I am surprised at this view. For a number of reasons

1) Sunny is saying that Labour is tribal, that this is a bad thing, but until this changes Labour groups like Compass should remain tribal. Hmm! A rather conservative approach to achieving change.

This logic may also explain why Labour’s policy-making is not more democratic – since people are waiting for a chance to “vote” for it to be democratic before acting.

2) Sunny is saying all left voters now vote Labour anyway. Even if this were true, which of course it is not, it may not remain the case. It is not the case that left voters have left the Lib Dems (let alone for good) and certainly not members and activists. In any case what about the Greens?
Many on the left do not trust Labour on a range of issues and also because it seems tribal and power-hungry and ready to ditch left views when in in power. I meet such people all the time – in fact many post here.

3) Sunny claims that the only way to achieve leftish policies in this country is via a pure Labour Government in Westminster. Experience would suggest otherwise.

I must say that I thought I heard the leader of Sunny’s tribe agree last week at the Annual Compass lecture that Compass should be as inclusive as possible. How disloyal or foolish of Mr Miliband to say that! I wonder if he was aware of Sunny’s arguments before he gave that view. Or maybe the arguments are just poor.

What this actually looks like is a (very) recent convert to Labour deciding that, since they are the only game in town, everyone else on the left outside the party can not only be ignored, but should be actively sidelined.

Way to go Sunny. You really better hope you win an outright majority come the next GE, because the more people who think like you there are in Labour and Compass, the less likely the tribalist control freaks are to be ousted!

If it weren’t so depressing it would almost be funny.

I guess it all depends on which is more important to you – the success of a political party or expanding the franchise of a political cause.

Parties will always dilute their policies to meet the desires of the public – that is a natural effect of a democracy.

Political causes though – can remain as stubbornly unpopular as they want to be, they are selling a message, not seeking executive power itself.

I would presume from the article that “being in power” is more important that adhering to a core set of beliefs.

I think this is a well-argued piece. Compass was established to achieve change in the Labour Party, and has sought to work with those outside the party along the way.

This seems like a good model to continue with and those who welcome progressive alliance-building should reject the argument that it is incompatible with Compass retaining its focus, in party-political terms, on the Labour Party.

The more successful Compass is within the Labour Party, the more it will move away from the worse excesses of Blairite neo-liberalism. Whether this moves Labour closer to or further from the Lib Dems depends on whether you refer to the politics of Nick Clegg or Richard Grayson.

But the more successful Compass is, in terms of its arguments on pluralism, then potentially the more open the Labour Party will be to working with socially progressive Liberal Democrats.

Compass has already demonstrated the possibilities of this, for example when Jon Trickett MP played a role in building an alliance of almost 100 Labour MPs, to work with the Lib Dems, SNP and Plaid in opposing Trident replacement.

There is something deeply wonderful about Evan Harris – who spent years as an MP doing his very best to be personally obnoxious to Labour activists whenever he met them – wanting to open Compass up so that he can spend more quality time with Labour activists.

For what it’s worth, though, I think that Compass would do more good if it were a broad left group open to all, whether Labour, Lib Dem, Green, non-aligned or whatever.

This would also have the not inconsiderable benefit that Neal Lawson’s influence within the Labour Party might be reduced, and if it meant that they stopped their unhelpful interventions during election campaigns, all the better.

Sunny, this does come across like “I used to be opposed to tribalism, but now I’m in the tribe and angling to be a big noise in the tribe,the fewer other voices to challenge mine the better”. I assume that’s not the intention, but it does read like pulling up the drawbridge now you’re in the castle…

the not inconsiderable benefit that Neal Lawson’s influence within the Labour Party might be reduced

Very nicely put, Don. I’d expand that to say a diminution of his baleful, still-Blairite influence full stop would be a welcome thing.

This is a complete turn-off to so many people who either left Labour during the Blair years or weren’t Labour in the first place.

And believe me, many of us are still not convinced by Ed Milliband, esp. after he appointed scum like Woolas to the shadow cabinet. If you don’t want to tap the millions of left wing activists outside of the PLP, well, thats unnecessary division and one of the reasons why THERE IS STILL NO VIABLE LEFT WING CHALLENGE TO THE COOALITION.

Sorry to shout, but we need better than this nonsense.

In reply to Mark Dauncey at 8, I think most of us on this site agree the Labour Party does need to tap into the millions of activists, trade unionists and other campaigners outside the party.

Compass could be the vehicle to attract them in – its campaigns on a Windfall Tax, High Pay, Trident, against Trust Schools etc have shown that.

And Compass can do that at the moment with its current structures, which are open to Labour members and everyone not in another political party. This includes million of disillusioned LibDem voters, but not those who are still now their paid-up activists.

So about 99% of the country can currently join.

I was once a member of SERA, the Socialist Environmental Resource Association, until they ditched me and other activists in order to become a purely Labour Party vehicle. It was part of their strategy to win internal influence over what they hoped would be the greenest government ever.

Judge for yourself whether this strategy succeeded:

* Expansion Heathrow;
* Nuclear Power;
* relatively little progress on renewables;
* allowing spying on green campaigners in order to defend corporate interests;
* failing to deal with air pollution in London
* traffic growth (outside London)

Do SERA still exist?

I agree with what Sunny has written wholeheartedly.

I am happy to admit that I am a tribal Labourite. I recognise that its not always the most helpful thing to be, but I find it more bizarre when people who clearly are tribal – such as Mr Harris above – instead of recognising this trait within themselves deny it to the exclusion of a better understanding of their own decision making.

There are plenty of organisations whose remit is to bring together “progessives”. Compass had a remit to be the voice of the Soft Left within the Labour Party, and just as they could have come into ascendancy as a dominant force in the way Progress did for New Labour, they are blowing their chance.

Labour voters and members deserves an organisation that is dedicated to imporving Labour, and making sure we have the best possible offer for the next General Election. There will be many voices clammouring to be heard in that debate. Weakening Compass in this way at this time weakens their place in that debate. It lets down people like me who have been members from the start, but joined an organisation dedicated to improving Labour.

If Compass makes this change it will no longer be that. Other people can fight for the progressive whole, but some people have to be dedicated to making sure Labour is the best part of that it can be. I’ll be doing that, sad that Compass is no longer with me.

There is no substitute for power at Westminster* and there is no large enough alternative to Labour.

And it’s in Labour’s interests to make sure there never will be, of course, in both cases.

Anyway, power at Westminster, while important, doesn’t require having MPs. (The appearance of power at Westminster does, of course)

The non-aligned left remains highly incoherent in political goals […]

Non-aligned people in not being aligned shock! There are a wide variety of people whose views get defined as “left-wing” on no greater commonality than not liking the right-wing policy on a lot of issues. One shouldn’t expect their aims and especially not their priorities to be particularly similar.

It hardly stops them getting things done.

[…] and still ridden with factionalism.

Ah yes, those heavily-aligned non-aligned people.

@ 11 Emma Burnell

Has it occurred to you that far from weakening Compass this might actually stengthen it?

Pulling up the ideological drawbridge behind you smacks of the worst sort of New Labour control freakery. What you are proposing appears to be a recipe for being more royal than the Queen!

Forgive those of us on the outside for having zero confidence in the ability of the membership of the Labour party discuss a more radical or progressive path, still less adopt it. Of course, that’s hardly surprising if your stated (or hidden?) agenda is that the two party system is what you really prefer.

No wonder people like me don’t trust you.

Hi Evan (and others) – I have no doubt this sounds tribal and exclusive etc, but that is not my intention directly. I think Labour should remain open to a coalition with Libdems at the next election (if neither gets an abs majority) and on certain issues I think the Libdems are more right-on than Labour are.

That said – this is purely from the perspective of what would be good for Compass, given the political environment we are in.

With regards to your points:

1) Yes – as I said it is a catch-22 for Compass, and right now its a destructive one. I would have been for it before the election, but I think its too counter-productive now. The gains won’t materialise.

2) It is not the case that left voters have left the Lib Dems (let alone for good) and certainly not members and activists. In any case what about the Greens?

I’d say a significant number of left voters have left Libdems – the polls show that. Not from the Greens, but as I ask – are the numbers of those who want to join Compass that significant enough to warrant a change? I’m no longer convinced they are.

3) Experience would suggest otherwise.

Past experience maybe, but I’m hoping the party has learnt from its 29% vote share. And the indications are that the new people at the top have. Which is why I’m hopeful.

IanVisits: I guess it all depends on which is more important to you – the success of a political party or expanding the franchise of a political cause.

In this case – the emphasis is purely on whether Compass benefits from this change and how that will impact left-voices within Labour.

Firstly, a factual correction. Compass membership is open to members of other parties; those not eligible for Labour membership (i.e. Greens, LDs and any others) are welcomed as members and can attend all meetings and event, but cannot vote in matters pertaining to policy or at the AGM. I have been a Lib Dem and a Compass member for some time now, no conflict whatsoever.

Secondly, I agree most strongly with Evan – Sunny complains of Labour’s tribalism, and then rubbishes a genuine attempt to put an end to it. Sunny, you cite the “highly polarised environment” politics is played out in, and the seek to prevent an influential political organisation from reducing that very same polarisation. Bizarre.

Thirdly, your (and Emma Burnell’s) analysis that an open Compass will have less influence within Labour is as flawed as it comes; with Ed Miliband’s clear intention to work with centre-left progressives from all corners of the political spectrum, there is actually a risk that Compass will get left behind in a tribal trench if it fails to open up its membership.

Overall Sunny I am disappointed, but not because I am somehow super-keen to get voting rights added to my Compass membership. I am disappointed because in recent months, through various campaigns and movements (some of which are contributed to or even instigated by Compass people) I have met dozens of people across party boundaries willing to work together to change the UK’s political landscape – your partisan hostility to said collaboration hurts those who seek to break down the walls within the political left.

@13 Galen10

I think it will give Compass a little bit more influence on the Greens and the currently unfashionable left-wing of the Lib Dems. Through this dilution of resources and focus significantly less influence in the Labour Party. It depends on whether you believe that will have the best outcome for either Compass or its aims, and whether you care if its the best thing for the Labour Party.

I’ll be quite clear, I have no problem with Labour talking to, listening to, engaging with and working with unaligned organisations. It will be an essential part of the rebuilding of our policy platform. I have no drawbridge, and I’m not pulling it up, but as a lifelong republican, I’m very happy to confirm that I believe myself and the Queen should be completely equal in royalty and status.

But as someone on the “soft left” of the Party, I do have a problem with an organisation that was originally founded to make sure the Labour Party had a strong Socially Democratic voice moving away from that role, and abandoning that space. Becuase as a member of the the “soft left” I want to maximise my ability to move my party further in this direction. I used to have at least the pretence of an organisation who had this as its goal. Certainly the right wing of Labour have it in Progress. I don’t have that in Compass any more. I find that less democratic not more so.

I have stated quite openly that I am a Labour tribalist. I believe that Labour is the best possible vehicle for democratic socialism. This doesn’t mean I agree with everything they do, but that when I disagree, I don’t abandon Labour, but fight to make it better. That’s my choice, and I appreciate that its not yours. Your insults about my trustworthiness are silly. I am being perfectly open about my beliefs and motives – you don’t agree with me fine. I don’t agree with you either.

Weird. I have sworn never again to vote Labour precisely BECAUSE I consider myself on the left. The Labour Party are simply the wing of the Corporatism Party who wear red logos. Quite how anything can change while they’re still considered on the vanguard of left-leaning thought is baffling.

@ 16 Emma Burnell

“Your insults about my trustworthiness are silly. I am being perfectly open about my beliefs and motives – you don’t agree with me fine. I don’t agree with you either.”

Oh stop being so precious! Can you honestly say you are in the least bit surprised that people on the left outside the party don’t trust you or the Labour party given what you have posted, and given what we have seen happen between 1997 and 2010?

The faux outrage at being insulted for being untrustworthy is a day late and a dollar short I fear. Whether the Labour party is capable of redemption is a moot point at present; the chances of social democratic radicalism and progressive politics flourishing inside the party disappeared around the time of the Limehouse Declaration.

I wish you luck with your attempt. You are going to need it, particularly since you appear to be cutting yourself off from those outside the party who might actually share some of your ideals.

“I would presume from the article that “being in power” is more important that adhering to a core set of beliefs.”

Wow. That’s a stunning bit of logic, it really is. A deliberate attempt at a false dichotomy?

–

As if Sunny cares what colour tie the top dogs wear.

Do you really think that’s why someone like him would join a political party?

You have watched him develop and campaign for years, but you can still turn on his motivations that easily simply because you disagree with him on one issue?

Take a bit more time to think about it. Maybe Sunny doesn’t think that principles being made real and who is in power necessarily lead to opposing conclusions?

As one of the people concerned, I’m also worried by the argument repeating on here that pro-Labour people who would align themselves with Compass are ‘New Labour tribalists’.

Whether thinking only 99% of the country should be allowed to influence policy (greens etc can already join, I believe) is debatable.

Whether that debatably named tribalism of of the New Labour variety shouldn’t be worth discussion unless you are arguing just to insult, or are committed to intellectual dishonesty.

Sorry, meant to say “Whether thinking only 99% of the country should be allowed to influence policy (greens etc can already join, I believe) can be rightly called ‘tribal’ is debatable.”

Sunny ,were yuo a member of the Libdems or just a supporter, I was just wondering if you were a member of the Libdems did you leave with the intention of joining Compass?

One of the dangers of broadening the membership is that the width of opinion can become so extensive that the original purpose becomes lost. The original aim of Compass was to fill a political void for those of a like-mind within the Labour Party. If you then say “we’ll take anyone”, you lose this and so become little more than a rather wimpy left-leaning pressure group.

It would be a sad loss.

@ 19 Tom Millar

“As one of the people concerned, I’m also worried by the argument repeating on here that pro-Labour people who would align themselves with Compass are ‘New Labour tribalists’.”

I’m not sure that’s what non-Labour party members who think this is wrong headed ARE saying though it it? Some of these people are (self evidently and proudly as some of the posts above attest) Labour party tribalists.

Being a tribalist is one thing however; as a party member it would perhaps be surprising if that weren’t the case. It is quite another however to actively seek to turn Compass into a creature of the Labour party, to consciously spurn any broadening if outlook.

Not too long ago Sunny, and many others, were supporting the Lib Dems. After last May a fair number probably underwent the type of Damascene conversion that Sunny did. Others are probably inclined to hold their noses and support Labour, but not actually join, on the basis that they feel they have nowhere else to go.

Many others (myself included) aren’t about to do either, because we aren’t convinced Labour is fit for purpose, or that it can be rendered fit for purpose, no matter how hard some people might try. In the end I think it comes down to a discussion between those who have basically given up and decided 2 party politics is here to stay, and those who hope that will change.

If you believe the former I can see why you’d want Compass to be co-dependant on Labour; if you want the latter, then I don’t see how you can support Sunny’s stance.

@23 spot on.

@16 Emma Burnell I can see absolutely where you’re coming from, and fair enough. Isn’t it also worth thinking about what opening Compass up might help to do for the Labour Party, though?

I speak as an ex-Lib Dem. I’m a social democrat and a redistributionist; I always criticised the Lib Dems for focussing too much on the middle and not enough on the poor; but I also believe in civil liberties and a state which knows its place is to serve its citizens (which isn’t the same as saying it should be small – I’m all for higher tax and redistribution). I tend to find myself positioned to the left of plenty of Labour people – in fact, in left-right terms I’m probably on the centre-left of Labour politics.

I assume that makes me exactly the kind of Lib Dem voter Ed Miliband is aiming for. But I find it hard, after years in one party, to make an immediate leap into another. You can imagine that I feel wary of parties in general just now, after the last few months. But an organisation like Compass rather appeals. The trouble is, I rather object to paying the money and not getting a vote.

If people like me do join Compass, then we may very well find ourselves talking to Labour activists with whom we agree. Rather a lot, possibly. And that may very well be a good way of making us throw off our own wariness (I find it hard to imagine that my local CLP would be particularly keen to see me; maybe I’m wrong, but it doesn’t feel like it). If so, Labour might well find itself a new and quite large source of soft-left/civil-liberties/greenish members in time. Furthermore, they’re interested enough to join specific pressure groups, so they’re probably quite activist-inclined. And isn’t that quite a good way to help influence Labour in the direction you want?

@ 25 Bleeding Heart

Exactly! Couldn’t agree with you more. I feel very much the same, and have undergone a similar journey.

Sadly I suspect the answer to your “And isn’t that quite a good way to help influence Labour in the direction you want?” question is a resounding “No thanks”!

It is always risky intruding on private grief. The party’s attempt to detoxify the brand after New Labour was finally kicked to death by the electorate haven’t resulted in the kind of changes I’d hoped for. Enough of Continuity New Labour survives sadly, and it seems that the reaction even of recent converts like Sunny is to accept the atavistic desire to reinforce the ideological purity of the party.

Apparently, the attitude is still very much one of “You are either with us comrade, or against us.”

ang on ang on Sunny is in the Labour party now? Since when? Why did you join the Labour party?

Are there really hordes of people desperate to join Compass but who want nothing to do with the Labour Party? Really?

@ 27

Oh do keep up! 😉

News of the light on the road to Damascus below….

https://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/08/16/why-ive-decided-to-join-the-labour-party/

28

Hordes..? Unlikely I suppose. However there are probably a significant number of people on the progressive left in other parties, or in none, who might join Compass if it were more inclusive. I’m not saying I’d have nothing to do with the Labour party (others might), but I’m certainly suspicious of it….. many would say with reason.

Similarly, there may be many people who see it as a stepping stone to rejoining Labour, or at least forging useful links to fight against the Coalition, the cuts, and nudge Labour towards the light (faint hope perhaps….byt ya never know….!).

Prateek: Sunny, you cite the “highly polarised environment” politics is played out in, and the seek to prevent an influential political organisation from reducing that very same polarisation. Bizarre.

Good point. But the question from Compass’ point of view should be – will such a move help us be more effective or not?

While I accept your and Evan’s point of view and I accept the party needs to be more pluralistic, I don’t see why Compass needs to be sacrificed on this altar.

And that is my main concern – that Compass will lose its voice within the party. Unfortunately, that is the way the winds are blowing – primarily because of the savage assault on public services.

; with Ed Miliband’s clear intention to work with centre-left progressives from all corners of the political spectrum

Sure, and I’ve applauded instances where Ed has said the Libdems were right on particular issues: increasing threshold, ID cards, prison reform.

I don’t think anyone is pretending that Labour has all the best ideas. Especially after such a beating at an election.

But that doesn’t mean however that the rest of the Labour party are as open to orgs that is party plural. I hate this sort of tribalism but its going to be a while of coalition politics before we get past it. And in the short term, the danger is that Compass is severely hobbled.

I think the current fudge – letting people of other parties come to events but not be allowed to vote is probably the best fudge for now.

Eventually I’d like to see this policy changed. In the short to medium term I think this is going to be destructive to Compass.

Alisdair – with respect, I think my position is more nuanced than that.

john p reid – no, I’ve never been a member of any political party before I joined Labour. But I’ve been a member of the Fabians and Compass for years.

@ Sunny.

with respect, I think my position is more nuanced than that.

Gotta love the “with respect”, :). It almost certainly is more nuanced, Sunny, but that didn’t really come across in the OP.

I agree with this one:

“If people like me do join Compass, then we may very well find ourselves talking to Labour activists with whom we agree. Rather a lot, possibly. And that may very well be a good way of making us throw off our own wariness (I find it hard to imagine that my local CLP would be particularly keen to see me; maybe I’m wrong, but it doesn’t feel like it). If so, Labour might well find itself a new and quite large source of soft-left/civil-liberties/greenish members in time. Furthermore, they’re interested enough to join specific pressure groups, so they’re probably quite activist-inclined. And isn’t that quite a good way to help influence Labour in the direction you want?”

Just thinking about the point in the OP that opening up the membership weakens Compass’ influence within Labour.

As a very tribal Labour activist, I think it will actually work the other way. Apart from Neal Lawson, who is the number one irritant by a mile, what is most irritating about Compass is when they use their position as a Labour group to undermine the Labour Party.

This is most prominent at election times when they advocate votes for non-Labour candidates, but also when they called for Gordon Brown to step down and claimed that the 30,000 people who they spam with e-mail were their “supporters”.

In contrast, if they were explicitly a broad left pressure group without a specific political affiliation, then they would generate fewer malign headlines about “Labour activists call for vote for Lib Dems” and focus on what they are good at. If they did this and stopped using their membership fees to pay an absurd amount of money to Neal Lawson, I might even join.

Good points Sunny. My Centre Left post of last month here also made your points 1 and 3.

As my mum used to say to me all the time “I’m disappointed but I can’t say I’m surprised!”.

No, seriously, good luck with the bollotics nice one. I have some good friends who used to vote Labour 🙂

For what it’s worth, I agree with Sunny.

The organisation was set up with a specific mission: to engage with the wider left in order to bring about change within the Labour Party.
If it loses sight of that mission, and so becomes a generic left wing pressure group, it will have lost its reason for being and will necessarily hamstring itself.

Good result that a large majority voted in favour.. epic fail on the part of the “more royal than the queen” brigade.

Strange isn’t it how often the most recent converts are the most fanatical…?