Leaving Labour?
The Blair leadership used recent Labour Party "FOR YEARS, THE LEFT INSIDE THE LABOUR PARTY HAS conferences to "cleanse" the Party of the major generally accepted that whilst the Party might from time to aspects of its historical socialist and working-class time adopt Right-wing policies, it has always been possible to fight to reverse those policies. That perspective has been identity (see IV 271). Arthur Scargill, Leader of held by many on the Left who, whilst not individual Party the National Union of Miners, and a key figure members, belong to Party-affiliated organisations and support "Left" policies. This acceptance was based on the on the Labour left, has propsed a new "Socialist fact that the Party Constitution embodied in Clause IV a
Labour Party", in order to uphold the continuity commitment to common ownership of the means of of the best radical traditions of working-class production, distribution and exchange, a commitment not introduced (as is generally believed) by two middle-class
Fabians in 1918, but which (like proportional representation) sprang from the trade union movement and
This bold move by a prestigious trade-union and Socialist groupings that were in existence before the
Independent Labour Party (ILP), Labour Representation political leader provoked sharp debates across the Committee or the Labour Party were even founded.
British left, both inside and outside the Labour
The Labour Party was born out of the trade union
Party. Prominent figures on the Labour left, movement and various Socialist groups with the aim of including Tony Benn (MP), have dissociated creating a Parliamentary Party to give expression to a themselves from Scargills initiative. Among the Socialist political agenda in the House of Commons. At the time of its formation, the Labour Party had both a
Trotskyist forces, Militant Labour, which was for Constitution and policies which projected a Socialist many years a part of the broad left current within philosophy, policies and programme. Its attilates included the Communist Party, Co-operative Party, various Socialist the LP, before being submitted to a witch-hunt societies and trade unions whose members were and finally breaking with a long tradition of automatically regarded as being members of the Party. For candidates positively to Scargil's call. The Socialist Workers'
Outlook the publication of the British section of The newly-formed Labour Party the Fourth International. These comrades argue made clear its aim of abolishing
Capitalism and establishing a that a new left party established prior to the mass Socialist society an object which struggles against the coming Labour government many trade unions incorporated would only carry with it the much-reduced ranks into their own rule books. The
Party was also firmly committed to proportional representation — not because it believed in consensus politics but because it recognised that true
The coming issues of International Viewpoint proportional representation is a class issue. It is significant will devote more space to this very important
Arthur Scargill is President of Britain's National Union of Miners (NUM).
event on the British left, and the wide-ranging He can be contacted at the NUM office, 2 Huddersfield Road, Barnsley, S70 2LS, Britain. This document was originally entitled Discussion
Paper On the Consequences of The Labour Party Special Conference, April 29, 1995 and The Labour Party Annual Conference, October,
1995. Titles and sub-headings by International Viewpoint.
political struggle in Britain.
entry work within the Party, responded
Britain example,
Parliament and
Local
Authorities were selected at meetings where trade unions
Party (SWI), which portrays itselt as the were allowed to send substantial revolutionary party of British workers, denounced numbers of delegates: even if the initiative as just one more attempt to create a they were not in individual membership of the Party, they
"parliamentary" party.
were accepted as members as a result of belonging to affiliated
We also publish a comment from Socialist of the far left.
debate it is provoking.
Salah Jaber unions.
Arthur Scargill
International Viewpoint n° 272 23
* Britain that this Constitutional demand was ditched by (Prime Minister) Ramsay MacDonald and other Party leaders who not only supported the first-past the-post system but Capitalism itself. The aim of common ownership as set out in Clause IV was introduced in two stages: in 1918 and in 1929. Rather than hint at an unspecified objective, it was designed to clearly commit the Party to a strategy for achieving Socialism. The Party later became a so-called "broad church" because the "modernisers" of the time wanted to embrace sections which were not committed to a fundamental change in the nature of society. The term "broad church" was introduced to assist the Right-wing, not the Left. It was the modernisers who were responsible for expelling the Communist Party from affiliation and introducing the bans and proscriptions which were prevalent in the '30s and later during the Cold War period of the 50s. The Party's Right-wing has always sought to destroy the trade union bloc vote, and, tragically, we have seen many members on the Left enthusiastically supporting this aim in the mistaken belief that Constituency Labour Parties would be able to control the Party Conference and ensure that Labour became a vehicle for Socialist change. Instead, we have seen the current Party leadership systematically dismantle Labour's commitment to Socialism a process in which the "spin doctors" merely put a media gloss on the machinations of the leadership. The debacle over Clause IV exemplifies this point very clearly indeed. Some of us repeatedly warned prior to Labour's 1994 Annual Conference that the Party leadership would attempt what Gaitskell had tailed to do 30 years before, and try to ditch Clause IV. Nobody should have been surprised when Party leader Tony Blair, in his address to Annual Conference last year announced his intention to get rid of Labour's fundamental commitment to common ownership. The significance of the leadership's position and the Conference vote 48 hours later rejecting that position was not taken seriouslv enough by the Left, either in the Party or the trade union movement. Here was a Party leader blatantly acting contrary to the Constitution - an offence which has been used to expel numerous good Party members. Yet many leading Lett figures in the Parliamentary Labour Party and in the trade unions failed to see the implications of what was taking place. In certain ways, the response of that section of the Left which failed to act and/ or campaign in defence of Clause IV is the same response we saw at this year's Party Conterence from all those who are so desperate to remove the Tory government that they are prepared to adopt any measure und accept any proposal made by Blair and the leadership The significance of Constitutional changes including the ditching of Clause IV has not been fully appreciated by many Left comrades who should know better. They believe it is still possible to reverse the "setbacks" suffered as a result of Blair's destruction of Clause IV and abandonment of fundamental Socialist policies. IS THE LABOUR PARTY SOCIALIST? In addressing this question it is essential to examine the Party's policies together with the Constitutional changes which have been systematically introduced over the past four years, including one-member, one-vote, reduction of the trade union bloc vote, and now the abandonment of Clause IV and introduction of new Rules and a Constitution which embrace Capitalism and adopt the "Market Philosophy". Labour is now almost indistinguishable from the Democratic Party in the United States, Germany's Social Democrat Party or, nearer home, the Liberal Democrats. It is 24 December 1995 interesting to note how Labour has changed its policies on all the fundamental issues which have been determined by the Party Conference over many years - including privatisation, national minimum wage, unemployment, pensions, health care, education, Europe, nuclear disarmament, anti-trade union legislation and the Party itself. Where does Labour now stand on these issues? PRIVATISATION Labour has abandoned not only its commitment to common ownership but its policy on public ownership and privatisation. The Party says it will not re-nationalise privatised industries, but will merely use the "excess" profits of those industries and utilities to help pay for a programme of work and education. This means that Labour intends to leave our key industries including the utilities in private hands. A Party committed to Socialism and common ownership would insist that Labour will renationalise water, electricity, coal, gas, British Telecom and all the public industries and services which have been sold off over the past 16 years — including our railways. NATIONAL MINIMUM WAGE Whilst undertaking to introduce a statutory minimum wage, Labour has refused to state a figure; even more significant, the Party has accepted that any minimum wage could only be introduced in consultation with "social and the institute of Dire Cons atier words, a tatustry partners" minimum wage will only be at a level acceptable to our traditional class enemies. The pressure on this issue applied to trade union leaders at the Trade Union Congress (TUC) Conference in September was designed to accommodate this social "partnership" or "co-determination" policy. UNEMPLOYMENT Labour has always had a commitment to full employment — but the Party now says: "No-one pretends we can solve unemployment overnight" — a clear warning that unemployment will continue under a Labour Government But a Labour Government could solve unemployment — even within a Capitalist society - overnight, provided it introduced a four-day working week with no loss of pay, banned all non-essential overtime, and introduced voluntary retirement on full pay at age 55 — measures which are fundamental to the regeneration of Britain, but which are anathema to private enterprise and Capitalism. It is economic insanity to pay out £10,000 per year to keep a worker unemployed, whilst half that amount would eliminate unemployment straightaway. The Party is already departing from the essential principle f "universal pensions, and is looking at ways for people t put together income from public and private sources. In other words, workers are going to have to pay an additional "insurance policy" to guarantee a minimum standard of Pension — and even then its value would be questionable. HEALTH Labour's pledge that it will "establish regional centres of excellence" and retain the "beneficial freedoms" of fund holding is typical of how vague its commitment is to restoring and rebuilding the National Health Service (NHS). ritain spends less on health care than most other 'advanced" Western countries, and a Labour Party whic was serious about protecting our National Health Service would commit the resources necessary to enable it to provide health care on demand, providing for everyone trom the cradle to the grave
calling a Special Conference at which only the NEC can submit amendments to the Constitution. Constituency
Labour's pledges on nursery school places, infant school
Labour Partys (CLPs, the party's local branches), trade class sizes and the needs of all pupils, students and teachers are hollow without an accompanying time-scale; nor do unions and affiliated organisations will have no right to do so — just as on April 29 at the Special Conference. This they address the demise of opportunity and aspiration for means that the Party leadership can submit an amendment working class children over the past 16 years. Tragically, to any Clause in the Constitution in two-and-a-half years
Labour continues to support privileged private education time — i.e. in April, 1998 — and irrespective of whether that
Which is a vital prop to our class-ridden society. amendment is carried or lost, any further amendment to that particular Clause will be prevented for a further three years, right up to 2001. This strategy could be deployed
A Party once implacably opposed to the European literally ad infinitum to prevent, for example, restoring the
Common Market is now one of the most ardent supporters commitment to common ownership of this bastion of international Capitalism, outdoing the
Tories and Liberal Democrats in enthusiasm. Labour's A DILEMA FOR SOCIALISTS about-turn on this issue is of major economic and political
Today we have a sanitised Labour Party, which Blair has importance; a betrayal of all that the Party stood for. admitted should be called Social Democratic. Socialists
UNILATERAL NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT must decide what to do. Do we meekly accept "New
Labour"? Do we passively concede that the Party has
Possibly the most shameful about-turn, however, is that on abandoned Socialism and any commitment to common unlateral nuclear disarmament. After years of campaigning ownership? If so, why were we all opposed to the policies of in tavour of banning all nuclear weapons, Labour has now the "Gang of Four" [right wing labour leaders who left to become pro-nuclear — in a world torn by regionalised and form the now-defunct Social Democratic Party]? Because imperialist wars from the Middle East to the Balkans, from those are the policies which New Labour (now
South East Asia to Latin America. Labour should have been constitutionally indistinguishable from the Tories and seen to be campaigning for an end to all nuclear weapons Liberal Democrats) has adopted. Do we, and others who and a reduction of at least 50% in defence expenditure. The feel as we do, stay in a Party which has been and is being vast resources which go to fund death and destruction "politically cleansed"? Or: do we leave and start should be used instead to rebuild our industries, public to build a Socialist Labour Party that housing, health care and to end unemployment.
Labour is well aware that picketing, solidarity action and directly involved in politics.
Montage by Clifford Singer. Socialists in the Labour Party and those active in affiliated
Reprinted from Red Pepper organisations face the same dilemma as our forebears who
EDUCATION
ANTI-TRADE UNION LAWS
Britain * represents the principles, values, hopes and dreams which gave birth nearly a century ago to what has, sadly, now become New the right of unions to determine their own rule books without State interference are all human rights (United
Nations Charter). But Blair has declared that in government he will retain the vicious laws which have been used to boost unemployment and enforce low pay over the past 16 years.
In other words, Labour is happy to pursue the Tories' aim of rendering trade unions ineffective and compliant.
THE PARTY CONSTITUTION:
CLAUSE IV
In ditching Clause IV, Labour has erased its commitment to the aim of common ownership, without which social justice and economic
There are and there will be those
- including highly respecte comrades - who insist we should stay inside the Party and "fight"; but such an attitude fails or refuses to recognise that the Party's Constitution now effectively prevents this. Opposition will also come from democracy are impossible. Labour has since demonstrated its covenant with Capitalism by refusing to endorse a first-class Socialist, Liz Davies, as a Parliamentary candidate. It had no difficulty, however, in embracing into Party membership Alan Howarth, a Tory MP who voted for the policies and philosophy of Thatcher, including the butchery of ealth care, education, mining and other basic industries and services. LABOUR'S NEW RULES those who say that any
"rocking the boat"
can only benefit the Tories.
We have been through all this before.
The first
Labour candidate who stood at a by-election in Barnsley in
Labour's new Rules and Constitution can only be described as an unmitigated by miners who believed that by representing Labour he was disaster. They make it increasingly harming the Liberal Party's chances of election to difficult, if not impossible, for people Government. As late as 1910, there was still a large body of within the Labour Party to campaign opinion in the trade union and Labour movement which for Socialism. The new Rule Book believed that the movement should support the Liberal allows thẻ Party's National Party — and that it was not the role of trade unions to be Executive Committee (NEC) to amend the Rules and Constitution at any time by
1897 was heckled and stoned
International Viewpoint n° 272 25
not code to grunty uptied an entinue o A big mistake!
* Britain broke with the Liberals. If history was to repeat itself, exist, let alone try to be active, within such a Party? SOCIALISTS AND THE FUTURE I believe the case for a Socialist Labour Party (SLP) is now overwhelming — but if such a Party is to be born it must be on the basis of class understanding, class commitment and Socialist policies. Any SLP would require a simple Constitution and a structure designed to fight our class enemies. This structure would demand an end to internal wranglings and sectarian arguments. If an SLP is to be established, it must be done on the following basis: * convening a special "Discussion Conference" to which all those committed to founding such a Party should be invited with the aim of formulating a Constitution and structure for a Socialist Labour Party; * an Inaugural Conference to be held ideally on May 1, 1996 — May Day having great significance throughout the international Labour movement; * the new Party and its Constitution would have to ensure that its members and affiliated organisations control the Party through its national executive committee. Never again should we have a situation where the Parliamentary Party takes control of the apparatus, and the political tail wags the dog;
* If a Socialist Labour Party is established it should commit itself to fight every Parliamentary seat. Parliament is but one element of democracy, a body in which expression must be given to the political philosophy and issues advanced by our class. THE CHALLENGE FACING ALL OF US We do not have the luxury of time; sooner rather than later a Socialist Labour Party will be born. Today, radical opposition in Britain is symbolised not by the Labour and trade union movement but by the groupings such as those which defeated the Poll Tax, the anti-motorway and animal rights bodies, Greenpeace and other anti-nuclear campaigners, and those fighting against opencast mining These are now the voices of protest and direct action, reminding us that only through direct — including industrial - action and defiance of unjust laws can we achieve real advance, whilst a moribund Labour Party and trade union hierarchy pleads with citizens to accept and submit to those laws. The environmental and community activists are doing a good job, but, inevitably, their aims are "single purpose" with no clear political perspective. It is a tragedy that the Labour Party is not at the centre of coordinating and organising such campaigns. A Socialist Labour Party would be able to galvanise mass opposition to injustice, inequality and environmental destruction, and build the fight for a Socialist Britain. We therefore have to decide if we are prepared to carry on supporting a Labour Party which now embraces Capitalism and the "free market", or take a decisive step towards establishing a Party capable of not only resisting Capitalism's attacks but of fundamentally changing society in other words, establish a Socialist Labour Party * 26 December 1995
Arthur Scargil's proposal to set up a new "Socialist Labour Party", apparently between now and next May, is a serious mistake. Equally, the prognosis on which he bases his proposal - that the Labour Party is now virtually the same as the US Democratic Party or the British Liberal Democrats - is mistaken. The problem is compounded by the proposal that the new party should be electorally based, standing candidates against Labour (in every constituency, except where the official Labour candidate is from the left-wing Campaign Group). This at a time when the mood is massively for a Labour Government. Scargil's proposal is, essentially, for the reconstitution of an electoralist old Labour, with Clause 4 reinstated, and a few radical policies added.
This is not to say that the profound changes Scargill points to have not changed things in the Party dramatically. They clearly have. But they have not, as yet, fundamentally changed the class nature of the party, or precluded the emergence of a fight back at a later date.
Scargil's wrong analysis leads him not just to the conclusion that things are extremely difficult at the present time, which is true, but to the conclusion that the game is up in the Labour Party, and that socialists should leave forthwith and join Socialist Labour.
The discussion document is not clear on the nature of the new party proposed. Scargill first proposes a new, democratic constitution, but then says that this structure "would demand and end to intemal wrangling and sectarian arguments".
New parties are shaped by the political conditions in which they are forged. And you can hardly imagine worse conditions for the formation of a new party of the left than those we face today. Strike struggles are at a 100 year record low. The trade unions are bending over backwards to support Blair. A massive employers' offensive is under way. The left in the Labour Party and the unions is weaker than it has been for decades, and no serious fight back is in sight. The left did not win one single decision in the whole of the last Labour Party conference
In conditions like these, what could such a party represent, apart from the existing far left and hard left? It would not always be wrong to set up such a party. But if it is to represent something new, it ought to have some serious forces behind it, particularly from the trade union movement. And this would probably only come about in conditions of a much higher level of class struggle.
There will be a fight back against Blair, and his project to change the class nature of the party. But it is difficult to say when this fight back will come. Probably several years from now, well into a Labour-Blair administration. This fight back will likely start in the affiliated trade unions (where the damage of Blairism is serious, but less marked than in the constituency parties). From there, it will spread into the party itself. When that happens, socialists need to be there, and be a central part of the fight. Scargill's call to leave the party at this stage scuppers such a fight back strategy. The net result of Scargil's proposal would be to weaken the existing left even further, and weaken the strength of the fight back within the Labour Party which is likely to come later. His proposal is best forgotten, until the right conditions arise. Until then, it is a dangerous diversion *
Socialist
OUTLOOK