A conference is taking place in London this Saturday, January 21st, to discuss the crisis of working class representation. It has been sponsored by the rail workers’ union, RMT, and has a range of speakers from Labour MP John McDonnell to Colin Fox leader of the Scottish Socialist Party.
The RMT statement about the conference explains that: “The conference will not be used to promote the establishment of a new political party and will be a non resolution based conference. It will be an open public debate to discuss the crisis in working class representation and also how best to address the continued decline in working class people standing for public office and the continuing low turnouts in elections.”
This gathering is taking place at a time of enormous disillusionment with the Blair government. Over the last decade or more, Blair and Co. have shifted the British Labour Party far to the right. The Blairites, who are nothing more than bourgeois infiltrators in the Labour Party, have stolen the clothes of the open political representatives of Big Business and have now become the apostles of the “market economy”. In terms of leadership and government policy, the Labour Party is today barely distinguishable from the Tories and Liberal Democrats.
The actions of the Blair government since 1997 have been in reality a continuation of Thatcherism. In health, education, economy, civil liberties and foreign policy, Blair has adopted openly capitalist policies. They have kept in place the hated anti-trade union laws and their beloved “market” is being introduced everywhere as a solution to our problems, all in the name of Orwellian “reform” (in reality “counter-reform”). This has meant cuts and attacks on services and conditions.
As a consequence, these Tory policies have resulted in widespread disappointment with Labour. Participation in elections is at historically low levels. Last May, Labour was elected with just 36% of the popular vote, the lowest of any governing party in history. It was the most unpopular party to form a government since the Reform Act of 1832! However, the Tories were even more unpopular, flat-lining at just 32.3%.
Given this situation, what is the way forward? Can the Labour Party be reclaimed, as has been argued? Or should socialists form a new party, another Labour Party instead? Has the movement been thrown back 100 years? Is the way forward, as some groups argue, to stand against Labour during elections? To give some balanced answer, we need to look at the track record of such an approach.
To be frank, the attempt to challenge the Labour Party on the electoral front has been pitiful. Those groupings to the left of Labour, who hoped to capitalise on the unpopularity of Blair, have failed miserably.
Let us take the Scottish Socialist Party, which has six MSPs, and began, we were told, with so much promise. They have gone up like a rocket and down like a stick. Last month, at a council by-election in Kirkshaw, North Lanarkshire, the SSP candidate managed to poll a pathetic 30 votes, and was even beaten by the Tories! Last year in the General Election, despite the disillusionment with Labour, the SSP registered a huge fall in its electoral support. The SSP won a mere 1.9% of the vote compared to 3.1% in 2001. This represents a 40% drop of its vote in Scotland. They managed to keep just two deposits! Even Colin Fox, the new leader, had to admit it was a disastrous result. Hardly a shining example to the rest of those in England and Wales thinking of taking a similar route – apparently over a cliff.
The victory of George Galloway for Respect has been held up as the way forward. Galloway has proudly stated that this is the first time in 60 years that a left party has won a Parliamentary seat from Labour. This is true. The last time was when Phil Piratin won a seat in Stepney in 1945, only the second time in British history that the Communist Party had ever won a seat in the Commons. But surely that is the point. Experience has shown how extraordinarily difficult it is for a left group to break the electoral grip of the Labour Party – even in one or two seats, let alone everywhere. It has only been managed here and there in exceptional circumstances, and only for a temporary period. Both Communist-held seats were eventually lost to Labour. Galloway’s victory is the first for over 60 years, and is unlikely to be repeated on past experience.
One of the speakers sharing the conference platform is Dave Nellist, who stood for the Socialist Party of England and Wales in the General Election. Dave, who was originally a Labour MP in Coventry SE, was expelled from the Party. He has been standing against Labour ever since, but with ever decreasing support. Here is his record:
Nellist was first elected as a Labour MP in 1983 with 15,307 votes (41.1%). He was re-elected in 1987 with an increased vote to 17,969 (47.4%), a great achievement by comparison with most other Labour candidates.
After he was expelled, he stood as an Independent Labour candidate in 1992 and got 10,551 votes (28.9%), and was regarded by many constituents as the real Labour candidate. However this did not last. Dave Nellist stood repeatedly in General Elections with dwindling results. In 2001, he polled 2,638 votes (7.5%) and in the last General Election in 2005 he managed 1,874 (5%). On this trend he will lose his deposit next time round, after taking nearly 50% of the vote as the Labour candidate in 1987. After the experience of eight years of Blairism, Nellist’s vote, instead of increasing, was disappearing as fast as the White Rabbit in Alice in Wonderland.
In an attempt to capitalise on the crisis surrounding the Rover car plant, the Socialist Party stood in Birmingham Northfield. Their candidate got 120 votes (0.38%). In Brighton Kemptown, the SP only polled 113 votes. Compare this to 1983, when the Militant supporter Rod Fitch stood as a Labour candidate and got 12,887 votes (29.6%).
Yet despite these derisory votes by the SP, the group declared in its true Lewis Carroll style: “For SP members up and down the country this was the best election campaign we have ever been involved in.” The only conclusion you can draw from this is that today’s SP members have only been involved in politics for a short time.
These comrades, clearly intoxicated with delusions of grandeur, are now campaigning for the trade unions to disaffiliate from the Labour Party. They have set up a campaign for a new workers’ party, a Labour Party-Mark Two. But glancing at their sponsors, most are members of non-affiliated trade unions like PCS, NUT and NATFHE. Sorry to say they were incapable of getting their unions to affiliate to the old Labour Party, when it had a left-wing programme, let alone found a new Labour Party.
But the irony is that those calling to break the union-Labour link are putting themselves in the same camp as the Blairites and the right wing in the capitalist media on this question! It is Blair and Co., supported by the ruling class, who want the union-Labour link broken, precisely to transform the Labour Party into a capitalist party. They realise (clearly more than some on the left) that this question is decisive in determining the class character of the Labour Party. While the link remains, the trade unions can potentially determine the way the party will develop. Even now, the trade unions have 50% of the votes at Labour Party conference and have inflicted big defeats on the Blairites over pensions, privatisation, secondary action, etc. That is why the representatives of Capital are also campaigning in favour of the unions disaffiliating from Labour. As part of this, the Blairites are now proposing the trade union vote at Labour conference be reduced to 15%! You don’t need a degree in rocket science to figure this one out. A child of six can see the implications.
Clearly, with the Blairite control of the Labour Party, the prospect of “reclaiming the party” is not very appealing. That is understandable. But there is no alternative. There are no shortcuts in history. It would be a big mistake to write off big conflicts and splits inside the Labour Party. The outline of future conflicts inside the party can be seen today – even in the parliamentary party! We should recall that Blairism had a basis not only in the Labour Party, but also the trade unions. It wasn’t long ago that the likes of Sir Ken Jackson, Eric Hammond and Barry Ramsbottom, the arch-Blairites, ruled the roost in the trade unions, when “New Realism” completely dominated the scene. Don’t forget it was these right-wing trade union leaders who put Blair where he is today. But over the last five or six years, there has been a shift to the left in one trade union after another, which has threatened to upset the apple cart. It was this development that resulted in the recent defeats inflicted on the Blairites at Labour Party Conference.
In the past, there were those on the left who refused to believe – wrongly – that the trade unions could be won to the left. As a shortcut, some preferred to create their own unions, which simply delayed the shift to the left and cut off the best militants from the rank and file. This was the case with the EPIU, which split from the EETPU, and later dissolved into the TGWU. Few believed, except our tendency, that it was possible to transform (“reclaim”) the EETPU, but they were wrong, as events proved! And now they are repeating the same false argument in relation to the Labour Party.
The trade unions set up the Labour Party. It was originally the political expression of the trade unions in Parliament. Of course, nothing stays exactly the same. The twenty-year ebb in the class struggle in Britain has had its effect. The emptying out of the mass organisations led to a dramatic increase in pressures on the tops of the movement, who shifted far to the right. The same process took place after the defeat of the General Strike in 1926, and gave rise to the class collaboration of Mondism. For more than two decades following the Second World War, where capitalism was in the ascendancy, the right wing also dominated the Labour movement. In other words, there are objective reasons for this state of affairs.
It is true that Blair has gone much further than Gaitskell, but it is the same bourgeois tendency, of the same bourgeois ilk. They are agents of the ruling class within the workers’ movement. Their task is to prevent the Labour movement falling into the hands of the so-called “madmen”, i.e., those who want to change society. They have served their masters well!
Does this mean that things can never change? Of course not. The whole of history shows that this is not the case. Also the ruling class doesn’t think so. They are even alarmed about the prospect of Blair handing over to Gordon Brown for fear that he will give in to the mounting pressures from below, especially from the trade unions. They are not blind or stupid. They can see the dangers very clearly. That is why they are in favour of breaking the union-Labour links.
Of course, there are none so blind as those who refuse to see. Some on the left are oblivious to these developments, preferring instead to “tilt at windmills”. They continue to set their own sectarian interests above the interests of the working class. Every attempt to create a new Labour movement has failed. The Socialist Labour Party of Arthur Scargill was originally seen as the way forward. But this has collapsed into nothing. The Socialist Alliance was then heralded as the alternative, but has also disappeared. Now we have Respect. And after this something else.
The same is true internationally. In Australia, the Socialist Alliance was heralded as the model, and is now in crisis. On the basis of the industrial battles, the Australian Labour Party has made a dramatic recovery. In Spain, it was the United Left that was going to make the breakthrough. Again, it is in crisis as the Spanish Socialist Party swept to victory. In Italy Rifondazione Comunista has thrown the left internationally into disarray by its decision to enter a Centre-Left coalition under the bourgeois Prodi.
The British Labour Party is not immune to events. The great events which are looming will transform the situation and shake the Labour Party from top to bottom, as they have started to do in the unions. Quantitative changes will lead to qualitative changes. There have already been skirmishes within the Parliamentary Labour Party and rebellions on the floor of the Commons. For the first time, the Blair government was defeated over its anti-terrorism laws. This is of great significance and a foretaste of the huge battles that will impend. The more that Blair shows his weakness, the more the revolts will spread. Even the docile Cabinet will not be immune. Of course, this is just the beginning. But the process has begun.
This will prepare the ground, even if Brown gets the leadership, for a massive polarisation within the Labour movement. The cracks will turn into chasms. It will sound the death-knell of the Blairites, and begin the shift towards the left within the Labour Party. All those who decry this perspective, will be left with their mouths open. They were the very people who said the Labour Party could never change in the 1960s and 1970s. They are incapable of learning the lessons of history.
The mass organisations of the working class reflect the movement of the class itself. The working class does not move in a straight line. There can be long periods when it is dormant, as the 1950s witnessed. However, there can be periods of tremendous upheaval and transformation, as was witnessed in the 1970s.
The period into which we have entered is one of the most turbulent periods in history. Dramatic events are unfolding on a world scale. It is unthinkable that Britain will forever remain aloof from the general world disorder. How can the Labour Party not be affected by the general mood in society? In the next few years we can confidently predict that the mass workers’ organisations – both the unions and the Labour Party – will be shaken from top to bottom. Nothing will be left of the ramshackle edifice of Blairism, which is built on sand. It will be blown away by events. The working class will reclaim its organisations, and on the basis of a socialist programme, will take its place in the fight to overthrow capitalism.
January 16, 2005
See also:
- The last but one nail in Blair’s coffin by Phil Mitchinson (November 10, 2005)
- Britain: Blair must go but Brown is no better by Phil Mitchinson (October 4; 2005)
- British Labour Party Congress 2005 - The battle lines are drawn by Alan Woods (September 30, 2005)
- British Labour Party - Heckling is now a terrorist offence by Phil Mitchinson (September 29, 2005)
- The General Election of 2005: Results and Prospects by Phil Mitchinson (May 18, 2005)
- Labour wins third term – Only Labour can defeat Blair by Phil Mitchinson (May 6, 2005)