Subscribe to the Compass feed
Join the Compass Facebook group
EVENT
The Good Society
CAMPAIGN
High Pay Commission
PUBLICATION
In place of cuts
THINKPIECE
#59 Democracy & Terrorism
John Hilary says its time to pull down Labour's big tent
This weekend saw the annual conference of the left-leaning Compass group. Coming at the end of a truly horrific fortnight for Labour, the faithful could have been forgiven for staying at home and nursing their collective hangovers. Yet the conference sold out, and the 1,000 activists who swarmed over London's Institute of Education seemed genuinely enthused and ready for more. How come?
The theme of the day, "No Turning Back", was well chosen. The majority of Compass members come from within the Labour party, and most of those attending had presumably voted Labour in the local and European elections the week before. Few needed reminding that they had backed a losing horse.
Yet the leading motif of the conference was not the resurrection of Labour but the desire for a new style of politics that transcends party loyalties. Compass MP Jon Cruddas and editor of Soundings journal Jonathan Rutherford set the tone with their call for new alliances in this week's Tribune, in which they identified the need for "a progressive movement that unlike New Labour will break with the legacy of Thatcherism".
The speakers list echoed the message of pluralism. Harriet Harman opened for the government on the early morning panel, but alongside her was Green party leader Caroline Lucas. Lib Dem MP Evan Harris spoke to the afternoon question time session, while Plaid Cymru MP Adam Price and Respect councillor Salma Yaqoob were among the many addressing seminars.
This may be bad news for those who prefer their politics in old-style boxes. Yet a genuine desire to move beyond factionalism and build alliances across the progressive left is surely welcome. Lucas summed up the shift nicely in her image that we need to move beyond Labour's "big tent" to a campsite with lots of different tents co-existing side by side. A new pluralism based on an acceptance of difference, not a demand for consensus.
The Put People First coalition assembled at the beginning of this year was one attempt to build such a movement from within civil society. All major trade unions, environmental groups and global justice organisations joined forces under a banner of "jobs, justice and climate" in preparation for the G20 summit in London at the beginning of April. We need to build momentum behind such alliances, and we need to broaden them by reaching out to party activists and parliamentarians who have traditionally stayed aloof from movement politics.
The movement must also be internationalist, linking up with the millions of other communities across the world that have been ravaged by the effects of the global economic meltdown. The BNP's appropriation of the slogan "British jobs for British workers" has shown all too clearly the dangers of flirting with nationalism. We need to be clear that we believe in decent jobs for all working people, be they British, Polish, Italian, Indian or Chinese.
But most of all, the movement must act now to prevent a return to "business as usual" in the economic sphere. Financial commentators would have us believe that the recession is already over, in a transparent attempt to escape the type of radical action that is necessary to correct the imbalances in the globalised economy. Yet this week's international labour summit will confirm that more than 50 million more people stand to lose their jobs across the world as a result of the ongoing economic crisis. The impact of such job losses on families and communities in developing countries means that a further 200 million people could find themselves forced into poverty by the end of this year.
The dual shock of electoral and economic meltdown has shaken up the landscape enough to make a new political movement possible. Yet the window of opportunity will not remain open for long. The challenge now is to consolidate and develop these new alliances through joint political action, not just conferences and words.
John Hilary, War On Want
Want to write an article like this? If you’re a Compass member you can submit your own articles and start your own debates on the Compass debates member’s section, an autonomous space for our members to initiate debate and discuss ideas.
To keep updated on the latest Compass news, please join our mailing list.
Comments
on 17 June 2009, 3:59:38 PM
Cruddas is not a “Compass MP,” and it Compass is not the LP. - Even though some in Compass are apt to comport themselves as if it is precisely that. Perhaps the best practical effect of the Compass conference is that some of the groundwork will have been done which will make a non-Tory coalition Gvt possible. In addition, it may just be that his high profile of late will assist Cruddas in his effort to be returned as a Labour MP. This is far more important than whatever Compass hope to achieve for themselves after the general election.
I suspect that most of the men and women upon whom Jon Cruddas must depend if he is to be returned as Dagenham’s LABOUR MP, do not read Tribune and even allowing for the socialists, social democrats and others not typical of the liberal middle-class who cluster around Compass, his voters are far from typical of those who were politically represented by the Compass conference.
Given the strength of the BNP vote in the two Barking and Dagenham LBC constituencies, let us see specific substance given to the generalised call for “alliances.” The Lib Dems and The Greens share enough in common with Compass’s position for them not to put up candidates against Jon Cruddas and Margaret Hodge. Neither The Greens nor the Lib Dems can win in these two seats. It is unlikely that either The Lib Dems or the Greens can even siphon off significant numbers of votes from the BNP. Indeed in the Barking seat, the Lib Dems were beaten by the BNP into 4th place at the last general election.
In the interest of useful alliances, let us see The Lib Dems and The Greens not stand in Dagenham or in Barking.
on 17 June 2009, 12:21:03 PM
on 16 June 2009, 7:26:44 AM
This is a description of the Labour Party. NewLabour is too far from the Campaign Group to make sense and the partyc an't continue like that.
Something different will happen next and none of us know what that will be. There is no point calling for loyalty to Labour when none of us know what Labour is any more.
I hope and beleive that Compass don't have a blue print or a master plan and are providing the space for debate that the controlling NewLabour faction have squeezed out of the Labour Party. The day Compass starts defining themselves like a political party that open forum will go. New alignments may come out of Compass but they can't be Compass. That's how I see it.
It's pointless judging Compass as a faction or embryonic party because that isn't what they are and they will fail on those criteria. They will succeed on other criteria nearer to what they are. I think they are a space to meet and think and talk and sort all this out. But that's just me.
on 16 June 2009, 6:55:09 AM
on 16 June 2009, 6:52:24 AM
on 15 June 2009, 2:12:32 PM
***************************************************
What is especially depressing for me is that all of these conferences end with this conclusion.
I cannot suggest the exact architecture of viable alliance size and utility. But I would hazard some general principles:
When the gap between the poles within the alliance become too large, the alliance has either to shed one or more of those poles or risk collapsing. This is logically self-evident, but in the enthusiasm to embrace as wide and inclusive alliance as possible, people act as if this is not logically self-evident.
As the alliance grows in its inclusiveness and heterogeneity, it comes under pressure to select from two broad strategies: (a) compromise on principles, focus on gradually diminishing middle ground, delay or sequence action, make sacrifices; or (b) maintain the pretence of consensus by deliberately clothing proposals in highly generalised or abstract language, "leaving implementation to others".
The larger the alliance and the less coherence can be achieved in the relationship among mutually reinforcing components. In other words, the proposals remain programmatic and suitably vague, or the components emerge without a surrounding programmatic context.
There is something inherently pleasing about forming big alliances, partly because it is socially gratifying, and partly because it creates the expectation that the more who agree the more likely it is to happen. That may well turn out to be a fiction. Large inclusive alliances tend to splinter very easily when people return to their separate realities, or once the visions are turned into detailed proposals (when people suddenly realise that words are treacherous and that they were not actually agreeing when they thought they were). Even managing large alliances is a massive job, one people very seldom explicity take on, expecting it just to happen, or assuming the poor host is going to do it.
That is one reason why these events usually end with "The challenge now is to consolidate and develop these new alliances through joint political action, not just conferences and words."
I have been professionally involved in many many efforts to bring together civic society, to obtain collective resolve among stake-holders, etc etc...these efforts all have their special vocabulary. Not to rain on anyone's parade, but I would not voluntarily embark on such expeditions again. I would far rather forge a coherent and actionable programme based on consultation, and sell that programme, with an openness to alliances. That is a very different way of proceeding.
Leave a comment