The Weekly Worker had three articles this week on the topic. I'll post them here as to benefit this debate:
Register for Corbyn (http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1063/register-for-corbyn/):
The campaign to elect Jeremy Corbyn must be the start of the fight to transform Labour, writes Charles Gradnitzer of Labour Party Marxists
With only a few seconds to spare before the Labour leadership nominations closed at midday on June 15, Jeremy Corbyn secured his place on the ballot paper. This was the result of the pressure placed on MPs to nominate Corbyn by grassroots Labour Party activists and organisations, including the social media campaign run by Red Labour.1
His performance during the hustings on Newsnight on June 17 demonstrated that he is the only supportable candidate. He drew a clear line between himself and the other candidates, never capitulating to anti-migrant chauvinism, putting forward a clear anti-austerity message, championing the welfare state and opposing imperialist wars.
When an audience member asked about immigration the other candidates fell over themselves to engage in the sort of anti-migrant chauvinism they imagined people wanted to hear, with Liz Kendall reminding us of recent images from the Daily Mail showing asylum-seekers clinging onto trucks in Calais in order to live a life on benefits in Britain. Corbyn instead did the unthinkable by making a principled and impassioned speech in favour of the right to migrate, which was met with rapturous applause.
The other candidates also stuck to the official austerity-lite message, with Kendall telling a firefighter who had voted for the UK Independence Party as a “protest” against Tory and Labour cuts that she would continue with the ‘deficit reduction’ plan. Later, Andy Burnham became confused about whether he thought Labour overspent when it was in government, replying both “yes” and “no” at different points in his answer. Corbyn was the only candidate to oppose austerity, privatisation and the marketisation of public services - statements that were met with more applause.
The final and crucial difference between Corbyn and the other candidates could be seen in his statements in favour of party democracy. While he does not go as far as we in Labour Party Marxists would like, his proposal to be able to elect a leader every year and his criticism of Tony Blair’s destruction of party democracy are supportable and a step in the right direction.
Of course, you cannot gauge how popular somebody is from the reaction of the sort of people who would voluntarily travel to Nuneaton to participate in a Labour Party leadership hustings and it is also foolish to rely on polls. But it is safe to say that Corbyn’s message seems already to be resonating with a substantial section of the working class.
Smears
While the Newsnight audience seemed receptive to Corbyn, he has been attacked by the rightwing press, Labour Party MPs and an assortment of commentators
Alan Johnson, editor of the pro-Israel Fathom journal, tells us that Corbyn, as the “most leftwing candidate”, really “should” be getting his vote. But no, he will not be backing Corbyn because of his involvement in the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign.2 Johnson’s article consists of a couple of quotes from Corbyn defending Raed Salah, a leader of the Islamic Movement in Israel, followed by a list of unpleasant remarks from Salah. The intention being to smear Corbyn as an anti-Semite.
Johnson also criticises Corbyn for inviting the Lebanese minister of agriculture, Hussein Hajj Hassan, a member of Hezbollah, to launch the British section of the International Union of Parliamentarians for Palestine. There then follow several anti-Semitic quotes from the Hezbollah’s founder, Hassan Nasrallah.
The article is incredibly dishonest for two reasons. Firstly Corbyn is not an anti-Semite or standing on an anti-Semitic platform and Johnson can only imply that he is; secondly Johnson, despite claiming to be of the left, would never support Corbyn unless he was a pro-Israel chauvinist like himself. Nevertheless, this slander has made it into the rightwing press, which is happy to join in the smears.
From within the party Corbyn has been attacked by rightwing MPs and councillors, though in some cases their criticisms ought to be taken as glowing endorsements. Simon Danczuk MP wrote: “It seems like there is a small group of MPs who would rather lose the general election, as long as they could say they had stuck to their principles” - as if principles are something to be ashamed of. Jonathan Reynolds, former aide to Ed Miliband, said Corbyn “would not ‘improve the debate’, but would shift the contest even further to the left”, when what the party needed was to “accept the world as it is, not how we’d like it to be”.
There is also a campaign from Conservative Party members to register as Labour supporters in order to vote for Corbyn. Ostensibly this is because they think Labour would be ‘unelectable’ if he was leader and the Tories would automatically benefit (if he actually won the leadership contest this would be used to cast doubt on the legitimacy of his victory, of course). No doubt the Tories do think that Corbyn is unelectable, or else they would not be Tories, but this is surely part of a campaign to make sure he has no chance.
The leadership contest is now a straight-up ‘One member, one vote’ affair, since the rules were changed at the special conference in March 2014. This was one of the few positive changes to the internal election system, as it drastically reduced the power of the Parliamentary Labour Party, which accounted for one third of the votes under the previous electoral college system.
If you are not an individual Labour member, but belong to an affiliated trade union or socialist society, then you can register as an affiliated supporter for free. If not, then you can become a registered supporter for a £3 fee.3 Remember, you must sign up before 12 noon on August 12 in order to have a vote in the leadership election.
If you are an individual member then your Constituency Labour Party ought to be holding a supporting nomination meeting, where the merits of the leadership candidates will be debated and the CLP can choose to give a supporting nomination to one of them. It is important for Corbyn to get as many of these supporting nominations as possible in order to highlight the schism between the PLP and the Labour Party membership as a whole. It could also bump up his list of nominations from the original 36 when the ballot papers are mailed out.
But the campaign to shift Labour left should not end in September when the new leader is elected. It needs to be the start of a more powerful movement to transform the Labour Party into an instrument for working class advance - an ally in the Marxist struggle for international socialism. To this end we encourage all those involved in the campaign to join us in Labour Party Marxists.4
Notes
1. See www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2015/06/17/conrad-landin/jeremy4leader.
2. http://leftfootforward.org/2015/06/an-open-letter-to-jeremy-corbyn.
3. http://support.labour.org.uk.
4. http://labourpartymarxists.org.uk.
All to play for (http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1063/all-to-play-for/):
Peter Manson presents the CPGB's Theses on the Labour Party
The success of Jeremy Corbyn in gaining enough MPs’ nominations to ensure his place on the leadership ballot demonstrates once again that there is still all to play for within the Labour Party. We in the CPGB totally disagree with those on the left who claim that there is little difference between Labour and the other mainstream parties, that Labour is now a ‘bourgeois party’ pure and simple.
On the contrary, it remains a “bourgeois workers’ party”, to use Lenin’s famous phrase. As the theses below (adopted by the CPGB in November 2010) state, Labour’s formation in 1900 “marked a significant step forward”, in that, “Albeit in a distorted and imperfect manner, it embodied the principle of working class political independence from the parties of the bourgeoisie”.
As this document makes clear, two incorrect approaches to the Labour Party have dominated the Marxist left. The first consists of “burying oneself in the bowels of the Labour Party”, while “keeping one’s ‘true’ politics under wraps”. The second - today more and more common on the left - has been to “stand aloof from the Labour Party and its internal disputes and conflicts”. No, Marxists should aim to transform Labour into “a real party of labour” - a “united front for all pro-working class partisans and organisations”.
Peter Manson
Theses on the Labour Party
1. The Labour Party came onto the historical agenda only with the ending of Britain’s industrial and commercial supremacy. Specifically the trade union bureaucracy turned towards building a Labour Party after the perceived failure of Lib-Labism. Under British conditions the formation of the Labour Party in 1900 marked a significant step forward. Albeit in a distorted and imperfect manner, it embodied the principle of working class political independence from the parties of the bourgeoisie.
2. Against strong objections from Henry Hyndman of the Socialist Democratic Federation, but supported by Karl Kautsky and Ilyich Lenin, the Labour Party was accepted into the Second, Socialist, International in 1908. That despite not being a proper socialist party and still tied to the Liberals in many ways.
3. The Labour leadership has from the beginning been dominated by reformism. There was never a golden age when Labour was truly Labour. Even when the aim of ‘socialism’ was formally adopted in 1918, it was conceived as a cynical ploy to divert sympathy for the Russian Revolution into safe channels. Needless to say, the Labour Party’s version of socialism was antithetical to working class self-liberation. Rather it was a version of state capitalism. Capital would be bureaucratically nationalised and the mass of the population remain exploited wage-slaves.
4. Historically - in terms of membership, finances and electoral base - the Labour Party has largely relied on the working class. Politically, however, the Labour leadership acts in the spirit of the bourgeoisie and the interests of capital. Something ensured in no small measure by the intermediate social position occupied by the trade union bureaucracy, which has a material interest in the continuation of the system of capital. Lenin correctly characterised the Labour Party as a “bourgeois workers’ party”. Despite Blairism, New Labour and the abandonment of the old clause four, the Labour Party must still be defined as a bourgeois workers’ party.
5. Labour is a federal party. Affiliated trade unions, constituency parties, socialist societies, the Cooperative Party, Labour Students, a Westminster parliamentary party, a European parliamentary party, etc, making up its constituent parts. The original aim of the Labour Party was extraordinarily modest: the representation of working class opinion “by men sympathetic with the aims and demands of the labour movement”.
6. Throughout its existence the Labour Party has been rent by left-right divisions. In part this reflects the contradiction between the working class base and the pro-capitalist leadership. In part there is a symbiotic relationship. Right reformism needs working class votes, but gains coherence through the serious business of trying to secure a parliamentary majority and forming a government. The trade union bureaucracy certainly wants a sympathetic government or one that is at least not overtly hostile. However, the capitalist state, legal system, media, money and corruption set the parameters of what is considered reliable, responsible and, in normal circumstances, electable.
7. By contrast left reformist figureheads are constantly drawn to the right, crucially because they too look towards forming a government, but this time, at least in verbal terms, in order to get hold of the existing capitalist state machine. Left reformists claim this is crucial if their version of bureaucratic socialism is to be realised. Meantime there is the business of gestures.
8. Left reformists tend to compromise with the right in the name of getting elected and are thereby doomed never to secure any lasting or meaningful control over the Labour Party machine, let alone the commanding heights of the parliamentary Labour Party. When left reformists are elected to the leadership they have little or no impact. Either they serve as a stop-gap (George Lansbury), someone who maintains the loyalty of disillusioned or radicalised workers. That or they quickly become indistinguishable from the right wing (Ramsay MacDonald, Michael Foot, Neil Kinnock).
9. Overcoming Labourism is a central strategic task for communists in Britain. Toadying as loyal lieutenants to left Labourites, keeping one’s ‘true’ politics under wraps, burying oneself in the bowels of the Labour Party and subordinating everything to staying in there till the glorious day when the class struggle transforms it into an instrument of socialism is naive at best. At worst it is downright treachery. On the other hand, to stand aloof from the Labour Party and its internal disputes and conflicts is as good as useless. A typical left sectarian pose.
10. In 1920 Lenin urged the newly formed Communist Party of Great Britain not only to seek affiliation, but work to put the Labour Party into government. This despite the Labour Party’s dreadful record in World War I and the presence of Labour ministers in Lloyd George’s cabinet. Putting Labour into office would allow communists to expose the Labour leadership and win over the working class to communism. And, whether or not the Labour Party accepted the CPGB as an affiliate, there is, insisted Lenin, an enduring obligation to criticise all varieties of reformism.
11. The overthrow of capitalism and the transition to communism requires that the working class organises independently of the labour bureaucracy. However, a mass CPGB is impossible without the communist vanguard closely cooperating with and changing the outlook of the broadest sections of the working class, not least the membership and base of the Labour Party.
12. The Labour Party rejected CPGB affiliation in August 1920. Despite that the bulk of communists maintained individual membership. In 1922 two CPGB comrades were elected as Labour MPs - despite subsequent undemocratic rule changes barring communists from membership, standing as Labour candidates and even representing their trade union at Labour Party conference, the CPGB continued to exert a considerable influence. A swathe of Labour Party constituency organisations were openly pro-communist.
13. The CPGB was the main driving force behind the formation of the National Left Wing Movement in 1926. Its Sunday Worker, largely financed by the CPGB and edited by CPGB member William Paul, attained a 100,000 circulation. Though there was an opportunist tendency to refrain from criticising leftwing Labour leaders and trade union officials, the NLWM was a creative application of the united front tactic advocated by the Communist International. The NLWM not only opposed the anti-communist witch-hunt in the Labour Party. It openly advocated many of the political positions of the CPGB, including the “overthrow of the capitalist class”.
14. Even when it was dominated by Stalinism the CPGB continued to influence the Labour Party. The CPGB generated the theory and programme for much of the Labour left. It was responsible for many of its political actions. The ‘official’ CPGB also reinforced the reformism and nationalism of the Labour left. Eg, opposition to the European Union and demands for a British withdrawal.
15. Both the formation of the CPGB in 1920 and the NLWM are highly relevant for today. Outside the Labour Party the revolutionary left is divided into numerous confessional sects. That means duplication of effort, woeful amateurism, narrowness of vision and endless debilitating splits. The revolutionary left inside the Labour Party is hardly any better. It either fondly looks back to Stalinism, champions third-world Bonapartes or hires itself out to left reformist figureheads. The unity of the revolutionary left on the basis of a Marxist programme and genuine democratic centralism would represent a tremendous advance. But the widest masses of the working class must still be won. Here prolonged communist work in the Labour Party and the trade unions is vital.
16. There is no contradiction between the fight for a mass Communist Party and the fight to transform the Labour Party, trade unions, cooperatives, etc.
17. Calls for a return of the old clause four are totally misplaced. Communists urge Labour Party members to organise on the basis of explicitly Marxist - as opposed to social democratic, Stalinite or third-worldist - politics. Marxists in the Labour Party should openly advocate extreme democracy in society and throughout the labour movement, working class rule and international socialism.
18. The Labour Party can be made into a real party of labour. By that we communists mean establishing the Labour Party as a united front for all pro-working class partisans and organisations. Undemocratic bans and proscriptions should be rescinded and all communist, revolutionary socialist and left groups encouraged to affiliate.
19. The fight to democratise the Labour Party cannot be separated from the fight to democratise the trade unions. Trade union votes at Labour Party conferences should be cast not by general secretaries, but proportionately according to the political balance in each delegation.
20. Communists fight for all trade unions to affiliate to the Labour Party, for all members of the trade unions to pay the political levy to the Labour Party and join the Labour Party as individual members.
21. The Labour Party must be reorganised from top to bottom. Bring the PLP under democratic control. The position of Labour leader should be abolished. Chairs of the PLP, shadow ministers, etc, should be elected by and accountable to the national executive committee. Abolish the national policy forums. The NEC should be unambiguously responsible for drafting Labour Party manifestoes. The NEC should be elected and accountable to the annual Labour Party conference.
22. Make the annual conference into the supreme body of the Labour Party. Instead of a tame rally there must be democratic debate and binding votes. Make Labour Party officials and shadow ministers report to the labour movement as servants.
23. Elected representatives must be recallable by the constituency or other body that selected them. That includes Labour MPs, MEPs, MSPs, AMs, councillors, etc. Without exception elected representatives should take only the average wage of a skilled worker, the balance being donated to the labour movement.
24. Winning the Labour Party for democracy, the working class and Marxism necessarily involves a protracted struggle against the right wing. These careerists have no legitimate place in the labour movement. The pro-capitalist, pro-imperialist right must be driven out.
Positive thinking on Labour (http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1063/positive-thinking-on-labour/):
LU’s national council saw some mixed outcomes. Sarah McDonald reports
Last weekend’s Left Unity national council took place over two days, with the first day having speaking rights for non-NC members.
The opening session, introduced by national secretary Kate Hudson, dealt with the general election and the situation now. Comrade Hudson made some useful points about the Labour vote and the largely rightward conclusions drawn by the Labour leadership. She also raised the possibility of joining the Labour Party as associate members in order to vote for Jeremy Corbyn. A positive development in our view.
Interestingly, comrade Hudson noted the eclectic nature of the Green Party (a party that many, especially those in LU, wish to characterise as ‘of the left’). She acknowledged the political diversity of the Greens, and said we should be wary. In fact, in addition to a petty bourgeois wing it also has a bourgeois wing (ie, one that assumes capitalism as the norm). Nevertheless, given the statement from LU’s national officers, mere months ago, about the desirability of forming an anti-austerity alliance with the Greens, this is a step in the right direction.
The discussion on the Labour Party, especially in relation to Corbyn, was useful. LU’s attitude to Labour and Labour lefts is a discussion that needs to develop. Roland Rance felt it would be wrong for LU members to join Labour in order to influence the outcome of the leadership contest (to which there were heckles of “We wish!”), while Liz Davies said she had left the Labour Party when she felt it had become a purely neoliberal party under Tony Blair.
Steve Freeman brought up Scottish independence (in the name of which he stood against the LU-endorsed candidate for Bermondsey, Kingsley Abrams in the general election). While Luke Cooper and Tom Walker noted the rightward movement of Labour, Terry Conway made the point that the left has been mistaken to equate Labour with the Tories, but sadly we do not have the forces to influence the balance in the Labour leadership. She added that joining Labour would be impossible for her because you are expected to adhere to its values - war and austerity, according to the comrade.
Jack Conrad from the Communist Platform made the point that, from Brick Lane Debates to those who took part in the Occupy movement, people are looking for answers (some of the latter have apparently joined the Labour Party recently). He argued it should not be a choice between building LU and trying to influence developments within Labour: we can do two things at once. At the same time we should not spread illusions in the Labour Party’s past.
Worthwhile
Comrade Conway introduced the second session, ‘Lessons from our election campaign’, beginning with the idea that standing had been worthwhile and had strengthened us as a party. However, we were slow off the mark getting organised and too much was not properly planned. She felt that the mechanisms to promote women as candidates were not in place - and neither were the constraints on candidates to make sure they promoted the policies of LU. She also felt that standing as part of the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition, as did most LU candidates, was counterproductive - our profile was subsumed into Tusc.
Kate Hudson commented that it was not that the NC did not have a plan for the election so much as it did not enforce it. So when branches decided they wanted to stand - maybe in a constituency where there was a candidate that the leadership thought should not be opposed - the NC did not try to persuade them not to do so. I made the point that we needed to strategically consider not just how, but crucially why, we stand in elections - ie, to build LU and promote the idea of socialism. This could be done effectively in next year’s GLA and mayoral electors. However, a campaign that promotes Tusc is a diversion - it aims to establish itself as a Labour Party mark two (a stupid and illusory project). I also made the point that due to the absence of a centralised approach we ended up with some farcical situations, with decisions over whether to stand and who to nominate being reconsidered right up to the wire, such as in Hackney (or, in Bermondsey, where we had an LU member standing against an LU-endorsed candidate).
Jack Conrad argued that LU ought not to be localist in its approach, but that the NC should show leadership, whilst listening to the views of the branches. The idea that, left to branches’ own devices, “a thousand flowers will bloom” is evidently mistaken. There is a need for centralisation. Pete Green made the point that standing with Tusc had not been entirely negative: for example, Glynn Roberts in Tower Hamlets had promoted Left Unity.
The next session was on ‘Women’s representation in our election work’, introduced by Kathy Lowe. She commented that only one of our candidates had been a woman, which showed that the right mechanisms were not in place to promote women. Ideas such as “all-women short lists” were floated. Comrade Lowe, I can only assume, extrapolated from her own experience when she commented that many women in LU were experienced in feminist campaigning and academia, but not in the left (looking around the room at the women present, I would contest that claim). There was also talk of providing women mentors in branches to induct new female members and ensuring there was more discussion around ‘women’s issues’ like sexual abuse and care work.
Aside from being overtly patronising, most of this is just the wrong approach. As several women comrades argued, the reason why they did not stand was not because they “didn’t feel confident”. Tokenistic mechanisms do not work because they do not solve the underlying problems, which are in the first place societal.
The last session on Saturday - ‘Political and campaigning priorities’, introduced by Simon Hardy - was less contentious. There was some discussion around whether LU should prioritise one issue to campaign on nationally (ie, housing) or whether comrades should decide their own priorities. Our view would be that these things are not mutually exclusive. Comrades come with a wealth of interests and experience and these can be part of the campaigning life of LU. What would be useful is a central organ via the website or a web-based journal that is edited and can be used to educate and organise.
Contention
While Saturday was discussion based and took no votes, Sunday saw the NC take decisions. The first point of contention (for us, at least) came when Liz Davies presented the proposed standing orders. These were excessively technical and bureaucratic, going into fine detail about procedural matters that could more appropriately be dealt with by the democracy of any given meeting if facilitated by the chair: eg, how long speakers should have in every situation, and how we should show “respect” by not heckling ... We were a lone voice of dissent, however, and the standing orders were overwhelmingly accepted (not that the clause about heckling was universally observed, including even by comrade Davis in the chair).
Secondly, election matters carried forward from Saturday were agreed. Very positively, a proposal from comrade Hudson was passed. It read: “If Jeremy Corbyn is on the ballot paper LU will support him via a press statement in discussion with his campaign. Individual members may want to support him in any other way.” Of course, many in LU will want to take out associate membership of Labour in order to do so and we would encourage this.
There was more discussion on what stance LU ought to take on an EU referendum. The majority position (and that passed by conference) is that we do not want to join those calling for a withdrawal from the EU, promoting, instead, ever stronger ties with the left in Europe. Some comrades, such as Oliver New, urged caution, arguing that it was wrong to present the EU as something progressive in itself, while it is backed by the ruling class across Europe and acts as a fortress against non-EU migrants. Tom Walker made the point that having the position of ‘no withdrawal’ is not the same as a ‘yes’ in the referendum - there are those (including ourselves in the CPGB) who will in all likelihood call for an active boycott. It remains to be decided what position LU will take, but it is likely to be one of the key debates at this year’s conference.
Following this, Matthew Jones introduced a discussion on LU’s Scottish conference. This was more heated, with those who backed the Scottish nationalists in the Radical Independence Campaign, such as Matthew Caygill, accusing comrades in Scotland of creating a “sectarian ghetto” - in other words, we must unite with the left (nats). Comrade Caygill was incensed that Matthew Jones and others in LU Scotland had handed out a leaflet at the RIC conference headed “Socialism or barbarism”. Myself and Jack Conrad spoke vehemently in defence of our Scottish comrades, who took a principled stance against the left’s collapse into Scottish nationalism. Those in Scotland who see Scottish independence as a step towards socialism ought to have the courage of their convictions and join the Scottish National Party (as much of the RIC now has). Those who believe in working class unity, in left unity, ought to be fighting tooth and nail against nationalism.
Next up, the NC considered the motion proposed by Jack Conrad, Yassamine Mather, David Isaacson and myself on the continued suspension of comrade Laurie McCauley by his branch in Manchester. Jack Conrad moved the motion beginning with the importance of the right to criticise, the right to hold minority views and the fact that political differences can be openly debated within LU (unlike so many other organisations). In contrast to this generally good culture, comrade McCauley was suspended from his Manchester branch because he wrote an article in the pages of this paper. Our motion called on the NC to urge Manchester to overturn this suspension.
Comrade Joseph Healy (a former member of the previous - very overworked - disputes committee) said that the constitution does not allow branches to suspend members and therefore the comrade’s suspension should be lifted. Almost all comrades who spoke felt that it was wrong that comrade McCauley had been left in limbo for a year and there must be a swift resolution of the matter. Some felt that he had been partly to blame for his prolonged suspension because he had not been able to meet with the DC on one occasion, but comrade Conrad assured the NC the Communist Platform (including comrade McCauley) would cooperate with the new DC in resolving this matter promptly.
Openness
What was, in our view, the most worrying thing to come out of the discussion was the notion that there should be a ban on the reporting of meetings. There was the idea raised by John Devine: branch discussion should be the property of the branch. In other words, there should be no reporting of branch meetings.
Others commented that some people might be reticent to state their views if they thought their words might be reported. Are we not in politics? Should we not be about openly discussing and promoting our ideas? No-one is suggesting that the remarks of newcomers should be published as an act of humiliation. There was a related concern that people should not be named. Some people would not wish their political identities exposed at work, etc. I made the point that some comrades use cadre names in those circumstances - Liz Davies had never heard the like in all her days in politics (has she never heard of Trotsky, Lenin, Stalin or even Tony Cliff and Ted Grant?).
It was correctly stated that sometimes there is a need for confidentiality. I can see this may occur in certain extreme circumstances, but this is not what we are dealing with here. Comrade McCauley did not make personal comments about other comrades’ private lives or put at risk their security. What he did was criticise the political views of experienced comrades. What is more, there is no need for confidentiality in this dispute - in order for justice to be done, it must be seen to be done. When comrade Conrad made a comment about secret trials he was berated and heckled by many at the meeting, especially Matthew Caygill, despite the best efforts of the chair. Sadly, the NC voted against our motion, with 11 for, 23 against and six abstentions.
Following this, there was another area of contention, when Felicity Dowling moved her motion on developing a ‘safe spaces’ policy on how members of LU should behave internally in order to protect ‘vulnerable’ members. Of course, LU has voted twice now not to adopt her ‘safe spaces’ proposals, yet she continues undeterred. Eve Turner correctly pointed out that, while there were three motions on this issue at the last conference, the majority did not support any of them (though the Communist Platform’s code of conduct got the biggest vote). I took issue with the whole notion of ‘safe spaces’ - a patronising concept that is often used to cower and intimidate. But comrade Dowling was adamant that we needed such a policy to prevent abuse - “Look at what happened with Jimmy Savile,” she argued. Of course, ironically (given the previous discussion), a culture of openness is the best way of preventing abuse, not secret trials and bureaucratic minefields.
Comrade Dowling’s motion was not carried - there were 17 votes for and 17 against. But somehow I feel that will not prevent the ghoul of the ‘safe spaces’ policy rearing its head at a future conference.
Following this, there was a discussion on the mobilisation for June 20 and then the NC closed with some debate on the one-day constitutional conference that will be held over the same weekend as our normal annual conference in the autumn. Some felt that this should not be a priority, while many argued that the question was important. It is now widely recognised that the existing constitution is not fit for purpose - although it goes without saying that comrades like Felicity Dowling have a rather different idea from ourselves on the changes that need to be made.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2020 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.