Which way does Compass point?

25th August, 2013 9:51 am

For a few short years, it seemed that Compass, the peculiar hybrid think tank/pressure group, would be the coalition of Labour left-wingers that would finally gain enough traction to drag the party away from the ideological desert of the Blair/Brown era. In 2010, its membership voted for Compass to join Ed Miliband’s leadership campaign, allowing the group to develop close links with the Labour Leader and his powerful close colleagues, such as Chuka Ummuna. This ensured that their policy projects, such as The High Pay Commission report, had a good chance of feeding into Party policy.

That’s why many reacted with surprise, even anger, when Compass decided to allow members of rival political movements to join it. Most of the group’s Youth Committee resigned, warning that their hard-won credibility within Labour had been instantly thrown away. The spirit of comradeship that exists between Labour members could not be maintained in a cross-partisan organisation.

Had I belonged to Compass as this debate raged in 2011, I would have probably argued for an even stronger, not weaker, link with Labour by affiliating to it as a Socialist Society. However, in 2013 I shall happily seek the votes of Labour, Green and Plaid Cymru members to the same Youth Committee that my comrades resigned from two years ago. Why?

“When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” So said the talented Liberal economist John Maynard Keynes. Simply put, the facts have changed. In this case, I was one of many who thought that Compass could not be both united and powerful as a cross-party group. Two years on, we are able examine the results of this fascinating political experiment.

Compass continues to produce innovative policy documents, support campaigns and participate in Labour’s internal affairs. Some of our policies continue to find their way into the speeches of Labour spokespeople (Build one affordable million homes? Our idea. Living Wage Zones? Ours too). Our membership base continues to be overwhelmingly Labour. At a time when the Party is under attack for failing to present an alternative to the Coalition, Compass offers many of the answers that the Left should be selling to the British politics.

The problem that Compass faces is that it hasn’t given itself a clear role. If it’s a think tank, it should not have members, a youth wing or a group of supporting MPs. Even as a pressure group or think tank, it has a conflict between its mentality as a group of political leaders and its structure as a grassroots alliance. For example, cross-party alliances are managed by MPs, councillors and party leaders. Labour has led coalitions with the Greens on the London Assembly and Plaid Cymru in Wales, but the grassroots of these parties have seldom even met. Members are partisan: their leaders are less so.

We in Compass cannot leave this question unanswered: before we can influence others, we have to decide who and what we are. In my view, we should be a campaigning alliance that is committed to Labour’s electoral success whilst facilitating the sharing of ideas across the Left.

Compass is establishing a campaign for rail renationalisation. It’s a worthy cause: the economy and the environment would both benefit if public transport were to be improved through investment and lower fares. But if we want to turn our aim into reality, we have to reach out to the ordinary Labour members who have been calling for it since 1994. We can’t do that if we’re urging voters to back the Green Party in 2015. If we cannot adopt a ‘Labour first’ position, we risk losing everything we’ve fought for, and every debate we participate in, until we become a small band of voices in the political wilderness. What a waste of talent and ideas that would be.

Value our free and unique service?

LabourList has more readers than ever before - but we need your support. Our dedicated coverage of Labour's policies and personalities, internal debates, selections and elections relies on donations from our readers.

If you can support LabourList’s unique and free service then please click here.

To report anything from the comment section, please e-mail [email protected]
  • Pingback: Which Way Does Compass Point? | ThePoliticalIdealist.com()

  • Adrian McMenamin

    Presenting “an alternative to the coalition” is easy. Presenting one that can win a majority in parliament is not. It is the tragedy of the Labour Party that no matter how many times the electorate drum this fact into our heads, a substantial number of our members don’t seem to get it. Have fun with your new friends in parties that oppose economic growth and free movement of people inside the UK, but please do not suggest that their philosophies have anything much to do with the historic mission of the Labour Party.

  • Michael Carey

    ‘“When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” So said the talented Liberal economist John Maynard Keynes.’ – very clever and subtle way to disarm those who think fraternizing with other parties is anathema. The campaigns sound very worthy but I doubt the standard think-tank method of trying to use reason in politics, when in a class society split into opposing interests there can be no abstract reason apart from interest, but for producing intellectual missiles to fire in the course of struggle they can be very useful indeed – that’s why I like CLASS’s orientation towards the unions.

  • Michael Carey

    What, in your view, *is* the historic mission of the Labour Party? Just genuinely interested, I’m not a fan of the Greens or Plaid either.

    • Adrian McMenamin

      The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we
      achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the
      means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in
      which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not
      the few, where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, and where
      we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and

      • Michael Carey

        I read that (as I read it with embarrassment off the back of my card) as meaningless fluff designed to excuse anything by redefining socialism and pretending it never had another meaning than a lot of nice sounding abstract words.

        • Jack Darrant

          Bring back the proper Clause IV!

  • Jack Darrant

    Thanks for your kind words. To address your point, there is certainly a disappointing fact of political life: doing the right, or logical, thing is rarely possible unless an influential enough group benefit from it. I too am a supporter of CLASS, on the grounds that they have a clear philosophy (one that I agree with) which intentionally shapes their work.

  • Jack Darrant

    The historic mission of the Labour Party could be (very) broadly defined as the advancement of all working people in both economic and social means. Labour is defined by the belief that politics should be a route to achieving ideals, not a means unto itself. So of course we cannot afford to ignore the wishes of the electorate, but the notion that we can’t influence those wishes or inspire voters with our ideals requires a highly pessimistic, unproductive and short-termist view of the world (and, I should say, the Labour Party membership).

    There is a strand of thinking in the Labour Party, based on events of the 80s and 90s, that we cannot afford any level of radicalism on the basis that voters don’t want it. That might have been true then, but it is flawed logic that lead to the conclusion that Labour must become ever more centrist today. They want a party that will tackle vested commercial interests, create a genuinely fairer society and invest in a sustainable economy. That is true to Labour values and true to voters’ wishes.

    I seriously doubt it is I who is doing the disservice to the historical mission of the Labour Party.

    • Adrian McMenamin

      The events of the 1980s and 1990s have nothing to do with the stupidity of the ideas that opposing economic growth and the free movement of UK citizens in their own country are massive vote losers and the province of extremists.

      Of course, the events of the 1980s and 1990s are indeed proof of why your claim that it is ” flawed logic” to suggest that “the conclusion [is] that Labour must become ever more centrist today” are proof of my claim that no matter how many times the electorate smash your head into the pavement, some people won’t listen.

      • Jack Darrant

        Why do you think Labour lost the 2010 general election? Was it because we weren’t right-wing enough? Or did it have something to do with the fact that our leadership became ever more distant from the people? Governments have survived recessions in the past, and Brown could have defended his record if he wasn’t already unpopular.

        People are tiring of politicians who seek power simply to drift around without trying to make the public’s lives better.

        In any case, there has to be a logical limit to the extent the Labour Party could mirror the party of Thatcher, Osborne and Gove. Otherwise what is the actual point of engaging in politics? The Tories can talk voters round to their rancid ideology, but we are somehow unable to persuade anybody of the merit of noble ideals such as social justice and equality of opportunity?

        To adopt the position that we must consign all of our values that remain intact to the compost heap in the pursuit of power is to let down the millions of disadvantaged, exploited and downtrodden people that exist in this country. It is to let down the entire country by denying them a democratic choice. It is to let ourselves down by conceding that we will never make any progress in our historical mission.

  • EmmaBurnell

    Adrian – can I ask you to use slightly less violent imagery. I’m sure your point can be made just as well without it. I’ve let this one through, but I do ask you to consider it.

  • DanFilson

    “If it’s a think tank, it should not have members, a youth wing or a group of supporting MPs.” But why not? The Fabian Society is perhaps a think tank which does have just these – members, young Fabians and supporting MPs. There’s no rule that says no. My problem is not the creation of a bridge to the Greens (or from them) and to the non-Labour Party socialists who are not of the SWP type. It’s that I just cannot envisage ever the Compass members who are not Labour Party members turning out to doorstep for Labour candidates in elections. whereas Compass gives more credibility and a higher profile to those in the Green Party than perhaps they – rather than their themes – merit.

    • Jack Darrant

      A fair point. I always thought of think tanks as being devoted to the creation of policy, with little emphasis placed securing its implementation, but it could be argued that that definition is a little inflexible.

      Yours is a valid concern, but I don’t see any evidence of Compass lending any credibility to any Green figure. When you talk to the proverbial man on the Clapham omnibus, you’d find that he’s never heard of Compass- and probably still confuses the Green Party and Greenpeace, for that matter! And from looking at a quick web search, it seems few Green Party figures are particularly vocal about their links with Compass (indeed I wonder how many of them actually do have links with Compass).

      I have to say that my confidence in the Greens- as far as one can be confident in political rivals- was shattered after the Brighton and Hove Council GMB strike affair, and the same is true of much of the Left.

  • Mike Homfray

    I think Compass works better as a non aligned think tank and discussion group of the left. We can actusllybtalk about real policy issues rather than the party…..

  • ColinAdkins

    Adrian, I agree we must develop policies which allow us to form a winning electoral alliance. Call that placing ourselves on the centre ground if you like. Blair did that superbly. However, the centre is not where you would assume it to be on every issue and further is not static. The point of a social democratic/reformist party seeking power is not to simply reflect the centre ground in its policies but to shift that centre ground towards your broader ideological perspective. This is where I criticise Blair because I feel he criticised those who proposed something from an ideological perspective as extremist and in my view this is intellectual philistinism. Further Blair’s claims to a technocratic government or ‘what works’ is very much underpinned by ideology. Blair for me was a European style Christian Democrat. The answer to the question: Compass will point to whichever direction which will allow the leading lights into Parliament. No I am not a fan! Colin


LabourList Daily Email

Everything Labour. Every weekday morning

Share with your friends