The
humiliating defeat of Militant's Lesley Mahmood by Labour's Peter Kilfoyle in
last week's Liverpool Walton by-election has caused widespread rejoicing on the
democratic left. Ms Mahmood's miserable
performance shows conclusively that Leninist vanguard politics is incapable of
securing popular support in this country unless it has the cover of the Labour
Party.
Indeed,
considering everything that appeared to be going in her favour – in particular
Liverpool City Council's redundancy programme but also Militant's uniquely
strong local base – Ms Mahmood's showing was derisory. She and her comrades in
Britain's largest Leninist party, backed to the hilt by Britain's
second-largest Leninist party, the Socialist Workers' Party, have made revolutionary
vanguard politics of any variety a laughing stock.
In the
process, they have also managed to give added impetus to the Labour Party's
attempt to rid itself of Militant. Campaigning for anti-Labour candidates is
rightly considered one of the most serious disciplinary offences in Labour's
constitution, and those who campaigned for Ms Mahmood, many of them shipped in
by Militant, are now going to get their come-uppance: expulsion from the Labour
Party. They deserve no sympathy and they will not be missed.
Members
of Militant who did not campaign for Ms Mahmood, particularly the two Militant
MPs, Terry Fields and Dave Nellist, pose a thornier problem. This is not
because it is somehow wrong to expel members of Militant from the Labour Party.
The Militant tendency, more properly speaking the Revolutionary Socialist
League, is a manipulative authoritarian sect with its own disciplinary
structure and its own (deranged and in many ways reactionary) programme. Its
ideology and practice are utterly incompatible with democratic socialism, and
it has no legitimate place in a democratic socialist party.
Rather,
the difficulty is the practical one of ensuring that those expelled for
Militant membership really are members of Militant. Democratic socialists who
accepted Labour's rules were often in the past disciplined merely for
expressing opinions at odds with those of the leadership, and it is better to
err on the side of caution than to allow that to happen again. If, in the
aftermath of Walton, Labour decides that it is time to accelerate the currently
steady but slow process of expelling Militant, it is essential that the party
adheres scrupulously to the principle of presumption of innocence and uses
reliable evidence only.
Kaufman's capitulation
The
announcement by Gerald Kaufman,
Labour's foreign affairs spokesman, that a Labour government will remain
in nuclear arms reduction talks until all nuclear weapons are eliminated was
rightly reported as an indication that he believes Britain should keep nuclear
weapons as long as anyone else has them. As such, it represents a breath-taking
capitulation to the Conservatives. Instead of simply ignoring Tory jibes that
Labour remained unilateralist at heart, Mr Kaufman has panicked. In the
process, he has effectively promised to retain the "independent
deterrent" well into the next century if not for ever, even though it has
no function other than reinforcing Britain's delusions that it is still an
imperial power. With half-a-dozen ill-chosen words, Mr Kaufman has gone against
the spirit and letter of Labour policy, which is based on a rejection of
nuclear deterrence.