstances would oblige them to await uprisings in nations where the material conditions were more suited to successful prosecutions of proletarian initiative and agency.

The parallels in this regard are clear. Where King saw violence as begetting only violence, so Marxists have regarded backward, under-developed nations as capable only of reproducing their essential material characteristics in the unlikely event of a revolution, irrespective of what ideological choreography the victors might rehearse. Trotsky’s theory of ‘permanent revolution’ attempted to circumvent the material realities of an under-developed Russian society by accelerating development under the revolutionary oversight of a cadres of intellectuals. But in doing so the moral and political ground for sanctioning violence as the primary tool of state hegemony was established, bequeathing Stalin unequivocal license to escalate ‘the Red Terror’ in the name of human liberation.

Beyond legitimate critiques of the ‘individual terrorism’ of the self-appointed men of action, the uses of political violence have otherwise evaded serious theoretical reproach. So much so that, curdled and neglected, it has become fetishized by parts of the Left, its virtues un-reflexively extoled. Our rhetoric talks of ‘smashing’ things, of ‘tearing the heads off the Tories,’ our collective persona too often conforming to hegemonic type. We step obligingly into a straitjacket designed by those we seek to unseat. We gift power confirmation of their dominant narratives, fatally bleeding our capital amongst the very people we aspire to mobilise.

Whether politically or during union activity, many of us still indulge a fetishist’s relish for intemperance and affected polarity. We reject nuance, strategy and humility, apparently terrified of even the appearance of ceding ground, instead declining to profile the very attributes which might secure us the mass support we need. The sediment of Bolshevism clings to us still; the beleaguered revolutionaries of Petrograd, in attempting to build a system predicated on reciprocity and mutual solidarity, instead generated a ruptured labour and socialist movement, social vengeance and retribution. Given the circumstances perhaps there was an inevitability about the revolution’s fate. We do ourselves little credit however, by unwittingly alchemising virtue into necessity.

Though immediate victories might be secured, the more resentment and fracture we leave in our wake the less likely our deferred goals of entrenched Socialism become.

The anti-capitalist movements - UK Uncut, Occupy – certainly offended the palates of the traditional Left, often justifiably so. But their inclusiveness, rejection of vanguardism and sectarian pedantry constitute strengths rather than weaknesses. Their project is unfinished, their evolution rudely abbreviated, but if we are to root transformative politics in our diverse and multi-experiential communities, the centralist models of Socialist organisation ought at least to be open to interrogation.

Creating – and critically, sustaining, even in the teeth of counter revolutionary aggression – the Socialist transformation of society will require courage, patience and humanity. Marxist educationalist Paulo Freire asked ‘What can we do today, so we can do tomorrow what we can’t do today?’ How we prepare for tomorrow, what ‘trenches’ we seek to occupy, the increments we identify as ground made on a system rotten to its curdled heart must all articulate a consistency between means and ends. A crisis of example – where Socialists could point out lived, vivid examples of collectivist living in the real world – has frequently served to compromise our efforts. That is why political conduct, where Socialism is exemplified in our own practice is often all we have to demonstrate its worth beyond the abstract. 

Martin Luther King regarded the ‘arc of history’ as ‘long,’ but ‘bending towards justice.’ How we claim ownership of that continuum, its trajectory and destination must now be the subject of a creativity which is as much a demonstration of our ultimate goals as it is strategy.

Industrial Democracy Not Incorporation

Experience tells us that there is a fundamental conflict of interest between the owners of companies and those who work for a wage.  Employers want to squeeze out as much as possible for the minimum cost and the greatest flexibility.  The workers want security, good terms and conditions and some satisfaction.  Is industrial democracy a way of squaring these two conflicting interests?

Industrial democracy is one of the key issues being debated in Scotland at the moment, including at a Unite/Campaign for Socialism fringe meeting during the 2014 Scottish Labour Party Conference.  Furthermore, the Jimmy Reid Foundation and the Common Weal have also both published documents on the topic and the Scottish Government has established a Review of Scottish Workplace Policies, including workplace democracy.

There are, however, significant differences in approach.  Graham Smith, General Secretary of the Scottish Trade Union Council, while participating in the Scottish Government review, highlights a significant difference:

‘…there are dangers in this particularly if the focus is on employee representation, rather than trade union representation, if employee involvement is limited and does not deliver genuine influence over company decisions, or employee involved schemes are used by some employers to bypass and weaken trade union involvement in consultation and negotiation structures.” He argues that the extension of collective bargaining need to be accompanied by steps to promote union recognition.’

A worrying contribution to the debate comes from Jim Duffy, former Scottish Regional Secretary of the FBU, one of the authors of the Jimmy Reid Foundation report and supporter of the SNP’s approach to industrial relations. He writes:

“When faced with a proposal it is considerably easier for the trade union officials to determine to fight knowing they will lose than it is to take responsibility for a course of action that may be the best solution in the circumstances but will be unpopular.  Union members expect their reps to be fighting on their behalf but industrial disputes are not resolved on the picket line, but rather around the negotiating table.  If the seat at the table is available without the need for the fight to get there, is that better or worse for the trade union and its members?”

When it comes to representing the needs of working people in discussions with the Government we need to make a clear distinction between influencing political direction and incorporation.  And it is incorporation that is at the heart of the SNP’s White Paper and the proposals from the Common Weal.  The Trade Union Movement is only one amongst many social forces that would be accommodated in such a partnership.  The Scottish Government’s White Papermakes a passing reference to Workers' on the Board, citing First Group as an example, but its main emphasis is incorporating the trade unions into national partnership agreements.  Experience in Ireland and elsewhere confirms that the impact is a weakened trade union which acts more like an insurance company than a means of struggle. 

Industrial democracy should not be separated out from workers control and common ownership. We may never return to the huge industry wide public sector bodies, but common ownership may take on different forms.  In the recent Red Paper publication Class, Nation and Socialism authors explored different possibilities including Kevin Lindsey on the mutualisation of the rail service, David Shaw wrote about football fans owning their clubs and Gordon Munro described how a co-operative council can encourage small scale worker co-operatives.  None of these options are without problems, but they have the potential for more democracy than a member on the board.

We need a government in Scotland and in the UK that puts public ownership back on the political agenda.

Solidarity Sisters

By Cllr Kenny Selbie

As I write this piece the hype surrounding the World Cup in Brazil is reaching its climax. For the left there are any number of reasons to be concerned about the context for this year’s tournament: the impact on the working class around government priorities and public spending; disregard for health and safety during the development of much of the infrastructure; blatant economic and social exploitation of local and foreign workers – the list is substantial and alarming. However, one issue which has received little mainstream media attention is the inevitable growth in the sex trade.

This is unsurprising – the sex trade is seen in some quarters as another hospitality market supporting the economic output of such events. The government response in Brazil to international NGO and pressure group concerns seems to be focused on targeting and criminalising those women in poverty affected by commercial sexual exploitation as part of their attempts to “clean up” the streets in preparation for the tournament. This is the wrong priority. The focus should be about facing up to and challenging demand, which is created by male behaviour, attitudes and commodification of women.

This shift in approach to focus on perpetrators is crucial to get to the core of the issue in tackling violence against women. While progress continues to be made in recognising the prevalence and impact of violence, for years the feminist movement and women’s organisations have been on their own fighting the corner for those women affected by violence in our communities. This is curious, given that male behaviour accounts for the significant majority of violence perpetrated against women.

Violence against women is both a cause and a consequence of gender inequality, and it is male abuse of power in a society still afflicted by gender inequality that enables the levels of violence against women. In my council area alone, there were over 4,000 reported incidents of domestic abuse last year. While this is clearly alarming, it is encouraging to know that reports increase as women become more confident in the reporting processes and the criminal justice outcomes available to them. In order to tackle this issue, it is not enough to provide crisis interventions, support for women affected and an effective criminal justice response. There needs to be a focus on challenging the behaviour of perpetrators – for the most part men.

The lack of male voices in the past within the debate on tackling violence against women has not helped in making the case for tackling the root causes of violence against women. That is why the White Ribbon campaign is so important.

The international White Ribbon campaign is the largest effort in the world to engage men working to end violence against women. There are local campaigns underway in over 55 countries across the world (including the UK). The work of White Ribbon raises awareness, promotes discussion and provides information and resources to support personal and collective action among men. The campaign gives voice to the vast majority of men who do not commit or condone violence against women, and ultimately aims to create a cultural shift so that stereotypes and social norms about what it means to be a man (which enable violence against women to be perpetrated) are challenged and changed.

Emerging and growing areas such as the impact of the internet and social media are having a direct and significant impact on the attitudes and behaviours of everyone in our communities, but in particular young people. The commodification of women generally, media portrayal of women specifically and the growth in the online adult entertainment industry are all clear examples of the very worst of uncontrolled free market economics. The harm being afflicted on young women by the indirect impact on attitudes and behaviour through these global multi-billion pound industries should not be underestimated. White Ribbon Fife is one a small number of local campaigns which are using the international White Ribbon campaign to support prevention of violence against women in communities. A range of public and voluntary organisations are engaged in the campaign, and while in its early stages, we are beginning to build a grass roots campaign to take us in the right direction.

The argument for men to engage in this campaign is simple – this is about joining in solidarity with every woman who has faced abuse, assault or violence in all its forms. The sad reality is that too many of us are aware of women who have faced these issues and it is time to make our collective voice heard to say that we will not tolerate violence against women in our communities.

Given the importance of delivering this message to where men are, perhaps taking the White Ribbon campaign to the 2018 World Cup in Russia would be a good place to start.

For further information on the White Ribbon campaign or to sign up to the campaign pledge, please visit: www.whiteribboncampaign.co.uk

The Battle for Gender Equality Must Continue

By Katy Clark

Last month I spoke in a debate in Parliament commemorating the 125th anniversary of the Bow Match Women’s strike in which 1,400 women walked out of the Bow Bryant & May factory in July 1888 and secured improved working conditions from their employers. 

These women were working for minimal pay in some of the most appalling conditions imaginable. One of their demands for example was to be permitted to eat their lunch away from factory, in which rooms were made toxic by white phosphorus fumes. Their victory was one of the earliest in a struggle for gender equality. While it was important to highlight the enormity of their actions and achievements the occasion was also an opportunity to emphasise the ongoing battles for equality which are being fought to this day.

In many ways we can look with pride at the victories won by those who’ve fought for equality and the fairer, more equal society which their determination and sacrifices brought about. June marked the 100th anniversary of the death of Emily Wilding Davidson who died after stepping in front of King George V’s horse at the Epsom Derby. The enormous sacrifices made by the suffragettes secured full voting rights for women in 1928. An equally significant anniversary this year was the 45th anniversary of the Ford Sewing Machinists strike of 1968 which secured not only equal pay at the Ford Motor Company’s Dagenham plant where the strike took place but also paved the way for the 1970 Equal Pay Act which outlawed gender pay discrimination in the workplace. These hard-won achievements have created a society in which we have seen an increasingly prominent role for women and in which women have succeeded in the some of the highest positions in politics, industry & society.

Unfortunately any satisfaction must be tempered with the knowledge that we remain a deeply unequal society. November 7th was Equal Pay Day. This is the day from when women in effect ‘stop earning’ because of the 15% gender pay gap between men and women in full time work. For those women in part-time work this jumps to 35%. Less than one in four MPs at Westminster are women which puts the United Kingdom below Afghanistan, Zimbabwe and Sudan in terms of female representation. Only three of the United Kingdom’s top one hundred companies are run by women and only one of the judges currently serving on the Supreme Court is a woman.

Most alarmingly many of the steps taken by the current Government are rolling back the progress which has been made. Women have been disproportionately hit by the Government’s public sector cuts and female unemployment remains higher than at the last General Election. The provisions in the last Labour Government’s landmark Equality Act have either been scrapped or watered down and the introduction of charges for employment tribunals mean that it’s harder for women who have been discriminated against to seek access to justice. The devastating impact which these cuts have had have been shown in a recent study from the TUC has highlighted that more young women are now trapped in low skilled work than were twenty years ago.

The current situation highlights that equality is not something which can be achieved simply by observing the passing of time. Instead progress must be won by challenging the inequality and fighting which remains. In 2013 we should be striving for a society in which women are entitled to the same opportunities as men and paid the same rate for the work which they do. Until that time the fight fought by the Bow Match Women, the suffragettes and the Dagenham machinists and many more continues.

Spice It Up, Mr Findlay!

By Vince Mills

Neil Findlay, list MSP for Lothians began his address to the Campaign for Socialism conference on Saturday 25th October with a story that got a tense gathering, laughing. The meeting, as reported in the Morning Star, was standing room only and with the announcement the day before of Johann Lamont’s decision to resign, there was an atmosphere of hostility to the Westminster careerists who had manoeuvred against and expectation that the Left might just manage to field a candidate in the Labour Leadership contest that would now follow.

Talking about the attitudes he had encountered during referendum campaign Neil recounted how, while on holiday recently, post referendum, a disappointed ‘Yes’ voting Scots couple ( let’s call them Alick and Nicki) surveyed the breakfast menu in a Turkish sea side bar. “ See” said Alick.” This is always happening to us”. He pointed angrily at two options available. One was a full English which was a full 2 lira cheaper than the full Scottish (perhaps because of the inclusion of square sliced sausage). Attempts at assuaging the raging Scot by the owner were counter-productive.

It is not an exaggeration to say that in the use of that anecdote Neil showed why he will win the contest for the Leadership of the Scottish Labour Party. He understands the psyche of working class Scots. Everybody laughed at his story – ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ voters alike.

Of course that is not enough. What Neil also shows is a grasp of the seriousness of the situation facing Labour and the Left in Scotland. He is a member of the Campaign for Socialism (which was formed exactly 20 years ago) because he understands  that the unstated ambition of the Balirites was to transform the Labour party as a party of the working class and its institutions, into something much closer to the Democratic Party in the US – with no affiliated unions and no left wing worth talking about and completely committed to capitalism as an ideology.

20 years ago the CfS warned that if Labour pursued this route and abandoned the working class then ultimately the working class would abandon them. And thatis what Scottish Labour experienced in the referendum campaign.

The loss of traditional Labour areas to populist nationalism – Lanarkshire, Glasgow, West Dunbartonshire and Dundee – is the latest in a long line of cries of anguish from Scotland working class that austerity is biting and that if Labour will not defend them they are open to look elsewhere, even if the promises of the Yes campaign and in particular its dominant element, the SNP, are empty because they do not challenge the roots of the problem, This is because, and here is the big opportunity for the Scottish Labour Left, so far, no-one has articulated a credible alternative.

Just such an alternative is what Neil offered in his article in the Morning Stara few weeks ago showing an acute awareness that if ever we needed transformational politics, it is now. And yet, as he is wont to point out, transformational politics are common sense for working people: we need full employment; we need a living wage;we need more housing; we need a good health service; we need equality embedded in every facet of our lives; we needquality care services and all of these are dependent on healthy and safe working environments underpinned by trade union rights.

This is Neil’s offering to Scotland’s working class. Compare it to his main rival, Uber Blairite Jim Murphy. Jim, in case you need reminding,espoused the very neo-liberalism that created the material conditions for the rise of populist nationalism in Scotland in the first place. Neo-liberal ideology encouraged deregulation that led to the banking crisis; it built a debt fuelled economy instead of ensuring decent wages through effective trade unions bargaining,while supporting  forms of workfare; it supervisedthe continued collapse of our manufacturing sector. And while Britain poured millions of pounds into foreign wars, which he, Jim Murphy wholeheartedly supported, millions of pounds of tax payers money lined the coffers of the privateers through privatisation and PFI/PPP.

While Blair was arguing that in Westminster, his ‘mini mes’ in the early noughties in the Scottish Labour Party mimicked his cries.  While Sarah Boyack MSP(Minister for the Environment, Planning and Transportfrom 1999-2000 and Minister for Transport 2000-2001) Neil Findlay’s other rival for the leadership was promoting PFI/PPP for all she was worth, Wendy Alexander (Minister for Enterpriseand Lifelong Learning 1999-2002) was telling us that the state had no role in tackling unemployment otherthan providing a ‘trampoline’, yes a ‘trampoline’ where the unfortunate victims global capitalism could be encouraged to ‘bounce’ back into work.

If the Scottish Labour Party is to be relevant to working people, it has to start speaking in the language of the working class again – jobs, houses, health, equality and social justice and a good joke. And that reminds me of the hapless bar owner in Neil’s story. He suggested that the Alickperhaps add some sauce to his over-priced full Scottish breakfast to spice it up  and presented him with a bottle of HP. “Right” said Alick,  “ and you can shove your Westminster parliament sauce right up your….”  I will leave the conclusion of this exhortation and that of the future of the Scottish Labour Party with a socialist leader, to your imagination.

Scottish Labour Party Conference 2014

By Stephen Low

All politics in Scotland at the moment is viewed through the prism of the referendum on independence. So despite the only formal session on the constitutional question being a short debate on Saturday morning, September the 18th hung over every session , every debate and most of the contributions.

Finally, after squandering much political capital and credibility by immersion in a joint campaign, labelled “Better Together” with the Tories and Lib Dems, Scottish Labour is raising its own flag in the independence debate.  Better Together has focussed on being a patriotic campaign, and because unsurprisingly, there is no agreement on what a future Scotland can look like, can offer only knocking copy about Independence not a vision of the future.

This has changed with Labour bringing forward it’s own proposals for further devolution. Entitled “Powers for a purpose” the report of the Devolution Commission established by Scottish Conference last year was welcomed by conference this year.  This envisages, amongst other things, further tax raising powers for Holyrood and proposals for devolving power down from the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh to local Government and communities.

More significantly the attacks on the SNP and nationalism were  based far morein concepts of class and solidarity than in a British patriotism. The SNP track record and proposals were subjected to scrutiny – both as failings in the present and disturbing portents of the future under independence. The ( self described) left of centre SNP- have welcomed all of George Osborne’s Corporation Tax Cuts and in “Scotland’s future”  the Scottish Government’s‘White Paper on Independence” describes further corporation tax cuts as “a priority” four times. It also mentions post independence, scots will still be able to watch Eastenders three times. Tackling child poverty in contrast is mentioned twice.

Recent events in the Scottish Parliament aided matters considerably. During the passage of a bill on public procurement the SNP have voted down Labour amendments; to make the living wage part of every public contract, and ban companies who engage in blacklisting or aggressive tax avoidance from receiving public money.  

The illusory nature of the Independence offered by the SNP was the main theme of Ed Miliband’s speech to conference, as well as highlighting Labour plans to increase tax on the richest and freeze power bills (both opposed by the SNP ) he pointed to the irony of a seeking to set up a separate state on the basis that you were going to set yur tax rates on the basis of what the country you are leaving does. There are several ways to describe this. Independence isn’t one of them.

Whilst the SNP more and more resemble new labour in a kilt – the Scottish Labour Party is now opposing them not assome sort of ‘Voice of North Britain’ but as the representative of communities and trade unions, pitting arguments based on class against the friends of big business and their definition of the ‘national interest’. Whether this is sufficient we’ll know on Sept 19th. 

Miliband's Hollow 'Victory'

By Martyn Cook

“This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper”

There’s a reason that the closing lines of T.S. Elliot’s The Hollow Men are so widely quoted.  It captures that disappointingly common experience of something profound or important being lost - not in blaze of glory, but in pathetic acquiescence.

There was a notable lack of protest in the vote at Special Conference over the Collins Review changes, with 86.29% voting in favour and only 13.71% opposing the reforms.  So, for socialists within the Labour party, what does this mean?  Is this the way the Labour-trade union link is broken?  Is this the way our world has been brought to an end? 

Thankfully, the fundamental link between the affiliated trade unions and the Labour Party remains intact.  The unions have retained their 50% vote at Conference, and 12 NEC seats.  This means there is still a route for the organised trade unions movement to raise its voice and shape policy within the party.  We are all aware of the limitations that are present - the leadership can simply ignore motions from Conference, for instance – but on this front, while there was no advance, there has at least not been step backwards. For the time being, at least. 

Many of actual changes seem little more than fairly calculated tinkering. 

Firstly, there was a shift in the leadership selection process from a three-way electoral college (which previously consisted of the PLP of MPs, the trade unions, and CLPs) to One Member One Vote.  This shift may actually be a victory of sorts, as the PLP's disproportionate influence has been reduced.  However, as the percentage required for a candidate to be nominated has increased - from 12.5% to 15% - it certainly won’t make it any easier for left-wingers to get on the ballot.

Secondly, there is a new category of member, the Registered Supporter, who will receive limited voting rights for a reduced rate of membership fee.  This is being floated as a way of getting wavering or hesitant potential members in to the party.  While any attempt to increase numbers should be welcomed, the fact that we’ve already tried a half-way house recruitment category in the form of Affiliated Supporter (which failed spectacularly to increase numbers) seems not to have been noted.  Supporters will need to be given a genuine reason to sign up - they won't appear for no reason.

Thirdly, there is the introduction of primaries in to the London mayoral elections.  Clearly, this opens up the potential for outside influence and money to become involved in Labour party elections – something to be wholly opposed.  Mercifully, it has been limited to this one election for the time being.  Like all the changes, this test primary was passed through the vote as part of the Collins “package” rather than individual amendments, and as the party at large seems ambivalent - at best - about the idea of this being rolled out to CLP level, there are some grounds for hoping that this will go no further. 

Perhaps the biggest, and I believe most risky change, comes in the move towards opting-in.  This involves trade union members now having to actively indicate their support on various forms which states that that they are happy for part of their subscription money to be paid to the Labour Party.  This apparently is more democratic and will encourage more active participation within the party. 

Of course, this ignores the fact that trade unionist had already opted-in by joining an affiliated union.  There are enough non-affiliated unions who, unfortunately, will take nothing to do with the Labour Party, which provide non-Labour party alternatives to join instead.  It also ignores the fact that the affiliated unions have to hold rigorous periodic ballots regarding the use of their political funds – which routinely return high support for their current political strategies.  Or that the formal links with the Labour party have been democratically agreed and endorsed at numerous conferences over the decades.

Never mind that all that though, because over the next five years there will now be a transition towards opting-in for all members.  Since then we’ve seen Unite half their funding, following on from the GMB, who reduced their funding by 90% before the Conference had even taken place. 

If he who pays the piper calls the tune, then apparently One Nation Labour is less likely to take requests from millions of ordinary working people speaking with a collective voice, and instead is more open to suggestions from individuals such as Tony Blair and Lord Owen, who have pledged large donations to plug to gaps in the run up to the general election.

But it’s not just a crude point about funding.  The logical conclusion in this process is towards the links that the trade unions have retained (the 50% Conference vote and 12 NEC seats) being further eroded.  It will be much harder to justify, or so the argument will inevitably go, that the trade unions should keep this level of influence when they are contributing less supporters and money to the party than before.  This will only increase the pressure on the link to be broken by those on the right of the party (and the Tory party and anti-Labour press outside it) who want to see it gone. 

However, it doesn’t necessarily need to go this way. In any socialist organisation collective funding given in good faith should be the preference, but it’s clear that if one side is taking advantage of the situation, then things do need to change.  The affiliated unions have been ignored for too long.  The current changes would allow the trade unions to be more selective in which Labour MPs and candidates they provide funding to, rather than it being at the discretion of the Party.  Of course, there are the likes of Lord Sainsbury and the Progress faction who would seek to fund and promote their own candidates, but as they are doing this already, and the unions have already been treated abysmally since the Falkirk debacle, there is very little left to lose.

Similarly, there is also scope for CLPs to shift to the left.  The Collins review openly admitted the need for increasing numbers as there has been a rapid decline since the New Labour project was started.  While numbers have dropped and local CLPs have often been hollowed out, this paradoxically presents an opportunity for a renewed left.  The reality of the situation is that where half a dozen trade unionists or left wing activists join a CLP they would likely have a substantial impact on the local party’s perspective and policy.

It is only through this grassroots level of organising that we will see a Labour party that reflects the needs of society – one which provides socialist alternatives to the current crisis of capital.  The Collins review was a mess, generated from a fabricated scandal designed to marginalise the influence of trade unionists, and the changes it has finally ushered in pleases no one.  The review process in to its changes will continue on, and it is still not clear which direction the party will take over the next 5 years.  But if we wish to prevent the end of our party as we know it – a century’s worth of working class and trade union organisation -  and instead re-build a fighting movement that refuses to submit with a mere whimper, then now more than ever we need to make as much noise as possible.

Events at Grangemouth

Recent events at the Grangemouth petro chemical refinery have been refracted through a prism every bit as fragmented as the Scottish left. Of the multiple versions now available to hindsight, few allow for a sober consideration of the symbolism offered up by this particular instance of industrial thuggery. Instead we are presented with familiar, if creaking narratives of betrayal by the Unite bureaucracy, squandered opportunities for national secondary actions, or, freshly seasoning (deep frying?) the rhetoric of much Scottish left opinion, wistful revisitings of the same scenario, this time within an independent Scotland. It is this latter, speculative version which for Scottish Labour CFS/Red Paper Collective has emerged as the most problematic of readings; that were Scotland to make the constitutional break from the rest of the UK, ‘the social democratic impulse’ more ‘easily expressed in Scotland’ as imagined by Gregor Gall (LLB, Nov.2013) may it is implied have coalesced a qualitatively different balance of class forces and led to a settlement far less favourable to the captains of industrial capital.

By legitimising the complaints levelled against members of Falkirk CLP, Ed Milliband’s office offered INEOS the perfect cover for provoking a dispute whose first target was Labour and Unite activist Stevie Deans, followed by the terms and conditions of the workforce as a whole. The pretext conferred on INEOS was gratefully received. In many ways Deans is cast as the tragic figure in this sorry tale, ultimately constituting the only Grangemouth employee to have lost their job as a result at the close of these events, depriving workers in addition of an experienced shop steward.  (Joyce, now an Independent MP, can now be found dutifully hamming up his useful idiot in residence role on behalf of Prospect/right wing press attempts to demonise Unite’s role in the debacle). As voices within Falkirk CLP call for the publication of the internal Party investigation (and some also echo calls for a further enquiry into events around the selection contest), Deans is to resign his position as Chair of the Constituency.

The quite proper ambitions of Unite in Falkirk, to assert working class agency within the rules of a selection contest, were met with a confected moral outrage of the sort customised for those moments when ordinary people resist the feral welfare cheats/redoubts of traditional ‘Britishness’ caricatures otherwise foisted on them. In fact Unite’s attempts to inject fresh union life into Falkirk CLP infers a broader, more long term perspective on reclaiming our movement, an ambition more daring in scope than anything the ‘strategic nationalists’ of the Scottish left can claim.

Straining these events through the filter of independence does a disservice to Grangemouth workers and the wider UK movement. A retreat into comfort zones serve only to distort the lessons which Grangemouth demands we recognise. As Convenor Mark Lyons has written, the judgement of workers - not national officials - on the ground was that ‘they (INEOS) were prepared to close the site down…our members preferred to keep their jobs and take a hit on their terms....’ Nor did the SNP, in appealing to the ‘national interest,’ appear anxious to distinguish between the competing interests of antagonistic class interests.

As a global elite manoeuvre to implement the Transatlantic Trades and Investment Partnership under the radar of democratic oversight, the bargaining power of governments never mind labour will be further eroded, as ‘all that is solid’ (including borders denoting state sovereignty) ‘melts into air.’ The Red Paper Collective have posited further devolved powers designed with the specific intent of facilitating collectivist solutions to social inequalities. However the belated enthusiasm for the merits of independence amongst some constituencies of the Scottish left is for us indicative of a crisis of confidence and vision amongst our number. What we ought to be prioritising is a more imaginative, transgressive body of thought within our movement, for instance one that seeks out hegemonic alliances with civil society organisations to campaign in ways as yet unimagined in detail.

Nationalism, ‘strategic’ or otherwise, serves only to relegate issues to a binary relationship with the referendum. To conflate the (hardly unique) desire of the Scottish people to be ‘better off’ with a more advanced level of class consciousness is to indulge in the kind of idealising of national character which is the left equivalence of New Labour’s identification of the ‘white working class’ as a specific sociological demographic, deserving in this case of condescension or insult in equal measure. By fetishizing our varied identities – all of which (from race to nationhood) are legitimate and keenly experienced but not at root forms of consciousness proportionate to the challenges of capitalist society – we turn our priorities on their head.While sympathising with those Comrades who honestly seek the revival of socialist ideas on more favourable terrain, their assumptions that a static Scottish character untroubled by history or an EU-bound, Monarchist and SNP-led Scotland which would result from a Yes vote would transform industrial investment and labour power with the flourish of a constitutionalist’s pen do not stand up to scrutiny. We invite all parties, post referendum, to enter into a dialogue which places centre stage the perennial concerns of social inequalities and their solutions, and to consider them on a local, national and international scale that reflect the realities of globalised capital.