AGREEMENT TO DISAGREE

If there was any consensus at last weekend’s conference of Labour’s democratic left, organised by Tri­bune and the Labour Co-ordinating Committee, it was that Labour desper­ately needs a period of free debate about its direction and organisation.

After its fourth consecutive election defeat, the Labour Party cannot re­spond simply by giving support to its new leadership, changing a handful of policies and waiting in hope for the To­ries to hoist themselves with their own petard. The last thing that anyone needs is an immediate return to the at­mosphere which existed in the party from 1989-92, when open discussion was sacrificed in the interests of party unity in the run-up to the election.

But, contrary to the fears of certain of John Smith’s supporters, there is no general enthusiasm on the democratic left for a return to the bad old opposi­tionist days of the early eighties. Nor is there any basis for any such thing.

The democratic left is united by its radical environmental ism and, most importantly, by a strong sense that the empowerment of ordinary people in their everyday lives should be at the centre of Labour’s politics. In line with this, there is agreement that both the European Community and the British state need to be radically democratised.

But there were few signs last week­end of consensus about precisely how this democratic agenda should be translated into political practice.

The voices arguing for a massive in­crease in the powers of the European Parliament and for the introduction of the additional member system for West­minster are more numerous and more insistent than they were five years ago, but they are by no means uncontested.

The differences within the democratic left are even more marked on eco­nomic policy and on the best ways of countering the Tories’ plans for the wel­fare state and local government. On the most immediate issues facing Labour – how it should respond to the Maas­tricht treaty and how, if at all, it should change its relationship with the trade unions – there is no consensus at all.

This does not mean, however, that the democratic left is in a bad way: quite the reverse. Despite the universal dis­appointment over the April 9 defeat, last weekend’s gathering was enthusi­astic and upbeat, brimming with ideas, and the arguments were conducted in a constructive and friendly spirit.

If we can maintain the momentum, particularly in the pages of Tribune and through the network of local Tribune Groups that the parliamentary Tribune Group is planning to encourage, there is a real possibility, with Labour’s hard left a spent force and Leninism utterly discredited, that the democratic left can once again act as the main creative element of British radical politics.