Skip to main content

Labour needs unity not division over clause 4

Labour Party leadership candidate, Rebecca Long-Bailey, wants to reopen the debate about Clause 4 in the party's constitution.

At a time when the party should be seeking to unite, this candidate is bent on opening old wounds and potentially devoting months if not years of wrangling about its constitution.



It is, of course, a pitch to the Corbyn wing of the party.   They have never forgiven Tony Blair for pushing through reform of the old Clause 4 section 4, which enshrined public ownership as an objective.

It was and will remain a source of contention in the party ever since it was written in 1918, but mainly since the former leader in the 1950s, Hugh Gaitskell, tried to ditch it.

The clause, which has sweeping nationalisation in it, was always far removed from what a Labour government would do.   But for years the party carried the burden of its intent written in stone.

For many on the left, it is a shibboleth.  To moderates, it is was an unnecessary handicap to reaching out to voters.  For the party now to embroil itself in rewriting it would be a gift to the right-wing media, bent on portraying Labour as communist extremists.  The Tory media would have a field day.  It plays into their hands and it will be a distraction from Labour's real message of hope.  Of course, public ownership plays a role in creating a fair economy, but it isn't the objective.

Tony Blair pushed through a reform of the clause.   And this is one reason why the left has decided to use it as some kind of symbolism.  It is foolish and divisive.

It is one reason Long-Bailey would be the wrong choice as leader of the party.  Member and supporters of the party who have a vote should consider what is more important to them.  Bringing the party together, reaching out to voters and forming a Labour government that the country desperately needs, or to spend the next four years arguing and contemplating the party's position on public ownership.

Labour needs a leader who can unite the party, not one that will further divide it.  

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

Keir Starmer has a lot to offer

The Labour Party is in the process of making a decision that will decide whether it can recover from the defeat in 2019 General Election.  All the candidates have much to offer and are making their case well. No doubt for some the decision will be difficult.  Others may well have made up their minds on the simple binary of Left-wing-Right-wing. The choice should be whoever is best placed to pull the party together.  Someone who can form a front bench of all talents and across the spectrum in the party. That is what Harold Wilson did in the 1960s.  His government included Roy Jenkins on the right and Barbar Castle on the left; it included Crossman and Crossland, and Tony Benn with Jim Callaghan.  It presented a formidable team. Keir Starmer brings to the top table a formidable career outside politics, having been a human rights lawyer and then Director of Public Prosecutions.   He is a man of integrity and commitment who believes in a fairer society where opportunities are more

The lion and the wildebeest

Birds flock, fish school, bees swarm, but social being is more than simply sticking together.  Social groups enable specialisation and a sharing of abilities, and enhances ability, learning and creating new tricks. The more a group works together, the more effective they become as a team.  Chimpanzees learn from each other how to use stones to crack nuts, or sticks to get termites.  All around us we see cooperation and learning in nature.  Nature is inherently creative.  Pulling together becomes a rallying cry during a crisis.  We have heard it throughout the coronavirus pandemic.  "We are all in this together", a mantra that encourages people to adopt a common strategy. In an era of 'self-interest' and 'survival of the fittest,'  and 'selfish gene', we lose sight of the obvious conclusion from the evidence all around us.   Sticking together is more often the better approach.  This is valid for the lion as it is also for the wildebeest.   We don't