Ten Years After

Dave Smith

We are now in the midst of a string of tenth anniversaries that marked a crossroads for the Labour Party. May 12th 2004 was the tenth anniversary of John Smith's sad demise.

What happened immediately after has been the subject of endless discussion, speculation, and even dramatic reconstruction. The details of the genesis of "The Deal" are somewhat murky, even to the extent of denial, but then they were delivered bearing the hallmarks of the machinations of the old Labour Right (which of course are not unlike those of the New Labour Right).

I don't know what threats and promises were on the menu at Granita - but sharing a constituency office, I was sure that Gordon was being "persuaded" not to stand for Leader against his political instinct, and hence all available thumbscrews were being used to sway his political judgement.

What is clear is that, ten years after, Brown was still waiting - and we are now approaching the tenth anniversary of Blair's offensive against the Left of the Party. The attack was launched first on the ideological underpinning of the Left within the Party, and then, using the momentum generated, by isolating the Left through centralisation of Party power. Both were justified by Blair as being necessary to "make the Party electable" (ignoring the fact that we were already - having been on course in 1992 until the victory celebration was staged a week before the election, and public support having risen under John Smith's leadership).

The ideological battle was fought over a soft target. Even many of the defenders of the pre-Blair Clause IV were prepared to admit that the principles that they held so dear could have been expressed in clearer and more modern language; and that there was widespread misunderstanding of the commitment to common ownership. It was also criticised for being too verbose - the irony of which is that the replacement was lengthier by more than seventy words.

The commitments were often ignored in practice, and well watered down when observed. The majority of Party members were happy to operate in that framework. After all, it had held the Party together for three-quarters of a century, despite the best efforts of the Gang of Four, Jim Sillars and the Militant Tendency.
Clause four of the constitution was adopted in 1918. In the aftermath of the Russian Revolution, working class expectations had risen and the wording has been portrayed both as a rallying cry for the British Left and as a sop to placate British militants. And perhaps more accurately, as a masterpiece of compromise designed to unite warring factions within the early Party. The battle between image and substance has been part of the equation since the original formulation of the wording.
Clause IV was not immutable. Changes had been made before, but they strengthened the constitution. In 1929, common ownership of the means of distribution and exchange were added to that of production. After the Second World War, support for the United Nations was incorporated. By 1994, Clause IV had become:

National
1. To organise and maintain in parliament and in the country a political Labour Party
2. To cooperate with the General Council of the Trades Union Congress, or other kindred organisations, in joint political or other action in harmony with the party constitution and standing orders.
3. To give effect as far as possible to the principles from time to time approved by the party conference.
4. To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.
5. Generally to promote the political, social and economic emancipation of the people, and more particularly of those who depend directly upon their own exertions by hand or by brain for the means of life.
Inter-Commonwealth
6. To cooperate with the labour and socialist organisations in the Commonwealth overseas with a view to promoting the purposes of the Party, and to take common action for the promotion of a higher standard of social and economic life for the working population of the respective countries.
International
7. To cooperate with the labour and socialist organisations in other countries and to support the United Nations and its various agencies and other international organisations for the promotion of peace, the adjustment and settlement of international disputes by conciliation or judicial arbitration, the establishment and defence of human rights, and the improvement of the social and economic standards and conditions of work of the people of the world.

Note that opposition was mostly to part 4, but that other sections suffered collateral damage in the rewrite.

Hugh Gaitskell tried to get rid of Clause IV in 1959. From his perspective, eight years into what would become "thirteen years of Tory misrule", he viewed the wording, and the (often unilateralist) Left of the party who supported it - as an electoral liability. The attempt was blocked via a classic compromise - the publication of a 12-point statement of aims.

Like Blair, Gaitskell was worried about the views of the rich and powerful, particularly those whose control of the media influenced the views of the middle classes.
I believe Blair also has a fundamental dislike of socialism. Often a word notable by its absence from his speeches, when he wrote a Fabian pamphlet, he couldn't use it without inserting a hyphen. Social-ism.

In May 2002, when being interviewed on Newsnight, Tony Blair was challenged to recite the current version of Clause IV of the Labour Party constitution, which replaced the original at his behest in 1995.

He was forced to admit that he was unable to recite what he fought so hard to introduce - even though the first 87 words are printed on membership cards. I'm not sure which bit he stumbled over - his actions suggest that he has forgotten about the democratic socialist bit, but I suspect it was something else.
Various conclusions could be drawn from this, but one thing is clear. The words are less important to him than the absence of the words they replaced.

I have no doubt that Tony Blair has a vague commitment to the communitarian notions embodied in the new wording. However, the ostensibly redistributive element has only a pale echo in practice. As for the description of the Party as "democratic socialist" - bear in kind that this phrase was already somewhat devalued by another great political revisionist whose manipulative abilities outshone even Tony's, Joe Stalin.

It's purpose was surely to serve as a sop to salve the suffering of those who were prepared to sell the Party's soul for a pocketful of Mandelson's middle-English, middle-class, middle-brow, middle-of-the-road, politically muddled, marginal controlling votes.

Like all things New Labour, the revised version is more about image than substance. That was also the case with the Blairite argument against the original wording.
It is difficult to criticise, even in the New Labour Party, redistribution of wealth (just don't overdo it) or the best system of popular administration (so long as it is what our friends the Liberals want). As previously noted, most arguments focussed on the archaic and verbose language or the supposed commitment to nationalisation.
And verily Tony begot the words anew. Yea, someone willing to sign up to religious rituals in a dead language, complaints about early twentieth century prose were a little disingenuous.

And contrary to what some elements of the media would have you believe, the clause did not promote the nationalisation of everything. Common ownership was the phrase, and I'm happy to say that some internet dictionaries offer a much better (though not perfect) interpretation:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia … "usually assumed to mean nationalisation of the whole economy, but close reading of the text shows that there are many other possible interpretations. Common Ownership could mean Municipal Ownership, Workers Cooperatives or Consumer Cooperatives. Many would also include the John Lewis Partnership as a company in common ownership. The phrase has to mean something which would be seen by traditionalists as Socialist."
And so it came to pass that when the tribes gathered for their conferences, the anointed/annoying (delete as appropriate) one announced that Clause Four would be replaced, and that we would show our blind loyalty/stupidity by agreeing to the change without ever seeing the replacement.

And a line in the sand was drawn. On one side, those who thought that, even if there was room for improvement, we couldn't trust the Project or the Network or whatever the shades of Blair were calling themselves, so we had to fight to keep what we had. On the other side, those who would sell the soul of the Party for the promise of power, swallowing the myth that power was not otherwise within our grasp, and not questioning the purpose of power.
In course of several months of Labour civil war, the diverse Scottish groups and individuals who came together to fight for Clause IV decided to stay together as the Campaign for Socialism. And that's another tenth anniversary on the way.

In those ten years, where other right wingers, nationalists, and Trotskyites have failed, Blair has largely but not completely succeeded in persuading socialist members that there is no longer any place in the Party for them. Membership grew to 400,000 in the nineties. Many of these new members were motivated by their dislike of the Conservative Party rather their adherence to Labour's philosophy. Others were persuaded to join on their doorsteps by unsustainable cheap membership schemes. This made the organisational onslaught that followed the demise of Clause IV relatively easy to achieve. Having served its purpose, the membership drive was shifted down several gears, and membership is down to about half its peak.

Despite the turn of the century marginalisation of the Labour Left, all is not lost. There has been a recent resurgence, with concerted action by constituency and trade union activists. Things are no longer going according to the Blairite plan. Tony is ignoring his own better judgement of previous years.
When he became Prime Minister, it was widely reported that he would retire at 50 because
a) he'd promised Cherie that she could continue her career;
b) he'd promised Gordon that he could continue his career; and
c) he wanted to get out while the going was good, before the population got fed up with him (with experience showing six or seven years was the limit of what politicians could get away with before parents started using them to scare their children).

Like many in power, he has surrounded himself with his pawns and spawn, who act as a mirror for his arrogance, and he now sees things differently.
And as a consequence, so do others. Tony's electoral and Party popularity is now in long term decline and the pretenders to the throne are sharpening the knives. It will get worse before it gets better, but in the natural course of such events, there will be inevitably be further opportunities to broaden political debate within the party.
Ten years ago, the Labour Party stood at the crossroads and sold its soul to Tony Blair. Ten years after, it would be remiss not to mark the anniversaries by seeking its return.