By: Stephane Savary, Labour Party activist in Altrincham South of Manchester.
Altrincham and Broadheath branch secretary. Also writes for @sciscomedia
I have interviewed Tom Miller for Scicomedia (pictured above
with group) Councillor for Willesden Green, London, about the Labour Party and
his political forum, Open Labour: a group that advocates for a modern and
socialist Labour Party.
Stephane Savary:
“Why “Open Labour”? Do you think that the Labour Party isn’t open to the world?
How different is your group compared to any other tendency?”
Tom Miller: “We
do think that out of government there is a closing occurring, yes. There are a
lot of criticisms which can be made of New Labour, but fundamentally, it was
trying to respond to a world where there was, for instance, a lot less
large-scale manufacturing or primary industry than there was in the 1970s;
understanding a changing economy and trying to change with it.
“In the age of Uber, our party, but also our Trade Union
movement, need that understanding more than ever. We also chose ‘open’ because
we think a lot of polarisation is occurring within the party which is leading
to a kind of closed-mindedness: a closed attitude to whatever the ‘other’
strands and traditions are. We are firmly on the left in terms of our analysis
of society and our conclusions, but we also believe in a Labour Party with lots
of different voices within: a culture which welcomes the new, and is happy to
be collaborative. So we are all about bringing a more open-minded attitude to
the Labour left as well as the wider party.”
Stephane Savary:
“Soft left, hard left, Blairites, Momentum..do you believe that the Labour
Party can be unified and become a credible alternative to the Conservative
government?”
Tom Miller: “It
has done before, and it can again. But it needs people to want it, and it needs
structures which support that urge. There are many political parties, not least
liberal ones, which allow multiple ‘factions’ if you like, to have power and
influence. In some countries, like Australia, that’s so normal it’s actually
become institutionalised. You have a shared base of legitimacy in member
decision making and conferences. But for that to work you have to have a shared
understanding that it is the people and bodies which make up the party who own
its progress and take responsibility ability for its failure, not just leaders.
In the 1950s the whole party believed this, but I think it broke down a little
in the 80s and totally collapsed in the 90s. And since then, people have
started to forget that they need to use their member power effectively, because
they themselves are forgetting that they have a part in being accountable for
what we do. You now also have a minority of the left that see the party through
the lense of ‘leader first’ and are only happy with member power if they think
members will agree with them. Both of these trends are bad. We stand for open debate
and a shared source of legitimacy for all parts of the party — the people who
make it up.”
Stephane Savary:
“Let’s talk about the EU referendum. What is Open Labour’s position on the EU
referendum?”
Tom Miller: “We
don’t have one yet! If we’re serious about democratic policy making we need to
finalise our membership structure before we can run around taking positions. On
my best guess though, I would say that our membership will be overwhelmingly
pro-EU, albeit critically. It’s hard to make the case for institutions run by
Conservatives, sometimes in quite shady ways. But you could say that about
Westminster. Europe has meant peace, jobs, civil rights, culture and leisure,
common work on policing, counter-terrorism and environmental protection — all very
positive things. We worry that its best days are past, so I’d expect that we
are likely to come out for some sort of ‘Social Europe’ position similar to
that of much of the radical left.”
Stephane Savary:
“Jeremy Corbyn was at the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament demonstration on
Saturday and is well-known for his views on Trident. What are your views on
Trident? Do you think that the Labour Party should review its policy?”
Tom Miller:
“Again I’d say most of our members probably oppose replacement, but we don’t
have official policies yet, and a substantial number will also want to see it
replaced. For our part of the party this is quite a divisive issue. Because our
part of the left is the most focussed on how we win and apply power, it’s
largely driven to that by domestic need, so it tends to be less motivated by
foreign policy. We’re happy to admit that!”
Stephane Savary:
“In your opinion, what are the strongest and weakest points of Jeremy Corbyn as
leader of the Labour Party?”
Tom Miller: “It’s
good to have a reconnection with the idea of Labour as a party which challenges
consensus. There was some of this with Ed Miliband, but the people carrying
that out always used to be able to turn it into a fudge and let the habits of
Brownism obscure what he was trying to do. The enthusiasm which Corbyn has
inspired in terms of getting people involved is also really useful, and
hopefully the idea of democratising the party — though we would want that to be
something that conference and our affiliates have a strong voice in, rather
than email polling. I also think that there is some really good, open-minded
work going on from John McDonnell’s office, who I think has been a bit of a
revelation in office — not something that many of the less dogmatic people on the
party left would have expected, and is to the credit of both men.”
“Ideas like challenging the market with democratic
alternatives should be common ideas to our whole party, including ‘moderates’.
It’s a big part of what we are here for, because we know markets without
direction or limits stop people from being free. As well as (hopefully) making
internal democracy more real and full, Jeremy’s victory shows that this is
where party members want us to be, and a lot of that agenda polls well as well.
If it forces Labour’s right to adapt towards a more consensus position in the
party, that’s good news for the party in the long term.
“There are quite a few downsides. Are we too far from the
prevailing consensus or model of leadership to challenge it effectively? This
would be a contradiction at the heart of the project. We seem a little adrift
in terms of having a strategy. Who do we want to convince. What for? Who do we
need to speak to if we are to win in 2020?
“This is a more general issue and also speaks to Labour’s
apparent unwillingness to try to ‘insulate’ itself from political attack, by
either the Tories directly or their press friends. The thinking at present is
very gung-ho: ‘We will be attacked anyway, why bother protecting ourselves?’.
This is like casting aside our armour because there will be arrows, and our
thinking could do with being a bit more sober and realistic. Is our strategy
genuinely aimed at succeeding?
“Quite a lot of people on what was traditionally the
‘hard’/Bennite left have made statements for years which they never expected to
have held to account or put to the test of mainstream opinion and support.
There needs to be a concerted show of effort in putting this kind of
‘non-seriousness’ aside, which would be much more successful than relying on
‘straight talking’ alone. Simply saying what we think when we like is not a
strategy, is not supported as one by any kind of evidence, and won’t win the
change we need.
“The last downside is not Jeremy’s fault, but comes with the
package. The UK political left as a whole seems to be moving away from a
collective and democratic way of thinking towards one focussed heavily on
short-term fads: ‘take the product I like’ political consumerism, and ‘leader’
figures. Jeremy is more substantive than this, but elements of all of those
things went towards his support, and people are applying them to internal
politics now — for example by making support for Jeremy the person the ‘test’
of leftism. This should be rejected.
“Open Labour argue that we are actually more about ideas,
values and collective input than we are about leaders, and that what we need is
long-term plans and institution building based on these. And if we are to do
that, we need internal pluralism to build towards an internal consensus, not
‘leftism tests’, especially ones based around personalities rather than
beliefs. Jeremy is a good man, but he is one of a great many. Let’s focus less
on ‘leader’ and more on ‘party’ and ‘movement’.”
Stephane Savary: “What
about the Young Labour Conference in Scarborough? Overall, it was a PR disaster
with accusations of racism and smearing campaigns against young labour
activists. During the Conference, Mo Ahmed said that the Labour Party was
taking BAMEs for granted. Do you agree with him?
Tom Miller: “Yes.
As ever with the youth movement there is a lot of work to be done, and you
really shouldn’t end up either with elections during caucuses, or people being
smeared in the first place. There needs to be clear complaints and safeguarding
procedures. People should actually follow them instead of spreading rumours
about each other. There seems to be a need for better BAME representation. It
seems like London Young Labour sets the standard on that. As a general
principle, I think the party should be taking the lead from the young people
themselves. Young Labour needs to be fully democratic and subject to some
safeguarding support, have the final say on its own affairs. Among our sister
parties, that’s the norm, and they mostly work with less inherent drama.”
Stephane Savary:
“There was an accusation of a “smearing campaign” organised by Jasmine Beckett.
Do you think that this is acceptable behaviour from young labour activist to
use such tactics?”
Tom Miller: “Our
Management Committee know a lot of the people themselves and I think there’s an
internal investigation, so best to leave that here I think…”
Stephane Savary:
“There were also accusations of anti-semitism against Young Labour activists at
the Oxford Labour Club. Jon Lansman wrote an article in the Jewish Chronicleand
disagreed with the accusations of anti-semitism. Do you think that the Labour
Party and the left have a problem with anti-semitism?”
Tom Miller: “I’ve
actually seen very few, if any examples on the Labour left, but I’ve seen a lot
of ‘pro-Palestine/anti-Israel’ activism outside Labour and I’ve seen plenty.
Therefore there is definitely a risk of that kind of attitude ‘seeping in’ and
I think we need to do more to guard against it — it’s not taken sufficiently
seriously because for now the infection seems to be limited to the far left
outside the party.
“There are basic things that activists need educating on.
How many young activists with an interest in the issue accurately understand
what ‘Zionism’ is for example, and that it includes peace activists who have
rocks thrown at them by Israeli expansionists? How many have an understanding
of very basic anti-racism, for example that Jews are not accountable for
Israel’s actions? How many can compute that whilst this is true, Israel is
important to many people’s Jewish identity, and that’s not really to question?
“As well as these gaps in understanding, many younger people
now see anti-semitism as a ‘rare’ prejudice, which gets in the way of tackling
it. Education is sadly now required.”
Stephane Savary:
“US elections: I am sure that you follow the presidential elections. Between
Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, which candidate is politically closer to
Open Labour?
Tom Miller:
“Probably Bernie. Most of us have been pretty enthusiastic about an upswing in
democratic socialist identity in the States, and it is encouraging to see
social class finally become an issue in a country with a huge material divide
but where a lot of the cultural history of class in politics is suppressed. He’s
also speaking to white working class voters for the centre-left, which is
something we could perhaps learn from. That said, his chances are looking slim,
and Hillary has strong experience and will be a million times better for
working people than any Republican. The divide these days is huge.”
Stephane Savary:
“You’re organising a meeting in Manchester on Saturday 5th March with Labour MP
Kate Green which has generated lots of positive feedback already. What are your
plans for the coming months? Where is Open Labour going?”
Tom Miller: ”Yes,
it’s going well! We’ve also made a press splash and gained over a thousand
supporters across the country who seem to be highly engaged. We have a first
meeting of our steering group in Birmingham which has now become an official
‘Management Committee’. We have some startup things to do first, but eventually
this body will be elected. We’ve also recruited a team of voluntary regional
organisers, so we have another meeting organised with Jon Trickett in
Sheffield. There will be a range of others to follow these, with some initial
thinking going on for South Wales, the West Midlands and the North East.
“These meetings will all feed towards a set of working
groups we are setting up around the theme of ‘renewing the democratic left. The
plan is to give the organisation an idea of where it thinks the context for the
left is, what the challenges it will have to deal with will be, how we can win
power for a more equal settlement in this county, and what needs to change in
our party to make these things viable. We’re hoping to get a lot of people
involved in this and build towards a national meeting in London.”
This article was originally published here: http://www.sciscomedia.co.uk/#!Is-Labour-Open-Interview-with-Tom-Miller/cour/56dae4f60cf20d226f1fe1a2
Is Labour 'Open'? An Interview with Tom Miller
Reviewed by Admin
on
17:53
Rating:
No comments:
Share your views here! But read our Comment Policy first, found on the about page.