How best to oppose the witch-hunt and reorient the forces of the left? James Harvey presents LPM’s reconsidered approach

With nominations now closed, the election for Labour’s national executive committee is set to be another test of strength of the left in the party. This follows, it ought to be frankly admitted, a disastrous general election defeat under a ‘dream leader’ with a ‘dream manifesto’, the subsequent failure of a hopelessly divided left in the last NEC by-election and, of course, the humiliation of Jeremy Corbyn’s ‘continuity candidate’ at the hands of Sir Keir Starmer in April. Not even Corbyn’s own constituency activists in Islington North believed that the hapless Rebecca Long-Bailey could deliver the left-reformist holy of holies: ‘the next Labour government’.

Given Starmer’s rapid move to the blue Labour right and his repeated promises to continue the ‘anti-Zionism equals anti-Semitism’ witch-hunt, this election will be a test for tried and repeatedly failed centre-left formulas and an opportunity to see if the left can be reorientated … to the left as a left. With that in mind, let us turn to what will be the most hard-fought contest – the election for the Constituency Labour Party representatives on the NEC.

Before looking at the politics, let us deal with the numbers. Altogether 42 individuals are standing for nine seats, but, with well over half of them connected to organised slates of candidates, the main interest is on how these groups will perform. There are two main blocs. From the hard right there is Labour to Win (made up of Progress, Labour First and an assorted mish-mash of old Labourites, former Eurocommunists and naked careerists). Then on the ‘left’ there is Grassroots Voice (GV – formerly the Centre-Left Grassroots Alliance). This is the ‘official left’, a left that looks to align itself with the ‘centre’: ie, the less openly pro-capitalist careerists who traditionally inhabit the trade union and labour bureaucracy. Predictably, GV is backed by Momentum, Red Labour, Campaign for Labour Party Democracy, Labour Representation Committee, Jewish Voice for Labour, FBU, the Bakers’ Union, Jeremy Corbyn and the Socialist Campaign Group of Labour MPs.

At this stage of the contest, the ‘official left’ – ie, the left-centre – seems to be in a strong position: its six candidates have 42% of the nominations, with its leading candidate, former MP Laura Pidcock, gaining the backing of 333 CLPs – the highest number of nominations. On the hard right, the six candidates of Labour to Win only secured 24% of nominations, whilst groups defining themselves as ‘soft left’ – ie, soft right – such as Open Labour’s two candidates, secured 11% of nominations and a group of three ex-MPs supported by the Tribune Group of MPs – again a version of soft right – gained 7%.

Labour Left Alliance has also endorsed six candidates, who together gained 5% of nominations. LLA is, of course, a loose federation of individual signatories, local groups and left organisations, including its Marxist fraction, Labour Party Marxists.

These figures are important because at the beginning of the contest the number of nominations is a rough guide to the relative strengths of the different currents … albeit under the freezing conditions of a vicious witch-hunt (hence there are good reasons to believe that the LLA – as the anti-witch hunt slate – could conceivably garner a significantly higher level of support when it comes to members voting in the relative safety of their own homes).

Nonetheless, nomination numbers count. The election is being held using the single transferable vote (STV) in place of the previous majoritarian ‘first-past-the-post’ (FPTP) system familiar in Westminster elections. The Starmer leadership opted for STV, but not because they were persuaded by democratic considerations. No, the intention, and undoubtedly the effect, will be to increase the right’s majority on the NEC. Whereas in ‘normal’ circumstances the ‘left’ would win all nine, now the right can expect to get at least three seats.

The STV innovation has led to all sorts of online speculation about how this new voting system will influence the outcome and heated argument about the dangers of a split vote on the left. Some of this has arisen from genuine confusion about how the system of preferences and transfers operates, but some of the claims that LLA is splitting the left vote and handing seats to the right are plainly, transparently, unambiguously wrong and need to be convincingly countered before voting begins on October 19.

On the ballot paper members will receive they will be asked to rank candidates in order of preference – rather than nine equally weighted votes, as would be the case under an FPTP system. This means that slates will win seats in proportion to the votes they gain. In this election for nine NEC places it has been calculated that it will require approximately 10% of the vote to elect one member. Understanding how this system of preferences and transfers – in particular the first-preference votes – actually works is essential if the left vote is to be used most effectively. Put simply, if a candidate exceeds the quota for election or has too few votes to remain in the contest, their votes are transferred to other candidates, meaning that those lower down the list can benefit from transfers. It means that persuading the leftwing rank and file to choose more than just six candidates is more than advisable in this election.

However, whilst these numbers are important, it is the politics that are crucial. During the nomination period entitled GV operatives claimed that putting forward candidates other than their slate of six would weaken what passes for the left. They are now continuing that argument, as we prepare to vote, by suggesting that voting for more than six candidates will lessen the left’s chances of gaining seats on the NEC. Some, if not all, comrades on the LLA list have been approached and asked to stand aside in favour of the GV slate. Thus, in the remaining week or so before the voting starts the situation could quite possibly change.

Clear tactics

Labour Party Marxists wholeheartedly support the LLA Six as the only candidates openly challenging the continuing witch-hunt and standing up for democracy and free speech in the party. At a time when individual leftwingers continue to be falsely accused of anti-Semitism and fast-tracked out of the party, voting for the LLA six gives rank-and-file members the chance to fight back collectively and show their defiance.

Put the LLA six at the top of your ballot paper. Vote for the LLA candidates 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. A good vote for these comrades is vital. Hence whatever the threats, whatever the inducements, whatever the ‘big name’ phone calls, they should not stand down. To do so would amount to treachery.

However, we urge the LLA to modify its current voting tactics – tactics which our LPM fraction supported at the LLA organising group (OG) meeting on September 26, but which, after lengthy, serious discussion, we now believe should be revised, not least given the final state of the nominations and changing circumstances since the OG met. To be clear, our argument is not about the arithmetic of STV, but focuses instead on the important political messages the LLA should be sending out to Labour’s mass membership and the organised soft left.

Firstly, we should continue to make the NEC elections a political campaign against the witch-hunt and for party democracy. That is why urging members to prioritise the LLA six above all other candidates is undoubtedly correct. But we believe it is advisable, in order to maximise the chances of getting at least one anti-witch-hunt comrade onto the NEC, that the LLA ranks its candidates in order of preference, perhaps putting those with the highest number of CLP nominations at the top, therefore starting with Roger Silverman. Remarkably, especially given the witch-hunt, he secured 65 CLP nominations. Well done, comrade – more than encouraging. A mass base to build upon.

Secondly, we should prioritise the GV slate of six over the various individual left candidates not associated with any particular left group, faction or bloc. The criticisms that the LLA has made against the way that the GV candidates were selected might well be justified – but we should not be against horse-trading, deals or compromises when it comes to selecting candidates. To object would be politically childish, naive, self-defeating. In contrast the LLA made great play of organising open hustings (to which all left candidates were invited), and an open vote amongst its supporters. In other words, a popularity contest that unhealthily smacked of referendums and US primaries.

We insist, on the contrary, on our candidates having a proven record on the left, pledging their commitment to a principled Marxist programme, being chosen by a trusted, democratically elected, politically intransigent leadership and agreeing to follow its lead, no matter what the personal costs or dangers that might involve.

The GV slate ‘emerged’ from behind closed doors, without any involvement of the rank and file, without hustings … and most importantly without an agreed political platform! The crassest of crass opportunism.

To its credit LLA made numerous approaches to meet with GV, only to be answered, however, with a flat wall of silence. During the nomination period LLA continued to call for discussions with GV on a common slate. Yet GV refused to engage, seemingly believing that it alone has an automatic monopoly over the votes of the Labour left – despite its foul centre-left politics and the criminal refusal to criticise, question or even mention the ‘Anti-Zionism equals anti-Semitism’ witch-hunt.

Despite these damning criticisms of its trajectory, lack of any socialist principles, silence on the witch-hunt and thoroughly dishonest claims, LPM recognises, as a simple fact, that GV is made up of the most important organisations that for the moment pass for the Labour left. We are convinced that the majority of the supporters of these groups, like us, want to fight back against the right, reject the lies about anti-Zionism equalling anti-Semitism and will, over time, be won to the politics of Marxism.

Prioritising the six candidates of the organised left above individual, unorganised left candidates would send a clear message to those who make up GV that the LLA is serious about wanting to negotiate some kind of joint list. It would also send a clear message to individual left candidates and their supporters: the left needs organisation, not lone rangers.

LPM argues for this approach in the interests of strengthening the LLA and taking forward the struggle to form a politically principled left in the Labour Party.

NEC elections: shift the left to the left

Stan Keable of Labour Party Marxists reports on an AGM that roundly voted to place itself in the rotten tradition of Millerandism. Fittingly John McDonnell was given star billing

A couple of weeks ago I was told that there had been a “falling out” between the Labour Representation Committee and its president, John McDonnell. Although this was not surprising, given his “sickening political decay”, I was at a loss to find any evidence of it. Indeed, the conference arrangements committee (CAC) gave McDonnell pride of place as the first panel speaker at the LRC’s delayed online AGM/conference on September 5.

However, instead of apologising for his complicity in the witch-hunt and for pushing the Labour Party into adopting the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance misdefinition of anti-Semitism, he used his speech to tarnish the word “solidarity”, attempting to cover his present treachery with hypocritical talk of the 1976-78 Grunwick strike (Jayaben Desai will be turning in her grave to be misused in this way). Shamefully, the meeting went on to re-elect him, unopposed, as president of the organisation for another year.

Of course, those not ‘in the know’ have to speculate about divisions in the LRC leadership – what else can they do when the comrades hide their political differences? ‘Cabinet responsibility’, concealing political differences, should have no place in the workers’ movement. Unhappily, however, transparency is not in the DNA of the LRC, nor of its Labour Briefing journal – nor of the other, ‘original’ Labour Briefing. When the ‘original’ was created after losing the vote at the 2012 Briefing AGM, both journals vowed never again to mention the other, ensuring that the political differences will fester in the dark until they appear in crisis form.

Nonetheless, readers will remember that the LRC joined with Labour Against the Witchhunt in the summer of 2019 to launch the Labour Left Alliance, but got cold feet and withdrew in October, as the December general election approached. It is hard to imagine that McDonnell had not applied pressure. Then came the April 15 2020 launch of the ‘broad’, respectable alternative to LLA – ‘Don’t Leave, Organise’ (DLO) – from the LRC, together with Jewish Voice for Labour and Red Labour.

McDonnell

The AGM, which would normally be held early in the year, was put on hold because of the pandemic lockdown, but in April the LRC announced June 27 as the date for an online AGM. However, only 10 days later the ‘Diane Abbott/Bell Ribeiro-Addy incident’, at DLO’s first Zoom event, produced a retreat. After the two black ‘left’ MPs demonstrated their total lack of solidarity, promising never again to be seen in the company of witch-hunt victims Jackie Walker and Tony Greenstein, the May 16 LRC executive meeting retreated and postponed its online AGM. How was president John McDonnell to avoid expulsion for being in the same meeting as Jackie, Tony, me and a host of other witch-hunted LRC members? And, yes, at the September 5 AGM all three of us were present!

As the meeting was online, members could participate at home without the time and expense of travelling to London. So attendance was slightly up on previous AGMs, 138 officially registered – I noted 129 for the NEC political statement and only slightly less at other times. Apart from a few observers and 25 trade union delegates – 17 from the Fire Brigades Union and eight from the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union – most of those present were there as individual members. There were motions from only two local LRC groups: Oxfordshire and Leeds. So, while Labour Party membership rose from 150,000 or so under Blair to over half a million under Corbyn, the LRC – like the rest of the left, both inside and outside the party – has largely stagnated.

After John McDonnell had given his ‘solidarity’ speech, we heard short presentations from a series of invited speakers. We learned that Labour national executive candidate Nadia Jama is a docker’s daughter, and also believes in solidarity. Jo Bird, who is on the ballot in the councillors section for the NEC elections, was the only panel speaker to risk uttering the word “witch-hunt” (thank you, Jo), and recklessly awarded Jeremy Corbyn (who sent apologies) the title of “honorary Jew” for the vilification he has suffered. Jo called for support in the NEC elections for Nadia Jama, Laura Pidcock and Yasmine Dar. FBU delegate Andrew Scattergood, now chair of Momentum’s national coordinating group following the victory of the Forward Momentum slate, spoke of “mistakes” (where “treachery” seems more appropriate), and urged us to trust the new Momentum and participate in the “refounding process” over the next couple of years. The LRC should affiliate to Momentum, he said.

Unison assistant general secretary Roger McKenzie, after reminding us that workers will need trade unions in the coming “big depression”, then disappointed us by implicitly advising against holding Corbyn, McDonnell, former Labour general secretary Jennie Formby and co accountable for their failure: “Work with all the left” – which sounds inclusive; but then: “Don’t build a firing squad and turn inwards on each other.” Similar bad advice was given later by bakers’ union leader Ian Hodson, who called for “unity”, whilst telling us not to “take chunks out of each other”. Better advice, after a disaster, would be to learn the lessons, so that it never happens again.

Laura Pidcock, without naming names, spoke of “comrades masquerading as leftwing” and said “we were defeated by some of our own”, but this was “not a defeat for socialism”. The choice is “socialism or barbarism”, she said: “We must replace the capitalist system” and “build a powerful socialist current within the Labour Party”. And finally: “Support the Grassroots six in the NEC ballot.” But that slate is not “grassroots”, Laura. It is called “centre-left” – which translates into plain English as ‘centre’.

These platform speakers took up valuable discussion time in a four-hour meeting, before the real business could finally begin.

Motions

Several motions were submitted to conference under the 10-member rule: any 10 paid-up LRC members can submit one. This method speaks for the democratic good intentions of the LRC, ensuring that a minority view can be presented without having to jump the hurdle of first winning a majority locally, as members must do in their Labour branch. The bureaucratic centralist regime practised in the Socialist Workers Party, for comparison, forbids such horizontal political collaboration, and expels perpetrators for factionalism.

During the report of the conference arrangements committee (CAC) at the start of conference, Tony Greenstein had tried to move a procedural motion – a “reference back” of the section of the NEC statement entitled “Learning from the mistakes of the past five years”. Tony argued, in a written submission the day before conference, that the weak position in which Corbyn found himself as leader was “not as weak as is now made out”, and in any case derived, at least in part, “from his pitiful strategy of appeasing those who were determined to slaughter him”. Furthermore, the statement “omits one very salient question. Was the false ‘anti-Semitism’ campaign and the attacks on Corbyn part of a state-directed attack on Corbyn in conjunction with the Labour right? All the evidence points that way, beginning with the Al Jazeera programme The lobby.”

Contrary to the bad advice of Roger McKenzie and Ian Hodson to forego criticism, Tony called for “a labour movement inquiry into what happened, with figures like Mike Mansfield, Stephen Sedley, Geoffrey Bindman, etc invited to become panel members.” Tony’s text, however, never reached members and was neither moved nor debated, as the procedural motion fell in the first vote of the AGM: 21 for, 57 against, 6 abstentions. (With 84 votes cast and 122 people in the meeting at this point, including half a dozen non-voting observers, the real number of abstentions was much higher, nearer to 38.)

Moving the NEC statement, vice-chair Cathy Augustine stood in for political secretary Mick Brooks, its main author, who was unwell. Cathy talked about “we socialists” being “part of the opposition” within the party, and went on to “Starmer’s broken promises” and the current “escalation of the witch-hunt”. After two 10-member amendments, moved by Pete Firmin and Bisi Williams, were carried unopposed, I was the first to click on my blue hand to speak – and was shocked to hear chair Matt Wrack (FBU general secretary) tell me, “You have one minute”.

I barely had time to register my view that the statement should be rejected, let alone explain my thinking. Corbyn had not merely made “mistakes”. His vain hope of delivering For the many, not the few without winning our class for a democratic programme to overturn the way we are ruled, is a failed strategy which should not be repeated. The stab-in-the-back myth – that Corbyn’s defeat was due entirely to his rightwing enemies – fails to allow the left to criticise its own failure, to ‘learn the lessons’ of defeat.

Tina Werkmann and Mark Lewis both spoke against the statement – and comrade Wrack sensibly allowed them to take a good deal more than one minute, without interruption. Tina objected to the description of Corbyn as “heroic”. Sabotage had come from Corbyn, McDonnell and Formby, she said, and the leaked report shows that Jeremy supported the expulsion of Chris Williamson and Jackie Walker. Mark Lewis described the idea of repeating the same failed strategy over and over as “madness”: “Corbyn objectively connived in this defeat. We need a forensic discussion on what has gone wrong.”

A “forensic discussion”, however, was not on the agenda, which allowed only enough time for soundbites. Graham Bash opined that “we need to be tougher” and “we gave too much ground on anti-Semitism” – an expression that was sufficient to get Chris Williamson disciplined. For Pete Firmin, however, “saying that Jeremy contributed to his own defeat is topsy-turvy”. The NEC statement was carried by 69 votes to 10, with over 40 not voting.

Next came amendments to the LRC constitution, starting with its own disciplinary procedures. The NEC proposal was to move the entire discipline section out of the constitution – which the NEC cannot amend – into an appendix, where they can. I opposed the amendment, asking what the NEC’s intentions were. Why did they want to change the carefully crafted procedures honed by Gordon Nardell? For the NEC, Andrew Berry assured us that the procedures were “fit for purpose”: they just wanted to “tidy them up”. But we have been here before.

Bureaucracy

In my report on the LRC’s November 2014 AGM I wrote: “Thankfully, the thoroughly bureaucratic, intolerant and dangerous proposal put before the LRC’s annual conference was pulled at the last minute.” Those proposals had threatened to “suspend or terminate” the membership of individuals, affiliates or local LRC groups that are guilty of “wilfully misrepresenting the views of the LRC, its elected national bodies or officers, whether to other LRC members or the wider public, by any means”. After the withdrawal of this threat to freedom of speech, Gordon Nardell was commissioned to draft the present, pretty good, procedures. Now, however, the NEC’s proposal to dump them in an appendix was carried by 51 votes to nine. Keep an eye on this space.

After a short break, the meeting resumed with the only other significant debate (still very time-limited) in the shape of two 10-member motions, both looking to replace the bankrupt Centre-Left Grassroots Alliance, which exists purely for the purpose of drawing up a ‘left’ slate for Labour NEC elections. Tina Werkmann’s motion, for LRC to withdraw from the CLGA, fell by 16 votes to 62, while Graham Bash’s motion to work for change “within and without” was carried overwhelmingly.

My 10-member motion, ‘Against socialist participation in Starmer’s shadow cabinet’, gained 16 votes for and 44 against (106 people were present). As the motion had been disallowed by the CAC for technical reasons, and not displayed online with the other motions, my time as mover was spent simply reading it out. The gist being that genuine socialists should oppose capitalist governments and shadow governments, not sit in them. Our task is not to save capitalism … not even from itself. The one speaker against simply described the motion as “beyond parody”, unsurprising, having never before heard of the French ‘socialist’ Alexandre Millerand and how he joined the government of ‘republican defence’ in 1899 and how Second (Socialist) International condemned the participation of socialists in capitalist governments in 1900 and 1904. But ignorance is bliss … and a defining moment. One must presume that the majority wants more ‘socialists’ in capitalist governments and shadow cabinets. In other words politically the LRC is a Millerandist organisation.

The motion had originally been disallowed, as only nine proposers were deemed fully paid up members. One more was needed, although another five were being processed, but were “still to complete payment”. Although formally in accordance with the rule, the CAC handled this matter in an unthinking, non-political way – as administrators, not as socialists. Likewise the two other 10-member motions which the CAC confessed to having kept off the agenda, one of them for the lack of only one “active member”. Socialists should bend over backwards to ensure that minority views are moved and thoroughly debated, not administratively blocked. That, of course, is difficult to arrange in a four-hour AGM with a “full business agenda”, as Cathy Augustine called it in Briefing.

The defeat of Corbynism has not been fully and properly discussed. Perhaps the LRC executive can be persuaded to arrange a single-issue special conference to facilitate this.

Clive Dean of Labour Party Marxists reports on a conference characterised by the struggle between Marxism and left reformism

August 22-23 saw the second conference of the Labour Left Alliance. Like most things these days, it took place online, but over 120 delegates and observers were officially present (as things progressed some fell away).

Arguably, the LLA had arrived a year too late. It was conceived at the end of the 2018 Labour Party conference, when activists realised that a leftwing coordinating organisation was urgently needed, fulfilling the role abdicated by Momentum. Labour’s annual conference had just rejected open selection of MPs, but had revised the trigger ballot mechanism instead, as a route for Constituency Labour Parties to remove wayward Westminster careerists. Success for the Corbyn project required a major clear-out of the Parliamentary Labour Party, and that needed a clued-up campaign. But then nothing happened for nearly a year.

Following protracted negotiations between the Labour Representation Committee, Red Labour and Labour Against the Witchhunt, the appeal for a Labour Left Alliance was finally launched in July 2019. Very quickly the 1,000-signature target was achieved, and local groups began to affiliate.

But it was not plain sailing. The different approaches of the LRC and LAW became apparent as the organisation became active, and at the end of October 2019 the LRC decided to withdraw its backing, stating that “serious disagreements exist around both the political orientation of the LLA and the character of what should be built in the short term”. For the LRC, the LLA was moving too fast and was doing too much. Incidentally, recently the LRC and Red Labour have set up the rather more sedate ‘Don’t Leave, Organise’, which has not organised much at all. Perhaps that is the model they had in mind for the LLA.

The LLA pressed ahead with its first conference in the shadow of the general election defeat and Corbyn’s resignation, and on February 22 130 delegates met in Sheffield to agree on the constitution and political orientation of the new organisation. The conference structure was problematic, the approved constitution was hopelessly flawed and the policies adopted were contradictory.Clement Attlee  But the conference provided the LLA with legitimacy and identity.

The months that followed have been difficult for everyone engaged in politics as a result of the pandemic lockdown. The LLA responded by organising a series of online educational discussions and some debates too. It has been actively encouraging left participation in the forthcoming NEC elections, and has organised online hustings. It has also facilitated online meetings of local groups in the run-up to the second conference.

Controversy

This conference was divided into four sessions. Session one covered the report of work from the steering committee and organising group (OG). It also passed emergency resolutions condemning the latest round of suspensions and the attempt by new Labour general secretary, David Evans, to ban CLPs and branches from discussing key issues.

The only controversial item in session one was a motion from Dulwich LLA to commit the LLA to supporting only Centre Left Grassroots Alliance candidates in the elections for Labour’s national executive committee. This was the equivalent of flat-earthers warning us that we will fall off if we dare to venture over the horizon. Supposedly with the single transferable vote system the maths works against us, and, if we vote for anyone but the CLGA six, then we could end up with no left candidates being elected at all. This innumerate nonsense was heavily defeated, and the LLA continues to promote those candidates prepared to stand against the witch-hunt of the left and for rejection of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance misdefinition of anti-Semitism.

The second session was all about amendments to the LLA constitution. On behalf of Labour Party Marxists Andrew Kirkland moved a change which would transform the LLA into a membership organisation based on active branches, rather than a loose federation of affiliates and a petition-list list of supporters. It would also abolish the Organising Group, which is not elected by or accountable to conference. The result would be a democratic LLA, with conference deciding policy and electing the leadership, and a structure able to organise serious political interventions in Starmer’s Labour Party.

In the discussion that followed it was clear that some OG members were unhappy about losing their role if it was abolished. More than one delegate used the ‘yes – but not yet’ argument against our proposals, similar to the LRC’s opposition to an active LLA referred to above. But there were also sinister contributions of the red-baiting variety. The movers were accused of trying to turn the LLA into a separate political party, or indeed a clone of Labour Party Marxists. In the vote our proposal was defeated with 22 votes for and 54 votes against.

Next came a debate around the introduction of disciplinary procedures, as previously adopted by the LLA steering committee. This hefty document is over twice as long as the constitution itself, and creates a raft of bodies and processes to deal with anticipated unacceptable behaviour within the LLA. Many of the definitions it contains are subjective and could be used as bureaucratic tools to silence political opposition. Worse than that, any punishment appears to be unenforceable, because, as the previous vote established, there are no LLA members, just supporters. Presumably affiliated groups will have their own arrangements and so will not be covered by these rules either. In spite of all this, conference endorsed the procedures by 46 votes to 19.

The third session was entitled ‘The way forward for the Labour Left Alliance’ and offered delegates a choice between two political statements that emerged from two opposing positions within the OG. Both statements described the desperate political landscape and were critical of the Corbyn leadership’s failure to promote socialism. But statement 1, which secured the support of two-thirds of the OG, restricted the LLA’s immediate ambitions to reforms under capitalism. Statement 2, which was drafted by Labour Party Marxists, was supported by one third of the OG. This described in some detail the radical democratic demands we should be raising and the communist society we aspire to.

The two positions had already been aired in an online debate a week earlier, and it was clear that both deserved lengthier scrutiny by delegates before one of them was chosen as the LLA’s formal political platform.

LPM delegates had approached the conference arrangements committee regarding the method of speaker selection for this session. It was obvious that a more informed debate would ensue if speakers with prepared contributions were selected, rather than those with spontaneous, off-the-cuff remarks. So the LPM fraction proposed a list of speakers for statement 2. This was strongly opposed by the organisers, even when their conflict of interest was identified – how could they be impartial, when the OG had already voted in support of statement 1? In the end the delegates were evenly split on this proposal – it was defeated by just four votes.

Statement 1 was moved by Dave Hill from Brighton LLA. He thought that his version would appeal to the many Corbynistas in the party, whereas statement 2 would repel them and was really just turning the LLA into Labour Party Marxists. He then identified the three political trends in socialism: (1) reformism, which was bad; (2) transitional demands, which were good, because they appealed to workers, but were beyond what capitalism could afford; (3) “communism by 9 o’clock tomorrow”, which was useless, because it only appealed to ourselves.

Statement 1 was seconded by Daniel Platts from Rotherham LLA. He was convinced that the ideas in statement 2 are too abstract for the workers we want to influence in the Labour Party and the unions. Ideas like abolition of the monarchy and replacing the police are too revolutionary for the Labour left. He had a big problem with the call for a moneyless society – how could people with no money relate to that? He preferred to emphasise the progressive social measures in Corbyn’s manifestos. For him the fight for reforms is the priority: visions of socialism should be confined to educationals.

Statement 2 was moved by Kevin Bean from Merseyside Labour Left and Labour Party Marxists. He pointed out that capitalism was the cause of the crises we face, so we need to be clear on what our definition of socialism is and how we achieve it. He noted the failure of the Corbyn project over the last five years, a failure of strategy and of understanding how to achieve socialism. To win socialism will require radical democratic changes that challenge the capitalist state.

Stan Keable seconded statement 2. He condemned the dishonesty of the supporters of statement 1, who hid their real politics from the working class. It is an illusion to think there is a reformist route to a more friendly capitalism, and Labour governments that try it end up attacking the working class. To win socialism you need to be honest with the working class, present a democratic programme to tackle the capitalist state and provide a vision for the future: a classless, moneyless, stateless society.

In the debate that followed supporters of statement 1 continued to stress their belief that you can build a movement for socialism by limiting the struggle to economic demands and avoiding any talk of strategy to win a new, emancipatory order. A star proponent of this line was Alec Price, who told us that workers of today are unable to grasp the ideas in statement 2, such as abolishing the standing army. Instead the call for a 15% pay rise for NHS staff was far more likely to build revolutionary consciousness amongst the working class.

It was clear that the LPM position was opposed by comrades who identified with the Trotskyist tradition: they claimed to agree with the content, but could not stomach voting for something that went beyond their self-imposed limits of acceptable, soft-left, Labour economism. Clearly these comrades have gone native and completely lost their bearings. When it came to the vote, 52 favoured statement 1 and 30 statement 2.

Embarrassing

The final session of conference attempted to deal with the 17 other motions submitted by local groups and affiliates. Despite the restricted debate, some of these suffered the dubious fate of reference back to the OG. Those that were discussed revealed just how shallow leftwing Labour politics can be.

The first motion had the obscure title, ‘Federation/coalition/grouping/type of United Front’, and the content was frankly embarrassing. The mover – Dave Hill again – envisaged a coming together of (nearly) all the left groups in Britain. This would include the LLA, once it has been proscribed by the Labour Party. He admitted that most of the groups he had in mind already saw themselves as the true Marxist organisation, but he wanted unity in a federation with no group dominating. Clearly the delegates did not buy into his dream of unprincipled unity or his inappropriate application of Comintern’s united front tactic. It was heavily defeated.

John Bridge moved the motion submitted by LPM, entitled ‘Against socialist participation in Starmer’s shadow cabinet’. This referred to Keir Starmer’s sacking of Rebecca Long-Bailey and the LLA statement that demanded her reinstatement. A correct socialist position is to oppose taking ministerial positions in capitalist governments, as was established at a conference of the Socialist International back in 1904. Logically it applies to shadow cabinet posts too, so leftwing Labour MPs should remain on the back benches as tribunes of the struggle for socialism. The motion was opposed by Phil Newing, who complained that it was far too leftwing for socialists like him, who were not Marxists. Paul Henderson thought being in Labour meant taking part at all levels, whatever. Despite these weak objections, clearly enough delegates were spooked by the thought of criticising RLB, and the motion fell by 35 votes to 47.

‘Electoral reform’ was the title of a motion moved by Phil Pope from Bristol LLA. This claimed that ‘first past the post’ has a strong rightwing bias, whereas the world’s most equal and progressive societies use a form of proportional representation. Moreover FPTP has created one of the most unequal societies in the developed world, with some of the most restrictive trade union laws, whereas PR would prevent rule by a rightwing minority and lock in the hard-won victories of the labour movement. These clearly flawed arguments mask support for Labour participation in coalition capitalist governments, so should not have been advanced by socialists. Yes, PR should be part of a radical democratic programme that includes abolition of the monarchy and the House of Lords, annual elections and MP salaries set at the level of a skilled worker. But there can be no PR short cut to winning the majority of the working class to socialism. Despite reasoned arguments against the motion, it was carried by 48 votes to 24, exposing the delegates’ deep frustration at losing the last two general elections.

The last item discussed was the motion, ‘The Labour Party in Northern Ireland’, moved by Andrew Ward from Northern Ireland Labour Left Alliance. The motion called on Labour to stand candidates in the Six Counties. It maintained that voters there are being denied the democratic right to vote Labour, and that providing this opportunity will lead to the end of sectarian divisions in the north. Andrew Ward actually repeated the claim that a united Ireland now would lead to a bloodbath. A number of speakers opposed the motion, making the point that a united Ireland must be the cornerstone of any policy adopted by an organisation of the working class in Britain: anything else is support for British imperialism. The LLA says it aims to transform the Labour Party in a socialist direction. Instead of seeking to build a movement for socialism in Ireland (as part of the wider struggle for working class unity across mainland Europe), the movers were seeking to adopt the current pro-capitalist British Labour Party as a vehicle for participating in the UK state. Despite all this, the motion was carried by 36 votes to 26.

Outside the box

So, in the wake of this conference, how do we assess the future for the LLA? It voted to stick with a weak and internally contradictory structure. More importantly, politically it has defined itself as standing in the tried, tested and failed tradition of left reformism – pro-imperialist, slightly eccentric, sticking to bread-and-butter issues and the wonders of the ‘next Labour government’. Politically that means LLA is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

On the positive side, however, LLA has held two relatively open conferences within six months, and has staged debates not seen anywhere else in the Labour left. And, for the moment at least LLA is promoting NEC election candidates who reject the witch-hunt and the associated anti-Semitism narrative, so it is able distinguish itself from the rest of the Labour left. But even now there are doubts as to whether all the candidates will have the bottle to stay in the race, or negotiate some ‘left unity’ deal which amounts to withdrawal in favour of the CLGA slate.

Maybe its biggest problem will be the LLA’s connection to the party political establishment. We expect there to be massive social anger when the post-Covid recession kicks in. Will Starmer’s Labour Party and the traditional trade unions be up for organising a new wave of protestors, many of whom will not identify with ‘the system’ at all? The challenge of winning these fighters to working class consciousness and socialist revolution could prove to be just too ‘outside the box’ for the LLA.