Radical nostalgia, progressive patriotism and Labour's 'English problem'

‘Progressive patriots’ have long argued that Englishness can form the basis of a transformative political project, whether based on an historic tradition of resistance to state power or an open and cosmopolitan identity. However, this article suggests that the politics of Englishness present a number of specific dilemmas for Labour. First the historical narrative of a radical tradition in British history is not straightforwardly English and cannot easily be used to support a competitive politics of nationhood, in the way that disaffected English identifiers might desire. Second, the deliberately alternative nature of this ‘radical nostalgic’ narrative makes it an unlikely basis for a unifying national story. It is also at odds with Labour’s status as a successful party of government, committed to using the power of the British state, rather than opposing it. Finally, while ‘everyday Englishness’ may well align with core Labour values and be less socially conservative, intolerant or racially exclusive than it is often described, its very nature as an everyday practice, rather than a political identity makes it difficult for Labour to co-opt

British Communists and the 1932 turn to the trade unions

The Comintern’s Third Period, 1928-1934, based on Stalin’s ‘second revolution’ in Russia, capitalist crisis and the claim that social democracy and fascism were twins, generated sectarian, ultra-left politics which proved inimical to Communist activity in trade unions. This article sheds new light on that issue by revisiting three connected episodes: the British party’s (CPGB) renewed turn to the unions, heralded in the January resolution of 1932; the roles Comintern staff and CPGB leader Harry Pollitt, played in this initiative; and the subsequent attempt by Pollitt to revise the politics of union work. This triptych reviews both primary sources and the recent historiography. It argues that some accounts have overestimated the novelty of the January resolution, blurred its meaning, and exaggerated Pollitt’s part in it. The resolution did not attempt to change the line but its application. Its impact was limited. Subsequent bids to go beyond it were muddled and unsuccessful. The 1933 move towards the united front, and the ensuing turn to the popular front, possessed more profound significance in the creation of an effective Communist presence in trade unions than the events of 1931- 1932