Dear X –
It is with regret that I resign from the Labour Party. Could you remove
me from all membership and e-circulation lists? I do not think this will come
as a surprise but it strikes me as good mannered to give some reasons. It would
appear that I made a mistake in re-joining the Party and it is for me to take
responsibility for my misjudgement. The reasons may, however, be instructive
because I am not alone in my concerns.
1 Lack of Respect for Dissent Within
the Tradition
The insulting response by the Labour In Europe representative to my dissenting
position on the European Referendum and the failure of the Chair to offer any
reasonable opportunity for a reply would not in itself be sufficient cause to
leave.
What provided sufficient cause alongside other issues of concern was the
discovery that a Party Conference decision was not merely the basis for the
decision of the Party Leadership to unite around the pro-Remain policy (which
is reasonable) but that it was clear that those who disagreed with the policy would,
more generally, not be treated with respect but rather treated as the enemy
within.
I was not alone across the Party in finding pressure, often bullying
(though I would never accuse anyone in XXXXXXXXX CLP of this), being
placed on Members not to promote a dissident view but to follow a ‘line’, an
attitude that I thought was one that went out with the old Communist Party. This
lack of respect for reasonable dissent within the democratic socialist
tradition was, frankly, shocking.
2 Lack of Respect for Evidence-Based
Debate
The recent furore over Livingstone’s radio comments was equally
disturbing. In fact, Livingstone had expressed an opinion based on a reasonable
interpretation of certain facts. He had not expressed any anti-Semitic opinion
whatsoever and that was clear at the time. Another MP then barracked him
aggressively in public and in an un-comradely way.
Again, if this had resulted in an open debate about what Livingstone
said, it would be classed as political education. It may be that the balance of
opinion might reasonably have contested his position. Instead, Livingstone was
virtually witch-hunted in public and the MP who verbally attacked him not only escaped
any censure for his appalling behaviour but was protected by the Whips.
The matter was then ‘framed’ in the media as one of general antisemitism (which was un-evidenced)
in terms that bode ill for future freedom of debate and speech. Once again, the
Party appeared to be moving towards the adoption of ‘lines’ and the rejection of
open debate and away from a strategy of public political education which is the
only way to engage honourably with the British people.
One aspect of this farrago was that the thuggish behaviour of the Labour
Right and the intemperate arguments of the Labour Left were both derivative of
the fact that each had its own constituency based on identity, Jewish or Left-Muslim
in this case, which leads me to the third reason …
3 The Infiltration of the Party by Identity
Politics
One thing that has radically changed since my earlier period with the
Party is the further intensification of American-style identity politics as an
acceptable ideology for a democratic socialist party. I find myself very
uncomfortable with identity politics because it collectivises not the people as
a whole but sections of the population around their attributes and beliefs. It
is an indirect concession to fascism.
What do all these have in common? They represent a closed-in exclusive
activist ideology that is deeply alienating to dissent within the democratic
socialist tradition – a person can be disrespected because they are a) critical
of the European Project, b) educated, meaning here willing to test opinions
against facts and undertake a civilised debate, and c) male (and, no doubt, the
wrong skin colour in some contexts).
Enough is enough. The Party was founded on general working-class
representation and on Enlightenment principles based on educational improvement
and equality. The post-Marxist infiltration of the Party has created something
else entirely – a liberal-left middle class party that expects group-think as a
matter of course and reinstates communitarian ideology in place of political
pragmatism and liberation ideology.
This has little to do with Left and Right – I am a Corbyn supporter and
the Labour Right have led on the promotion of identity politics – but everything
to do with civilisation and progress. The Labour Right are far more culpable in
general than the incoming Left but I am reluctant to waste the rest of my life trying
to contribute to a Party in a state of near-civil war, one in which my core
values are clearly not respected.
Having said all that, I want to emphasise that there is no rancour or
issue with the local Party (other than the failure to challenge visiting
officials and identity activists). I know that the members are hard-working,
decent, intelligent and good people who have made great strides in a very
conservative local environment. I wish
them individually well but it would be wrong to stay silent.
Unfortunately, I cannot wish a Party well that I fear would bring
its new habits of discrimination, authoritarianism and evasion and avoidance of
challenging debate into high office. Armed with the machinery of the State,
there is a serious risk that this culture of disrespect for dissent, of
rejection of open debate in favour of media brawling and of discriminatory
identity politics could become oppressive.
It is simply not enough to say that we should put up with these flaws in
order to ensure a Labour Government, especially one that can reverse
neo-liberal austerity measures. History teaches us that a Government that does
not have core values based on reason and respect is a very dangerous Government
and an anti-austerity culturally authoritarian Government could be very
dangerous indeed.
If the Labour Party wants to win my vote (since that is now what it has
come down to), it will have to demonstrate to me and to others that it
represents the interests of the whole working population and not that of
special interests, that it adopts pragmatic evidence-based policies and that it
can accommodate reasoned debate and criticism on major existential issues. At the moment, the Party is not for me.
The resignation is effective immediately.
Kind Regards
Tim Pendry
