I have to say that I don’t share the effusive claims for the Labour Party’s 2017 GE Manifesto. Perhaps, as a result of a considerable number of years witnessing Labour’s disappointments and betrayals I have developed a jaundiced view of Labour’s ability to act in any meaningful way on behalf of working people. Having said that however I recognise that some progressive noises of intent have encouraged support for a change of political direction at this time. I don’t regard the Labour Manifesto as being a great radical prospectus as has been proclaimed by some. I suppose that considering where we have been with Labour over the years it will be seen in that overblown context. A further concern I have is the seriously flawed strain of what is described as “Corbynism”. Corbyn appears to be sincere and I welcome the fact that he has prevailed against the “right” in the Party albeit without seeing them off completely; but surely we have learnt the futility of personality politics. So he may be sincere but he can also be sincerely wrong. I give as an example his attitude towards Scotland and the right of self-determination. The Labour Party is opposed to Independence for Scotland (Labour’s GE Manifesto) but not only are they opposed to Independence they are also opposed to the Scots having a referendum on the issue. They have acted in concert with the Unionist Tories and Lib-Dems in attempting to deny Scots the opportunity of another referendum. Whenever I hear Corbyn speak on the matter it is the same language as the reactionary Better Together allies (Tories, Lib-Dems and Labour). I would have thought that there is a basic democratic principle at stake, no good saying – they had a vote, it’s over – as Corbyn has been saying recently. I wonder what he has to say about developments in Catalonia where the Spanish Government is using repressive force to deny Catalans a democratic vote on the same issue as Scotland.
I am writing this as the Labour Party Conference begins, realising that experience tells me that moments of positivity can quickly dissipate after it is over. At the same time there is a Labour Leadership contest in Scotland that in itself says a lot more about the Labour Party. One of the candidates (there are two) is a millionaire whose children are privately educated, he is a shareholder in his family business that does not pay the Living Wage to its employees and does not have Trade Union recognition. He stated in a radio interview that he did not receive any remuneration from the company including dividends. It transpires that he had been receiving 20,000 pounds pa in dividends. The reason I mention all of this is because this individual publicly states that he is a socialist. He also says that he is a Corbyn supporter when he was in fact a signatory to a letter in opposition to Corbyn’s leadership. He has secured a number of Labour MSPs as supporters. He was favourite to win but since the revelations his opponent is now regarded as favourite.
I note that in a desperate act he has stated that he is to relinquish his shareholding and put it in trust for his children !! That’s another endearing quality he has – arrogance. His opponent is a former GMB Political Officer and current MSP and while he claims an agenda synonymous with that of Corbyn he is fiercely anti Scottish Independence and a Referendum and firmly opposed to any progressive alliance against the Tories if it includes the SNP – how is that working in the interests of working people?
I find his message less than inspiring. Labour are currently the third party in Scotland, is it their intention to pledge continued resistance to a democratic ballot on Scotland’s future?
The reason I mention all of this is because there needs to be some serious changes. Hercules and the Augean Stables crossed my mind as I write this.
You describe support for Labour’s Manifesto as being a “great breakthrough”, you contend that Britain’s traditional political caste has never been weaker and pointing to different groups and elements in the class struggle you argue that if all this coalesces around the Labour Manifesto (that will itself need revision as the movement and its debates move on) you conclude that in due course “it will need to help create the first British Constitution.”
There are a number of improbables there that would need further examination but let me try to explain why I am not a supporter not just of Unionist Labour but am opposed to a British Constitution which for me is not a solution. I contend that our problem is the Westminster System of Government, it has failed all of us in creating a more fair and equitable society, the evidence is all around us.
From Britain’s imperialist past to the present it is designed to and has acted to prop up a system of power and privilege that is resistant to change. You yourself argue that “state-wide political institutions have to be reformed, rebuilt or built anew” and I accept that there has to be a renewal. I believe that can only come about with radical change; that change for me is Independence for the Nations of what is risibly called the United Kingdom. I support the case for Scottish Independence because when it happens it will not only liberate us from the pretence that we are a Union of Equals, it will cause the network and institutions of power and privilege to fall and by so doing provide an opportunity for all working people in these isles (in the nations of England, Ireland, Wales and Scotland) to be, as you say, “enabled, through the political institutions that they support, build and have confidence in, to lead the whole of society in the direction that has been chosen.”
The Labour Party wedded to the Westminster system is on the wrong side of history ( in fact it seems to forget its own history and raison d’etre) and as such will therefore be unable to effect the changes needed.
John Milligan
“Instead of seeking to reform the individual the wisdom of a Nation should apply itself to reform the system”
Thomas Paine - The Rights of Man
My point about the manifesto is not at all to define it as in any way enough to seriously change society and overthrow its rulers. But two significant points still apply. First it has become a benchmark for hundreds of thousands of young voters and (now) Labour members. Second, despite its abundant weaknesses it would still be fought tooth and nail by capitalism if there was any serious attempt to implement it.
ReplyDeleteI do not retreat one inch from my arguments in previous blogs that the Labour Party is already fatally wounded among other disasters by its defeat in Scotland. The political crisis in Britain as a whole will cut through the LP and not go around it. Here is the opportunity for the radical left. If pressure mounts both inside and outside the LP against austerity - and the demand to implement the Manifesto gathers momentum, it will accelerate Labour's contradictions to breaking point, provoke a new discussion about what sort of society should we have and begin to create a radical mainstream political current that will be willing to have the fight.
Such a movement becomes a different context for the debate over the national question in both Scotland and Northern Ireland. Again I agree with you that the right to Scottish independence is a critical engine of the class struggle in Scotland (as is shown by the very limited support for Corbyn in Scotland - despite his radical background). His sectarianism ON THAT POINT has kept Scottish Labour in the margins. Ultimately, I agree with you that the break up of the current reactionary version of Britain is part of the re-founding of new politics and economics. That project should not and indeed cannot, be dropped in favour of Labour left sectarianism in either Scotland or NI.
However in England and currently in Wales, insisting on the fight to the finish to break the Tories and then insisting on implementing the Manifesto, including, whenever possible, the right of the Scots and NI to have national referendums, (which Corbin himself withers on) is the opening we actually have. As the battle starts and widens, everything will be re-examined by both main classes, through the optics of their own experiences. The British Labour Party and the British Parliament most of all.
All the best