The article was well received as it allowed for older members to reflect on some of the periods of revisionism that the party has gone through. It equally allowed the opportunity for newer members to learn more about Labour history, and possibly debate the issues raised for the first time.
Using the first two guide question to start the debate (What is the ‘end’ – the fundamental objective – of the Labour party? and How much do ‘means’ – how we do things – matter to the Labour party?) The discussion first took on that idea that the centralisation of our political debate, on to the so-called ‘middle ground’, meant that the objectives (ends) of all three main political parties were the same, one contributor making the point that all political parties would subscribe to a belief in equality of opportunity. However, this was questioned, one member suggesting that the Tories were more about the ‘maximisation of opportunity’ meaning those who can get, do without the so-called burden of the state.
This led on to another question: is equality of opportunity, in fact, still the aim of the Labour party? Despite the different policy directions that the party has taken over the course of its history, it was always felt this was our driving aim. As long as we have Clause IV printed on the reverse of our membership cards it will remain the case. Even in reflection on some of the seminal pieces of revisionism history it was clear from Crosland to New Labour and even including Paul Richards’ recent book Labour’s Revival, equality of opportunity was the clear end above all others, regardless of the means. I would be interested to hear if any groups came to a different conclusion to this question.
While discussing how best the party reaches its agreed objective of the discussion, we then moved on to the subject of class. Though the Ed Miliband policy review is welcome, what was more important was a more frank discussion within the party as to what class is in 2011 Britain? Most felt that class was judged by the ability to take the opportunities that were made available, and by that was meant educational opportunities. Some people culturally were still unable to access further education and this issue was being drowned out in the debate around top-up fees. However, the case was also made that class was in fact judged by culture: That if you were a member of the BFI and watched Newsnight Review you were middle class. This point was counter-argued that you could do a perceived working-class job and still hold membership to the BFI. It was agreed that we still very much live in a class society and that one of the objectives of the party should be to embrace and define what that was. Only this way was it possible to better articulate the outcomes of social mobility policy as well as arming us with another tool to fight the far-right.
The reading group provides a great opportunity to debate key issues to the party that the normal branch-GC structure doesn’t always allow time for. I would recommend that all CLPs give it a go (maybe even dust off the old Obama debate party menu). In addition to discussing the Progress pieces, it was agreed as a group that we would read a book in conjunction with a vote at the next reading group on whether to read: Speak Up For Britain, The Future of Socialism or The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists.
To see the previous Progress reading group articles please see here, and do let us know how the discussion at your reading group goes