What’s the point of the soft left?
Last year Jacobin published an interesting article on the past, present and future of Labour’s traditional, trade union-dominated right. While I agreed with the general thrust of the piece, albeit with some caveats, I was most struck by the suggestion that the New Labour ascendancy had critically undermined the material basis on which the right was built. In a sense, the right, having won the internecine conflicts of the 80s, paved the way for Blairism, the force that would ultimately destroy it.
What’s interesting is a similar phenomenon seems to be playing out on the other side of the party as the soft left, a historic force in their own right, having moved the party gradually under Ed Miliband see themselves cannibalised by his successor.
It is, I feel, fair to suggest that for most of Labour’s history the rank and file membership of the party could broadly be defined as coming from the soft left. They were in favour of a more active state, embraced internal democracy and embraced large elements of the peace movement. Their roots can arguably be traced back to the totemic Bevan/Gaitskell clash of the 1950s. While the latter was a hard-nosed pragmatist backed by the unions, the former was an a dreamer. There is a certain poetry to Bevan that simply cannot be replicated in Hugh Gaitskell whatever his other merits.
However, this was coupled with a degree of pragmatism and a recognition that Parliamentary socialism was the course to be followed, distinguishing them from the hard-left who followed Benn not Kinnock when the Tribune Group split. While the hard-left have historically drawn from extra-Parliamentary action this is hasn’t been replicated on the soft-left. Instead groups like the Labour Coordinating Committee paired anti-Trotskyism with opposition to the party’s right, most notably by supporting John Prescott against Roy Hattersley in the 1988 Deputy Leadership contest.
Following Neil Kinnock’s resignation in 1992, the soft left seemed to stand one step to the left of Smith, Blair, and Brown, and in doing so sought to claim to be the soul of the party. This manifested itself in large part through support for the CLGA slate in internal elections and, most obviously, in supporting Ed Miliband for leader. Though Miliband sought to detach himself from New Labour, his efforts were never wholly convincing. However, a gradual move leftwards in the membership could certainly be felt under his watch.
In a sense, Miliband’s leadership was one of promises unfulfilled: If only things were different and Labour were committed to a socialist agenda…
Today things clearly are different. Labour is increasingly socialist in tooth-and-claw, and party democratisation is in motion. Moreover, the membership, engorged to over half a million, is, broadly, on board with this agenda and even keen to push it further.
The soft left’s position in this is curious, particularly that of its foremost factional manifestation, Open Labour. The organisation’s webpage commits it to “creating broad and diverse alliances behind policies which transform society” and suggests that “this will only happen if our party is vibrant and democratic.” Importantly, they state that “we believe a radical Labour party must prioritise transforming our economy.”
Their constitution goes further, suggesting that “positive social change…means occupying, commanding and transforming mainstream opinion and institutions, engaging with and shifting the centre, persuading voters to ally with our party and programme.”
To the lay reader this seems like a call for leftist hegemony both within Labour and beyond. Indeed, Open Labour’s prospectus — both in regard to internal party management and Labour policy — is indistinguishable its Corbynite equivalents.
The most recent NEC election showed the limits of Open Labour’s factional operations. Their candidate, the veteran left-winger and previous member of the CLGA slate, Ann Black, came a poor 13th, falling behind the independent Eddie Izzard (possibly boosted by his celebrity status and incumbency) as well as Labour First/Progress’ Jo Baxter and Gurinder Singh Josan.
In the wake of this defeat, Open Labour called not for a united slate against Momentum (Inertia?), but instead for reform of the voting system. On twitter, figures connected with the group went as far as bemoaning the “arrogance” of long-term fixers like Luke Akehurst for suggesting such an arrangement. However, as Ann Black’s performance demonstrates, in the current membership the soft-left’s appeal is limited. Similarly, if, as Open Labour’s language seems to suggest, there is little to distinguish them from Momentum or any other hard left vehicle, what is the point of the soft left as an entity in itself?
