Jeremy Corbyn ignites new Clause IV debate

Jeremy Corbyn has reopened the debate over Clause IV of the Labour Party’s constitution, but denies that he wants to restore the original wording. In an interview with the Independent on Sunday, he stopped short of pledging to reinstate the wording as it was before the 1995 reform, he does suggest revisiting the debate about “the objectives of the party” – and hinted that could mean “restoring Clause IV”.

Corbyn’s proposed policies include nationalisation of railways and major energy companies, which has led to speculation that he would support bringing back the pre-Blair version of the clause. Asked whether he would support restoring the old clause, Corbyn replied:

“I think we should talk about what the objectives of the party are, whether that’s restoring Clause IV as it was originally written or it’s a different one. But we shouldn’t shy away from public participation, public investment in industry and public control of the railways.”

However, the Corbyn campaign deny his intention was to reverse the ’90s reform. A spokesperson for the candidate has spoken to The Guardian, with their website reporting:

But a spokesperson from his campaign said Corbyn was not saying he wanted a return to “the old clause IV” and that he did not want “a big ‘moment’ such as that”.

“His leadership would be the opposite of top-down changes,” the spokesperson said. “He says we need some forms of public ownership in some cases, such as rail, on which matter Labour needs to reflect more closely the views of the majority of the public.”

The original Clause IV was drafted by Sidney Webb and was adopted into Labour’s constitution in 1918. It called for “the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service”.

In the 1990s Tony Blair led calls to reform the clause, and after much debate a special conference in 1995 voted to change the wording by 58% to 42%. Corbyn’s comments suggest revisiting that debate.

His comments have sparked debate among the leadership contenders. Liz Kendall said the remark was “a throwback to the past”:

“This shows there is nothing new about Corbyn’s politics. It is just a throwback to the past, not the change we need for our party or our country. We are a party of the future not a preservation society.”

Yvette Cooper echoed Kendall’s sentiment, saying it was wrong to “cling to the past”:

“We’ve always been a progressive party that’s embraced the future – this is not the time to be reactionary and cling to the past. Otherwise we will fail to deliver the social justice and equality the Labour Party believes in, and we won’t win the power to change peoples lives.”

Today’s Telegraph on Sunday also reports that some of Labour’s biggest individual donors will stop giving money to the party if Jeremy Corbyn wins the leadership election. The paper says that Assem Allam, Richard Brindle, and a third anonymous donor, who have all given the party hundreds of thousands of pounds in recent years, have said they will no longer make donations if Corbyn becomes leader. At least two big donors, Stefanou Stefanos and Steve Lazarides, said that a Corbyn victory would not stop them giving the party lump sums.