United fight to challenge
New Labour policies
Despite enduring months of Dacnite andurina monthe nf calculated insults from Tony Blair, Britain's trade union leaders delivered him the victories he wanted at Labour Party Conference, writes Pete Firmin. The rule changes associated with Blair's 'Party into Power' project now give the Labour leadership a free hand to muzzle any grassroots rebellion inside the party. "Flexibility" has become the watchword. Flexibility for the Labour leadership means dodging out of any positive commitment party activists were fighting for. Flexibility for working people means being cajoled into accepting part time and short term contracts on worse conditions. It means putting up with attacks on the welfare state and a political party that is long on rhetoric and short on delivery.
And yet, on May 1" this year working people voted Labour: for real change, for an end to the Tories - and an end to Tory policies. Exit polls in that general election clearly showed that a majority of Labour voters, supported radical policies. They voted for redistribution of wealth from rich to poor, an end to privatisation and defence of welfare provision. With the bosses
The first months of the Labour government have been an eye-opener. Blair and his cronies have been proud to proclaim that they are following the same strategy as the Tories. They have been gleeful that they are getting away with things that their Conservative predecessors could not. Even the apparent commitment to increased spending on health and education is just a massaging of existing funds that are totally inadequate to sustain services already cut to ribbons,
The catalogue of attacks is long. They have "liberated" the Bank of England from political control and thus raised interest rates. They have continued with Tory privatisation plans and further pushed the tottering plans for Private Finance Initiatives in the National Health Service and elsewhere.
Young people and students have been in the front line whether through the introduction of student fees, the "welfare to work" con trick, or Home Secretary Jack Straw's new "law and order" proposals.
Single parents lose their benefits and the unemployed are forced onto schemes as pointless as those introduced by the 6 International Viewpoint #295
Tories, but more attractively packaged. All this has gone hand in hand with a steadfast refusal to remove Tory laws such as those shackling the trade unions and making asylum seekers destitute — policies Labour had opposed only weeks before coming into power.
Chancellor Gordon Brown's latest statement on European monetary convergence — "not going in just yet but preparing the way" goes hand in hand with an attempt to gag any dissident EuroMPs.
The pattern is clear. The bosses' offensive is to continue, with New Labour proud to help the bosses prosecute it.
However while all this may seem evident to lett activists, most of those who voted Labour on May 1" remain mesmerised. We have the paradox of Blair being promoted as the world's most popular leader, while government policies attack every aspiration of their supporters.
Another crucial layer of voters are beginning to wake up and see what is happening but lack the confidence to fight back. The long night of Tory rule has left trade union organisation desperately weakened and political campaigners isolated. Maximising popular resistance
Which leaves the difficult questions: How do you build a fightback against the bosses offensive? What sort of organisation is necessary?
It is clearly not enough to merely continue to beaver away inside the structure of the Labour Party — but neither is it possible to merely proclaim the existence of a new socialist party.
Neither can you just build an effective socialist organisation just by recruiting, one by one. The biggest "revolutionary parties in Britain are feeble shadows of what we need. In themselves, even those parties with several thousand members are unable to change events.
We have to relate to the mood that exists for new realignment. We need to build a united left — inside and outside the Labour Party. This must be based on the practical demands working people are putting forward and real actions attempting to realise them.
Ritual denunciations are meaningless - practical work is the only way to expose Blairism for what it is. Out of that practical work can arise both the unity of the left, and the means of reaching out to new forces.
Drawing people into action on straightforward demands, and trying to force the existing leadership of the labour movement to defend the interests of their members, can mobilise the forces neces-
YoUs THE DYED
SOCIALIST APPEASER I BELIEVE ACON sary to change society. Even small numbers can be effective - but only by promoting such unity in action.
On this basis it will be possible to build an organisation that can lead a fight against the bosses offensive and pose a threat to the easy ride currently being enjoyed by the New Labour government.
The mood for change needs to be harnessed. We must set clear goals - in the trade unions, inside the labour party, and on the streets. We know the issues, the basic campaigns already exist. The united work must start now. Positive examples
No clearer example exists than what was achieved this spring with the Euromarch. Broad coalitions were developed both across Europe and in Britain which mobilised thousands of workers and built on the actions of millions against the effects of the Maastricht Treaty.
The Euromarch played a part in changing the policy of some major unions in Britain. Now we have forced the European TUC to call action against unemployment in Luxembourg on November 20th.
The ground work has been laid for further campaigning on this issue which is increasingly recognised as the most important issue facing the British government. On other issues too there are positive signs - such as the ability of supporters of Workers Liberty and Socialist Outlook to work together with members of the SLP and many activists of no affiliation in the Welfare State Network.
None of this is easy - tensions built on years of suspicion don't go away over night but without eradicating sectarianism we will never build a credible alternative to New Labour. We must build on these lessons in other key areas, while deepening the debate about what sort of organisation is needed to defend the interests of working people. * The author is a regular contributer to Socialist Outlook, the newspaper of British supporters of the Fourth International
V-THE-WOOL THE CALLOUS WRECKER IRCH OF THE SOCIAL FABRIC
I PRESUME? F BRUSSELS.
AND WOULD You CARE FOR SOME BRIOCHE? con Unions sell out before negotiations Everything at the Labour Party Conference went according to Tony Blair's plan, writes Pete Firmin. Conference delivered a "Yes" vote on the "Partnership in Power" reforms which have demolished Party democracy (around 30% of votes opposed).
Most contentious issues were kept off the agenda. And if they weren't, then the movers agreed to remit rather than rock the boat. Blair delivered a very eloquent, cleverly crafted speech which said virtually nothing.
The exception to this smooth running was the National Executive Committee election results. Not only did Ken Livingstone beat the macheavelian Peter Mandelson by a substantial margin for the vacant seat, but the proportion of the vote obtained by the Socialist Campaign Group of MPs platform increased from 31 per cent to 39 per cent.
Blair had the trade union leaders to thank for such a "successful" conference. John Edmonds of the GMB speaking on Partnership in Power, said he didn't support the proposals but the GMB would not be voting against them, and went on to say, parodying Blair's speech to the TUC, "we're watching you Tony" Concessions
Union leaders did not want to oppose "Partnership in Power" because they calculated it would endanger any concessions from the government on union rights. However, they then ensured that the composites on this issue contained nothing to upset Blair - no figure on the minimum wage, nothing on the anti-union laws.
Representatives of Britain's largest union, the Transport and General
Workers Union (TGWU) even insisted that resolutions on the striking Liverpoo Dockers (TGWU members) be excluded from the conference timetable.
In short, the union leaders dropped their demands on the Labour government even before entering negotiations.
Where resolutions were debated which posed uncomfortable questions for the government - on student tuition fees, arms sales to Indonesia, and the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) in the National Health Service - union leaders readily agreed to remit them to the party's National Executive Committee
Even the relatively left-wing RMT transport union eventually "remitted" their resolution on PFI in the rail sector, having been convinced that they should only put it to the vote if they could win. They reasoned that remitting was better than having it voted down. Remission allows the NEC to discard resolutions it doesn't like, before there is any open debate. In fact, the resolution had a reasonable chance of being passed.
The only close call for Blair was on Trident, where the vote went 53-47 against the resolution for scrapping the nuclear missiles.
Stage management, lengthy speeches by ministers, and intimidation of delegates were to be expected. But what does this year's conference say about the state of the movement?
The adoption of Partnership in Power makes it virtually impossible for the labour movement to hold the government to account. It removes the ability of unions and Constituency Labour Parties to submit resolutions critical of the actions of the government. It removes the right of individual members to elect MPs to the NEC, and downgrades the NEC as compared to the newly-established Joint Policy Committee, on which government ministers have a majority.
Union leaders were happy to go along with this - and overturn their own conferences' policy in the process. After all, their ability to have cosy chats with Labour ministers remains unscathed They dislike the ability of their membership to hold them to account just as much as Blair does. General Secretaries
Some on the Labour Left refuse to recognise this conflict of interest, simply denouncing "the unions" for their voting records in the Labour Party. The Campaign for Labour Party Democracy prefers to share platforms with left (or not-so-left) General Secretaries, rather than linking up with, and being a part of, the oppositions within the unions, fighting for a change of policy and attempting to call those leaders to account
Some have taken the NEC result as a signal of a resurgence of the Labour Left, despite the adoption of "Partnership in Power". (Ken Livingstone himself had said before the conference that adoption of "Partnership in Power" would signal the end of the Labour Party.)
The problem with this analysis is twofold. Firstly, it sees those voting for the Campaign Group 'ticket' as a coherent force, whereas many are members who have become inactive because of despair at the drift of the Party.
Secondly, and more important, it assumes that simply organising to win the NEC votes of the Constituency Labour Parties will change the balance of forces. This strategy is incoherent even in its own terms - the CLP section of the new NEC will only be about a quarter of a body being downgraded anyway. Victory in the CLP section of the NEC elections would change nothing on its own.
In order to achieve such a result in the NEC elections, some are talking of the need for a very broad alliance indeed They cite the joint effort with Labour Reform around "Partnership in Power" and say this needs to be repeated. No policies
However, Labour Reform is not - and does not claim to be - an organisation of the Left. If anything it is a section of the old Labour right. They do not have policy positions beyond the ones they took on "Partnership in Power". Individual craping or ely adm supporters of the platform freely admit they voted for the scrapping of Clause IV of Labour's constitution, which symbolised the Party's socialist 'soul.'
In order to enter into a joint election campaign with Labour Reform - which represents very little on the ground -the Left would have to drop any idea of campaigning on key policy issues.
Work with Labour Reform around 'Partnership in Power' was not without its problems. Labour Reform were not prepared to oppose the changes, but only to call for deferral because of lack of time to discuss them. A section of the Left went along with this, not as a fallback position if outright opposition fell, but as their main argument. Deferral was, however, never likely to win support in the unions, and opportunities were missed to argue the case for rejection of the changes, leaving the General Secretaries an easier task in their arm twisting.
Those who want to challenge Blair's capitalist policies will put questions of NEC slates in their rightful context - the need to be part of the opposition to those policies through demonstrations, strikes etc. This strategy can also motivate those who vote for the Left within the Party to become active again.
Unity needs to be forged in action between Party activists and campaigners outside; those in single issue campaigns and other political groups.
The Labour left needs to find ways of openly participating in the developing debate around how to forge an alternative to Blair - an alternative that will be constructed in practice but must also have an organisational form. *
7
* Europe