The historical ‘Progress tradition’

As I returned from the Progress political weekend, a mini-Twitter storm seemed to have blown up among other Labour party members who haven’t joined Progress, objecting to the event as secretive (which was odd, given that pretty much the entire thing was tweeted, but anyway). One meme being used was actually quite a witty one, as great Labour figures of the past had their speeches ever so slightly altered to accord with what was judged to be ‘the Progress line’. Though as I say, some of these were quite funny, they represent the kinder end of a stick used to beat Progress and other moderates and modernisers in the party – that in some way we are an alien force, injected into Labour by Tony Blair and Peter Mandelson, and entirely cut off from the history of the labour movement.

Those who attended the excellent break-out session on Labour history led by Luke Akehurst at the weekend would be able to cut that historical untruth off at the knees: Luke argues persuasively that the broad church of the Labour party has always had what might be called a ‘Progress tradition’, and that it has not simply been grudgingly accepted, but has often led the party in terms of both personalities and policies.

With a keen eye for entertaining anecdotes and an impressive depth of knowledge, Luke took us on a swift but engaging gallop through Labour history, pointing up parts of our tradition that the Hard Left would often rather ignore. He started with the indigenous British tradition of ethical socialism, exemplified by Robert Owen, and pointed out that Labour owed far more to such ideas than to the influence of Marxism. The party was called Labour in part to make clear that it was not a ‘socialist’ party – socialists were part of the coalition, but they were not everything, and the practical, hard-headed realism of the trade union leaders was a far more important contributing factor to the emergence of the party. Even when socialism was formally added to the party’s constitution in 1918, as Clause IV, the great figures of the party continued to build Labour as a national not a sectional party, leading Herbert Morrison to leave his safe Labour seat in Hackney to campaign for Lewisham in 1945, in the conviction that if Labour couldn’t win in the suburbs, it wasn’t ever going to form a government anyway. The search for the centre-ground and the insistence Labour must occupy it to win is as old as the party.

Morrison’s conviction paid off and the government he became a part of also drew on the enormous talents of Ernest Bevin, trade union leader and outstanding wartime minister of labour, who Luke keenly pointed out was busy founding Nato while Bevan founded the NHS: the commitment to a strong working partnership with America as part of a sensible and practical defence policy is far older and far deeper in the labour movement than many acknowledge.

Luke also took the time to highlight that evidence of New Labour’s ‘control freakery’ pales in comparison to the disciplinary machinery of the immediate postwar period: over half of Labour’s MPs broke the whip at some point under Blair or Brown – absolutely every single one of them would have been thrown from the party under Attlee, where a single infraction against the whip cost you party membership. Bevan, having built the health service, found himself out of Labour for two years for such a crime.

There was more – Luke guided us through the arid period of opposition under Hugh Gaitskell, the party riven by arguments about nationalisation and nuclear disarmament, reminding us that the Labour party since 2010 has, much to the credit of all its leading figures, avoided forming the circular firing squad of the past. In an overview of the 1980s, Luke took the time to praise Tony Benn as a man genuinely committed to parliamentary democracy, but pointed out that many of those who followed in the wake of the Bennite challenge were neither democrats nor even committed to Labour – Militant was an entirely separate political party with a revolutionary ideology which cynically and parasitically entered into the Labour party to try to take it over.

Overall, Luke’s presentation makes clear both how wrong-headed and how unfair the attempts to call on the history of the Labour movement to delegitimise modernisers, including Progress, are: Morrison, Bevin, Healey, Crosland, Blair, Brown are obviously all distinct figures in the party’s history, none of them agreed entirely with the others (indeed, no Labour dispute will ever trump the antipathy between Morrison and Bevin: a friend once told Bevin that Morrison claimed to be his own worst enemy, ‘Not while I’m alive, he ain’t’, responded Bevin) – but all these leading Labour figures would find a place at any Progress meeting: these men were Labour to their core while also prepared to face the reality of the world around them and adapt Labour’s policy and processes to that reality, while still delivering for the working people of Britain. Just like Progress is today.

—————————————————————————————

John Blake is chair of Labour Teachers

Progressive centre-ground Labour politics does not come for free.

It takes time, commitment and money to build a fight against the forces of conservatism. If you value the work Progress does, please support us by becoming a member, subscriber or donating.

Our work depends on you.

Print Friendly

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 5...

  1. On March 19, 2012 at 1:51 pm Let it be responded with... #

    first they take Manhattan then they take Berlin ? because North Kensington is Berlin of course ,arty, louche , a little bit country a little bit rock &roll (more than a little that ,OK) So QUDOS ! QUDOSSS !!!! COME AND GET YOUR QUDOS HERE!!! and drag your rich mates here in your train . What ? no room at the in- crowd ? well loads of investors buying up all those newy yummy mummy builds and we can afford to rent ,well daddy can so no probs. What poor people ? oh yukko to them the jolly accommodating Tory council can get rid of them surely ? Park where? oh dadda’s putting in one of those new private roads suupa ! & that’ll be so handy for getting away to one’s big home for weekends !

  2. On March 20, 2012 at 6:39 am James Doran responded with... #

    I thought I’d joined Progress. But it turns out I wasn’t a member, but a subscriber to the magazine – Progress might be a tradition, but it isn’t an organisation controlled by its members like the Fabians. I mean, when I was a member of Compass they bothered to ask about things which would reflect on the organisation’s standing in the Labour Party – like the mistaken idea of letting members of rival parties become members, for example. And the governance of the Fabians is subject to internal elections. So why not Progress? Why not make membership meaningful?

  3. On March 20, 2012 at 8:39 am calm down dears responded with... #

    sniff sniff -I think I smell threat ,these people underneath here.BG and JD surely they can see this is quite a democratic site ,I have seen all sorts of criticism,theirs included ,or is theirs just abuse ! opinions offered ,
    and wildly different views represented, it seems quite democratic’ to me.I don’t know about all this hierarchy stuff and I don’t want to, I am just an ordinary Party member,what’s to join apart from that !

  4. On March 20, 2012 at 8:47 am Let it be responded with... #

    ps. what is a spud face,sorry I’m a bit middle class ! is it a racial abuse thing or a special needs person thing or a not very intelligent person thing ? (which seems wrong because lots of lovely looking people are not intelligent and are quite aggressive with it aren’t they ? )

  5. On March 21, 2012 at 12:20 am James Doran responded with... #

    “Let it be” – democracy isn’t just about being able to express your opinion, but that it is registered – by consultative ballots on policy and elections of those who govern organisations. People might not be interested in voting in general elections – but should we deny them the rights as members of a democratic society to be consulted and represented if they choose to participate?

Add your response