Socialist Appeal: There has been quite a shift to the right over the last 20 years. The defeat of the miners strike led to demoralisation and inactivity, which in turn led to a shift rightwards in the leaderships of the trade unions and the Labour Party in that period. Do you see this period coming to an end now, and the pendulum beginning to swing the other way?

John McDonnell MP: At the end of the 80s and the beginning of the 90s there was a coalition of circumstances: the miners strike; the local government rate campaign; the emergence of Kinnock; the use of expulsions from the party; the defeat of the Labour Party by Thatcher; and being out of government. These all meant that Labour was vulnerable to the coup carried out by the small right-wing clique that was able to take over the party through bureaucratic measures. When the 1992 election was lost to the Tories and John Smith replaced Kinnock, there was a small opportunity for the broad-church approach of the Labour Party re-emerging. This could have given the left, right and centre the ability to have their voice and exercise some form of influence. But the death of John Smith was the trigger for a neo-conservative coup under Mandelson, Blair and Brown. This was the beginning of the closing down of all forms of democratic engagement within the party, as the clique tried to distance itself from any form of accountability either to the Labour Party or the trade union movement.

I don’t think it was a matter of the Labour Party rank and file shifting to the right. There was an element of disillusionment and some members of the party left. A number of very good comrades were lost due to the expulsions. But I still think there was a traditional left Labour base within the party at that time. The Neo-Conservative group that by that time were strengthening their grip recognised this and by bureaucratic manoeuvres began to take more control of the organisation, closed down democracy so that ordinary members had no voice or positions of influence within the party.

A decision then had to be taken, if you are a socialist within the Labour Party what do you do? You could either leave the party to establish some kind of alternative, or stay in and fight and that is what a number of us did.

Through the 90s up till the present time the main tactic of the Labour left has been to work on a twin track approach. Using whatever opportunities still exist within the party structures - and they are very limited - and to mobilise to raise levels of consciousness, to win the battle of ideas within the party.

Among those that stayed in there was a recognition that, because democracy was being closed down within the Labour Party, you had to work outside of the party structures on individual campaigns such as anti-war campaigns, environmental campaigns, or anti-privatisation campaigns. This was an attempt to develop a climate of opinion outside the party, which eventually would permeate the party itself and society generally.
At the same time, although there was a move to the right at the top of the trade union movement, there was still a structure and a rank and file base that we could work with and influence over a period of time. This played its role in the eventual election of a left in the unions, which is now established in some strength again.
We have now reached a stage where New Labour as a neo conservative force has run its course. Labour is facing potential disaster, electoral unpopularity in the opinion polls; in the last election the loss of 100 seats; and in local government Labour has been eradicated from office in some areas.

In addition to all this New Labour is trailing behind the Conservatives in the opinion polls now on every issue. What is interesting about these opinion polls is that when you ask people about the individual policies, they’re not supporting the Conservative’s polices, but the traditional Labour Party polices that we’re campaigning on. Opposition to privatisation, opposition to the war, opposition to tuition fees, for state pensions, for public services: all of those policies are popularly supported. We are the only ones putting these policies forward. It is now up to the left within the Labour Party to prepare for, and to lead, what could be the resurgence of the left within the party. It could be, but it’s going to take a lot of organisation, it’s going to have to be rank and file based because of the bureaucratic controls that New Labour exert both within the party, and within some unions. It’s going to have to appeal to a much wider layer outside the Labour Party and trade union movement as well.

Blair has now said that he is going to leave as leader of the party. That means we have the opportunity to raise the question of the leadership of the party, and the future of the Labour Party, more importantly of the movement as a whole, and of the country.

SA: The shift to the right in policy and the undermining of democracy in the Labour Party flowed from the fact that Blair wanted to change the whole basis of the party and turn it into another Tory party. An important part of that process was to break the links with the trade unions, though Blair and co have obviously failed in this attempt. Do you think that the unions represent a decisive base to use in the struggle within the Labour Party?

JMcD: I think we should be clear about what the 1990s coup within the Labour Party was about. There was a small clique who saw the vulnerability of the Labour Party being out of power for a long time, and the death of the then Labour leader, who actually was looking at a broad alliance within the party. That coup was about installing a neo-conservative government full stop. The whole panoply of policies let the free market rip, undermining the welfare state, public services overall, and introducing what they call ‘flexible labour’, which is actually an intensive exploitation of the workforce. To do that they had to do two things, one was close down democracy in the party and the other was eradicate and eliminate left-wing advocates within the party.

In addition to that they had to try to ensure that the trade unions themselves were demobilised, both in terms of preventing them from taking forms of industrial action - keeping in place Thatcher’s anti-union laws – and by trying to weaken their links within the Labour Party. They have made several attempts at that, reducing the role in the Labour Party structures for rank and file and trade union involvement, and now they want to go further in terms of trying to break the links altogether. But what’s interesting about the current period is that there is a strong rank and file reaction against that. Every election for a trade union general secretary over the last five years has been won by people purporting to be left wing and it is impossible to win an election without describing yourself as on the left, and supporting left programmes. This is a demonstration that the rank and file is reacting against neo-conservative policies and wants a shift.

Therefore, what we are going to see over the next few years is a pitched battle in the Labour Party and trade union movement between the neo-cons and those who are trying to reassert some form of socialist and trade union practices again. It is an incredibly exciting period. It reminds me of the early 80s. The left mobilised on the basis of a conscious understanding of what was going on in society, and it was done on the basis of mass rank and file activity. That is the kind of opportunity we have at the moment.

SA: Under these circumstances do you feel that your candidature is the key to opening up this debate and to really challenge to change the party and its whole direction?

JMcD: Well, the debate about the future is breaking out in virtually every area. Whether it is in individual trade unions that are facing privatisation; or in individual communities that are facing cuts in the health service; or in society as a whole as people watch the television and read the newspapers about what is happening in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon. People are looking at these issues and ideas are beginning to coalesce around the need for change. One of the ways we are saying to people that they can change is, of course, to mobilise within your own community, mobilise within your own trade union structures, and other structures, whatever organisation you are involved in.

In addition, we can use the leadership campaign to have that debate about where we are at the moment, the failure of the neo-con policies under New Labour, what the alternatives are.  Again it’s about involving people in that debate on an issue by issue basis, mobilising the experience of working class people working within their own communities, within their own sectors. It is also about giving people the understanding that this election could enable that change to happen. A new Labour leader coming to power on the basis of a debate about the change of policy, and the future direction of the Labour government - and our society overall - would mean that we would have an accountable government with a clear direction. It would be based on rank and file community activity, which I think would be so powerful in playing a role in transforming society. So there is a real opportunity here, a once in a lifetime opportunity in this campaign.

SA: What has the response been like in the last couple of months?

JMcD: One interesting thing has been the response from the opposition. New Labour neo-cons have done everything they possibly can, obviously, to structure the party to prevent any challenges to their leadership, to their dominance. Therefore, they have tried to contain the debate around the future direction of the Labour government within narrow New Labour parliamentary circles. So what we are seeing at the moment is an internal battle within New Labour about the future of the leadership of New Labour which is largely about naked ambition, but set squarely within the parameters of neo-conservatism.

They are trying to ensure that this is done in such a way that they can maintain their dominance, but there is faction fighting within that New Labour clique. They’re trying to ensure that their structures exclude anyone from the ranks being able to stand at all. So the constitution of the Labour Party has been established in such a way that the Parliamentary Labour Party still controls who will appear on the nomination papers when there is an election for leader, and we’ve got to take that into account. The way we can overcome that is through a rank and file campaign in the Labour and trade union movement. Amongst those people who will be participating in the ballot - when the ballot occurs - and those people who have no votes in the election but may be able to influence the climate of opinion as well. And that’s what we’ve done. We’ve ensured that everything we do is based on rank and file activity. So it’s about going back to the tradition of people talking to each other in meetings in which they can raise issues, there can be debate and dialogue and understanding and agreement on the way forward and it’s been done in a style which is conversational, discursive rather than hectoring. This isn’t about a leadership; it is about the whole future of rank and file activity in our movement and how we restore accountability and democracy in the movement itself.

The response so far within the movement has been tremendous. There’s a real excitement, people recognise this as an opportunity, a real excitement about people being able to debate issues again because there’s been no political discussion in the Labour Party, in any meaningful sense, for 10-15 years.

Within the trade union movement the same - rank and file trade unionists coming together, debating issues, and getting excited about campaigning on policies they believe in.
One of the comrades said on the platform when we launched our campaign in Manchester to a packed meeting that she feels that for the first time in nearly 15 years she can go out now and argue for policies that she believes in and has contributed to developing. That’s how people feel about it overall.

Outside of the movement, most of the media is controlled by friends of New Labour so there is almost a news blackout. What we’ve been trying to do to overcome that is to use the concept of the public meeting, and to produce our own material. Also to use as much live media as we possibly can so it’s not edited in any way. In addition to that we have this whole momentum of events that the media has to cover because of their significance. So we’re commenting on, and involved in, action that takes place on the ground, whether it’s industrial action by particular groups of workers, individual campaigns, whether it be health workers working with members of the community campaigning against health cuts.

We also try to use every modern form of media communication that we can so the internet has become one of the key elements of our campaign. It’s democratic, they can’t control it, they can’t edit it, and the scale of engagement of people through the internet with our campaign has surprised all of us and it really is a way forward. The style of the internet involvement is exactly the same as having a public meeting, it’s discursive, so it’s allowing people to have their say, allowing people then to link up with others around a particular issue and policy issue. There is an excitement now that we have not had within our movement for 20-30 years.

SA: Derek Simpson, the General Secretary of Amicus, refers to the campaign as the campaign of a ‘no-hoper’. In a rebuttal, another Executive member said that Derek Simpson was also referred to as a no-hoper some four years ago, and yet he managed to win the Amicus General Secretary election, defeating Sir Ken Jackson, on a left programme. What do you think about that?

JMcD: The good thing about our campaign is that it is grass-roots based, rank and file, with individuals making their own minds up by asking themselves whether they share our understanding of the world. Do they share the policy programme that we are putting forward? In that way they can become excited by the campaign. These questions are being considered by individuals and raised within organisations. Within every constituency Labour Party the question will be asked: do we support these policies? If we support the policy that’s being advocated by a socialist within the party, do we translate that into support for that candidature? That question will be asked of every Labour MP, and by their constituency as well. It will be asked in the unions, too. The rank and file, individual members and organisations like the broad lefts, in each union are asking themselves the same question: do we agree with these policies? If so, should we mobilise behind them and support this candidature? These questions are then raised within the formal structures of those organisations and therefore are asked of the General Secretary, too.

General Secretaries - no matter what platform they have been elected on - once they are in can become bureaucratised. They can get sucked in to the system where they believe that their role is not necessarily representative of their members in the sense of engaging in a debate at grassroots level, and then allowing the position to be determined as a result of that debate. Sometimes they see their role as leaders of their unions to negotiate with government and they feel they have a free hand to do that, they don’t want to be fettered.

We’re coming at it with a different concept, they’re delegates, no representatives, they are accountable to their rank and file and therefore they should engage like any other member of the union and come to a decision. They shouldn’t pre-guess or in any way take a decision in advance of their rank and file. Derek Simpson is a very good example. He was elected on a left-wing platform, which I supported. The Amicus Gazette broad-left has largely supported me and most of them are campaigning for me. Derek has come out with a view, which might be summarised as follows: I support the policies, maybe, but he can’t win the election therefore he’s a no-hoper, so what is the point? What he has failed to understand, and it’s the same as the neo-cons of New Labour and the commentators, is that this election, once we get past the nomination stage, will be determined by the votes of every rank and file member of the party and every individual member of an affiliated trade union. We are demonstrating by our grass roots campaign that actually there is a majority of support for the policies and the candidature within those organisations. What we are about to do is going to cause a shock in the media, and within New Labour circles, about the depth of support for those policy positions we are advocating. There will be something of an earthquake when that support is translated into support for the candidature, so it’s a moving feast. I think it’s often the case that leaders are sometimes behind the general pattern of the rank and file, rather than in advance of it or alongside of it, and I think that’s happening now in union after union.

SA: Clearly, as far as you are concerned, the battle is in the labour movement and above all in the Labour Party. Are those who advocate leaving the Labour Party really just weakening your case and strengthening the case of Blairism?

JMcD: Every person who leaves the party loses a vote in this election and therefore hands the leadership, and the future direction of the Labour Party, to the Neo-Cons of New Labour. That’s the straightforward mathematical calculation, obviously.

For those people who have left the party, and are turning up at my meetings, large numbers of them are rejoining. We are having a resurgence of membership. We are saying to people if you do rejoin it is about getting involved in this campaign, participating in debate and discussion, and that’s going to strengthen us in the long-term. So we’re rebuilding the left of the party from within, but on the basis of socialist policies and socialist practice.

As for organisations outside the Labour Party, as I said, I have I worked on individual campaigns on a broad united front basis, working with different organisations to raise consciousness on individual issues, and I am happy to do that, for example, campaigning against privatisation, against health cuts, or for trade union rights. If people agree with these policies and they are outside the Labour Party in different organisations then we work together on that particular issue. But my argument has always been that it would strengthen socialism in this country dramatically if the left outside the Labour Party would rejoin the party because that would give us the vehicle for government, and it gives working class people the lead to take power over their lives.

It is simple message but I say that in a completely non-sectarian way, and try to encourage people to work together. In that way, even if people don’t rejoin the Labour Party, we can build a commitment and understanding and support for our ideas… Even the Conservatives are having to nod to the left on some of these issues like public services, around the environment, and rights at work. They do that for opportunistic reasons and we know that as representatives of capital if they ever got power they’d turn on the working class as they have done before… The people who are immune to that at the moment are the small clique of Neo-Cons within New Labour, but they are an increasingly small clique. The remarkable position now is that there is a small bunker mentality breaking out amongst the Neo-Cons. They know they’re on the way out, they know they’re faced with mass opposition within their own party, within the movement as a whole, and within the country itself. Now we obviously need to win this leadership election. If we don’t, it’s difficult to see a Labour Government being elected at the next election. The Neo-Cons could destroy our party. That is why we are asking people to mobilise for this campaign because it will determine the future of the party, and the future of the country.

Blair's Departure Date - Yesterday Is Not Soon Enough

John McDonnell Speaks in Balham