Monday September 24 2018. Download the PDF version here or read the full issue online here.
Open selection: a dark day of betrayal and climbdowns
Jon Lansman and Len McCluskey let their members down – and have delayed the possibility of mandatory reselection for at least three years
Small mercies
What has happened to the NEC’s commitment to membership democracy?
“They can fuck off”
Alexei Sayle, Chris Williamson MP and others addressed Labour Against the Witchhunt’s fringe meeting last night
Today’s issue of Red Pages, Sunday September 22 20218. Download PDF here
Support the reference back of today’s CAC’s report – otherwise delegates will not be able to discuss the crucial question of mandatory reselection
Labour’s national executive committee (NEC) has not only gutted most of the positive recommendations coming from Katy Clark’s Party Democracy Review (see article overleaf). It is now also trying to impose a new system on the selection of parliamentary candidates that could potentially make it even harderto oust a sitting MP.
The Parliamentary Labour Party urgently has to be brought under democratic control. The majority of Labour MPs have been plotting against Jeremy Corbyn and sabotaging him at every turn. They are far to the right of the Labour membership and, once elected, usually enjoy a ‘job for life’. Should Jeremy Corbyn become prime minister, he would be held hostage by the PLP (who would very likely launch another vote of ‘no confidence’ before long, forcing him out).
It is unfortunate that Corbyn – after all, he is the central target of the right – has refused to take up the challenge and include mandatory reselection in the Party Democracy Review. It would have been very useful for branches and CLPs to discuss the issue properly.
Instead, the NEC suddenly announced that it was proposing a new system on how to elect a wannabe MP. This is no doubt down to the very successful campaign run by International Labour, which has mobilised hard for its rule change, ‘Open selection’ (another term for mandatory reselection).
The proposal from the NEC looks more democratic than the current system. But a closer look shows that it could be potentially worse.
Currently, it is almost impossible to get rid of a sitting MP: If s/he wants to stand again, all the constituency’s branches and its affiliates (trade unions, socialist societies, cooperative organisations) have one vote each and can choose ‘yes’ or ‘no’ in favour of the sitting MP as the only candidate. Each branch and affiliate is counted equally, irrespective of the number of members.
This is where the union bureaucracy can really bugger things up: “Basically, unless you’ve really cocked up in some egregious and public way, locally affiliated trade unions – which always have many more branches affiliated to the local party than the local party itself does – will bail you out, sometimes against the will of the members.” This description by Blairite ex-MP Tom Harris on his website Third Avenue neatly sums up the problem with the current system.
The NEC proposes to replace the current trigger ballot with twoseparate ones: for local affiliated bodies like unions and for the local party branches. The threshold in both would be reduced from the current 50% to 33% and it would be enough forone of the two sections to vote ‘no’ to start a full selection process – ie, a contest between the different candidates.
Of course, Marxists prefer a full and democratic selection process before all elections and doing away with all restrictions. But the NEC’s proposal – in that respect, at least – is a small step in the right direction.
There is, however, a potentially huge caveat: We hear that the NEC proposal stipulates that for a branch to be counted toward the 33% threshold, the decision would have had to be made in a quorate meeting. The quorum in the ‘model procedural rules’ for all party units is currently set at 25% – there are very, very few branches that will have ever met this quorum. Most branches have agreed lower quorums with the regional office; others don’t bother ‘counting’. But if the NEC’s proposal really stipulates that 25% of the local membership must have been involved in this trigger ballot, then they will become even more impossible than under the current system.
Then we come to the second step: the actual voting. And here the NEC’s proposal would lead to a worseningof the current situation. At the moment, after a successful trigger ballot, the voting between candidates takes place in CLPs only (affiliated organisations and unions have no vote in this stage).
As we understand it, the NEC wants to change this to a so-called ‘one member, one vote’ (Omov) system. We write ‘so-called’, because Omov is nothing new in democratic organisations: everybody who shows up to a meeting gets a vote, right? Not according to a narrative that is becoming ever more dominant though, because this traditional method ‘disenfranchises’ all those who don’t come to meetings.
What is meant by Omov nowadays is that all local members get a vote, perhaps via an online or postal ballot. This sounds democratic, but on closer inspection it clearly favours the sitting MP. They would not just have the ‘recognition’ factor and the newspaper columns: they also have the money and the staff to write to all those members who don’t normally go to meetings. The upstart who is trying to challenge the MP can of course send out their CV and election statement. But where they can really convince members is face to face, in branch and CLP meetings. Even better if a debate could be arranged between the candidates, where members can ask questions and make up their minds. Such a debate would be impossible to organise online.
We therefore urge all delegates to vote against the NEC’s proposal – and support the excellent rule change tabled by International Labour instead: in order to achieve that, the conference arrangement committee has to be successfully challenged tomorrow. IL’s rule change would do away with the trigger ballot altogether, giving all candidates a level playing field. There would be no need to challenge the sitting MP, as there would alwaysbe a full selection process. This amendment would automatically fall if delegates vote for the NEC recommendation.
Mandatory reselection would once again establish a very important democratic principle in the party – and allow us to get rid of the saboteurs.
Although Momentum owner Jon Lansman used to be an important figure in the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy, whose main claim to fame remains the successful fight for mandatory reselection in the Labour Party in 1980 (it was abolished again in 1989 by Neil Kinnock), he abandoned the principle at the very moment Jeremy Corbyn was elected leader. A big mistake, given that the PLP, dominated by the right, was never going to give Corbyn an easy ride.
So, instead of doing away with the undemocratic trigger ballot altogether, Jon Lansman drew up lame proposals to raise the threshold from Tony Blair’s 50% back to Neil Kinnock’s 66% – ie, two thirds of local branches and affiliates would have to vote in favour of the sitting MP, otherwise a full selection process would begin. Lansman even had this proposal sanctioned by the membership in one of Momentum’s tortuous and clearly biased online “consultations”. But he seems to have undergone a welcome change of heart.
Last week, he sent an email to the membership, informing them that Momentum now favours a system that gives “a fair chance to all candidates and does away with this negative, divisive stage of campaigning – so it’s an open contest from the start, and there are no ‘jobs for life’. That way, local members and the sitting MP can compete for the Labour Party’s backing at the general election, and run positive campaigns about local issues voters really care about.” Momentum has even set up a petition on the issue and is strongly urging its members to lobby the NEC. He might have done so for his own reasons (which are too complex and peculiar to deal with here) but a change of heart in the right direction is always welcome.
Our party – and its constitution – are ripe for radical reform: Throughout the history of the Labour Party various leaders have shaped and reshaped things according to their requirements … and the wider balance of class forces.
Today CLPs are only allowed to submit either one contemporary motion or one constitutional amendment per year, which means that any attempt from below to force through changes can take an incredibly long time. And, once conference has formally voted on an issue, it cannot be revisited for another three years – even if it only deals with the same question tangentially. The result is a ridiculously overcomplicated travesty of democracy.
Yes, the Party Democracy Review (PDR) would, if agreed, result in a number of changes. But clearly, the constitution needs more than tinkering. Indeed it would be no bad thing if the whole thing was swept away and replaced by something fit for purpose. A special conference could be called for such an initiative.
We were never that hopeful that the PDR would represent a big step forward – after all, Jeremy Corbyn and his allies would have to consciously take on the right in a civil war that ends in the decisive victory for the left, for democracy, for those who support socialism and oppose capitalism – and that is not happening so far. Instead there is retreat, conciliation and a constant turning of the other cheek.
Even the very limited reforms proposed by Katy Clark were hit on the head by a majority of the NEC. Very few positive proposals remain.
For example, Pete Willsman’s report of the September 18 NEC meeting notes that the ridiculous restriction of “contemporary” will be scrapped. This is excellent, as CLPs have had to scramble around for studies or news reports in order to submit a political motion to conference.
Another potentially worthwhile proposal concerns how the leader should be elected. The NEC will move a rule change that would require any candidate to have the support of 10% of individual party members, plus 5% of MPs/MEPs and of union affiliates. Currently, any candidate needs the active support of 10% of MPs or MEPs – the other groups play no role.
The Guardianhas described this proposal as a “purge of the Chrises” – Williamson and Leslie, leftwing and rightwing troublemakers respectively. However, as a matter of fact, it should make it in theory slightly easier for a leftwinger to get on the ballot, as 10% of the members should be easier to convince than 10% of MPs. But if one considers that the incumbent NEC was only voted in by 9% of the membership, we understand why some describe this proposal as worse than the status quo.
Defeats
But a significant number of Clark’s very sensible suggestions were defeated by a majority of the NEC – and both Darren Williams Pete and Willsman blame “the unions”. In any case, the following useful reform suggestions by Clark (and presumably Corbyn too) were defeated:
In general, Marxists prefer the delegate system, because it gives more consistency to proceedings. Delegates feel more obliged to show up and are more likely to be able to take informed decisions. The bigger the CLP and the more members show up, the more unwieldy it becomes. Key decisions would no doubt be outsourced to the executive or some other bodies. If this is combined, as suggested, with more ‘digital democracy’, we fear the further depoliticisation and disengagement of party members: why bother coming to a CLP meeting that doesn’t make any key decisions, when you can just sit at home and click a few buttons?
We also oppose the NEC’s apparently uncontested decision to increase the size of the National Constitutional Committee (NCC), which takes up all disciplinary cases that the NEC feels it cannot deal with. Instead of 11 members, this body will now have 25. Adding 14 members might indeed “speed things up”, but this does not mean that the proceedings will become any more just or fair. For example, the NEC recommends that, “where the possible sanction falls short of expulsion from the party, the NCC could make a decision without a hearing”. Surely, anybody accused should have the right to defend themselves – especially when it comes to highly politicised accusations of anti-Semitism, for example. The NCC is currently dominated by the right and has been expelling members on the most ludicrous grounds.
But things depend on what rules this body is interpreting and enforcing. For example, we believe that by adopting the full ‘working definition’ of anti-Semitism published by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), the NEC has opened the door to even more suspensions and expulsions. The intent of this document is not to define anti-Semitism – after all, the Oxford English Dictionary manages that in just six words: “Hostility to or prejudice against Jews.”
No, its sole purpose is to conflate criticism of Zionism and Israel with anti-Semitism. No wonder then that we hear of new, post-IHRA suspensions on the grounds of members using the word ‘Zionist’ and calling Israel ‘racist’. But clearly racism is exactly what Israel has depended on from its origins – and has now enshrined with its ‘Nation State’ law.
Not so democratic
Leaving aside the regrettable role “the unions” seem to have played, we have criticisms of the process as a whole. Despite its official name of ‘Party Democracy Review’, it has been far from democratic. Of course, there will have been hundreds, if not thousands, of contributions from members, branches and CLPs. But it is entirely up to those running the review to decide which contributions are ‘accepted’. We would venture to suggest that much of the final document will have been agreed well in advance of the ‘consultation’.
A draft of Clark’s proposals was presented to the NEC on September 18 – ie, four days before conference. Amendments from the NEC then had to be incorporated before the document was presented to yet another NEC meeting on September 22, before delegates could see it for first time – on the day they are due to vote on it. As everyone knows, it is impossible for delegates to make amendments. Clearly this is not the way to go about democratising our party.
Tribute relaunch
After a gap of some years the left magazine Tri- bune was relaunched at a well-attended and enthusiastic rally at The World Transformed last night. Introducing a panel which included David Harvey, Dawn Foster, Owen Jones and Grace Blakeley, the journal’s editor, Ronan Burten- shaw, argued that there was a clear need for a magazine which reflected both the experience of the contemporary Labour movement as well as drawing on the “enduring relevance of our his- torical achievements”.
Tradition was a key theme for Burtenshaw and he very deliberately identified his magazine with what he saw as the illustrious history of the Tribunite current and the Labour left since the 1930s.The first edition certainly had some simi- larities with the ‘original’ magazine with articles covering current politics, history, culture, the arts and ideas. But both in form and content this ‘Tri- bune’ is much closer to the US left publicationThe Jacobin which is not surprising given that Bhaskar Sukara, publisher of The Jacobin, is also now the publisher of the Tribune. The suc- cess of The Jacobin and the hopes for the new/ old Tribune rest on the new layers who have been drawn into activity by the Sanders’ campaign in the US and the election of Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader in Britain.
The tone, layout and nature of the articles in Tribune certainly reflect many of the concerns and enthusiasms of these activists. Any new magazine that provides a media space for the discussion of socialism and the future of the
Labour movement is to be welcomed: after all, the range and size of our movement’s media is pitifully inadequate for the political tasks facing us. We need more magazines and papers: we need more voices and much more debate within our ranks. But can this Tribune make such a useful contribution to those discussions? We can but hope.
However, given that the magazine proudly lays claim to both the discredited historical tradi- tions of Labour left reformism and its contempo- rary manifestation in the inchoate politics of Owen Jones, this seems somewhat doubtful.
So far Labour Party Marxists comrades have been well received by delegates and visitors to conference and to The World Transformed event. Nobody has yet reported any hostility to the latest edition of LPM, which features the headline, ‘Why Israel is a racist state’.
But this is unsurprising, since a large majority of Labour activists strongly support Palestin- ian national rights and are opposed to Zion- ism. They know that such politics have noth- ing whatsoever to do with ‘anti-Semitism’, as the right likes to pretend.
Equally positive has been the attitude to those from Labour Against the Witchhunt and Open Selection. Both were involved in yester- day’s attempted lobby of the NEC meeting. I say ‘attempted’, because the police dispersed the 40-50 participants on the grounds that the meeting was taking place on “private land” adjacent to the conference centre.
Sunday September 23 20218. Download PDF here or read the full issue online here
Fight for open selection!
Support the reference back of today’s CAC’s report – otherwise delegates will not be able to discuss the crucial question of mandatory reselection
Party Democracy Review: Disappointing but predictable
Tribune Relaunch
Labour against the Witchhunt’s NEC lobby
Please note that not all of these will end up before delegates – some will be composited, others superseded by the Party Democracy Review. Click here to read our political assessment.
1. Battersea, referencing Chapter 1, Clause VIII, Section 1.G, The National Executive Committee, BAME rep, page 5 in existing rule book
Remove all of sub clause 1.G and replace with:
One member who self-defines as Black, Asian, Minority Ethnic (BAME) who shall be elected in a national one member one vote (OMOV) ballot of all BAME members. No elected member of the House of Commons, European Parliament, Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly shall be eligible to stand for this position.
Abstain
Our reason: Previously, the NEC BAME rep was elected by BAME Labour, which is a seriously rigged and undemocratic organisation (which is how Keith Vaz could get elected to the position as NEC representative). We would prefer to abolish this position altogether and instead increase the amount of NEC members elected by members in the branches and CLPs.
2. Tower Hamlets, referencing the same as 1.
Remove all of sub clause 1.G and replace with:
One member who self defines as Black, Asian, Minority Ethnic (BAME) who shall be elected in a national one member one vote (OMOV) ballot of all BAME members, plus one BAME member elected by trade union delegates to the BAME Labour Conference. No elected member of the House of Commons, European Parliament, Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly or a member of the House of Lords shall be eligible to stand for this position.
Abstain
Our reason: See 1.
3. Aylesbury and Walton, referencing Chapter 1, Clause VIII, section 1 F, The National Executive Committee, Youth Rep
Remove all of sub clause 1.F and replace with:
One young member of the party who is at the close of nominations under 25 years old and who shall be elected in a national one member one vote (OMOV) ballot of all members of Young Labour as defined by Chapter 1.II.2.F, plus one young member who is at the close of nominations under 25 years old elected by trade union delegates to the Young Labour Conference.
Vote Against
Our reason:We prefer the NEC member to be elected at a democratic conference of Young Labour, as this allows members to question the different candidates and makes them accountable to said body. This should be viewed together with the rule change from Stockport, which seeks to democratise Young Labour and its conference. Note that this rule change also wants to reduce the maximum age of Young Labour members to 25 from currently 27.
4. Garston and Halewood, referencing Chapter 1, Clause VIII, section 1 F, The National Executive Committee – Youth Rep, Page 5
Remove all of sub clause 1 F and replace with:
One young member of the Labour Party who is at the close of nominations under 27 years old will be elected in a national one member one vote (OMOV) ballot of all members of Young Labour as defined by Chapter 1.II.2.F, plus one young member who is at the close of nominations under 27 years old elected by trades union delegates to the Young Labour Conference.
Vote Against
Our reason: see above.
5. Carmarthen East & Dinefwr, Ceredigion, Swansea East referencing Chapter 1, Clause VIII, Section 1 H and I, Scottish and Welsh reps on the NEC, page 5
Remove all of sub clauses 1.H and I and replace with:
Vote For
Our reason:Just before the NEC shifted in favour of the left, the right majority pushed through a rule change that created two more seats on the NEC. This allowed the leader of the Scottish and Welsh Labour Party to choose an NEC member, who had to be “a front bench member” of the Scottish Parliament/the Welsh Assembly. This rule change tries to hand this power to the delegates at conference.
6. Mid Worcestershire, Rugby, Truro and Falmouth, Bexhill and Battle referencing Chapter 2, Clause I, Section 4.B, Conditions of Membership, page 10
Remove: ‘joins and/or supports a political organisation other than an official Labour group or other unit of the Party, or’
Vote For
Our reason: This rule had not been used for decades – until the election of a certain Jeremy Corbyn to leader of the Labour Party, that is. Since 2015 though, it has been liberally applied to “auto-exclude” dozens of supporters and alleged supporters of Socialist Appeal, the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty and Labour Party Marxists – many of whom had been active Labour Party members for many, many years. It was, for example, used to expel professor Moshé Machover after an article of his was published by Labour Party Marxists, which was handed out last year’s Labour Party conference (he has since been reinstated after an international outcry). It has also been used to auto-exclude people who have merely sharedarticles online published by the three organisations.
Members of Progress or Labour First – clearly very highly organised factions in the Labour Party – remain untouched. If applied consistently, the party would also have to expel supporters of the Stop the War Coalition or the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. But, of course, it has exclusivelybeen used against the organised left in the party. It is a McCarthyite anti-democratic rule that needs to go.
7. Broxtowe, referencing Chapter 2, Clause I, Section 4.B, Conditions ofMembership, page 10
Remove section B and replace with:
‘A member of the Party who joins and/ or supports a political organisation that is in conflict with the aims and principles of the Labour Party, or supports any candidate who stands against an official Labour candidate, or publicly declares their intent to stand against a Labour candidate, shall automatically be ineligible to be or remain a Party member, subject to the provisions of Chapter 6.I.2 below of the disciplinary rules.’
Vote Against
Our reason:This adds a few words to the first sentence: “that is in conflict with the aims and principles of the Labour Party”. This might have been inspired/pushed by Momentum, where Jon Lansman has made clear his opposition to rule change 6. This proposal begs the question as to how on earth you prove that the aims of an organisation are not “in conflict” with those of the Labour Party. This formulation has been used, for example, to expel supporters of Socialist Appeal, because they self-define as Marxist. The CND clearly wants to abolish all nuclear weapons; Jeremy Corbyn wants to rearm Trident – incompatible, surely? The amendment clarifies nothing.
8. Tewkesbury, referencing Chapter 2, Clause III, section 6, Membership Subscription fees, Page 13
Replace existing section 6 with:
An NEC approved statement shall be produced setting out the basis on which membership fees shall be allocated, including from January 2017 a minimum cash allocation of 50% of each paid up member’s subscription and a guaranteed minimum package of support for all CLPs.
Vote For
Our reason:Currently, CLPs are allocated a ‘minimum’ of a measly £1.50 per member – per year! Clearly, an organisation that encourages local organisation and autonomy should allocate much more.
9. Copeland, referencing chapter 3, Clause I, Section B and C, Conference delegates, page 14
At the end of section B add:
Where there are an odd number of delegates appointed, or delegation sizes vary year on year, a CLP will be required to make 50% of their delegates female over a four year period. A CLP may only send a delegation which is composed of more than 50% males, if doing so would not take them outside this rule. If a CLP is unable to find sufficient female delegates to comply with this rule, they will not be allowed to make up their delegation with males but will forfeit places. In exceptional circumstances, where the CLP can demonstrate they have made every effort to seek sufficient female delegates, conference arrangements committee may agree to allow a single male delegate to attend in year five; in all other cases the period will be extended to future conferences until such time as the average is 50% female.
At the end of section C add:
CLPs will be expected to alternate between male and female youth delegates
Vote Against
Our reason: The rules already states that, “at least every second delegate from a CLP shall be a woman”. While we encourage the participation of women on all levels of the party, this rule effectively punishes the CLP if it cannot find any female volunteers. It seems to us that this is a pseudo-democratic, unnecessary addition that makes the rule book even more unwieldy than it already is.
10. Islington North and South Derbyshire, referencing chapter 3, Clause III, Section 1, Procedural Rules for Conference, Page 15
Add additional Sub clause at the end of Section 1:
The NEC draw up Standing Orders for Party Conference that will outline procedures for: the conference timetable, procedure in debate, motions, composite motions, emergency motions, withdrawal and remittance of motions, reference back, point of order, chair’s ruling, suspension of Standing Orders, voting, including full procedures for card votes, ending debate and the role of the CAC. These Standing Orders will be presented to the first session of each Party Conference in a CAC report for agreement by the conference.
Vote For
Our reason: This is sorely lacking at present, as anybody who has attended conference will confirm. While each morning delegates and visitors wade through the huge pile of papers, composited motions and votes cast the previous day, the CAC plays hard and fast with conference standing orders (many which are not written down anywhere). It has a huge amount of power. It can decide, for example, if there should be a ‘hand vote’ or a ‘card vote’.
The unions and other affiliates have around 300 delegates at conference, while the CLPs have about 1,200. But in a card vote the affiliates’ vote counts for 50% of the total vote; ditto the CLPs’ vote (which is then further divided according to how many members a CLP has). Roughly, a union delegate’s vote counts for four times as much as the vote of a CLP delegate – and that can make all the difference in a dispute.
At the 2016 conference, for example, a huge row broke out at conference over the NEC’s “reform package” that snuck in two additional NEC seats for the leaders of Welsh and Scottish Labour. Delegates were on their feet, shouting “card vote, card vote” – but the chair simply refused and declared that the hand vote had “clearly won”. In a card vote, the result would have gone the other way, as the unions were firmly against the addition of two rightwingers.
11. Blackley and Broughton, Burnley, Filton and Bradley Stoke, Newport West, referencing chapter 3, Clause III, Section 2, Constitutional Amendments, page 13
Add Additional Sub clause at the end of Section 2:
All constitutional amendments submitted by affiliated organisations and CLPs that are accepted as in order shall be timetabled for debate at the first annual party conference following their submission.
Vote For
Our reason: The practice currently employed is actually not part of the rule book. It delays debate of constitutional amendments to the following year. An utterly unnecessary block to the democratic will of Labour Party members. Apparently, this was also discussed as part of the Democracy Review, but rejected by Katy Clark.
12. Beckenham, Brighton Pavilion, Hereford, Leyton & Wanstead, Solihull, referencing chapter 3, Clause III, Section 2. C Contemporary Motions Page 16
Delete the word ‘contemporary’ in the first sentence
.
Delete ‘determine whether the motions meet these criteria and’ from the second sentence.
Delete ‘which is not substantially addressed by reports of the NEC or NPF to conference’, replace with ‘on a matter of policy, campaigning or party organization and finance’
Second sentence: delete ‘determine whether the motions meet the criteria and’
Delete the word ‘contemporary’ in the last sentence
Vote For
Our reason: This is another rule change ‘left over’ from last year – and it should have been implemented a long time ago.Currently, the Conference Arrangements Committee and the NEC rule out tons of contemporary motions, because they deal with a subject that is mentioned in the overlong documents produced by the National Policy Forum. We are strongly against this outsourcing of policy-making to an untransparent and unwieldy forum like the NPF. Conference must become the supreme body of the party. The NPF is nothing but a pseudo-democratic device – invented by Tony Blair, of course – and should be abolished.
13. Washington & Sunderland West and 19 other CLPs, referencing chapter 4, Clause II, Section 2, B.i Election of Leader and Deputy Leader Nominations, page 18
Delete part of first sentence:
‘by 15 per cent of the combined Commons members of the PLP and members of the EPLP’
Replace with
‘by nominations from: a) 15 per cent of the combined Commons members of the PLP and members of the EPLP; or b) 15 per cent of the affiliated national trade unions; or c) 15 per cent of Constituency Labour Parties’
Vote Against
Our reason: This still gives parliamentarians too much power. There is a better proposal coming up in the Party Democracy Review, so this rule change will hopefully be superseded: This envisagesthat all candidates would have “to secure the support of 10% of trade unions, MPs orparty members, plus 5% of each of the other groups”, as The Guardianreports the leak. Though Marxists actually favour doing away with any threshold altogether – it should be up to the members to decide.
14. Edmonton, referencing chapter 4, Clause II, Section 2, B.i Election of Leader and Deputy Leader Nominations, page 18
At the end of the sentence
‘15 per cent of the combined Commons members of the PLP and members of the EPLP’
Add
‘and Constituency Labour Parties’
Vote Against
Our reason: see rule change 13
15. Wirral West, referencing Chapter 4, Clause II, Section 2. A, Election of Deputy Leader, page 18
Remove
‘Deputy Leader’ and replace with ‘2 Deputy Leaders’.
At the end of the sub clause add the sentence
‘At least one Deputy Leader must be a woman’
Abstain
Our reason:We have sympathy for this rule change, which is clearly designed to curb the power of Tom Watson. But we are in favour of doing away with the position of deputy leader altogether. Incidentally, we are also in favour of doing away with the position of leader, as there are serious issues of how members can effectively hold somebody in such a strong position to account.
16. Hornsey & Wood Green, referencing chapter 4, Clause II, Section 2. A, Election of Deputy Leader, Page 18
After sub clause 2. A add:
At all times subsequent to the 2020 General Election, or earlier if a vacancy arises, at least one of the two positions of leader and deputy leader will be occupied by a woman. If the position of Deputy Leader is held by a man, and a leadership election is required for any reason, Leader and Deputy leader nominations and elections will be held simultaneously.
The existing male deputy leader will only be eligible for re-election if the elected leader is a woman. He will be deemed to have resigned at the point of the declaration of the Leader election, unless the elected leader is a woman.
At the end of 2.B I add:
In the event of an election for deputy leader consequent on the requirement for at least one woman in the leadership, if at the close of the nomination period all candidates for Deputy Leader are male, nominations will be reopened with a threshold of 5% of the Commons members of the PLP. If after the close of such nomination period, there are no women nominations, nominations will reopen with self-nomination from members of the PLP.
At the beginning of 2 C iii add:
Votes will be counted first for Leader. If a man is declared elected, the first preference votes for any man in the Deputy Leadership election will be disregarded.
The second preference votes of those male candidates will be redistributed immediately and considered in the first round of counting. If a woman is elected leader, all votes and candidates will be counted in the Deputy Leader election.
Vote Against
Our reason: see above – plus, this suggested rule change is unnecessarily complicated and long-winded.
17. Kingswood, referencing chapter 4, Clause II, Section C. vi, Voting-Registered Supporters, page 19
Remove the phrase ‘registered supporters’
Remove all other references to registered supporters in rule book.
Vote For
Our reason: This was referenced back last year in favour of the Party Democracy Review – as it is listed again, we presume this issue is not covered by the recommendations of the Review. We are against the Americanisation of politics and would argue for Labour Party members only to have a vote.
18. Canterbury,Leeds North West, Newark, Southampton Test, Stockton South, referencing chapter 4, Clause II, Section 4, Election of General Secretary, page 20
Delete section 4.A. and replace with
The General Secretary of the Party shall be elected in accordance with the provisions set out below for a term of up to 3 years, at the discretion of the NEC. The General Secretary shall be accountable to the NEC for the implementation of its decisions and the management of all Labour Party staff. The NEC shall have the power to terminate the employment of the General Secretary, provided that its decision is supported by an absolute majority of its members.
The first election under these rules shall be initiated no more than one year and eight months after this rule is introduced when the General Secretary at that time shall be entitled to apply and, if s/he does so, shall be entitled to be included as a candidate in the ballot. Thereafter, no later than 2 years and eight months after the previous election of the general secretary, and in the event of a casual vacancy or a decision to give notice of the termination of the appointment of the current general secretary, the NEC shall initiate the process for electing a general secretary.
In order to ensure a wide choice of applicants, all NEC members may choose up to 4 applicants for interview, at least two of whom shall be women, and the eight candidates with the most support shall be interviewed. Following the interviews, all NEC members may support two candidates, one of whom must be a woman, of whom the top four shall go forward to a national one member one vote (OMOV) ballot of all members of the party to be conducted in line with guidelines issued by the NEC.
The candidate with the most votes in that ballot shall be declared elected General Secretary at the subsequent Party conference and shall be an ex-officio member of Party conference. S/he shall devote her or his whole time to the work of the Party and shall not be eligible to act as a parliamentary candidate. Should a vacancy in the office occur, for whatever reason, between Party conferences, the NEC shall have full power to fill the vacancy on a temporary basis pending the outcome of a new election. And the NEC shall make necessary consequential amendments.
Vote Against
Our reason: We have a lot of sympathy for this rule change, which has no doubt been inspired by the disastrous reign of Iain McNicol. He had to be bribed out of his job after undermining Jeremy Corbyn for two long years, during which he was responsible for facilitating the witch-hunt against thousands of Corbyn supporters, creating the hostile and fearful atmosphere we can still feel today.
Currently, the GS is elected at conference “at the recommendation of the NEC” and usually stays in the job until s/he dies or retires. We therefore welcome the fact that this rule change seeks to give the NEC the clear power to sack the GS, because that is clearly missing in the current rules. However, this also creates a certain democratic deficit: all party members can vote for the GS, but s/he could then be sacked by the NEC.
In our view, it would make more sense for the GS to be truly accountable to the NEC by being elected by this body too: it is, after all, the NEC that the GS is supposed to serve.
We also disagree with limiting the term to three years. If the person is doing a great job, why get rid of him or her? On the other hand, if s/he is terrible, s/he can be sacked straight away anyway. There is no point to this limit.
19. New Forest East, referencing chapter 4, Clause II, Section 4, Election of General Secretary, page 20
See rule change 16, but this envisages “… a term of up to 5 years” instead of 3 years.
Vote Against
Our reason: See above 18.
20. Swansea West, referencing chapter 4, Clause II, Section 8, Election of Leader and Deputy Leader of Welsh Labour Party, page 20
Remove sub clause 8.A and replace with
The Leader and Deputy Leader of Welsh Labour shall be elected by a one member one vote (OMOV) ballot of members in Wales conducted to procedures laid down by the Welsh Executive Committee.
Vote Against
Our reason: Again, we have a lot of sympathy with the motives behind this rule change: a truly undemocratic weighted electoral college, adopted only recently by the Welsh executive committee, has led to the election of Carolyn Harris MP, who is deeply unpopular among individual Labour Party members (but was favoured by the unions and elected representatives). But if there has to be a position of ‘leader’ – a position we think should be abolished – we would prefer this person to be elected by the (democratically chosen) Welsh/Scottish executive directly. After all, s/he is supposed to be accountable to and recallable by that body.
21. Dartford, referencing chapter 4, Clause III, Section A.i.d, Election of NEC – local governance, page 21
Replace first sentence with:
Division IV (local governance) shall consist of four members from either the Association of Labour Councillors (‘ALC’), directly elected mayors, or elected Police Commissioners, at least two of whom shall be women.
Vote Against
Our reason: This rule change clearly comes from the right. Instead of doubling the figure from two to four, these NEC positions should be abolished altogether.
22. Sefton Central, referencing chapter 4, Clause III, Section C.i. a,b and c, Election of the NCC (national constitutional committee), Page 22
In sub clauses C(i) a, b and c delete
‘their delegations at Party conference on a card vote basis’
Replace with:
‘means of a one-member-one-vote postal ballot among all eligible individual members of the Party, conducted to guidelines laid down by the NEC’
Vote For
Our reason: The National Constitutional Committee is incredibly important in the ongoing civil war. This is where the NEC sends all disciplinary cases it does not want to deal with themselves. Ideally, it should be abolished. But, seeing as this is not an option, we agree with this reform, which takes away the right of the unions, cooperatives and socialist societies to chose who should judge over party members.
23. Manchester Gorton, referencing chapter 5, Clause IV, Selection of Westminster Parliamentary Candidates, page 27
insert New Sub clause after sub clause 1, to read:
The NEC’s procedural rules and guidelines for the selection of candidates for Westminster parliament elections shall include provision for party branches and affiliated organisations to both interview prospective candidates and make nominations to the long list. The drawing up of the final shortlist will give due cognisance to the weight of nominations each candidate receives.
Vote For
Our reason: This is mainly to do with by-elections, where time constraints are often used as a reason to ignore the nominations by branches. Currently, candidates can be nominated by most branches, but still excluded from the long list. However, this rule change is basically tinkering with a process that is wholly undemocratic. We hope that rule changes 22 and 24 will supersede this one.
24. Portsmouth North, Rochester & Strood, referencing chapter 5, Clause IV, Selection of Westminster Parliamentary Candidates, Point 5, page 28
Remove sub clause A and B and replace with
If the sitting MP wishes to stand for re-election the standard procedures for the selection of a Prospective Parliamentary Candidate shall be set in motion not later than 42 months after the last time the said Member of Parliament was elected to Parliament at a general election and before any scheduled or “snap” general election. The said Member of Parliament shall have equal selection rights to other potential candidates save for those outlined in paragraph.
The said Member of Parliament shall have the right to be included (irrespective of whether he/she has been nominated) on the shortlist of candidates from whom the selection of the Prospective Parliamentary Candidate shall be made
Vote For
Our reason: This rule change does away with the trigger ballot. It would establish the mandatory reselection of all parliamentary candidates, similar to rule change 24. We presume these two amendments will be composited.
25. West Lancashire, referencingchapter 5, Clause IV, Selection of Westminster Parliamentary Candidates, Point 5, page 28
In Section 5 remove all references to ‘trigger ballot’ and replace with the phrase ‘CLP re-selection ballot’
Remove text from Section B and replace with:
If the MP fails to win the trigger ballot, he/ she shall not be eligible for nomination for selection as the prospective parliamentary candidate, and s/he shall not be included in the shortlist of candidates from whom the selection shall be made.
Vote For
Our reason: This will hopefully be overtaken by the much more radical rule changes 22 and 24. If not, then we urge a vote in favour of this rule change, as currently a sitting MP is automatically included on the short list of candidates, even if they lose the trigger ballot.
26. Labour International, referencing chapter 5, Clause IV, Selection of Westminster Parliamentary Candidates, Point 5, page 28
Remove sub clauses 5 and 6 and replace with:
Vote For
Our reason:This is very similar to rule change 22 and the two will probably be composited. It would enshrine a process of real mandatory reselection.
27. Worthing West, Bristol West, Hove, referencingchapter 5, Clause IV, Selection of Westminster Parliamentary Candidates, Point 5, page 28
Remove Section 5 and 6 and replace with:
Vote Against
Our reason: This rule change might do away with the word ‘trigger ballot’, but not with the undemocratic concept. If a sitting MP receives more than 66% of nominations from party branches and affiliated organisations, the MP would automatically be reselected. Such a system would still hugely favour the sitting MP and could be easily rigged by affiliated unions and societies. Much better to have an open and democratic contest between all candidates, to be decided by Labour Party members – as envisaged by rule changes 22 and 24. It smacks of Momentum’s original plan to reform the trigger ballot (see article by Carla Roberts).
28. Hastings & Rye, Kensington, Rayleigh & Wickford, referencing chapter 5, Clause IV, Selection of Westminster Parliamentary Candidates, Point 5, page 28
Remove Section 5 A and B and replace with:
5. If the sitting MP wishes to stand for re-election the standard procedures for the selection of a Prospective Parliamentary Candidate shall be set in motion not later than 42 months after the last time the said Member of Parliament was elected to Parliament at a general election. If the nominations, by both party units and affiliates, are over 66% in favour of the sitting MP then the NEC has the authority to endorse the sitting MPs as the CLP’s prospective parliamentary candidate [in those cases where a CLP does not have a branch structure (in other words, does not have the usual structure of party units), the NEC will provide appropriate guidance].
6. The said Member of Parliament shall have the right to be included (irrespective of whether he/she has been nominated) on the shortlist of candidates from whom the selection of the Prospective Parliamentary Candidate shall be made.
Vote Against
Our reason: Shorter than rule change 25, but would still give the sitting MP a huge advantage over other candidates. Also smacks of Momentum’s original plan to reform the trigger ballot (see article by Carla Roberts).
29. Richmond Park, referencing chapter 5, Clause IV, Selection of Westminster Parliamentary Candidates, Point 5, page 28
At the start of Section 7 add:
CLPs have the right to decide whether or not to field a candidate to contest a Westminster parliamentary seat. Such a vote, if moved from the floor and seconded, is to be taken at the beginning of a selection meeting. Should the vote be passed, the selection meeting is concluded. This decision would be endorsed by the NEC, such endorsements would not be reasonably with-held. Should the vote fall, the meeting proceeds to the selection of candidates.
Vote For
Our reason: We presume that this rule change comes from the right and has been moved by people who argued to withdraw a Labour Party candidate in favour of Tory billionaire Zac Goldsmith, who was standing as an ‘independent’ candidate in a by-election in 2016, triggered by his resignation from the Conservatives in protest over their support for a third runway in Heathrow (he is now safely back in the Tory fold).
Nevertheless, it is entirely correct that local members should have the right to decide not just whothey want as their candidate – but also ifthey even want to stand somebody. In the past, local Labour Parties stood down in order to support a candidate from the Communist Party, for example.
30. Cheltenham, referencing chapter 5, Clause IV, Section 1, Selection of Westminster Parliamentary Candidates, page 28
Remove Section 1 and replace with:
Following a parliamentary election in constituencies that do not elect Labour MPs, all the relevant CLPs will choose and appoint a candidate for any future parliamentary election within six months of the date of the aforesaid parliamentary election. If the chosen candidate later withdraws for any reason, the CLP will choose and appoint another candidate within three months. These selections will be made according to the procedure described in paragraphs 5.IV.6 -7 and clause 5.I.
Vote Against
Our reason: There is currently no particular time frame for choosing candidates. Is it useful to have somebody in this position for over four and a half years? This rule change does not allow for the person to be replaced (unless s/he withdraws voluntarily).
31. Bracknell, referencing chapter 6, Clause 1, Section 2, Readmission to the party following Auto-
Exclusion, Page 31
Remove section 2 and replace with:
When there has either been a decision to expel a member, or an automatic exclusion has been agreed, the body making that decision (NEC or NCC) will at the time of the decision also specify a period of between one and five years which has to elapse before readmission will be considered. The member will be informed of the exclusion period and the reason for their exclusion. The CLP will also be similarly informed. An application for re-admission shall not normally be considered by the NEC until the specified minimum period has elapsed. When a person applies for re-admission to the Party following an expulsion by the NCC on whatever basis or by automatic exclusion under Chapter 2 4A above of the membership rules, the application shall be submitted to the NEC for consideration and decision. The decision of the NEC shall be binding on the individual concerned and on the CLP relevant to the application.
Vote For
Our reason:The current period following an expulsion or auto-exclusion is set at a fixed “minimum of five years”. This amendment would give the NEC the right to choose a shorter period. There would probably still be unfair and unjust expulsions, but this is slightly better than the status quo.
32. Stockport, referencing chapter 11, Clause V, Rules for Young Labour, Page 47
Add an additional sub clause 4, as follows:
Young Labour shall have its own constitution and standing orders, to be determined by the Young Labour AGM.
Vote For
Our reason: This amendment should have been discussed and agreed last year, but was referenced back in favour of the Party Democracy Review. So unless this proposal is superseded by democratic changes contained in Katy Clark’s recommendations, socialists should support.
33. City of Durham, referencing chapter 12, Clause I and IV, Rules for Local Campaign Forums, Page 52
In Chapter 12 remove all reference to ‘Local Campaign Forum’ and replace with ‘Local Government Committee’.
Remove sub clauses 1-4 in Clause IV and replace with:
Vote For
Our reason: This will probably be superseded by the Party Democracy Review, which wants to re-establish District Labour Parties and do away with LCFs altogether (though we do not yet know on what basis).
The current LCFs clearly need radical reforming: They are dominated by councillors and party officials and are little more than toothless debating chambers. They used to write the Labour group’s manifesto, but this has long been outsourced to the councillors themselves. We would prefer a much more thoroughgoing reform of this body though.
Carla Roberts looks at some of the rule changes before this year’s Labour conference
First, a note of caution: this will not be the final list of constitutional amendments before delegates at this year’s conference in Liverpool (September 23-26). Some of them will be composited with similar amendments and there are indeed a few where that makes entire sense – as opposed to contemporary political motions, which are usually composited into bland, motherhood and apple pie statements.
We also know that some amendments coming from Constituency Labour Parties will be superseded by the recommendations and proposed rule changes coming out of the Party Democracy Review (PDR) run by Jeremy Corbyn’s right-hand woman, Katy Clark. Unfortunately, it looks like the first delegates will get to see of them will be at conference itself – the national executive committee will take another look on September 18. Those recommendations will be discussed on the Sunday, the first day of conference, with the rest of the rule changes to be debated and voted upon on the Tuesday.
In accordance with one of the plethora of undemocratic clauses in the Labour rule book, proposed constitutional amendments from CLPs are parked for almost 14 months before they can finally be discussed by delegates. Among them is motion 10, which proposes to do away with this crassly anti-democratic delaying rule.
CLPs are only allowed to submit either one contemporary motion or one constitutional amendment per year, which means that any reform attempts from below take an incredibly long time to filter through. And, once conference has voted on an issue, it cannot be revisited for another three years – even if it only deals with the same question tangentially. The result is a ridiculously long, overcomplicated travesty of a constitution. Yes, the PDR will push through a number of changes (including, apparently, the abolition of the three-year rule). But clearly, the whole thing should be ripped up and replaced by a new, streamlined constitution that is fit for purpose.
We will look at the recommendations from the PDR as and when they are finally published, but, judging from the leaks, it is fair to say that it will probably not contain many of the radical proposals that would be needed to transform the Labour Party into a real party of the working class. This would require Jeremy Corbyn and his allies making a conscious decision to put two fingers up to the right inside and outside the party.
No, the most radical proposals come from below, from CLPs. For example, in order for Labour to become the umbrella organisation for all trade unions, socialist groups and pro-working class partisans, all undemocratic bans and proscriptions must be abolished. Constitutional amendment number 6 from Mid Worcestershire, Rugby, Truro & Falmouth, Bexhill & Battle makes a useful start in that direction. It wants to remove the first part of the infamous rule 2.1.4.B (‘membership conditions’), which bars from membership anybody who “joins and/or supports a political organisation other than an official Labour group or other unit of the party”.
Although we fear it is unlikely to win a majority, it is an important debate to have. Jon Lansman has already made it clear that Momentum would oppose such a change, as “this could benefit groups who are opposed to the party”. What, like Progress and Labour First? Of course not.
Lansman knows very well that this rule has been applied in an entirely one-sided way against leftwingers only – among them supporters of Socialist Appeal, the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty and Labour Party Marxists. Groups such as Progress and Labour First remain untouched and can continue to operate freely and in a highly organised fashion. And what about members of Stop the War Coalition or Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament? Surely they are also examples of a “political organisation”? This rule should go. Labour would be positively transformed by allowing members of left groups – who are often very dedicated – to operate freely in the party.
Instead, Lansman seems to have inspired rule change number 7 from Broxtowe, which adds a few words to the first sentence: “joins and/or supports a political organisation that is in conflict with the aims and principles of the Labour Party”. This formulation has been used, for example, to expel supporters of Socialist Appeal because, rather than recognise “the importance of the enterprise of the market”, the organisation wants to “consign the market economy to the dustbin of history”. The amendment carries that distinct danger and should therefore be opposed.
The Parliamentary Labour Party urgently has to be brought under democratic control. The majority of Labour MPs have been shamelessly plotting against Jeremy Corbyn and sabotaging him at every turn. They are far to the right of the Labour membership and, once elected, usually enjoy a ‘job for life’.
It is unfortunate that Jeremy Corbyn – after all, he is the central target of the right – has refused to take up the challenge and include mandatory reselection in the Party Democracy Review. Nevertheless, there are eight rule changes, submitted by 13 CLPs, dealing with the subject of how and when the party selects its parliamentary candidates. If we ignore the rule changes that tinker with some of the less important issues around this question and combine similar rule changes, we can see that there are two clear alternatives.
Such a system would still be hugely in favour of the sitting MP and could easily be rigged by affiliated unions and societies. Much better to have an open and democratic contest between all candidates, to be decided by Labour members – as envisaged by rule changes 24 and 26.
Option 2 smells heavily of Momentum’s original plan. Instead of doing away with the undemocratic trigger ballot altogether, Jon Lansman merely drew up a lame proposal to raise the threshold from Tony Blair’s 50% back to Neil Kinnock’s 66% – ie, two thirds of local branches and affiliates would have to vote in favour of the sitting MP, otherwise a full selection process would begin. Lansman even had this proposal sanctioned by the membership in one of Momentum’s tortuous and clearly biased online “consultations”.
But he seems to have undergone a mysterious change of heart and we can only speculate about the reasons behind it. He has certainly not explained them to Momentum members – or bothered to mention that there even has been a change. Lansman has still not told members which of the rule changes he wants them to vote for, but option 2 is clearly not it.
This week, he sent another email to the membership, informing them that Momentum now favours a system that gives
a fair chance to all candidates and does away with this negative, divisive stage of campaigning – so it’s an open contest from the start, and there are no ‘jobs for life’. That way, local members and the sitting MP can compete for the Labour Party’s backing at the general election, and run positive campaigns about issues local voters really care about.
Momentum has even set up a petition on the issue. Would it be petty if we thought this was a neat way of harvesting more data, while simultaneously jumping on an increasingly successful bandwagon?
Evidently, the increasingly vitriolic nature of the civil war in the Labour Party has given the campaign for mandatory reselection a new lease of life. With the support of Unite, the Fire Brigades Union, presumably the vast majority of CLP delegates and even the timid backing of Jeremy Corbyn himself, it has a good chance of winning at conference (even though John McDonnell managed to disappoint once more by declaring his support for the existing system).
It is understandable that a good deal of proposed rule changes want to extend the use of ‘one member, one vote’ to elect NEC representatives (rule changes 1, 2, 3 and 4) and even the party general secretary (18 and 19). After all, this is the method that allowed Corbyn to become leader.
This trend is also reflected in the recommendations that are expected to be in the PDR. The Huffington Post published a leaked summary, which apparently includes recommendations for “more digital democracy”, including “secure online voting systems for CLPs developed for policy and other matters”.
However, in our view there are some serious problems with Omov. As a general principle we should be against plebiscites in the party – for electoral contests or otherwise. There is a good reason why the move to Omov for the election of the party leader began with the likes of Neil Kinnock and John Smith, and culminated in Ed Miliband’s Collins review – it was a rightwing ploy to dilute the working class nature of our party. It atomises comrades and makes serious political engagement very difficult. For example, how do you question a candidate when all you have is a short statement and s/he does not reply to emails? In terms of making policy, how can you effectively move an amendment when you do not have the possibility of talking to people and explaining some of the nuances?
Take the contemporary motion on Brexit pushed by People’s Vote. On paper, many lefties and Corbyn supporters find this entirely acceptable – allowing the people a say on the final Brexit deal sounds democratic, doesn’t it? Until you explain to them that this is clearly part of the coup against Corbyn, to embarrass him even further by undermining his pretty successful strategy of letting the Tories tear each other to pieces, while keeping all options open. Having to come out for a People’s Vote is likely to cost him in terms of votes.
Comrades should also bear in mind the farce that was Lansman’s Momentum coup, cynically wrapped as it was in a veneer of ‘democracy from below’. In fact, this pseudo-inclusive manoeuvre crushed the embryonic democratic structures of the organisation and substituted online voting by the entire, atomised and easily steered membership. Omov in Lansman’s hands was the vehicle for a profoundly undemocratic plot against the interests of the membership – one that stymied Momentum’s potential to be an effective, dynamic left trend in the party.
Online voting also marginalises the role of the unions in the party. Yes, the representatives of rightwing unions have played an entirely negative role on the NEC and when it comes to trigger ballots. But in general, the affiliation of unions is an enormous strength of the Labour Party. While they should not be allowed to stop the democratic selection of parliamentary candidates, unions have clearly played an important role in preserving the character of the Labour Party as a workers’ party, even under Tony Blair. In fact, we should fight for a serious commitment to a vigorous national campaign to affiliate all unions.
Jeremy Newmark is in deep trouble, Ann Black has been dropped by Jon Lansman and AWL members have been declared ‘unwelcome’ by London Young Labour, reports Carla Roberts
Imagine the following: a well-known Corbyn supporter is accused of “misusing” tens of thousands of pounds of a charity he is running in order to go on holiday with his family, leases a “46,000 luxury car” and awards his wife contracts worth £36,000. General secretary Iain McNicol and his compliance unit would have acted with speed … and with some not inconsiderable glee.
Of course, we are talking about Jeremy Newmark, until recently chair of the Jewish Labour Movement and, as we go to press, still a full Labour Party member and a Hertsmere councillor. Unlike many of the pro-Palestinian campaigners, of course, that he and the Jewish Labour Movement have successfully managed to get suspended from the party on the flimsiest of accusations of ‘anti-Semitism’.
The enthusiasm with which the pro-Zionist Jewish Chronicle has attacked Newmark is quite breathtaking – after all, it has given him and the Jewish Labour Movement many a platform to attack pro-Palestinians and anti-Zionists. But clearly, a good story beats religion. JC alleges that Newmark’s financial dealings with the Jewish Leadership Council were – how shall we put it? – somewhat suspect. And, when awkward questions were asked, Newmark agreed to resign from his position as chief executive for “health reasons”. Not that his health stopped him from being leader of the JLM, a Labour councillor and running as the parliamentary candidate in Finchley and Golders Green (he just failed to become an MP).
We need not point out the hypocrisy in the different treatments that Newmark and Corbyn supporters have been receiving – not just from the compliance unit, but also the bourgeois media. Apart from a couple of articles in The Times, there is an eerie silence. But it is not the job of socialists to appeal to McNicol to discipline fellow Labour Party members (after all, we want McNicol sacked and many of the disciplinary offences he so freely wields abolished).
And, of course, we believe in the principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty’. But, firstly, that does not go for the dozens, if not hundreds, who remain suspended and expelled from the party for a wide range of ‘crimes’ – including being rude on the internet or being an alleged supporter of a Marxist group. And, secondly, from reading the allegations in JC there appears to be damning evidence against Newmark, which would at the very least warrant an investigation. McNicol’s claim that the issue is “private” is quite frankly breathtaking. Even the Jewish Labour Movement had the sense to agree with Newmark that he should resign.
There are lessons here. The Momentum leader, Jon Lansman, has previously boasted that “I work closely with Jeremy [Newmark]” and explained how he took the advice of the JLM before ‘demoting’ Jackie Walker from her position of vice-chair of Momentum.
And, in the mistaken belief that he could shield himself from the accusations of being soft on anti-Semitism, Jeremy Corbyn has given the JLM in effect a free hand to wreak havoc with its ‘Anti-Zionism equals anti-Semitism’ campaign. Shamefully, Corbyn has silently stood by, allowing pretty much any criticism of the actions of the state of Israel to be branded as evidence of anti-Semitism. All in the empty hope that he will finally have given the right wing in the party enough scalps to shut up and let him lead.
Jon Lansman has given up all pretence of leftwing candidates for the national executive committee being chosen by some kind of semi-democratic decision-making between various groups under the umbrella of the mysterious ‘Centre Left Grassroots Alliance’ (CLGA). Once upon a time, this might have been a real attempt to get together left Labour organisations in order to discuss joint candidates – but even then it was always done firmly behind closed doors.
Now Jon Lansman, who literally owns Momentum, seems to be in sole charge. Last year, the CLGA managed to agree on three NEC candidates within a matter of days, in a much-ridiculed process, where – surprise, surprise – Lansman was one of those chosen.
For the 2018 elections, it looked as if a similar process would be employed. Nominations on the Momentum website opened on January 8, ended on January 14 and by January 18 the Momentum candidates were supposed be chosen by a panel from its national coordinating group to then go to the CLGA. Momentum’s website still states: “Please note that because Momentum is only one out of a number of organisations which has input into the CLGA, gaining the support of Momentum does not guarantee getting the final support of the CLGA for these elections.”
But somewhere along the line Lansman thought, ‘Nah, why bother?’ On February 9, the final list of the nine candidates supported by Momentum only was leaked to the Huffington Post – before the rest of the CLGA could pretend to have a say on the matter. It took another week before he informed Momentum members, via email on February 15. We understand that, at the heart of this, is the fact that Jon Lansman and his old comrade in the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy, Pete Willsman, have fallen out over the matter of Ann Black.
We could already gather from NEC veteran Willsman’s latest email report (sent out on January 31) that something fishy was going on. In a minor point he says that at the last Labour NEC meeting “Ann Black, in her usual reasoned way,” argued against a particular oversight and that, “as usual, Ann’s reasonable arguments carried the day”.
Yes, that is the same Ann Black who has played a despicable role in sidelining Corbyn supporters in the run-up to the leadership elections. The same Ann Black, who as long-serving chair of the disputes panel played a key role in keeping the witch-hunt against the left alive. Her replacement by Christine Shawcroft was long overdue.
But not for comrade Willsman, apparently. We understand that he has been arguing vehemently that she be included once again on the CLGA slate. But he was narrowly outvoted by the CLPD executive. However, comrade Willsman did not budge on the issue and kept on insisting she be nominated.
Anyway, Jon Lansman did what he does best: went nuclear. He announced nine candidates supported by Momentum – not including Ann Black. Nevertheless, “I shall be standing as a candidate for the NEC, on the centre-left platform that I have supported for the past 18 years,” she told the Huffington Post. Doubtless, Black’s politics have not changed much in 18 years, but it is a sign of the weakness of the Labour left that it ever supported her in the first place.
Current NEC members Claudia Webbe, Rachel Garnham, Yasmine Dar, Pete Willsman, Darren Williams and, of course, Jon Lansman himself, are featured on the new slate. The newcomers backed by Lansman are Huda Elmi (Momentum national coordinating group), Nav Mishra (a Momentum regional organiser) and Anne Henderson (assistant secretary of the Scottish Trades Union Congress). All nine are virtual shoo-ins for the 2018 NEC elections, some major political earthquake notwithstanding.
One person missing from the Momentum slate, however, is Rhea Wolfson, an entirely forgettable member of the NEC, had it not been for her proud membership of the Jewish Labour Movement (she also sits on the editorial board of the AWL-sponsored magazine The Clarion). Unfortunately, her departure is voluntary and not the result of a campaign of the pro-Palestinian left. She appears to harbour ambitions of becoming an MP – which is, we understand, the main reason for not throwing her hat in the ring again.
AWL members were amongst the first victims of the anti-left witch-hunt in the Labour Party, when, just after the publication of Tom Watson’s ‘dodgy dossier’, a dozen or so members and supporters were expelled from Labour. And yet the group has itself been giving encouragement to the witch-hunt against leftwingers in its own way.
Its participation in the ‘Anti-Zionism equals anti-Semitism’ campaign is not of the same calibre as that waged by the JLM and the ‘Campaign Against Anti-Semitism’, which systematically, and with a lot of technical know-how and money, scroll through Facebook and Twitter accounts to catch out members for using particular words.
For one thing, the AWL lacks the numbers and finance for that type of campaign. It represents more the type of busybody who would report their neighbour to the East German Stasi for watching West German TV. In the worldview of AWL leader Sean Matgamna (who, like others in their leadership, open declares himself a Zionist), pretty much anybody on the “fake left” who has the audacity to criticise Israel is an anti-Semite.
AWL members on the (then) Momentum steering committee joined Jon Lansman in voting for the removal of Jackie Walker as national vice-chair – in fact they enabled the man to go one further a few weeks later and abolish the steering committee and all democratic structures with it in the now infamous Lansman coup of January 10 2017. AWL leader Sean Matgamna continues to call for Ken Livingstone to be expelled from the Labour Party for making factually slightly wrong, but politically entirely correct, statements about the collaboration of Nazis and Zionist leaders in the 1930s. [The editorial team of their paper Solidarity seems to disagree about calling for his expulsion, but they happily print Sean’s articles without critiquing his call and regularly denounce him as an anti-Semite in their pages].
It joined with the JLM and the rightwing media hysteria in condemning Moshé Machover’s article, ‘Anti-Zionism does not equal anti-Semitism’, in Labour Party Marxists, which led to his expulsion (after a massive campaign within the party he was subsequently reinstated three weeks later). “Overnight, Machover’s article became a cause célèbre for left anti-Semites (and anti-Semites in general)”, states the AWL in its paper, Solidarity.
Displaying its ignorance and lack of basic sense of solidarity with a victim of Iain McNicol’s compliance unit, the AWL claims in an official statement that the article was carried in a leaflet, which
was distributed at a fringe meeting of the rightwing Labour First faction, in a stunt obviously designed to catch the eye of the Labour right and provoke expulsions to generate publicity for themselves … We restate our opposition to the existence of this rulebook clause, and its usage to justify summary expulsions, including in this case. But we have no sympathy with the leaflet stunt, and no desire to defend it as an exercise of democratic rights.
This deeply problematic statement also shows that the AWL must have been asleep throughout conference last year – otherwise they would have noticed that comrade Machover’s article was carried in our A3-size newspaper (not a leaflet) and it was widely distributed every day at various fringe events, as well as at conference itself. Jeremy Newmark – who was almost as outraged as the AWL about the article – picked it up on the first morning outside the main conference entrance – and then telephoned various journalists, who were keen to cover the story. But don’t let the facts get in the way of a good smear.
At the AGM of London Young Labour on February 3, the AWL once again played this bizarre double role. The meeting adopted a truly contemptuous motion submitted by the AWL-backed Labour Campaign for Free Movement – and then voted in favour of one that comes close to calling for the expulsion of AWL members from the youth wing.
The motion submitted by LCFM starts by stating, rather problematically, that “we have recently seen a rise in racist, xenophobic and anti-Semitic hate crime” and that “Muslim and Jewish women are disproportionately targeted in terms of Islamophobia and anti-Semitism”.
It does not quote the source of these claims, but chances are the AWL has joined a range of bourgeois journalists in adopting in an entirely uncritical way the claims made in the ‘Report on anti-Semitic incidents’, which is published twice a year by the pro-Zionist charity, Community Security Trust (a charity “known to have links to Israel’s Mossad spy agency”, as the award-winning Electronic Intifada states).
The motion goes on to make some utterly forgettable, non-controversial demands (“it is essential that we stand up for the rights of everyone in this country to practise their faith and be safe from hate”), which, incidentally, do not include the call for free movement beyond what exists across the EU today.
Bizarrely though, the LCFM motion commits London Young Labour to:
8. Work alongside the Jewish Labour Movement, Labour Muslims, Sikhs for Labour and other faith groups to address the systemic hate faced by those who identify into these groups, both within and outside of our movement.
9. Run training with Hope Not Hate on how to tackle bigotry and xenophobia in society.
Point 8 does not just support the clearly untrue claim of there being a huge ‘anti-Semitism problem’ in the Labour Party. It commits the organisation to work with the disgraced JLM, which has played such a deplorable role in the witch-hunt of pro-Palestinian Corbyn supporters.
Hope Not Hate, while not playing an active part in the witch-hunt, is a rightwing version of the Socialist Workers Party’s ‘Stand Up To Racism’. For example, the anti-Corbyn MP, Ruth Smeeth, was a director of Hope not Hate for many years – she also worked for the Community Security Trust mentioned above. Nice bedfellows indeed.
The same Young Labour event then went on to adopt a motion in response to recent allegations made by a former (then 16-year-old) AWL member of sexual misconduct by another member. The motion claims that the event was then “covered up by the AWL student organiser”. The details are quite well known by now. They are unpleasant, but not of such a level of seriousness to warrant that
the presence of AWL members/supporters at London Young Labour organising and social spaces is unacceptable and unwelcome until they carry out a formal, open transparent investigation. The processes of this investigation must be ones in which the survivor has confidence, and the processes and outcomes of the investigation must centre the needs of survivors of sexual violence. (see full statement below)
A group of young pro-Lansmanites seems to behind this motion (who would have thought that such a tendency would ever exist?). AWL members are quite right to smell “a witch-hunt against Workers’ Liberty”:
The cynical use of this important issue, by some, ultimately is a means of silencing political opponents. It is a danger to the entire left. It will not end with Workers’ Liberty. It can, and will, be used against anyone else seen not to have ‘the right line’ on any number of issues. It creates a movement within which reasoned discussion of political differences becomes impossible.
Like, say, the issue of opposing Zionism, perhaps? The words ‘kettle’, ‘black’ and ‘pot’ spring to mind.
London Young Labour notes:
1. In January 2018, it emerged the AWL had covered up the sexual abuse of a child, who had been offered drinks by AWL members despite being under 18. The sexual assault was covered up by the AWL’s student organiser, and the AWL member in question faced no disciplinary action or expulsion from the AWL.
2. The victim was subjected to a campaign of smears and harassment, which included ablist remarks hurled at him on the street and slanderous complaints made to his employer.
3. A statement on the AWL website confirmed the allegations of the victim’s statement, but deflected blame to “online trolling”.
London Young Labour believes:
1. Sexual violence is not confined to one tendency or political leaning, but certain structures and organising tactics – such as the AWL’s secretive, top-down structures – are more likely to enable and mask abuse of all kinds.
2. Sexual violence pushes out women and other marginalised groups from our party.
3. As an organisation, LYL must also take into account that the survivor of this assault was underage. The AWL members had bought him drinks and got him drunk, which is an incredibly serious breach of safeguarding.
4. Sexual violence must not be tolerated within our organisation and neither must apologism for sexual abuse.
London Young Labour resolves:
1. To make clear that the presence of AWL members/supporters at London Young Labour organising and social spaces is unacceptable and unwelcome until they carry out a formal, open, transparent investigation. The processes of this investigation must be ones in which the survivor has confidence, and the processes and outcomes of the investigation must centre on the needs of survivors of sexual violence.
2. To carry out research into our own processes and policies and make sure they adequately support survivors of sexual violence.
(this article first appeared in the Weekly Worker)
The front page headline in the Daily Mail of September 26 was “Labour is the real nasty party”. One might imagine that the story was about Labour advocating stamping on some section of the downtrodden poor. But no. Surprise, surprise – Labour is “the nasty party” because it refuses to suppress anti-Zionist speech, and, indeed, (shock, horror!) delegates have even applauded such speech. The Mail calls this an “outbreak of intimidation and anti-Semitism at its annual conference”.
The Daily Telegraph had the same story, with a bit more elaboration, under the headline, ‘Labour activists compare Israel to Nazi Germany, as Jeremy Corbyn accused of behaving like “ostrich” over anti-Semitism’. The trigger for the story was the Monday fringe meeting called by Free Speech on Israel.
Canned denunciations were provided to the Mail by former Tory minister Andrew Percy and by Labour MPs John Cryer (chair of the Parliamentary Labour Party), Wes Streeting, and John Mann. In addition, the Mail linked the issue to the (actually old) story of trolls’ threats to Laura Kuenssberg in relation to BBC bias in the run-up to the general election, with quotes on this issue provided by MPs Harriet Harman and Jess Phillips.
The Mail tells us that:
A Labour spokesman last night said Mr Corbyn was now tightening up the rules on those who make anti-Semitic comments. He said the party “condemns anti-Semitism in the strongest possible terms” and “will not tolerate holocaust denial”.
The reference is to a rule change agreed to go to conference by the national executive committee, which will change the present rules to allow certain sorts of ‘expression of opinion’ to be the basis of expulsions.
In the Telegraph, the Mail’s ‘amalgam’ (smear by combining unrelated issues) with trolls threatening Kuenssberg is not repeated. But, as well as very similar quotes to those in the Mail from Wes Streeting, John Cryer and John Mann, denunciations in the Telegraph are also provided by shadow health secretary Jonathan Ashworth MP, Jeremy Newmark of Poale Zion (which misappropriated the name ‘Jewish Labour Movement’ in 2004) and Jennifer Gerber of Labour Friends of Israel.
By September 27 the story had spread into other news outlets, notably The Times,which spread a headline on the point across the two pages of its Labour conference coverage and added a leader demanding that “Jeremy Corbyn must at last declare himself on the side of Israel and British Jews” – a very revealing word order: this campaign is about demanding support for Israel – and for “British Jews” only insofar as they support Israel. In the same day’s coverage in the Times and elsewhere Labour Party Marxists is targeted for publishing articles by Jewish anti-Zionists which called into question the factual basis of the complaints against Ken Livingstone.
In other words, the ‘weaponisation’ by the rightwing press and the Labour right of the false and defamatory claim that anti-Zionism amounts to anti-Semitism is persisting in full force. It persists in spite of the ‘unity’ talk of all sides in Labour. And it does so in spite of the concessions made to the PZ-JLM claims by Labour’s national executive committee, which have not defanged the argument. If anything, the NEC’s fudge on the issue is poisoned: it is at risk of conceding the substance of the PZ-JLM claims under cover of superficially neutral language.
To understand why this is so involves understanding both the traps – Scylla and Charybdis – posed by the PZ-JLM’s and the NEC’s (different) proposed rule changes: the problem of the tension of freedom of speech and freedom of association and disassociation. And it involves understanding how these specifically play out in the character of the Labour Party – which is not a ‘normal’ political party, but one which is founded on two contradictory claims, driving a permanent tendency to witch-hunting. The ‘anti-Semitism scandal’ is merely the most recent iteration of ‘bans and proscriptions’ in the interest of the British state security apparat.
The issue is about changing the rules – under PZ-JLM’s proposal, in order to get rid of Livingstone and to proscribe anti-Zionist speech. The current relevant rule is in Labour Party rulebook 2016, chapter 2 (‘Membership rules’), clause I, rule 8. It reads:
No member of the party shall engage in conduct which in the opinion of the NEC is prejudicial, or in any act which in the opinion of the NEC is grossly detrimental to the party. Any dispute as to whether a member is in breach of the provisions of this subclause shall be determined by the NCC [national constitutional committee] in accordance with chapter 1, clause IX above and the disciplinary rules and guidelines in chapter 6 below. Where appropriate the NCC shall have regard to involvement in financial support for the organisation and/or the activities of any organisation declared ineligible for affiliation to the party under chapter 1.II.5 or 3.C above; or to the candidature of the members in opposition to an officially endorsed Labour Party candidate or the support for such candidature. The NCC shall not have regard to the mere holding or expression of beliefs and opinions (emphasis added).
The rule is primarily a part of the system of bans and proscriptions, concerned with excluding supposed Trotskyist infiltrators (without explicitly using the T word). The final sentence, which I have italicised, is the Labour bureaucrats’ concession to the party left’s fear that people might be expelled for merely holding Trot-like views.
The practical significance of this final sentence is that if the party had actually expelled Ken Livingstone on the basis of his comments about Hitler and Zionism, as various pro-Zionist politicians and journalists demanded, it is likely that a court would find that the sentence barred an expulsion.
PZ-JLM proposed:
Add an additional sentence after the first sentence:“A member of the party who uses anti-Semitic, Islamophobic, racist language, sentiments, stereotypes or actions in public, private, online or offline, as determined by the NEC, shall be deemed to have engaged in conduct prejudicial to the party.”
Add at the end of the final sentence after “opinions”:
“… except in instances involving anti-Semitism, Islamophobia or racism”.
Insert new paragraph E:
“Where a member is responsible for a hate incident, being defined as something where the victim or anyone else think it was motivated by hostility or prejudice based on disability, race, religion, transgender identity or sexual orientation, the NEC may have the right to impose the appropriate disciplinary options …
The NEC’s version of the rule change is (so far as relevant) to insert:
The NEC shall take account of any codes of conduct currently in force and shall regard any incident which in their view might reasonably be seen to demonstrate hostility or prejudice based on age; disability; gender reassignment; marriage and civil partnership; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion or belief; sex; or sexual orientation as conduct prejudicial to the party. These shall include but not be limited to incidents motivated by racism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia or otherwise racist language, sentiments, stereotypes or actions, sexual harassment, bullying or any form of intimidation towards another person on the basis of a protected characteristic, as determined by the NEC, wherever it occurs, as conduct prejudicial to the party.
And to add at the end:
… except in any instance inconsistent with the party’s aims and values, agreed codes of conduct, or involving prejudice towards any protected characteristic.
As Bob Pitt has pointed out,1)https://medium.com/@pitt_bob/did-the-jewish-labour-movement-get-its-way-over-labour-party-rule-changes-df62f8b5a1af. The quotations from the PZ-JLM proposal are taken from the JLM online source comrade Pitt cites there; the NEC proposal from Pitt. it is clear that PZ-JLM has not got all it wants. What it has got, however, is a very considerable watering-down of the commitment in the existing party rules not to expel people on the basis of “the mere holding or expression of beliefs and opinions”. It is this that makes the NEC proposal a fudge.
Marxists stand for very broad freedom of speech and communication (I will use ‘speech’ as a shorthand for the broader issue).2) See M Macnair, ‘Marxism and freedom of communication’ Critique Vol 37, pp565-77 (2009). The fundamental underlying reason is that the collective appropriation of the means of production – the cooperative commonwealth – requires democratic decision-making. If access to information is restricted, the controllers of the access have obtained private property in that information. Controls on freedom of speech restrict potential hearers’ access to information in the hands of potential speakers, for the benefit of the gatekeepers.
Moreover, the absence of freedom of communication tends to produce ‘planning irrationalities’ of the sort found in the old Soviet-style regimes: planners are led to take decisions in the dark as to actual needs; false pretences become the norm, and ‘They pretend to pay us; we pretend to work’.
This argument may appear to apply only to information which is immediately relevant to material production. But this is untrue. It applies with equal force to such intangibles as education, or to artistic production (remember the artificial resource preference given to ‘socialist realism’). Hence, it is not possible to draw a clear line, which would say ‘We need freedom of production-related speech, but not of other speech’.
Below this level of generality, the working class immediately needs freedom of speech and communication in order to organise itself to take decisions for collective action – strikes, and so on, but equally electoral campaigns – democratically. It needs to organise itself democratically because undemocratic decision-making tends to demobilise and atomise the participants.
There are limits, as liberal writers on the issue recognise.3)They often overstate the point. Notoriously, freedom of speech does not authorise or protect the prankster who falsely shouts ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theatre, causing a panic. False statements made in circumstances where it is not easy for the recipient to check and with a view to making a gain or avoiding a loss – frauds - are more or less universally penalised in legal systems.4)An early example is H Badamchi, ‘The meaning of “theft” in ancient near eastern law’ Folia Orientalia Vol 53, pp369-86 (2016). ‘I’m going to kill you’, said in a realistically threatening manner face to face, justifies the hearer in using deadly force in self-defence.
Beyond such cases, speech may be hurtful (for example, in the context of rows in sexual or family relationships); or defamatory, as a smear tactic; or (particularly when used by a superior to a subordinate, or a majority member to a minority member or dissident) belittling as a form of bullying. And so on.
In these areas Marxists are generally opposed to state/legal regulation of speech; but support the right to challenge speech. The reason is not that we endorse the use of speech to hurt people, defame them or belittle them, and so on. It is that the nature of the state is such that it can be routinely expected to abuse speech control powers given to it. A few examples: section 5 of the Public Order Act 1936, supposedly directed against Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists, was from the outset used mainly against leftwing protestors, trade union pickets, and so on. The first person convicted of incitement to racial hatred was a black power activist. A Canadian reform of pornography law along feminist lines produced as the first item prosecuted under the new law a lesbian magazine. These are merely examples of normal state behaviour.
The theoretical point of libel law is to repress the sort of campaign of defamation which is being run by LFI and PZ-JLM and their MP supporters and media friends. But it would be useless to sue. This is, first, because recent British monarchs have franchised to the bar and solicitors’ profession the sale of justice contrary to Magna Carta article 29, through the ‘free market in legal services’, under which deep pockets routinely win lawsuits – and especially so in defamation cases. It is, second, because this campaign of defamation is in fact being conducted in the interest of the British state and its foreign policy, so that judicial bias in favour of the libellers is to be expected.
The case of a workers’ state would not be different. Empirically, witness, in practice, all the Stalinist regimes, including the most ‘liberal’ ones. Witness also the use of speech controls by the trade union bureaucracy – as, for example, in the ‘Unison monkey trial’. Theoretically, the permanent bureaucratic apparatus of a trade union, or of a workers’ state, is a form required by the limits of the transition to communism: a persistence of ‘bourgeois right’; and the individual state or bureaucratic officials have particular interests in their individual posts and their bureaucratic ‘turf’ – as Marx pointed out in his Critique of Hegel’s philosophy of right. These interests motivate the abuse of speech controls, which is found empirically.
From this point of view, the statement that “The NCC shall not have regard to the mere holding or expression of beliefs and opinions” is a desirable rule, and diluting it is straightforwardly a bad idea. But matters are not quite so simple.
The Labour Party is not a state. It is, in a certain aspect, an agency of the United Kingdom state – a point to which we will return later. But basically it is a political party: a voluntary association whose aim is to pursue certain political aims, mainly through persuading other people to support these aims (for instance, by electing Labour representatives into office).
This does not make free speech irrelevant to the Labour Party (or any other political party). But it does mean that it has certain limits. If the Labour Party routinely tolerated prominent figures who called for people to vote Tory – or, for that matter, for the party to adopt Tory policies – it would render itself completely nugatory.
But, of course, it does. We argued in this paper in 2010 for the expulsion of the Labour figures who took jobs from the Con-Dem coalition government: Frank Field, John Hutton and Alan Milburn.5)‘Expel the collaborators’ Weekly Worker August 25 2010. No wider forces took up this call.
The Blairites were, in essence, advocates of Labour adopting a great deal of Tory policy. During their ascendancy the party really was tending towards becoming a political zero as a result, meaning merely an office-gaining machine for careerists; but in doing so it actually paved the way for actual electoral failure, as happened in Scotland in 2015. If the Blairites had retained control, Theresa May might have succeeded in her project in the June election of winning the Labour Brexiteer votes and thus completing the job of smashing Labour started in Scotland.
It is thus perfectly legitimate to say that people who want to campaign for conservatism should openly and honestly join the Conservative Party, rather than covertly do so in the Labour Party. And in that sense the ‘absolute’ guarantee of freedom of “expression of beliefs and opinions” in the party rules as they stand is inappropriate. If the left defends this absolute guarantee unequivocally, it will actually be preparing the ground for pro-Tory advocates in the future.
There is also an issue which is closer to the immediate one. Feminism, anti-racism and various other ‘special oppression’ issues have since the 1990s been ‘weaponised’ in the interests of US foreign policy. That does not mean, however, that the left should abandon opposition to racism, patriarchy, and so on. In the words of the 1880 Programme of the Parti Ouvrier, “The emancipation of the productive class is that of all human beings without distinction of sex or race” – and the same goes for all the other distinctions which have been made the ground of oppression.
Hence, conducting a racist agitation, for example, is agitating against Labour’s – or Marxist – aims and values. It again poses the point that the honest racist should go and join an openly racist party rather than attaching themselves to the left.6)I do not mean by this to deny the undoubted history of racist commitments of the labour movement. An example from the 1906 Labour manifesto: “Chinese Labour is defended because it enriches the mine owners” (http://labourmanifesto.com/1906/1906-labour-manifesto.shtml). This does not alter the point that Marxism has a historical commitment against racism and sexism.
Getting closer still. The Zionists have argued that anti-Zionism – opposition to the project of creating a state for all the world’s Jews in the Levant – in itself amounts to anti-Semitism. This is straightforwardly false. Nonetheless, there is such a thing as an anti-Semitic anti-Zionism. It is found where, instead of blaming the political Zionist movement, and the policies of the great powers, for the creation of the state of Israel and its ongoing colonial oppression and dispossession of the local inhabitants, an attempt is made to find some way of blaming these events on the Jews as such, or on specifically ‘Jewish’ capital.
This newspaper has encountered the phenomenon directly in the fairly recent past. In September 2014 we reported the expulsion of Ian Donovan from the Communist Platform of Left Unity, precisely because the overwhelming majority of members wanted Communist Platform to dissociate itself publicly from Donovan’s arguments that the United States backs the state of Israel because of the large number and influence of specifically Jewish capitalists in the US.7)‘No place for anti-Semitism’ Weekly Worker September 18 2014.
Suppose, then, that the Labour Party was a regular political party, which had unambiguous general anti-racist commitments in its platform. We would then support in principle the use of party disciplinary procedures to dissociate the party from people who argued that “Jews” as such or “Jewish capital” as such are responsible for the state of Israel and/or its conduct.
At present, however, to take this approach would involve obvious double standards. The reason is that the state of Israel is explicitly and by its constitution a racialist state: a state for its Jewish citizens, not one for all its citizens, and still less one for all its subjects, which include the Palestinian inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza, who are subject to Israeli military occupation and expropriations to facilitate colonisation (West Bank) and siege warfare (Gaza).
Hence PZ-JLM and LFI, by promoting Labour support for Israel without explicitly condemning the racialist provisions in Israel’s constitution and the racialist conduct of the Israeli state in (at least) the West Bank, are actively promoting racism. Yet the party takes no action against this activity. Indeed, any suggestion that PZ-JLM should be disaffiliated is denounced as … anti-Semitism, and therefore racism.
Under these circumstances, even to proceed to take disciplinary measures against people who argued that “Jews” as such or “Jewish capital” as such are responsible for the state of Israel, while leaving the advocates of support for Israel in its present racist form untouched, would be double standards.
This, of course, is not what the Labour right’s MPs, PZ-JLM, LFI and the rightwing media are demanding. They are claiming that not supporting Israel is anti-Semitism and racism. This is not merely double standards, but a big lie: “Leon Trotsky was a fascist, and I know it for a fact: first I said it, then I read it, in the Hitler-Stalin pact.”
What drives this big lie machine? It might be imagined (and, it seems, probably is imagined among the Labour left) that it is merely a matter of securing a Conservative victory at the next general election by smearing Labour. An assumption of this sort is likely to have led to the idea of defanging the smear campaign by concessions to it, which explains the NEC decision on the rule change proposal and the responses of Labour officials to the media on the issue. If so, the concessions would lead to inability to exploit the issue, leading in turn to it fading out of public attention.
But this is not what has happened. And in reality, the agenda is something different. It is about who controls the Labour Party, given the risk that Labour might form a government.
The Labour Party is not (to quote my formulation above) “a regular political party, which has unambiguous general anti-racist commitments in its platform”. Rather, it is a party founded on a contradiction.
On the one hand, Labour claims, both by its name and by its affiliate structure, to be not a party founded on a specific political platform, but rather the united representative of the working class as a whole. In this character, it blocks the legitimacy of the existence of alternative parties within the movement. (I emphasise ‘legitimacy’ because it is the first-past-the-post electoral system which is the primary obstacle to the electoral representation of alternative parties.)
On the other hand, in contradiction with this claim, Labour is characterised by commitments, not explicit in its constitution, to loyalty to the British constitution and to the British national interest. Though these are not explicit political commitments in the party’s constitution, they extend way to the left of the centre ground, and can be found even among advocates of constitutional reform: Michael Foot at his most leftwing was still a loyalist to the constitution; Tony Benn advocated radical constitutional change, but still within a British framework (the restoration, in a sense, of the Commonwealth of 1651-54), and Brexiteering.
None of this is any novelty in Labour. It was already present before World War I in the PLP’s tailing the Liberals on international politics and in Labour’s support for the war.
Its primary institutional expression is, precisely, the regime of bans and proscriptions. Labour simultaneously claims by its name and its affiliate structure to represent the working class as a whole – but by the bans and proscriptions, it claims to exclude the representation of the part of the working class which is not loyal to the constitution and to the British ‘national interest’ in foreign affairs.
If Labour had open and transparent programmatic commitments to British nationalism and loyalism, it would be hard for it to claim that it represents the working class as a whole, and thus block the legitimacy of any alternative workers’ party, hold on to the system of trade union affiliation, and so on. These commitments must thus take indirect forms; and those forms are bans and proscriptions and witch-hunting, together with the protected privileges of the PLP.
In this aspect, the Labour Party serves as an indirect agency or arm of the British state: it propagates loyalty to the constitution and to the national interest among the working class, and Labour MPs can in principle be trusted to carry out ministerial roles in the interests of the state (and thus, indirectly, of capitals operating on British territory).
Jeremy Corbyn’s victory in two leadership elections, and the Tories’ failure to inflict a crushing defeat on Labour in June 2017, pose a particular problem for this regime. They do so because since 1940 the fundamental orientation of British state policy has been the acceptance of subordinate-ally status in relation to the USA in exchange for protection.
It was not peculiar to Blair to get involved in wars in Afghanistan and Iraq: the Wilson government conducted various counterinsurgency operations, in particular in Yemen and Oman, and backed Vietnam (though it did not actually send in troops); the Attlee government took Britain into the Korean war.8)Before 1940, of course, it was a matter of maintaining British imperial interests: for example, the 1924 MacDonald Labour government continued support for ‘air control’ bombing in Iraq and elsewhere – see JS Corum, ‘The myth of air control: reassessing the history’ Aerospace Power Journalwinter 2000, pp61-77.
There is a particular need to hem in Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott (and their supporters) on this issue because the Iraq war lacked united backing from the British state core, and consequently gave rise to an enormous, mass anti-war movement, with which Corbyn in particular was closely associated. The anti-war movement itself as an activist movement ebbed away; but it left behind a legacy of scepticism on the left towards US policy in the Middle East and the US’s Israeli sidekick. The Gaza war of 2008-09 (‘Operation Cast Lead’) attracted much more open media and activist hostility than had been the case with previous Israeli operations.
The British state needs to restore the trustworthiness of a potential Labour government in the eyes of the USA. To do that means that Labour has to give explicit commitments to support US policy in the Middle East. This was the point of Cameron’s demands for support for bombing the Syrian state, and then for bombing the Syrian Islamist opposition, and the ridiculous momentary glorification of Hilary Benn in December 2015.
But this direct demand for support has been rather unsuccessful. After all, US policy in the Middle East does not look terribly successful. Almost worse is Cameron’s ostensible lead role, with Labour backing, in causing state failure and humanitarian disaster in Libya in the name of ‘humanitarian intervention’.
It is in this context that the big lie that anti-Zionism equals anti-Semitism has been promoted and continues to be promoted. It takes hold of a vulnerability of the broad left – its intersectionality, its inability to confront identity-oppression claims. By doing so it weaponises the idea of anti-racism.
The ‘Labour’s anti-Semitism problem’ big lie will thus persist until the Labour leadership is prepared to give Israel the blank cheque which will – when the time comes – ‘justify’ bombing Iran and/or again invading Lebanon and/or further ethnic cleansing in the West Bank. It is a merely incidental advantage that it allows further and better ‘compliance unit’ purges of Labour lefts.
It is in this context that the NEC’s amendment is not merely a fudge, but a poisoned fudge. The idea of the amendment is to make a more general and more limited limitation on free speech than the PZ-JLM proposal. The revised wording will read:
The NCC shall not have regard to the mere holding or expression of beliefs and opinions except in any instance inconsistent with the party’s aims and values, agreed codes of conduct, or involving prejudice towards any protected characteristic.
The idea of a “protected characteristic” is taken from the Equality Act 2010, sections 4-12, listing a range of characteristics – race, age, gender, sexual orientation, religious or philosophical beliefs, etc. Section 13 then prohibits direct discrimination on the ground of the protected characteristics and section 19 indirect discrimination.9)In between sections 13 and 19 is a quantity of complexity posed by the fact that age, sex and disability actually pose different discrimination problems to race and nationality; but that is a problem with the design of the 2010 act, not with the Labour Party’s new rule.
In this statutory context the terminology makes a degree of sense, and so does the term, ‘prejudice’. In origin, ‘prejudice’ refers to the judge (or equivalent) who has made his mind up before hearing the evidence and argument (for whatever reason). In the context of direct discrimination in employment, etc, it also makes sense: the point is that the employer has made his mind up not to hire black people (or whatever) without waiting for the CV or interview.
In the context of penalising the “mere holding or expression of beliefs and opinions”, however, “prejudice” is perfectly meaningless. There is no concrete decision, nor any concrete arguments of evidence, in relation to which there is a pre-judgement.
It can only then be taken to mean something in the nature of “negative attitude to” – so that, for example, radical feminists are ‘prejudiced’ towards trans women, no matter how much argument they offer; or feminists generally are ‘prejudiced’ against Catholic right-to-lifers on the basis of their religious views; or leftwingers are ‘prejudiced’ against the holders of Conservative philosophical beliefs; or anti-Zionists are ‘prejudiced’ against Jews because, it is alleged, all Jews are Zionists; or because Jews are, it is claimed, a nation and all nations have the right to self-determination (except ones targeted as ‘rogue states’ by the USA).
All of these arguments are versions of the same method – of converting disagreement into a supposed violation of someone’s rights. But they all follow logically from the acceptance of the “prejudice” formula, made into an empty ‘boo word’ by taking it out of its proper contexts of judicial misconduct and direct discrimination.
The underlying dynamics of the Labour Party in the present period mean that partial concessions to the smear-mongers will not defang the issue, but they will just come back for more. And the concessions are then a means in which they are helped to come back for more. The fudge is poisoned.
1. https://medium.com/@pitt_bob/did-the-jewish-labour-movement-get-its-way-over-labour-party-rule-changes-df62f8b5a1af. The quotations from the PZ-JLM proposal are taken from the JLM online source comrade Pitt cites there; the NEC proposal from Pitt.
2. See M Macnair, ‘Marxism and freedom of communication’ Critique Vol 37, pp565-77 (2009).
3. They often overstate the point.
4. An early example is H Badamchi, ‘The meaning of “theft” in ancient near eastern law’ Folia Orientalia Vol 53, pp369-86 (2016).
5. ‘Expel the collaborators’ Weekly Worker August 25 2010.
6. I do not mean by this to deny the undoubted history of racist commitments of the labour movement. An example from the 1906 Labour manifesto: “Chinese Labour is defended because it enriches the mine owners” (http://labourmanifesto.com/1906/1906-labour-manifesto.shtml). This does not alter the point that Marxism has a historical commitment against racism and sexism.
7. ‘No place for anti-Semitism’ Weekly Worker September 18 2014.
8. Before 1940, of course, it was a matter of maintaining British imperial interests: for example, the 1924 MacDonald Labour government continued support for ‘air control’ bombing in Iraq and elsewhere – see JS Corum, ‘The myth of air control: reassessing the history’ Aerospace Power Journalwinter 2000, pp61-77.
9. In between sections 13 and 19 is a quantity of complexity posed by the fact that age, sex and disability actually pose different discrimination problems to race and nationality; but that is a problem with the design of the 2010 act, not with the Labour Party’s new rule.
References
| ↑1 | https://medium.com/@pitt_bob/did-the-jewish-labour-movement-get-its-way-over-labour-party-rule-changes-df62f8b5a1af. The quotations from the PZ-JLM proposal are taken from the JLM online source comrade Pitt cites there; the NEC proposal from Pitt. |
|---|---|
| ↑2 | See M Macnair, ‘Marxism and freedom of communication’ Critique Vol 37, pp565-77 (2009). |
| ↑3 | They often overstate the point. |
| ↑4 | An early example is H Badamchi, ‘The meaning of “theft” in ancient near eastern law’ Folia Orientalia Vol 53, pp369-86 (2016). |
| ↑5 | ‘Expel the collaborators’ Weekly Worker August 25 2010. |
| ↑6 | I do not mean by this to deny the undoubted history of racist commitments of the labour movement. An example from the 1906 Labour manifesto: “Chinese Labour is defended because it enriches the mine owners” (http://labourmanifesto.com/1906/1906-labour-manifesto.shtml). This does not alter the point that Marxism has a historical commitment against racism and sexism. |
| ↑7 | ‘No place for anti-Semitism’ Weekly Worker September 18 2014. |
| ↑8 | Before 1940, of course, it was a matter of maintaining British imperial interests: for example, the 1924 MacDonald Labour government continued support for ‘air control’ bombing in Iraq and elsewhere – see JS Corum, ‘The myth of air control: reassessing the history’ Aerospace Power Journalwinter 2000, pp61-77. |
| ↑9 | In between sections 13 and 19 is a quantity of complexity posed by the fact that age, sex and disability actually pose different discrimination problems to race and nationality; but that is a problem with the design of the 2010 act, not with the Labour Party’s new rule. |
