Tribalists and pluralists on the British Left

Tribalists and pluralists on the British Left

Paul Thompson: Tribalists and Pluralists on the British Left

I spent Saturday with over 1000 left activists at the Compass conference in London. Compass is something of a miracle on the Left, in that it manages to be “Labour-aligned” but provides a focus for a variety of pressure groups, think tanks, unions, leftists from other parties and none. Since its inception in 2003 (I was one if its founding signatories) and led ably by Neal Lawson, it has grown to over 4000 members and won some impressive campaigning victories (with a clever use of new and old communication networks). Typically, this event began with a plenary whose main speaker was the new Green MP Caroline Lucas, as well as fitting in a lively hustings with the five Labour leadership candidates.

The strategic choice made by Neal and others not to become a pressure group within and therefore dependent on Labour was absolutely the right one. Yet the dual orientation can be difficult. Compass was prominent amongst forces pushing hard for a post-election coalition between Labour and the Liberal Democrats and labelled Labour skeptics as “tribalists.” This was a theme taken up by Caroline Lucas in her conference speech. Contrasting “tribalism” with “pluralism,” she berated Labour for not trying harder to form a “rainbow coalition” that would have included the Greens (i.e. her) and the Scottish and Welsh nationalists. However, tribalism was not the main barrier to such a link-up–reality was. Not only did such a combination lack the numbers and legitimacy, it lacked the potential for a feasible program for government. When you are a party with no chance of governing you can adopt any radical position you like regardless of whether the numbers or the ideas add up.

For all its breadth and energy, a Compass conference can sometimes feel like what the commentator Andrew Rawnsley says of the Labour leadership candidate Dianne Abbot–“a collection of causes and postures rather than a left wing program which would be a coherent alternative to the government New Labour.” Of course a reasonable riposte would be that Compass is not a party but a “progressive alliance.” Fair enough, but isn?t that the point? The difference comes out most sharply in debates on action to cut the deficit. Every union or single issue leader who spoke from platform or floor says no cuts to them or anyone else. Many activists appear to agree or think that there is no financial problem that more taxes (or cutting defense expenditure) cannot solve.

Regardless of the causes of the deficit in the UK and elsewhere (which cannot be simply reduced to the global financial crisis), its effects are real. To have no alternative program for deficit reduction to the Con-Dem coalition is politically irresponsible and will merely make it more likely the burden will be borne by the weakest and most vulnerable. The Coalition is literally relishing “the cuts” because they will be a vehicle for their ideological zeal for cutting the size of the state. Labour and the wider movement must oppose this with a credible balance between cuts and tax rises, and a clear set of priorities and preferences. Or are we a simple mirror image, believing that every facet of state expenditure is by definition desirable or defensible? A progressive alliance of campaigns and pressure groups is prevented, by its very nature and composition, from making such choices. Contrary to what Neal Lawson said from the platform, power is not just “a state of mind” that can be countered by permanent opposition. It may not be the responsibility of Compass to have a program for deficit reduction, but it is for Labour or any “tribe” that seeks to form a government. This does not make one better than another, but it does make them different.