The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

The campaign against Progress spells pure danger for Labour

The very fact that unions discuss the purging of "Blairites" should be cause for alarm.

By Rafael Behr Published 13 June 2012 15:11

Paul Kenny, the general secretary of the GMB union. Photograph: Getty Images.

Paul Kenny (R), the general secretary of the GMB union, which voted in favour of a critical motion against Progress this week.

It is neither a secret nor a surprise that certain people on the left of the Labour party and in the trade union movement do not like Tony Blair. They disapprove of a wide range of policies that might, exploiting the elasticity of the term, be described as Blairite. Candidates in elections on whom that same label might be pinned are likewise shunned by some.

That is a normal feature of politics. It is normal too, on the fringes of any movement, for people to believe that their leaders or former leaders have in some sense betrayed the ideals of the party and ought to be repudiated as traitors. Certain hard line Eurosceptic Tories currently feel that way about David Cameron. I don’t think it is a very healthy or attractive feature of politics, but it is probably unavoidable.

It is this tendency that is feeding the campaign against Progress, a self-described “New Labour” pressure group. It has its own independent funding but draws its membership (including many senior shadow cabinet figures) from the Labour party. In February this year, an anonymous dossier was sent to constituency Labour party secretaries purporting to be “an investigation into the constitution, structure, activities and funding of Progress. (A copy is here; Progress’s rebuttal is here.)

Michael Meacher MP wrote a piece for The Staggers endorsing the attack here. Robert Philpot, Progress director, responded, also on The Staggers, here.

Broadly speaking, the charge is that Progress is a shadowy organisation, a secretive phalanx of right-wingers with corporate backing who have infiltrated the party with a view to steering it away from the path of left virtue. The alternative view is that it is an organisation that lobbies within the party for views and policy ideas – some of which might be great, some of which might be bonkers, much of which contributed to Labour’s most successful time in British politics. If, that is, being in power is considered a success.

But the key question isn’t whether Progress is right about some things or indeed anything. It is whether or not it has the right to exist within the Labour party.

At this week’s annual congress of the GMB union there were a couple on interventions attacking Progress. The idea was mooted of bringing changes to Labour party rules effectively killing the organisation. People in Progress itself believe there is similar agitation in other large unions. The resources and data required to compile and send out the February dossier suggest union involvement.

So what is it all about? Obviously there is ideology. People don’t like Blairites and want them to go away. I have heard it said by a few people on the Labour left that the Blairites should be expelled from the party, drawing an equivalence with Militant in the 1980s. I find the comparison pretty wild, but then extreme metaphors are not unusual in politics (or journalism).

But there is another factor involved, which is the internal pressure within the union movement to explain why the backing of Ed Miliband for the leadership has not yielded changes to the party that were implicitly promised. It is a kind of compliment really: Ed has not been as red as advertised, by erstwhile friends and enemies alike. He and Ed Balls have accepted the need to make some public sector cuts. They are committed to reducing the deficit and – most offensive from the union point of view – they recognise the necessity of the public sector pay freeze.

This was never in the union plan. The convenient explanation for the left is that Miliband has somehow been captured by Blairites – that the zombie tendency of the old regime is preventing him from carrying the sacred flame as bestowed by the bloc vote. The natural solution: smash the zombies.

The reality is that self-declared “Blairites” are marginalised in the shadow cabinet, do not have the leader’s ear and generally wander around looking like some of the most forlorn and lonely people in Westminster. (So yes, there is a haunted/zombie contingent, but not a very powerful one.)

But even that is a distraction. It hardly matters whether or not Blairite ideas are influencing Miliband or whether those ideas are good or bad. What matters is whether the Labour party and the wider labour movement – the unions in other words – can tolerate dissenting voices. It is all about control: who runs the machine, who has the resources to print leaflets and fund local campaigns, who decides which candidates get selected in safe seats. Progress is a player in that game, but a minnow compared to the GMB or Unite.

Ultimately, even people who hate Blair, his works and his political descendents should see that their battle is better won by argument and conviction than institutional machination. It ought to be obvious that a campaign to close down Progress hands a stupendous opportunity to enemies of the Labour party. As a rule for Labour, a move that has Tories punching the air in delight should give pause for thought.

What does mobilising against Progress say – or, at the very least, how is it certain to be interpreted? It looks as if Labour is belatedly warming up for one of those vicious internecine wars for which it is famed, the ones that kept it out of power for a generation and the avoidance of which has been one of Ed Miliband’s biggest achievements to date. It looks as if some people on the left are so consumed by the pursuit of ideological purity that they despise the very notion of compromise, including compromise with the electorate. It looks as if the game that matters most of all is securing mastery of the internal machine not seeking a mandate to run the country. At worst, it plays to every negative stereotype of the unreconstructed left: wedded to monolithic control (achieved by subterfuge and bullying), suspicious of dissent, smelling treason everywhere and believing in the restorative effects of the purge.

As I said, maybe that is just a normal aspect of politics. But it is not a very appealing one. A dispassionate observer might think energies on the left would be better spent finding new supporters instead of whittling down the ranks of existing ones.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: Labour Trade Unions

More from Rafael Behr

View the discussion thread.

35 comments

Fri, 2012-07-20 10:48 — Goji (not verified)

Nice article..... interesting.
Goji Goji fructe goji

Thu, 2012-07-05 20:53 — ahmadnasr89

صور رمضان 2012
تحميل صور رمضان 2012
صور رمضانية 2012
نتيجة الثانوية العامة 2012

Fri, 2012-06-22 07:05 — H Svenson (not verified)

Let us be clear about this: the premise of the Blairite political project, that Progress symbolises, was a destruction of the Left and any grass-roots influence in the Labour Party. My point, however, is that the pernicious politics of Progress are not just a problem for the Labour Party. A Progress-dominated clique has hijacked the Hope Not Hate anti-racist campaign, with reactionary results. So reactionary Hope Not Hate are now supplicating themselves to the Tories, desperate for cash, and willing to suppress the working class along the way. Strong claims, but, I argue, fully substantiated in the latest Notes From the Borderland magazine (issue 10). See http://www.borderland.co.uk/index.php/13-searchlighthopenothate/searchli...

Sun, 2012-06-17 16:49 — |John reid (not verified)

stevenm ,some of these right wing entryist were backers of Gaitskell who saw labour of the 50's and 60's as their party and they considered the Bennites the infultrators in the 70s

Fri, 2012-06-15 09:57 — Zalii (not verified)

Its an interesting article. Can i read more of them ? Zalando Gutschein

Fri, 2012-06-15 00:35 — Davidaslindsay (not verified)

Pending its expulsion from the Labour Party, Progress is to hold a conference on how Ed Miliband's Labour is winning council seats in the South that Tony Blair's New Labour never even contested. Southern Discomfort, indeed. Or have I missed something?

In point of fact, only Labour now represents the Union as a first principle, any concept of English identity, a universal postal service bound up with the monarchy, the Queen's Highways rather than toll roads owned by faraway petrostates, Her Majesty's Constabulary rather than the British KGB that is the impending "National Crime Agency", the National Health Service rather than piecemeal privatised provision by the American healthcare companies that pay Andrew Lansley, keeping Sunday special, a free vote on the redefinition of marriage, a referendum on continued membership of the EU, the historic regimental system, aircraft carriers with aircraft on them, the State action necessary in order to maintain the work of charities and of churches, and the State action necessary in order to maintain a large and thriving middle class.

The only way to save Tory Britain is to vote Labour. Though only because Labour really is now Labour again.

And, clearly, Tory Britain knows it.

Like Progress, the Coalition is in favour of Post Office privatisation (as the Conservative Party has been for 20 years), of road privatisation, of the NCA, of the war on the police, of the NHS breakup, of the deregulation of Sunday trading, of a whipped vote in favour of the redefinition of marriage, of the refusal of an In/Out referendum on the EU, on the defence cuts despite also being in favour of any and every war ordered up by the American neoconservative think tanks and by the Israeli Far Right, of the taxing of charities and churches out of existence, and of the withdrawal of middle-class benefits.

Labour is opposed to each and every one of those things. It mightn't have been under Brown. It wouldn't have been under Blair. But it is now. Needless to say, though, this and other supposedly Tory newspapers continue to advocate and practice uncritical support for the always-Liberal Conservative Party, towards which they ought therefore to be counted as election expenditure. Free press? What free press?

Thu, 2012-06-14 19:01 — stevem1940 (not verified)

A bunch of right wing entryists who hijacked the Labour Party and turned it into a true conservative organisation. They should be completely sidelined and some must be driven out of the Party for bringing it into disrepute.

Thu, 2012-06-14 19:01 — stevem1940 (not verified)

Thu, 2012-06-14 18:32 — Haro Yousofian (not verified)

Neither GMB nor Unite can put Labour in power on their own. They need to work with the rest of the Labour movement !

Thu, 2012-06-14 16:50 — iRule (not verified)

What a disingenuous attempt to belittle the left, shame on you.
jocuri - jocuri online

Thu, 2012-06-14 16:27 — Anon9864 (not verified)

I see there has been a lot of samefagging in this comment section.

Progress are unpopular as they are neoliberal, which is what the coalition is.

What is the point in voting for labour if they are just going to be the same as the tories.

Labour used to be great for the working man, Tony Blair oversaw increasing inequality and did little for most men compared to the Titans Attlee and Callaghan.

That is why Milliband needs to shun this right wing nonsense and use liberal lefty ex lib dems and use a nationalistic message to spearheard the vanguard back to the centre from the last 4 decades of right wing debauchery.

Thu, 2012-06-14 15:40 — iRule (not verified)

If someone is an elected chairman of a group which includes 30 of my fellow MPs that would indicate he is an important person who people in the party listen to. I assume that's why Progress put it in his bio on their site.
jocuri online

Thu, 2012-06-14 14:00 — Indu Pendent

Good article.

"Progress is a player in that game, but a minnow compared to the GMB or Unite"

The truth is a few words from Progress chimes with the public at large and carries a long way.

But the GMB or Unite have to shout and threaten economic damage to society at large before most people will give the unions greedy self interest the time of day. They are members of the "Meacher and the crackpots" party.

Thu, 2012-06-14 13:02 — AA Gibb (not verified)

Before I say anything I just want to say that considering at best stupid, at worst borderline offensive, to prescribe a homogenous value set on such a diverse body as 'the working class'.... whatever it is people mean by that these days.

This is a good post. The 'working class' frequently want things, as listed above, unpalatable to your average leftist. It is always always always worth reiterating that in 1983, the last time (and, arguably only time) a strongly leftist 'socialist' programme was put before the electorate, Margaret Thatcher won more support from working class communities. And you know what, even after the Miners Strike, there wasn't much in it. More TRADE UNIONISTS voted for her in 1979 than voted for the Labour Party - a trick, I think, Gordon Brown just about managed to pull off in 2010. A third of Unite members voted for the Tories.

Things like that just need to be said every now and again. I used to be a Blairite. I am a member of Progress. But times change. I voted for Ed Miliband, not David. I am critical of some of their positions, usually because I think they need to be a little more open to the new political context and not greet every move away from 1997 as some kind of betrayal. Fine. But they also talk a lot of sense.

Above all, I know one thing is for sure. As a Unite member: Len McClusky does not speak for me.

Thu, 2012-06-14 11:46 — Dan Filson (Daniel A Filson) (not verified)

Progress is articulate and well-organised. If the left were likewise, there could be an intelligent dialogue. As it is, there is not. I think that a pity. As for the comment suggesting the Labour Friends of Israel is a sign of the power of Progress, well I read that as a kind of anti-Semitic remark hinting at a global conspiracy by Jews to take over the Labour Party etc. Tosh! We need an intelligent debate about the role of Israel in a tense Middle East that does not simply deteriorate into Beleaguered Israel Right or Wrong versus Palestine is Right Regardless of Warts and All! Just because intelligent people take interests in UK politics, that does not mean a conspiracy. It means concern that the Labour Party may have lost some direction. A position I share, but not exactly the way Progress does. Prescribing should be a thing of the past, unless obvious and destructive entryism is involved. That patently is not the case with Progress, which I have found an intelligent forum fr debate.

Thu, 2012-06-14 14:10 — Samuel Wheeler (not verified)

"I read that as a kind of anti-Semitic remark hinting at a global conspiracy by Jews"

That says rather more about yourself than me. Being an elected chairman of a group with over 30 MPs would imply you have a major status within the party would it not?

Thu, 2012-06-14 10:38 — Labour Party Member (not verified)

Tony Blair delivered some great Labour victories and a crushing defeat. Despite the successes in legislation, ask what he is remembered for. He destroys the reputation of the party, thank goodness he had given it a "New" name, so we could make an obvious change and return to our roots as Labour.

The time of New Labour is over. Harking back to it is damaging - it is exactly what our critics want to keep reminding the public about - as New Labour we are unelectable. It is Progress that is damaging the party, not those who are questioning it.

Those who enjoyed the power and positions they held during the New Labour government want them back. At any expense - Progress is not for the good of the partyc it is for the good of Progress.

Thu, 2012-06-14 10:14 — Jepang (not verified)

This article is awesome! so great | Japanesestation

Thu, 2012-06-14 00:13 — Karl Hungus (not verified)

the raison d'etres of the Unions (to secure better conditions for their members) and the Labour Party (to secure better conditions for all working people/ hard working families/ ordinary chav scum etc etc) have diverged because of the collapse of Unionism outside the public sector. Unions have become a sectional interest, whereas the Party - including Progress - has the wider electorate to consider.

The Unions need more imaginative leadership, and the Labour Party need to provide some policies that will help labour (small 'l') to organise. Neither side benefits from the current situation. Nor do the many private sector workers who are totally open to exploitation without proper Union support.

Wed, 2012-06-13 22:31 — Eddy S (not verified)

Tony Blair was the king who won 3 elections for us. We must never forget him and also in contrast the debt mess that brown/balls left behind.

Wed, 2012-06-13 20:06 — Rupe (not verified)

I don't think it's fair to say that there's no equivalence between Militant and the Blairites. I think it's reasonably to say they were both broadly responsible for catastrophic electoral defeats.

That's where the comparison ends, though. In terms of economics, only the Blairites brought the British economy to its knees through a festival of deregulation, private debt, and privatisation. Militant's economic legacy is a few leisure centres in Liverpool.

Talking of fringes: GMB has 610,000 members. The Labour Party has closer to 200,000 these days - down frmo 400,000 when Blair started. That's a bloody big fringe.

Wed, 2012-06-13 19:31 — Tom Headland (not verified)

The comments still don't get it. It's nothing to do with whether you
support Progress or abhor it; find the last government too accommodating or the greatest in the 20th century; and so on. The question is whether the Labour party is willing to embrace honest disagreement and democracy for ANY organisation - Progress, the Fabians, the unions etc - which embraces broadly Labour principles (and no one can do other than that) and is committed to those same principles of open discussion (which implies accepting dissent) and democracy. Obviously, the GMB thinks not. And if you look at the political histories of some of those advocating this, you can see why.

Two questions: if Progress were "outlawed", then all of its members - Cabinet ministers to the person who can only put up a poster at election time - could not also be members of the party.