I’ve spent most of my life as an
active member of the Labour Party, but I won’t be voting Labour on 5 May. Let me
explain why.
The Labour Party was always far from
ideal but no serious socialist could deny its real achievements and positive
impact on working-class lives – most enduringly in the creation of the NHS.
But the Labour Party that built the
NHS no longer exists. The Labour Party that offers itself for election in 2005
is hostile to working-class interests and is an enemy of democratic rights and
social equality. It is the principal British instrument of neo-liberalism, which
is why it commands the support of the bulk of the British ruling class (which is
not to say that significant sections don’t still yearn for the Tories). Above
all, Labour in 2005 is the party of war and of imperialism.
The responsibility for Labour’s
crimes against humanity does not lie solely with Blair, Straw and the rest of
the Cabinet (although every one of them is a war criminal). A majority of the
PLP supported the war. Whilst it is true that, on the eve of invasion, a large
minority of Labour MPs voted against military intervention, they did so under
pressure from the unprecedented mass anti-war movement that took shape entirely
outside the Labour Party. Since then, all but a tiny handful have fallen back
into line. They have not spoken out against the occupation of Iraq, which is no
more justifiable than the invasion itself. When a morally reprehensible act of
imperialism is ongoing, voting against it on a single occasion in the past is no
more than a token gesture. To reward those MPs with support at the ballot box
would make a joke of the anti-war movement.
The Party as a whole also bears a
heavy responsibility for the crimes of the last few years. It’s true that large
numbers of Party members were appalled by the invasion of Iraq. But their
opposition did not result in any significant rebellion at any of Party
Conferences. Significantly, not one pro-war MP was seriously threatened with
de-selection by his or her local membership. That strikes me as incontrovertible
evidence of a fundamental shift in the nature of the Party.
Once, Labour offered working-class
people meaningful choice at the ballot-box. Today, it is an instrument whose
main function is to obstruct that choice.
The argument that the Labour Party
is organically linked to the working-class is no longer sustainable. The
composition of the Party has changed – its activists and members are not only
overwhelmingly middle class, but also have a vested interest in the managerial
politics adopted by the government. The Party’s links with the corporate world
(in donations, sponsorship, staff links, personal contacts) are stronger and
more decisive than its remaining links with the trade unions. The cumulative
changes in the Party’s constitution have deprived unions of any effective voice
in policy-making or the selection of candidates (and, from my experience on the
National Executive Committee, I know that union members’ representation there is
purely nominal).
To continue to claim in 2005 that
Labour is the representative of the working-class is to place Labour in some
abstract realm transcending history and its material base. Surely, Marxists know
that all social institutions change depending on their relationships with
shifting class forces.
In reality, most of those who vote
Labour will do so because they view it as the lesser of two evils. But while
‘lesser evilism’ has its place in politics, it cannot provide a strategic
orientation for socialists. Leaving aside the minuscule current degree of
difference between Labour and the Tories, this lesser evil argument effectively
endorses the key plank of Blairism: that any atrocious compromise is justifiable
if it helps win elections. I rejected that argument when I was in the Labour
Party , and I continue to reject it. Blair won’t construe a vote for Labour as a
vote for a “lesser evil” but as an endorsement of his policies and specifically
a mandate for war and occupation.
A vote for Labour in this election
is a vote for war, for occupation, for continuing assaults on civil liberties
both domestically and internationally. True, there are a tiny number of Labour
MPs who consistently and actively oppose the occupation, both inside and outside
Parliament, and they should be supported at the ballot-box. But a vote for
Labour elsewhere will license the government to commit more atrocities, in the
knowledge that it will never pay an electoral price and will never be held to
account.
In Scotland, all those who believe
that war and occupation are wrong should vote for the Scottish Socialist Party.
In England and Wales, the picture is murkier.
The Liberal Democrats’ opposition to
the war was short-lived and largely opportunist. There may be a few
constituencies where a tactical vote for a Liberal candidate who personally has
an impressive anti-war record would defeat a pro-war Labour MP, but, for the
most part, that is not the case.
Respect is largely a creature of the
SWP – an organisation which in my experience has utter contempt for democracy,
diversity and for the integrity of the broader mass movement. Respect’s refusal
to endorse the fundamental democratic principle of secularism must raise grave
doubts for any serious socialist. And its claim to be the party of the anti-war
movement is simply untrue, displays a sectarian cynicism and contempt for the
breadth and diversity of our movement.
In many constituencies, the Greens
constitute the only viable anti-war vote. I support the Greens’ two outstanding
MEPs, but the Party as a whole has serious weaknesses. It engaged only
intermittently with the active anti-war movement and its position around the
occupation of Iraq remains ambiguous. Activists should press for clear answers
on this crucial issue from every candidate in their constituencies, including
the Greens.
The unsatisfactory choices facing
socialists in England and Wales are the result of the political inadequacies of
the left as a whole over the last few years. I don’t pretend that there are
simple answers. But what socialists cannot do is to avoid the problem, pretend
that New Labour is an acceptable choice or that any of the existing alternatives
are adequate.
