At times, OULC can resemble a fanclub for the Cabinet. It’s got to stop.

In his 2002 autobiography, Interesting Times, the justly revered Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm dwells extensively on his experience of student politics in the ‘Red Cambridge’ of the 1930s. An ardent member of the Communist Party, he had a lot more to argue his way out of than modern Labourites; if you thought the 10p tax was tricky, try winning an argument on the Nazi-Soviet Pact. “We accepted the new line, of course,” he remembers, “Was it not the essence of ‘democratic centralism’ to stop arguing once the decision had been reached? And the highest decision had obviously been taken.” It seems that ‘calls for unity’, issued by closed party elites taking the wrong decisions for the wrong reasons, are nothing new in left wing politics.

Some of us, like Hobsbawm in the 30s, might not have a problem with this. As he explains elsewhere, his loyalty to the Comintern was all but unconditional, at least until the last, faintly ludicrous years of Stalin’s tyranny and the brutal crushing of the Hungarian revolt in 1956. To him and millions of communists around the world, the Soviet Union – however flawed – was a beacon of ‘really existing socialism,’ a non-negotiable rallying point for a fiercely disciplined international movement. Similar arguments, in essence, have long been bandied about in reference to Labour’s mis-steps over the past decade. The mere fact of government is an automatic justification for any betrayal of principle. Tribalism and ‘discipline’ have become substitutes for engagement. An unholy trinity of Prescott, Campbell and Mandelson preach ‘put up and shut up’ at every opportunity. 

In reality, any number of shadowy representatives from the ‘public affairs’ industry can now command more attention from the party leadership than any mere CLP could ever hope to; the proof lies in the changed nature of Conference, which helpfully combines fringe events where much is discussed and nothing changes with setpiece speeches where nothing of any significance is ever said at all. Such are the rigours of democratic centralism in the age of Sky News. But where do we come in?

On a national level and in the long term, it is clear that the British left is still stuck in a limbo of sorts, no longer able to advocate the interests of a withered union movement yet seemingly incapable of marshalling the better natures of the silent majority of British citizens who would vote for a social democratic movement that unashamedly shared their desire for a reformed society. Tightly controlling leaderships and an addiction to the news cycle leaves party membership a profoundly disempowering experience. The collapse of a political culture and public sphere worthy of the name is a well-documented phenomenon, which has served to hollow out the membership of all three political parties – although Labour has fared by far the worst. As an unusually strong and active university Labour club, we are in a position to do some hard thinking about what our role should be in relation to the party as a whole, at a time when the leadership’s stranglehold on internal debate has perceptibly weakened, and the process of politics itself is an increasingly prominent political issue.

A clear choice is open to us in this context. We can humbly receive gracious emissaries from the wonderful world of Westminster, beg them for some choice Blair anecdotes, and send them away reassured of our campaigning zeal and happy to offer some of us internships. We can hold endless policy forums without ever bringing policy motions, or exploring ways in which we can actively influence party policy through the formal and informal avenues open to us. Or we can do what students do best, what student politics should be all about – getting angry and getting even. Lord knows each and every one of us has things they disagree with the leadership about. We are not a think tank: we are an affiliated, campaigning Labour organisation. We earn our right to have our say in the wider movement by the work we do here in Oxford for the local candidates we admire and care about. No member of the cabinet deserves our deference. No policy, local or national, is immune to our scrutiny.

The way ahead is clear: we must work harder to campaign for change within the party whilst continuing to build support for Labour in the wider community. Few would disagree that, in any democratic political organisation, these two aims are inseparable; the right to the first is conditional on the second. Moreover, it is critical to realize that unless Labour is seen to be an organisation whose members can mobilise to make a tangible difference to party policy, then we wish shutting out huge numbers of principled, politically active people – especially the young – who see themselves as being ‘of the left’ but are rightly disgusted by the monied, militaristic excess of the past ten years, and mourn the death of their natural home.

This is not an issue of loyalty Vs betrayal, unity Vs fragmentation. It is deeply perverse that we seem to be much keener on putting in incredible effort on behalf of those in power than actively influencing what they do in our party’s name. Redressing that balance is key to OULC’s continued renewal, and it’s up to all of us to bring more policy motions, ask more difficult questions of speakers, and provide a broader range of clear mandates for our delegates in national organizations. As we go into another year and another freshers’ recruitment drive begins, a proclamation of the end of deference towards party elites would be the best possible advert for the vitality and relevance of our organisation.

Be Sociable, Share!

•