tag:theconversation.com,2011:/africa/topics/labour-party-membership-30003/articlesLabour party membership – The Conversation2019-09-24T12:22:05Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1240612019-09-24T12:22:05Z2019-09-24T12:22:05ZLabour conference pitted unions against members on the two biggest issues of the day<p>Since his election to the Labour leadership in 2015 Jeremy Corbyn has regularly cited the significance of the party’s mass membership. However, the lay members of the “largest political party in western Europe” have increasingly come into conflict with a leader who has spent a lifetime arguing for the supremacy of conference. Somewhat ironically in 2019 Corbyn has relied on the bloc votes of the trade unions, rather than the mass membership which elected him, to push through his policy agenda on Brexit and, to some extent, the <a href="https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2019/09/union-reluctance-back-green-new-deal-spells-trouble-labour">Green New Deal</a>. </p>
<p>In his <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2015/sep/29/jeremy-corbyns-speech-what-he-said-and-what-he-meant">first conference speech</a> as Labour leader in 2015, Corbyn stressed that he wanted “open debate in our party and our movement”. The mass movement which developed around Corbyn’s 2015 and 2016 leadership campaign was scheduled to bring open democracy to the party machine. However, at the 2019 conference the trade union bloc vote continued to wield 50% of the total conference share. Consequently, the unions’ position on Brexit and the Green New Deal has greatly directed the Labour policy decisions emerging from the 2019 conference.</p>
<h2>Greenish New Deal</h2>
<p>Despite the backing of Labour’s mass membership (and some shadow cabinet ministers), the Green New Deal has opened a divide between the trade unions and members. The deal, which would commit an incoming Labour government to a target of net-zero carbon emissions by 2030, has mobilised a wave of constituency activity within the party. Many even wanted to push for a stronger emissions target.</p>
<p>Yet, the other key component of Labour’s voting system at conference, the trade unions, refused to sign up – in particular the GMB, which represents workers across industrial sectors. Labour’s leadership has also expressed some reluctance. In June 2019, John McDonnell, shadow chancellor, claimed 2030 “isn’t realistic” for the target. On the other hand, more constituency motions were sent to conference (128 motions) in support of the Green New Deal than any other topic, including Brexit. Only nine of the 128 were in support of the GMB position. Alongside constituency support, campaign group Momentum, the CWU and TSSA also support a finite target for net-zero emissions. </p>
<p>The main contention between Labour’s trade union support and its membership is around the impact of the Green New Deal’s net-zero carbon emissions by 2030 on jobs. For the trade unions, particularly those with workers in affected industries such as the GMB, calls for sweeping action against aviation and fracking are a step too far. For the activists within Labour for a Green New Deal, the proposal is meaningless without a target date.</p>
<p>These divides led to accusations that Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell are <a href="https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/inside-labours-green-war-on-business-llvt6hm8v">“just not radical enough”</a> on this issue. ITV’s political editor, Robert Peston <a href="https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1176077330822901761">argued</a> that “Labour members feel trampled on by their erstwhile hero Jeremy Corbyn and the trade union block vote”. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1176077330822901761"}"></div></p>
<h2>Brexit</h2>
<p>Like the Green New Deal, Brexit has caused large-scale internal consternation at Labour’s 2019 Conference; unlike the Green New Deal, Brexit has dominated the political headlines outside of the conference arena. Party activists submitted 90 motions to the conference on Brexit, with 90% of these being “anti-Brexit”. Although Corbyn came out in favour of a public vote before conference, he proposed to conference that Labour’s position during a future referendum should remain neutral. This position, despite strong opposition, was carried by the conference floor on September 23.</p>
<p>Labour’s internal divisions were magnified as the party could not agree on the wording of a Brexit motion to be presented to conference. In the end, they had to vote on two contradictory motions. One demanded a public vote with Labour campaigning for remain and was supported by constituency activists. The other supported the position put forward by the party’s ruling National Executive Committee, which also mandated a public vote but gave no indication as to Labour’s position in any referendum. </p>
<p>The trade unions ultimately held the balance of power at the 2019 conference. UNISON and the TSSA opposed the NEC’s statement. USDAW backed three motions on Brexit, despite the NEC’s statement and Composite 13 being contradictory. On the other hand, Unite, the GMB and CWU backed the leader’s position. Ultimately, this triumvirate saw the majority of the trade union block vote save Corbyn from defeat, in the face of widespread opposition from Labour’s remain activists.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/124061/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Christopher Massey is a Lecturer in Politics at Teesside University and a Labour Councillor in Redcar and Cleveland.</span></em></p>Despite promising to represent the membership, Corbyn has ended up relying on union bloc votes to push through his own Brexit motion.Christopher Massey, Lecturer in Politics and History, Teesside UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1239332019-09-23T08:32:17Z2019-09-23T08:32:17ZLabour Party conference: what to expect as party debates its Brexit position and election plan<p>The Labour Party is meeting in Brighton for what many assume is a pre-election conference. On the agenda will be attempts to settle on the party’s Brexit policy and the processes it will use to select candidates for parliamentary seats.</p>
<p>Brexit will be a major point of contention, since the party leadership has been rather less keen than the membership to push a clear “Remain” position. It has been possible for Jeremy Corbyn and Labour people, until now, to coalesce around support for <a href="https://ukandeu.ac.uk/jeremy-corbyns-referendums-which-will-he-choose/">“a referendum”</a> to “sort out this mess”. But as the parliamentary turmoil continues, and an election seems probable, Labour’s policy is now under the spotlight like never before. It needs more clarity. What is this referendum for? To provide legitimation for a newly negotiated deal or to provide an opportunity to decide again, in light of the last four years, whether to leave or to remain?</p>
<p>There are problems with both approaches, of course. If there is a lesson from the last four years, it is that referendums can cause incredible disruption. At the moment, Corbyn’s position appears to be that Labour should push on with Brexit negotiations, strike a new deal and then put that deal back to the public in a referendum. There would also be an option on the ballot to remain in the EU. </p>
<p>That has led to the obvious question – what would Labour’s position be in that referendum? Would it support the deal or remaining in the EU? Labour’s members <a href="https://ukandeu.ac.uk/labour-members-love-corbyn-but-hate-brexit/">overwhelmingly want to remain</a> in the EU. Corbyn, so far at least, is keeping his options open.</p>
<p>Around 90 constituency Labour parties (CLPs) have <a href="https://labourlist.org/2019/09/green-new-deal-campaign-set-to-dominate-labour-conference/">put forward conference motions</a> on Brexit, the vast majority of which call on the party to back Remain. While this is fewer than the number of motions submitted for a Green New Deal, with the leadership currently refusing to publicly back remain in all circumstances, Brexit looks set to be the main point of disagreement. During conference negotiations, the CLP motions will be combined to create a single motion to be voted on at conference, so all eyes will be on what this motion looks like.</p>
<p>Pro-Remain activists and MPs want to see the party unequivocally commit to backing Remain in any future referendum, regardless of whether that referendum is about a Corbyn-negotiated Brexit deal. The position of the Liberal Democrats – to revoke Article 50 and remain in the European Union without a referendum – will have raised further concerns among these activists. Corbyn’s stated ambition is to avoid polarising this debate, but is that now even possible? Shadow Brexit Secretary Keir Starmer’s words in interviews, and whether he uses his platform speech to affect all of this, will likely be much discussed.</p>
<p>The precise wording of the conference motion will be important. Will members vote to commit the Labour Party and a Labour government to backing remain in a referendum?</p>
<p>And will Corbyn’s own role be debated? He could, for example, accept that Labour as a party will back Remain, but as prime minister he would stay neutral in the campaign, potentially also keeping a future government’s position neutral. This would be without precedent. Harold Wilson, a figure often mentioned when this topic arises, did not remain neutral in the 1975 referendum. He advocated remaining in the European Community, as it then was.</p>
<p>There is one other scenario to consider. Labour wants a referendum on any deal Boris Johnson brings forward However, while it appears unlikely at this point, if a Johnson deal were to pass parliament next month with no referendum attached, Labour would face a new dilemma: in a post-Brexit election, what would Labour’s policy on membership of the EU be?</p>
<h2>An election approaches</h2>
<p>That leaves the significant matter of preparing the party for an election. The process of candidate selection has been up in the air, something that will greatly affect the future direction of the party and any agenda it could take into government. </p>
<p>Labour’s sitting MPs who wish to stand again at the next election are currently going through the process of “trigger ballots”. Local branches are voting either to support the sitting MP or trigger a full selection process, meaning they would not automatically be put forward as the candidate in an election. They would have to stand in a contest against others to win the right to stand again.</p>
<p>This process is already generating dismay among Labour MPs, with many concerned that relatively small numbers of people can trigger full contests, even if the MP is supported by the majority of local members. Meanwhile selections for seats without an incumbent have been paused recently, with potential candidates and local members awaiting what kind of role the national party will play.</p>
<p>Conference will also be debating Labour’s agenda for government, should it win this election. Labour’s top team will want to focus on engagement with the party’s manifesto, highlighting some of the more <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/jun/25/the-new-left-economics-how-a-network-of-thinkers-is-transforming-capitalism">radical economic ideas</a> being put forward. It will also want to return to classic Labour issues such as NHS and education funding.</p>
<p>There will be conversations, too, about whether Labour could emerge as a party short of a majority, but large enough to lead a coalition. What does that mean for Corbyn, particularly given the suggestion that the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/13/jo-swinson-corbyn-and-johnson-are-unfit-to-lead-country">Liberal Democrats</a> are against forming a government with Labour if Corbyn is to lead it? And, if Labour is defeated at a forthcoming election, what happens next?</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/123933/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Karl Pike is a member of the Labour Party in Tower Hamlets.</span></em></p>Members and leaders are at odds over the two biggest issues of the day. And an ambitious motion on a Green New Deal could make waves in Brighton too.Karl Pike, Teaching Associate, School of Politics and International Relations, Queen Mary University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/949232018-04-13T11:19:16Z2018-04-13T11:19:16ZLabour and anti-semitism: these are the roots of the problem on the left<p>The current crisis in the Labour party has exposed some profound <a href="https://theconversation.com/labour-jeremy-corbyn-and-four-fault-lines-that-will-now-define-the-party-94311">fault lines</a> on the left. Despite considerable evidence of mounting antisemitism inside the party, which finally provoked a <a href="https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/jewish-community-protests-in-parliament-square-against-labour-antisemitism-enough-is-enough-1.461420">major protest</a>, some have responded with unabashed hostility. </p>
<p>Rather than taking the side of the overwhelming majority of Jews, and taking their obvious hurt and dismay seriously, some have charged them with dishonesty. They say they are <a href="https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/labour-poll-says-antisemitism-row-is-exaggerated-8tdj7wffh">exaggerating</a> or inventing antisemitism where it does not or scarcely exists. They accuse them of manipulation and of conspiring against the leader of the party when he has every opportunity of rescuing the country from the disasters visited upon it by the Conservative government.</p>
<p>Beyond this, some have sought to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/mar/30/labour-antisemitism-and-criticism-of-israel">explain away</a> antisemitism as a consequence of the supposedly bad behaviour of Jews, in the form of the conduct and even the existence of the state of Israel, and the supposedly uncritical support given to it by Jews in Britain.</p>
<p>Leaving aside the obvious fact that many Jews in the UK are by no means uncritical of many of the policies of the Israeli government, the central problem with these responses is that they partake of some classic antisemitic tropes. </p>
<p>The idea that Jews are not to be trusted when they say they have been attacked, the charge that they engage in special pleading and that they plot and scheme together for malign purposes, have long formed staples of antisemitic discourse. Historically, they have been central to the idea that there is a “Jewish Question” which somehow must solved – either by Jews behaving better (ideally by ceasing to be Jews) or (if they will not do so) by getting rid of them.</p>
<h2>The ‘Jewish Question’</h2>
<p>The far right was the most radical in its enthusiasm to solve the “Jewish Question” through the Holocaust but the notion that there is such a question has been shared by some on the left, too. It was first formulated in the modern world in the <a href="http://www.manchesteruniversitypress.co.uk/9781526104977/">Enlightenment</a>. </p>
<p>Some thought that there was something peculiarly problematic about Jews. This was not just their particular religion (seen as worse even than Christianity which at least had the virtue of making a universalist claim) but their behaviour and particular identity (as a “nation within a nation”). Even some of those who thought that Jews should now be included and given rights did so conditionally. The rights should be given on the basis that their supposedly “bad” behaviour should improve and their loyalties to each other be abandoned. If not, the door was left open to the possibility that Jews should be got rid of.</p>
<p>As antisemitism developed into an ultimately genocidal ideology, the persistence of the notion of a “Jewish Question” helped shape the response to it among some on the left. To them, antisemitism was somehow understandable because of the way Jews supposedly behaved, and that antisemitism might even be harnessed to the socialist cause, since antisemites were laying the blame for the evils of capitalism on Jews. This has been described as the “<a href="https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/01/radicalism-fools-rise-new-anti-semitism">socialism of fools</a>” (not that helpful a formulation actually insofar as it suggests antisemitism is still some kind of socialism). </p>
<p>During and immediately after the Holocaust this way of thinking played its part in the reluctance of some to prioritise solidarity with Jews or to recognise the catastrophe that had befallen them. Worse, it helped shape a new form of Stalinist antisemitism in the communist bloc. Jews were violently attacked for their supposed disloyalty and treachery to the cause.</p>
<p>It was then that key elements of the latest reformulation of the “Jewish Question” were developed – in the form of an antizionism. This way of thinking focuses obsessively on Israel, where, not coincidentally, large numbers of Jews now live after the catastrophe that nearly destroyed the whole group. This state is regarded by some as uniquely evil. It is guilty of the worst of all crimes – of genocide, crimes against humanity and apartheid – and is the gravest threat to world peace. Once again, Jews have supposedly failed the test for inclusion in the modern world, now in the form of the world of legitimate nation states.</p>
<p>There has always been, on the left, another way of thinking – not about an imagined “Jewish Question”, but about antisemitism. From this perspective, the problem is not, and never has been, the behaviour, identity or religion of Jews, which is no worse than that of other groups. The problem is a view of the world which projects all the problems of society (at the national or international level) onto Jews.</p>
<p>It’s a view which not only fails to grasp the threat posed by antisemitism but condones and colludes with it. It’s a view that others (sadly) on the left need to challenge. They need to reject the whole idea of a “Jewish Question” in favour of an elemental and principled solidarity with Jews as they come under attack once again.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/94923/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Philip Spencer is the author, with Robert Fine, of Antisemitism and the Left – On the Return of the Jewish Question, Manchester University Press, 2017.</span></em></p>The very debate around how Labour has dealt with this issue revolves around some key tropes of anti-semitism.Philip Spencer, Emeritus Professor of Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Kingston UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/943112018-04-03T15:16:15Z2018-04-03T15:16:15ZLabour, Jeremy Corbyn and four fault lines that will now define the party<p>“What did last week reveal about the state of Labour?” the journalist Helen Lewis <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/01/if-corbyn-is-not-to-appear-a-passenger-he-must-learn-to-lead">asked</a> in the midst of fresh calls for more action to tackle antisemitism in the <a href="https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/luciana-berger-four-types-of-vicious-abuse-just-one-way-to-deal-with-it-xdd2c903z">party</a>. Jeremy Corbyn’s own actions, and the time it took for him to apologise for the issue, have also come in for scrutiny. Lewis concluded that “Corbyn’s strengths as a speaker are matched by his weakness as an actor. That some supporters believe any criticism must be motivated by jealousy, disloyalty or factionalism. And that there is no appetite for a breakaway party or another doomed attempt to topple him”.</p>
<p>Prior to Lewis’ compelling article, another columnist, Rafael Behr, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/27/dissident-mps-westminster-blairites-tories">noted</a> that the “unfolded triptych” of Corbyn’s responses – or lack thereof – to the <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/sergei-skripal-50988">Skripal Salisbury attack</a>, antisemitism and Brexit necessarily raised questions over Labour’s future.</p>
<p>As we approach a year since Theresa May decided to call an election which severely damaged her own political standing, and enhanced Corbyn’s, a look at the state of Corbynism is apposite. How can it be understood, and from where does it draw its power?</p>
<p>Analysing the Labour party through the different interpretations of its ethos – what it means to be Labour – can help form a broader understanding than that gained from looking at party policy or organisation alone. This can be done through analysing different positions taken along key fault lines in Labour’s ethos. </p>
<p>There’s the role of theoretical revision and the renewal of party aims; the idea that individual policies – rather than values – become symbolic of a person’s socialism; decision-making within the party; and the balance between “instrumental” politics (concerned with the attainment of power) and “expressive” politics (the defence of principle).</p>
<h2>Party goals</h2>
<p>The Corbynite ethos, certainly in terms of the leadership, is reasonably clear. So far there is little sign that theoretical revision or reforming party objects is a priority. That isn’t to say Corbyn’s leadership is not ideologically distinctive – it clearly is – but there hasn’t been a sustained effort to revise the party’s aims and values. </p>
<p>When he first became leader, Corbyn swiftly disowned a rumour that he was planning to revise Tony Blair’s amendment to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/09/clause-iv-of-labour-party-constitution-what-is-all-the-fuss-about-reinstating-it">clause IV</a> of the party constitution. Since 1918, clause IV has been regarded as an anachronistic shibboleth or a timeless call to arms, depending on a person’s view of public ownership (that is the people, through the state, owning large parts of the means of production, distribution and exchange in the economy).</p>
<p>Corbynite political economy is avowedly interventionist (as demonstrated by the <a href="https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/labour-manifesto-2017.pdf">2017 manifesto</a>), and Labour’s series of events on its <a href="https://labour.org.uk/new-economics/">“new economics”</a> contributes something, but the Corbyn programme is not underpinned by a clearly articulated alternative worldview. Indeed, the slogan “the many, not the few” was printed on New Labour’s membership cards. The “party objects”, then, remain those written in 1994. What aspects of Labour’s doctrine to focus on remains up to individual Labour people.</p>
<h2>Policy as faith</h2>
<p>Shorn of a coherent theoretical basis for the party’s socialism, some Labour policies can become emblematic of the party’s worldview. This is more prevalent in the Corbynite ethos. Public ownership – with the usual caveats of what form it will take – has been reinstated as part of Labour’s <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41379849">socialist identity</a>, for example.</p>
<p>This is a longstanding characteristic of Labour’s ethos. A “means” becomes symbolic of values, engaging with socialist history and acting as a “glue” for the movement. Labour’s commitment to unilateral nuclear disarmament, despite it being considered electorally harmful in the mid-1980s, was maintained because the party leadership judged changing it a step too far for the movement at the time. At times of strife, certain policies also become factional tools – as has happened in the party’s past with public ownership and nuclear weapons, with support or opposition to both used to symbolise affiliation with Labour’s left and right.</p>
<h2>Making decisions</h2>
<p>The fiercest debates about Labour’s immediate future should be expected in the area of internal democracy, particularly while the Corbynite left is seeking to reform the process of <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/19/labour-democracy-review-asks-nec-to-agree-more-powers-for-member">intra-party decision-making</a>.</p>
<p>As has long been the case, arguments from across the Labour party around the question of “who decides what” will have some merit – though of course each argument will also have a seemingly all-important factional edge. While Corbynism posits enhanced party democracy in its interpretation of Labour’s ethos, it isn’t a simple democratic/non-democratic equation. The Corbyn leadership operation, including Momentum, has demonstrated its appetite for “grip”. It has, for example, been known to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/25/how-momentum-stopped-vote-single-market-labour-conference">select issues for debate</a> at conference which work better for the leader. That’s the very kind of party management for which previous leaderships have been attacked.</p>
<h2>Instrumental vs expressive</h2>
<p>That leaves the relative priority given to instrumental and expressive politics. The Corbynite ethos has been orientated towards the expressive (something shared, historically, with the majority of Labour members), yet there are <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36775102">interesting debates</a> on the Labour left about what Corbynism means for Labour’s tradition of “parliamentary socialism” when factoring in the place and role of Momentum, the campaigning organisation set up to support Corbyn.</p>
<p>There’s also frustration with Corbyn’s Brexit stance within Labour. One could argue a more pro-European approach would be “expressive” of the party’s principles, and that Corbyn is adopting a more “instrumental” electoral line by avoiding taking a firm stance in either direction. Similarly, Europe is a trigger point for attitudes to party democracy. Labour’s pro-European membership could challenge the frontbench position. Yet, agree or disagree with the Labour campaign to stay in the <a href="https://www.labour4singlemarket.org/">single market</a>, such a policy does not represent an alternative to Corbynism as an identity, it is simply a policy (however vital people may judge it to be).</p>
<p>There are substantive differences along the four fault lines identified above, though they are rarely expressed. The extent to which they are debated and resolved will in part define what it is to be Labour in the months and years ahead.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/94311/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Karl Pike is a member of the Labour Party in Tower Hamlets.</span></em></p>As the party faces more internal strife over antisemitism, it’s worth considering what Labour stands for.Karl Pike, PhD candidate and Teaching Associate, School of Politics and International Relations, Queen Mary University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/640232016-08-19T10:59:57Z2016-08-19T10:59:57ZA useful lesson from history as Labour battles its immigration problem<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/134309/original/image-20160816-13017-1mp6lr7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_Day#/media/File:Labor_Day_New_York_1882.jpg">Wikimedia Commons</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The British Labour Party can no longer afford to keep running away from immigration. Britain’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/eu-referendum-2016">vote to leave the EU</a> exposed a wide gap between most of the party’s members and leaders (who support complete freedom of movement) and many of its natural working-class voters (who do not).</p>
<p>The first group makes its stand on internationalist grounds, or because they think the economy demands it. The second is made up of people battered by global forces they cannot see. For them, globalisation takes the form of the immigrant who seems to take scarce jobs or overwhelm public services that have already been cut to the bone.</p>
<p>Labour has tried to square this circle before by treating concerns about immigration as a proxy for something else. The party’s current solutions – improved public investment, migrant impact funds and so on – would certainly revive jobs and growth in the north, the Midlands, and other bastions of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/blame-austerity-not-immigration-for-taking-britain-to-breaking-point-61133">left-behind leavers</a>. But Labour often prefers to label anyone with concerns about immigration itself as a racist and a bigot, as former prime minister <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/apr/29/gordon-brown-gillian-duffy-bigot">Gordon Brown</a> so memorably did in 2010.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"590967811620601857"}"></div></p>
<p>At other times it has offered Britain the chance to buy a nasty (if vague) <a href="http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/03/labours-anti-immigrant-mug-worst-part-it-isnt-gaffe">tea mug</a> with “controls on immigration” printed on the side. This is not a coherent policy. It must change or else the real racists and bigots will move in to fill the vacuum.</p>
<h2>Who were the knights?</h2>
<p>To change the debate without evading it we can learn from the labour movement’s past. In the first great age of globalisation, at the end of the 19th century, an American movement called the <a href="http://www.history.com/topics/knights-of-labor">Knights of Labor</a> faced similar problems to those that confront British labour today.</p>
<p>They organised more than a million American workers in the 1880s, when more than half a million people entered the US on average each year. That number exceeds current net migration to the UK – and at a time when the American population was only three quarters of the British population now. The knights, worried that immigration on this scale would overwhelm unions, lower wages, make locals unemployed, and leave big business in total control, had to face the issue or be swept away.</p>
<p>Not all of their solutions bear repeating today. They demanded, for instance, the total exclusion of Chinese immigrants from the US on crude racist grounds. Some called for limits on eastern and southern European immigrants too. Yet they never – unlike, say, <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/donald-trump-10206">Donald Trump</a> – thought that a big wall along the borders could solve their problems. When immigrants arrived, they tried to organise them, with some success. They refused to call for a blanket ban on all immigration. Instead, they singled out one kind of immigration, “contract labour”, and demanded the government end it.</p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/134306/original/image-20160816-13028-188s7tt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/134306/original/image-20160816-13028-188s7tt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/134306/original/image-20160816-13028-188s7tt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/134306/original/image-20160816-13028-188s7tt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/134306/original/image-20160816-13028-188s7tt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/134306/original/image-20160816-13028-188s7tt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1006&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/134306/original/image-20160816-13028-188s7tt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1006&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/134306/original/image-20160816-13028-188s7tt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1006&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The knights were clear on their position, unlike Labour.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Wikipedia</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Contract labour originally referred to workers brought in from overseas already under contract to an employer. Knights expanded that term to include immigrants recruited by employers and agencies as soon as they disembarked in the New World. American businesses in the 1880s used these practices to break strikes, undermine union shops, and pay lower wages than they could get from recruiting at home. </p>
<p>The knights never managed to prevent the exploitation of newly-arrived immigrants. They did go all out to ban the importation of workers under contract, and hired a lobbyist in Washington DC to carry their point to Congress. They succeeded in 1885, when the <a href="http://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/immigration-and-migration/timeline-terms/foran-act">Foran Act</a> made it illegal. </p>
<h2>Low-wage workers direct</h2>
<p>Contract labour has returned with a vengeance in Britain today. Many recruitment agencies attract foreign workers, particularly those from eastern Europe, to work in agriculture, food processing and other industries. <a href="http://www.cipd.co.uk/pm/peoplemanagement/b/weblog/archive/2013/09/02/ban-swedish-derogation-to-end-pay-abuses-says-tuc.aspx">Loopholes in EU and UK law</a> allow some of these employers and agencies to avoid treating their workers as permanent staff. There are even <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/43daccd0-410d-11e5-9abe-5b335da3a90e.html#axzz4HdJiT1VW">reports</a> that some pay immigrant workers below the minimum wage and stuff them in dangerously overcrowded housing. Unions are naturally left out of the picture.</p>
<p>Laws and regulations exist to prevent these abuses. But the recent workforce scandal at <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmbis/219/219.pdf?utm_source=219&utm_medium=module&utm_campaign=modulereports">Sports Direct</a>, where many eastern European immigrant agency workers also suffered from extreme forms of exploitation, makes it clear that these laws are not fully enforced.</p>
<p>The same contract labour that led American trade unionists into the congressional lobby in 1885 is back in 21st-century Britain. It has the same poor effect on local wages and employment and on the health, well-being and dignity of the immigrants themselves.</p>
<h2>A practical solution</h2>
<p>If Labour made this into a major issue it might be possible to shift the immigration debate in its favour. Do not stop immigrants from coming to Britain to work but impose stricter regulations on the agencies that hire them. Demand that employers hire their workers directly where possible.</p>
<p>Help unions to monitor working conditions in all vulnerable industries, and to protect union members and non-members in those industries. Force the government to reverse <a href="https://www.tuc.org.uk/workplace-issues/migrant-workers/concern-cuts-vulnerable-worker-protection">cuts</a> to legal protections for migrant labourers. Make it clear that British people are against exploitative practices but not the immigrants hurt by them.</p>
<p>In short, ban contract labour and champion the rights of immigrants. Instead of blaming low wages on them we can place the blame where it really lies: with exploitative agencies and employers.</p>
<p>Unions have campaigned on this issue before. It even appeared in the <a href="http://www.labour.org.uk/manifesto/immigration">2015 Labour manifesto</a>, but was overshadowed by that notorious mug. It looks as if both Labour leader <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/02/jeremy-corbyn-uk-cannot-must-not-close-borders-to-eu-workers">Jeremy Corbyn</a> and challenger Owen Smith (<a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-leadership-election-owen-smith-refuses-dismiss-too-many-immigrants-questions-corbyns-a7156096.html">in a rather different way</a>) might make more of it as the contest for the Labour leadership continues. </p>
<p>Of course, the Knights of Labor found that banning contract labour was not a panacea for all the problems of immigration. We should not think so either. But it might start to change the terms of the debate. Then, at least, Labour has a chance to connect with its disaffected voters and reverse the trend towards bigotry and prejudice that threatens all of us, British or not.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/64023/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Steven Parfitt does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The response of the US Knights of Labor to mass immigration, 100 years ago, can help British Labour to resolve its immigration problem today.Steven Parfitt, University Teacher in History, Loughborough UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/635632016-08-05T12:10:49Z2016-08-05T12:10:49ZHuge rise in Labour membership figures show Corbyn’s strength<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/133142/original/image-20160804-484-3zzowa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">e d o</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/theweeklybull/21349057862/in/photolist-ywxv7w-x1Z4nD-CewuES-yyqYbH-Jgq66N-JtbiFd-yyeasz-EvfFDy-ywxtFW-xKhbZj-CmMUWE-yfSyHf-ywxrJQ-yxuLLR-yfYN5x-xABhMt-yvb5cd-Ed6gch-xABoEv-y9n52T-ywxvSj-yfYMCk-yvb953-xAtfoY-y1qw42-JzwvUk-HDmtr6-HDqhEj-HDmqj4-HDmq7k-Jqyk8Y-HDmqwZ-JzwvoR-HDmuC4-J9RgLh-J9Rgb9-JsHstD-HDmso4-J9Rh5y-HDmmwV-J9RgtJ-yyqS3a-GJeuLW-xAEXbC-J9RfmJ-GLt6EV-yxGB6p-GLt6in-Gg3ZZV-GJeun9">The Weekly Bull</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>For party funding researchers, the year after a general election can produce days of excitement akin to Christmas. If your idea of fun is rifling through the accounts of political parties and updating long pored over spreadsheets, it’s a thrilling time. </p>
<p>This year has been a vintage one, beginning as it did with news of Labour’s near <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-spent-600-on-chicken-suits-for-the-2015-election-campaign-figures-show-a6822676.html">£600 bill</a> for chicken suits and continuing with the more serious story of <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-conservative-election-expenses-saga-explained-59484">Conservative election spending</a>.</p>
<p>Now the yearly party accounts for 2015 have been released, shedding some light on one of the biggest questions in Britain this summer: is Labour thriving or disintegrating under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn?</p>
<h2>Signing up</h2>
<p>Anyone with a passing interest in politics can tell you that Labour had an eventful 2015 (and 2016). In the 12 months since Corbyn was elected by a huge majority, buoyed by a flood of new <a href="https://esrcpartymembersproject.org/">members</a> and supporters (who paid £3 to vote in the last leadership election), there has been almost constant arguing. The majority of his shadow cabinet resigned in the wake of the EU referendum and now a second leadership contest is underway.</p>
<p>But these latest accounts highlight the Corbyn effect. They show that Labour raised a whopping £9,532,000 in membership subscriptions in 2015 (compared to the Conservatives’ £823,000). Labour has long raised the most among the political parties, and subscriptions have been increasing steadily since 2010. But to put this in context, the party recorded raising £5,971,000 in the 2014 accounts – a significantly lower amount. </p>
<p>That’s even before the huge influx of members after the latest leadership election was announced.</p>
<p>Of course the figures can’t provide detail on why people have joined and whether they support or oppose Corbyn. But they help us understand the financial transformation of the Labour party. What is most noticeable from these figures is the vast rise in money raised through membership fees.</p>
<p>What little we know about the new members includes the fact that they don’t tend to get <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/27/mass-membership-labour-social-movement-community">actively involved</a> in campaigning for the Labour party. But we can see that they are certainly more than paying their way.</p>
<p>The accounts also show that donations to the Labour party continued to rise in 2015, leaving it in a good financial position. However, it’s too soon to put paid to fears that donations would drop off under Corbyn. Most of this money will have been raised pre-Corbyn for the general election. Labour party income also tends to rise and fall with the general election cycle. We should be wary of reading too much into donation patterns in the short term.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/133143/original/image-20160804-478-j9crm4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/133143/original/image-20160804-478-j9crm4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/133143/original/image-20160804-478-j9crm4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/133143/original/image-20160804-478-j9crm4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/133143/original/image-20160804-478-j9crm4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/133143/original/image-20160804-478-j9crm4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/133143/original/image-20160804-478-j9crm4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Corbyn attends a climate change rally in November 2015.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/131362601@N02/22780128073/">Matthew Kirby</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/">CC BY-NC-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>That said, even if donations do drop off now, Corbyn (and his accountants) might take comfort in the fact that some of this shortfall can be made up by the membership fees of burgeoning Labour rank and file. Though it should be noted that these impressive figures still only account for about 18% of Labour’s total 2015 income.</p>
<h2>A changing party</h2>
<p>These accounts are also a representation of what we might understand as the tension between old Labour members and new Labour members. Membership dues have nearly doubled and the likelihood is that the 2016 accounts will show a further rise. These figures are a further confirmation that we are, to all intents and purposes, looking at a new Labour party. With all the challenges that this presents organisationally.</p>
<p>It’s worth noting that although the Conservatives outspent the Labour party at the general election, the figures show that Labour continued its streak (from 2010 onwards) of raising – and spending – more money for the financial year overall (£51,153,000 to £41,887,000). Further evidence that simply having money isn’t everything, it’s what you do with it that counts.</p>
<p>Corbyn often looks at his strongest when he is addressing party members, and he in turn seems to energise them. As these figures show – they certainly repay the favour.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/63563/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sam Power receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council. </span></em></p>Morale may be low among parliamentarians, but newly released accounts offer reasons to be cheerful.Sam Power, Doctoral researcher, Sussex Centre for the Study of Corruption, University of SussexLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.