By John Pickard
We reported yesterday on the growing split between the CLP and the trade union delegations and the fact that the day ended somewhat chaotically because of the arcane system of voting on references back. The National Policy Forum presents policy in a huge document and CLPs and affiliated organisations can move ‘reference back’ on sections they feel are inadequate in some way.
Because the chair couldn’t (or wouldn’t) make a ruling on a show of hands, the day ended with twenty or so card votes when the CLPs and affiliates (chiefly the trade union) each have a weighting of 50%. An examination of the detailed results of those card votes shows the divide in the conference hall. Leaving aside votes on resolutions that were popular across all delegations, nearly all references back were defeated.
Only one reference back was carried and that by only 51.8% to 48.2% in the section on Education and the abolition of the 11-plus. More significant was the split right across the board on all of the other references back. The trade union vote against reference back never fell below 91%. On the other hand, the CLP vote in favour of those failed references back never fell below 87%. The net result was that most references back fell by the narrow margin of two or three per cent. Nothing shows the divisions in the conference more than these few figures.
The big four trade union supported the NEC in every case
While the CLP delegations reflect the growing crisis in capitalist society, a radicalised mass party membership and the urgent need for radical policies, the same process has not (yet) had the same effect on the trade union delegations, which are still heavily dominated by full-time national officials. Some of the smaller unions like CWU and FBU have been voting consistently on the left, but the larger unions have supported the NEC throughout. That has not prevented some arguments and dissent within a number of these larger union delegations, especially the ‘big four’, Unison, Unite, GMB and USDAW as lay members have voiced their disquiet about their block vote being dictated to them from ‘above’. It means that in the longer run, Marxists will need to build support for socialist ideas in the trades unions, democratise them and make delegations and affiliated political bodies represent members.
Coming to the Monday session, the first ‘celebrity’ speaker on the platform was Richard Leonard, leader of the Labour Party in Scotland. “We need to support the public ownership of public services,” he said, “Profit and the private sector should have no place in our health service, our local government services, the postal service or the railways.” He announced to cheers that Labour Scotland would advocate the ending of the Scottish Rail franchise of Abellio. To cheers, Leonard also spoke about the abolition of the House of Lords, although delegates were somewhat non-plussed when he proposed some sort of federally-elected body to replace it. He finished, with “A socialist Britain will do more for the life of working people than a separate Scotland ever could.”
More references back of NPF policy report
The shadow of yesterday’s chaotic voting still hung over the conference and when the chair referred to references back and the fact that one CLP had tabled six of them, there were audible groans from the body of the hall. As it was for yesterday, these are attempts to refer back or amend parts of the National Policy Forum report on the particular area of policy – in this case on Work, Pensions and Equality. Sometimes the points made are perfectly valid and the NPF report is inadequate is many respects and good points were made in a very brief time by the delegates moving reference back. It was surprising, as one delegate pointed out, despite numerous conference resolutions, that there is no commitment in NPF reports to repeal Tory anti-trade union legislation. Nevertheless, the development of policy in this way is unnecessarily convoluted and complex. Perhaps chastened by the long grind of the card votes the previous day, this time almost every reference back today was agreed by a show of hands, and no doubt a few shrugs of the shoulder.
The real strength of the conference is the fact that ordinary working class delegates, often first-time speakers, can bring to the podium their experiences of the crises of everyday life in austerity Britain. In that sense, this is the best representation there is (apart from some trade union conferences) to listen to the authentic voice of the working class.
End the system of having to choose between eating and heating
In this session a number of delegates brought up their own experiences on the iniquities of the Universal Credit system and the cuts in welfare benefits brought in by the Tories. “We need to end the system,” one delegate said, “where people have to choose between eating and heating.” Other delegates talked about food banks, cuts in disability welfare and the desperate poverty and insecurity faced by so many. “This government has blood on its hands”, one delegate said. Almost every single delegate, to applause, made exactly the same point, that “we need a Labour government” to deal with these issues.
Len McCluskey, Unite general secretary, got a cheers around the hall for boasting about the fact that his union has backed Jeremy Corbyn from the very beginning. Moving a composite motion on Industrial policy, he pointed out that in supporting Corbyn he was against the many opponents outside and “some inside” the party. Len got the biggest cheers for a trade union leader from the rostrum since Mark Serwotka yesterday. On Brexit, Len said, “Jeremy Corbyn is a thousand times right to try to speak to the whole country”.
“Whether you are for or against Brexit”, he said, “matters less than your class. What defines us is that we are socialists.” His was a very radical and rousing speech and it was given a standing ovation, the first of the day, with a smattering of “Oh Jeremy Corbyn!” sung around the hall. Len McCluskey’s contribution was followed by Mick Whelan of ASLEF who spoke in a very similar vein and was also well-received but without the cheering and adulation Len got.
Moving a resolution on behalf of her union, a lay member of Unison moved a resolution on the way that privatisation and out-sourcing had lowered wages and conditions of workers, while the services they were supposed to provide deteriorate or fail altogether. Every single one of the public services, she said, “needs to be taken back into public ownership…it needs to be a Day One commitment…We need better public services, not services done for private gain.”
The problem is capitalism and the race to the bottom
“The problem is capitalism and the race to the bottom”, Tony Kearns, chair of CWU said, moving a resolution on working hours. “It’s about Labour taking on a radical agenda that includes provision for workers’ rights.” The biggest cheer Tony got was in advocating a maximum wage differential of 20 to 1. “We don’t mind if you get a million quid a year, but pay your workers 40 grand a year”, he said.
Other resolutions in this session were moved on workers’ rights and on the renationalisation of Royal Mail, almost every mover and seconder well-supported by the conference. There was a recognition, for example, that the trade union movement needed to catch up to the challenges of the ‘gig’ economy with the insecurities and poor conditions associated with it, and the fact that so many of these workers, often younger workers, are not in trade unions. It is time the unions fought back, delegates said. Tim Roach, GMB general secretary, demand from Labour a “race to the top instead of a race to the bottom”, when Jeremy Corbyn gets to Number Ten.
Dave Ward, general secretary of the CWU, another popular left trade union leader, moved a resolution urging the renationalisation of Royal Mail. He also mentioned that his union, the CWU would be going on strike in the coming weeks to oppose the direction being taken by the Royal Mail management, bent on asset-stripping. The CEO even runs the RM from abroad and is bent on reducing working conditions, hiving off the more profitable sectors of Royal Mail and leaving the less profitable sections to wither on the vine.
Dave Ward pointed out that his members were actually watching the conference on live stream and would want to know where the party stands. Asked if the Labour Party is behind postal workers in their coming dispute, the answer was given as the conference rose to its feet and cheered.
The morning ended with John McDonnell’s speech and he was cheered even before he began. John was frequently interrupted by ovation, often standing ovation as he lambasted the Tories’ record on in-work poverty, low pay and many other things. It is probably simpler to list the commitments he gave for a future Labour government, including the following (each one accompanied by applause, cheers, standing ovations or all three):
The abolition of zero-hours contracts
A £10 an hour minimum wage
Labour to build a million affordable homes in its first term of office
Workers in the private sector to have one tenth of share ownership
An end to in-work poverty
Reduction of the average working week to 32 hours without loss of pay
Personal care will be provided for the elderly, free at the point of use
These and many more issues were raised by John. The fact that he has made these commitments is a measure of the depth of the radical wave sweeping the Labour Party. Every one of the steps he advocates is a response to a desperate need identified by Labour members and supporters in the workplaces and communities. It is the huge scope and breadth of these aspirations, reflected through the Labour Party that is giving nightmares to the British capitalist establishment, because if Labour were allowed to carry through these policies it would strike a decisive blow against the privilege, wealth and income of the capitalist class.
For a Labour “ethical” foreign policy
In the afternoon, the main emphasis of the sessions was foreign policy and proceedings began with a speech by Shadow Foreign Secretary, Emily Thornberry. Almost at the outset, she effectively undermined Corbyn’s position (see below) as she declared herself as a Remainer and someone who would campaign to remain in the EU in a second referendum, even if a Labour government negotiated a new deal.
This is not a verbatim account of the conference and is only the personal impression of one attendee, but it has to be said that although Emily Thornberry made a lot of radical-sounding comments about oppressive situations throughout the world – in Yemen, Gaza, and elsewhere – she rather spoils the effect by the annoying habit she has of grinning in between sentences and looking around for applause.
For this observer, she brings to mind what was said about Hillary Clinton during the last US presidential election. As one commentator said of Clinton, “she sounds like she’s telling lies, even when she’s telling the truth.”
Brexit debate in the afternoon
That aside, the most important debate of the conference so far is the debate on Brexit. The session was started by Keir Starmer who, like Emily Thornberry, came out personally in favour of remain, again effectively siding with Watson and the right-wing against Corbyn. “If you want to stop a Tory deal,” he said, looking ahead to a general election, “then vote Labour.”
“If you want to stop a no-deal, then vote Labour…If you want to stay in the EU, then vote Labour.” I was expecting, like many delegates, that he would add a fourth…”If you want to leave the EU under much better conditions, then vote Labour”, but this last one didn’t happen. Starmer, like Thornberry, is out of kilter with the leader’s and the NEC position and when the time comes will lead the charge to stay in the EU, even if a Labour government negotiates a deal with Brussels.
When the debate started, it focused around two composites, 13, which wanted to commit the party to being a party of Remain, and composite 14 which wanted conference to back the Labour leadership in winning an election and re-negotiating a Labour deal to put to a second referendum.
Composite 13 covered itself with radical-sounding phrases, but the essential paragraph reads: “Labour must reflect the overwhelming view of its members and voters, who want to stay in the EU. Labour will therefore campaign energetically for a public vote and to stay in the EU in that referendum…” Speakers in favour of this composite even suggest that Labour should campaign to remain, even after a Labour government had negotiated a different deal.
Two key composites
Composite 14, on the other hand, supported the leadership’s position of fighting against a Tory deal, opposing a no-deal Brexit, “for a Customs Union; for alignment with the Single Market, and for a public vote…with the final say between a credible leave option and remain.” As well as a second referendum within six months of taking office, the leadership gave the commitment of organising a special one-day party conference to determine its position in regard to the referendum. There was also an NEC statement in line with composite 14.
I won’t report on the comments of delegates, because the discussion has been rehearsed over and over again in Labour Party meetings and in other conferences. It was notable that of the big trades union, Unison was the only one to break ranks and support composite 13, otherwise most unions supported 14. Suffice to say that the debate was lively and heated at times, although not as heated as it because when the vote was taken. The NEC statement was passed by a show of hands.
When the vote was put for composite 13 it was clearly lost from a show of hands (my view was from the balcony above) but the remainers, waving little placards were determined to have a card vote. It all got a bit heated when the chair refused, on the grounds that the composite was clearly lost. Eventually, there was a show of hands on composite 14 and by the same margin it was clearly carried.
As much as anything, the defeat of one and the success of the other composite was an expression by the conference of massive support and solidarity with the leadership. There was polite applause for Emily Thornberry and Keir Starmer, but there is adulation for Jeremy Corbyn and to a degree to John McDonnell as well. These relatively subtle divisions on the issue of Brexit mask a more deep-lying division in the party between those who will vigorously pursue a radical domestic agenda and those who, when the time comes, probably will not.
September 23, 2019
