In the Labour left, there has been a stir over the resignation of Guardian columnist and writer, Owen Jones, from the Party. He has considerable influence on the left and he has resigned principally over Labour’s disgraceful approach to the Gaza war, although he references many retreats by Labour’s right wing. Then yesterday, the Morning Star carried an article under the title “Labour members flee party over Gaza”. Once again, therefore, we are obliged to restate our view on the future of the Labour Party.
As well as his regular column in the Guardian, Owen Jones has over a million followers on ‘X’, more than a quarter of a million on Instagram and nearly half a million subscribers on YouTube. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that in walking away from his roots, he has made some waves.
His resignation statements, both on YouTube (picture above) and in the Guardian are highly personalised, emphasising his family background in the labour movement. “The Labour Party,” he writes, “is in my blood.” In fact, both of Owen’s parents were respected and long-time supporters of the Marxist newspaper Militant, and his father, Rob, worked for that newspaper for a number of years. What the Militant hammered into all its readers and supporters, is that we always need to have a sense of perspective.
In his book, The Story of the Human Body, the Harvard evolutionary scientist, Daniel Lieberman, made the comment that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”. With that as our metaphor, we can also say that nothing in politics makes any sense, except in the light of change.
In other words, we cannot base a long-term strategy for building a movement of genuine socialism only on what we see around us today, because what we see today will inevitably change. Above all, that applies to the Labour Party.
David Lammy’s office got £70,000 – from a pro-Israel lobbyist
Keir Starmer and the Labour leadership have sat on their hands throughout most of the Israeli onslaught on Gaza – to the extent that one would think that Labour policy is determined either in Jerusalem or in the Oval Office, or both. Indeed, as can be seen on the list of MPs’ interests, Shadow Foreign Secretary, David Lammy, received £70,000 for his private parliamentary office from a well-know pro-Israel lobbyist in November, eight days before he abstained on the SNP motion calling for a ceasefire in Gaza. It is no wonder that Labour members are disgusted with the leadership.
While Labour policy has been a disgrace, Owen Jones has posted regular short videos, exposing the lies of the Israeli government and its genocidal policy towards the Palestinians. Indeed, he has been a consistent and coherent voice on the left on this issue. All of that is to his credit.
But as regards the left in general, it is no longer clear what strategy Jones is putting forward. It is inconceivable that he will align himself with the sectarian groups on the ultra-left; those who have always avoided the swirling tides of opinion in the labour movement, just in case they get their principles wet. Owen even admits that “Those seeking transformative policies are now fragmented…” and he ended his resignation with a question to his readers: “what do you think will happen next?”
Election majority depends on how many votes Starmer can throw away
So what is the perspective for the Labour Party? It is almost a racing certainty that Labour will form the next government, despite and in no way because of Starmer. The size of its majority will only depend on how many votes Starmer can manage to throw away. It is clear from all of the abandoned commitments and the comments of Shadow ministers like Rachel Reeves that Labour policy, at best, will be ‘Tory Lite’.
But what then? The right wing trade union leaders may be ‘bought off’ for a time by what will be billed by Labour as ‘concessions’– particularly on workers’ rights, zero-hours contracts and a few other modest reforms. In return, the trade union leaders will be expected to hold in check the aspirations of their members for meaningful improvements in their lives.
They will be expected to stifle the left in the Labour Party, in conference and on the NEC, so there is no-one ‘rocking the boat’. Just as they have done for the last three years. But the question is, how far will the right succeed in stifling opposition to what will be, in effect, ‘Labour’ austerity?
It is the view of Left Horizons, that there are limits to how much the right can succeed in doing this. Although it sometimes seems that the right wing is all-powerful, controlling the parliamentary party and the Labour apparatus, it is not omnipotent. The plague of expulsions and suspensions from which we are all suffering is a sign of weakness not strength, a sign of fear (of the members), not confidence that they can win an argument on a level playing-field.
Set against the affiliated membership of the trade union movement – and we could add for good measure the still sizeable membership of the Labour party – the right-wing of the Party is relatively weak. Even its apparatus pales into insignificance alongside the much larger apparatus of each of the large trade unions.
We believe that it is inconceivable that a Labour austerity regime would not be opposed by the membership of the trade unions, at least within a measurable time-frame. Even today, long before he gets into Ten Downing Street, Keir Starmer and Labour’s right has managed to alienate themselves from many working class right-wingers, not least over the bureaucratic dictation of candidate selections by Labour regional offices.
The same article in the Morning Star that reports members “fleeing the party” noted a “setback” for the right wing on Labour’s NEC this week. “An attempt to bounce the executive into endorsing a new undemocratic structure for Labour BAME members failed…by 13 to 10…a rare rebuke for a leadership used to getting its own way.” This will be the music of the future.
There will be howls of outrage at ‘Labour’ austerity
In an atmosphere where Labour is in office, carrying out counter-reforms and cutting living standards, this “rare rebuke” will become the norm throughout the wider labour movement. There will be howls of outrage among trade union members – shouts that even the right-wing union leaders will not be able to ignore. In regional and national conferences, on regional boards and on the Labour NEC, it will be the trade unions – as they were in the 1970s – who will become the left opposition inside the Labour Party.
Leaving aside the personalities, which are always secondary, ‘Corbynism’ was a movement of hundreds of thousands which carried radical and socialist aspirations into the Labour Party. The idea that such a movement can never happen again is wrong in our opinion, even if it gathers around a different MPs, union leaders or other personalities.
Moreover, such a new left could not be held back by a handful of bureaucrats in regional or national LP offices, no matter how much they wield the constitution like a club. It is on that perspective that Left Horizons bases its orientation – still, today, despite Starmer – towards the Labour Party. It is from within the womb of the old party that a new, mass movement for socialism will develop and grow.
Another question posed by Owen Jones in his resignation was whether or not the left should support ‘independent’ candidates against Labour. Some, like Jamie Driscoll in the battle for North East mayor, will draw thousands of former Labour votes. There are a number of very sincere left candidates standing in key constituencies – like Wes Streeting’s and Starmer’s – who may have sizeable election machines. But the mistake that many on the left make – and in this instance we would include Owen Jones – is to see today’s ‘left’ as if that is all there is, or ever will be.
In all likelihood, most of the left ‘independents’ will be simply swept aside in a tsunami of anti-Tory feeling, a giant voting wave of support for the one party seen by millions of workers as the only viable alternative government – Labour. That may even be true of Jamie Driscoll, despite his widespread support among activists.
In the last analysis, it is not the size of the election ‘machine’ that is decisive. We already know the Labour Party will have fewer canvassers and leafletters than for any general election for a long time. But that is not the main issue. What will be decisive will be the general mood and the consciousness within the working class and the gut feelings of the man and woman in the street that something has to change.
Corbyn working on his political allotment
It is from these millions of newer, fresher Labour voters that we will get an infusion of new (and angrier) activists, firstly into the Labour-affiliated (and non-affiliated) trade unions, and then from there into the Labour Party itself.
Almost exactly a year ago to the day, Left Horizons published an open letter to Jeremy Corbyn, after the Labour NEC had voted to deny him the right to stand as a Labour candidate. The letter argued that Jeremy was uniquely placed, given his widespread support on the left, to spearhead a national, campaigning fightback against the right wing.
Jeremy had (and still has) nothing to lose. Through rallies, meetings and organisations up and down the country, he could single-handedly transform the landscape in the Labour Party. He could put those trade union leaders who have facilitated the march of the right wing – even against the interests of their own members – on the spot. Instead, he has spent much of his time on the Peace and Justice Project, looking for all the world like an old man on his political allotment.
Owen Jones may not have the same potential support as Jeremy Corbyn, but some of the same arguments still apply. None of us are in politics just to express our individuality. One MP, or for that matter one journalist, is not so important in the greater scheme of things. In the hurly-burly of debate, argument and struggle, principles will get bruised. But the fight for principled politics is always a bruising experience and we don’t shy away from it.
Owen Jones asked the question, “what do you think will happen?”. This is our answer. This is what we mean by having a perspective. He was wrong to walk away. We have to determine our strategy with our heads not our hearts. In 1964 the singer, Bob Dylan very poetically described a sense of perspective, with lyrics like these:
“For the loser now
Will be later to win; the line it is drawn
The curse it is cast
The slow one now
Will later be fast
As the present now
Will later be past
The order is rapidly fadin’
And the first one now
Will later be last
For the times they are a-changin’”
Anyone who imagines that what we have now is what we will have in, say, two or three years’ time, is making a serious error of judgement.
