Paving the Way for a Blair Government
* Britain This years Labour Party and Trades
Union Congress conferences were important in setting out Labour's programme for government and seeing the state of the opposition within the workers' movement. Neil Murray CURRENTLY THE OPINION POLLS PUT LABOUR 18 points above the Tories (49% Labour to the Conservatives 31%, with the Liberal Democrats on 16%). With the Tories beset by allegations of corruption and deeply divided over Europe, it is difficult to see them being able to turn this situation around by the time of the general election, which has to take place by May 1997 at the latest.
Since his election as Labour leader Tony Blair has built on the work done by previous leaders Neil Kinnock and John Smith in taking Labour's policy to the right and making it acceptable to the ruling class as a safe alternative to the Conservatives. In the process he and his co-thinkers have been prepared to challenge some of the basic tenets of the Labour Party and to jettison pledges made by himself and his predecessors about the limits of this assault.
Kinnock took on the task of gradually reversing the gains made by the Left in the trade unions and constituency parties in the late 1970s and early 1980s in policy and Party democracy. Blair has gone further in attempting to ensure that similar policy gains could never happen again.
For Blair the failure of the last (1974-79) Labour government was not that it bowed to the demands of British capitalism and the International Monetary Fund in bringing in pay restrictions and cuts in social spending -which resulted in mass strikes against these policies - but that such revolt found expression within the Labour Party. His project' is to ensure that a future Labour government could carry out the requirements of capitalism unhindered by the wishes of the rank and file of the workers' movement. He knows that a Labour government carrying out its monetarist policies will meet resistance from the working class, particularly in the public sector, and wants to forestall this by legally shackling the unions and limiting their ability to influence Labour's policies.
Since the demise of the Liberal Party and the growth of Labour in the early 20th century, the British bourgeoisie has recognised the Labour Party as a possible alternative government when the Conservatives are unpopular. They have always preferred the Conservatives, but recognise that Labour is also committed to the maintenance of capitalism and often in a better position to 22 International Viewpoint discipline the working class in the interest of capital. But they have always been wary because of the input of the working class into Labour's policy-making through the involvement of the unions at every level of decision- making. Blair hopes to radically reduce or eliminate this altogether. Blair's Project
Blair's assault has been on three levels -policy, ideology and party structures. Rather than gradually trimming policy, he has virtually rewritten it, in line with the perceived requirements of capitalism. This has been accompanied by an attack on some of the basic views of the Party, such as Clause IV of its constitution, which supposedly committed it to the socialist transformation of society. Blair has attempted to reduce the level of involvement of the unions in policy making and to turn individual members into a passive supporters by use of mechanisms like the referendum on policy, and the severe reduction of the role of annual conferences.
Labour policy now includes a commitment to European Monetary Union "if the conditions are right" (and there is no indication from Blair that the current Maastricht conditions are unacceptable). Blair refuses to contemplate the restoration of any serious level of progressive taxation, even on the 1% of the population who earn over £100,000 a year. He is committed to keeping the anti-union laws brought in by the Tories which severely restrict the ability of workers to strike within the law. No attempt will be made to tackle unemployment, currently at least four million. Labour will continue the Tory dismantling the benefits and pensions system. There is no commitment to do more than tinker at the edges to repair the damage done by the Tories to the National Health
TEW LABOUR
A. KILAUZ Service and education. Labour attempts to be more populist than the Tories in tackling crime (not the causes of crime) and Blair promises that not only will Britain keep nuclear weapons, but he would be prepared to press the button.
Ideology has never been Labour's strong point. But there has always been a vague, verbal commitment to socialism and an acceptance that capitalist society is divided into two main classes. Thus Labour's Clause IV supposedly committed it to the transformation of society to bring the means of production, distribution and exchange into common ownership. No Labour leadership has ever had any intention of carrying this out, but nevertheless it was seen as the raison d'etre of the Party. Previous attempts by Labour leaders to erase it had to be abandoned in the face of opposition. Blair succeeded in getting it replaced by a vapid formula, which, while still claiming Labour to be a socialist party, also committed it to acceptance of the market.
Blair has attempted to prepare the Party for the severing of the link with the unions, championing the view that there is no longer any conflict between workers and bosses, and that the job of a Labour government is to represent all the British people "with fairness not favours"
After Kinnock succeeded in the 1980s in "cleansing" the Party of much of the hard Left through expulsions, leaders have tried to ensure that a tamed membership would never again have the channels for rebelling against the policies of a Labour government. They have replaced many areas of collective, delegate decision- making by "one member one vote" postal ballots, reduced the proportion of votes cast by the unions at annual conference from 90% to 50%, and
introduced an unaccountable "national policy forum" in the hope of displacing conference as a place where policy is discussed and decided. Blair has taken this a stage further in extending one member one vote ballots (which excludes the many trade union members who are not individual members but pay a kind of collective membership, the "political levy" through their trade unions) into the area of policy-making, using it to gain endorsement for his new Clause IV and currently seeking endorsement of a manifesto which conference was not allowed to discuss.
In carrying through these changes Labour leaders have built on the "achievements" of the Tories. In the 1980s the Tory government took on the working class sector by sector. With the assistance of a trade union bureaucracy unwilling and unable to defend jobs and conditions, they scored many significant victories, weakening union organisation in the workplace. The Tories gradually extended their advantage to the privatisation of many industries and the establishment of trade union law which makes it very difficult to call legal industrial action and impossible for workers to take lawful solidarity action with those employed by a different company.
Alongside this weakening of union organisation there was a strengthening of the view that industrial action cannot succeed. Despite a recent wave of important strikes, the level of industrial action has still not recovered from the lowest figures for 100 years. This mood has been exploited by the Labour and Trade Union bureaucrats (who were partly responsible for the defeats in the first place to encourage the view that the only alternative was to get Labour elected and that a dilution of Labour's policy was essential in order to make this possible.
Blair, however, has gone much further in expressing admiration for Thatcher and her achievements, declaring openly that he has no intention of reversing her legacy. Thus the commitment to keeping the anti-union laws, and even floating the idea of extending them as far as the public sector is concerned. Union Leaders Assist Blair
The leaderships of most unions, particularly the largest ones, have been more than willing to smooth Blair's path in pushing through his changes. Although some have occasionally baulked at some of the things required of them, this has been rare.
Thus at this years TUC, the leadership (General Council) did its utmost to ensure that no policies were passed which might embarrass the leadership of the Labour Party. Repeal of all the anti-union laws was clearly defeated. Knowing they would be defeated on the adoption of a figure of £4.26 an hour for the national minimum wage (based on a formula of half male median earnings), they got round the issue by also passing support for Labour's proposed "Low Pay commission" and then posing the amount as merely a bargaining ploy.
However, Blair was determined to use the week of TUC conference to demonstrate to the ruling class his "get tough" approach to the unions. Education spokesperson David Blunkett used the TUC conference to announce plans for the introduction of compulsory arbitration of public sector disputes and compulsory ballots when employers make "significant new offers". Byers, Labour's employment spokesperson then told journalists that Labour would scrap the link between the unions and the Party
This made no difference to the decisions of congress, but it had usually-moderate union leaders lining up to make public statements in defence of the link and against further encroachment on the right to strike. John Edmonds, moderate general Secretary of the GMB union. called for Byers to be sacked. John Monks, general secretary of the TUC, made a scathing attack on Blair at a
Some attempt was made by Blair to limit the damage in his relationship with the union leaders. While he may want to eventually eject them from the Party he needs their support in the meantime. So he argued, ambiguously, that the relationship between the unions and party would "evolve and develop" while claiming that Byers had not actually said what journalists reported (a claim no-one believes). Blunkett claimed he had been misunderstood.
At Labour Party conference three weeks later the trade union bureaucrats were on the spot. Given Blair's increasingly explicit attacks on the unions and the Party-union link, they could either show they were willing to stand up to him and vote for the policies required by their members (and often endorsed by their conferences), or they could turn a blind eye and continue to provide Blair
In the end most chose the latter path. Unwilling to turn their public statements into conference policy, they refused to debate emergency motions in defence of the unionParty link. On many policy issues they voted with the top table at Labour Party conference, giving Blair and his manifesto the endorsement they needed. There were several issues at the conference, such as economic policy, on which the votes of one or two large unions could have reversed the outcome. Indeed, Rodney Bickerstaffe, general secretary of the big public sector union UNISON, was thanked for his services in ensuring the defeat of a resolution calling on the Party to restore the link between pensions and earnings scrapped by the Tory government. The large
Britain * Transport and General Workers Union (TGWU). with a supposed 2:1 "left" majority on its executive, only voted against the top table once all week, despite the fact that its general secretary, Bill Morris, is declaring not only that he will fight to defend the Partyunion link but that he is prepared to die in the process.
The whole charade culminated in the endorsement by the unions of Labour's draft manifesto "New Labour, New Life for Britain" at the conference, a document which encapsulates all the rotten pro-capitalist policies outlined above. No discussion was allowed, it was voted through by conference 18-1, indicating that, at most, only the smallest unions voted against. The Opposition
The conference was portrayed in the media as a triumph for Blair's programme. The reality is not so rosy. He only succeeded in securing this smooth ride with an exceptional amount of manipulation of delegates by Party officials with a large amount of help from the union bureaucrats.
Within the Party and unions the opposition to Blair's programme is disparate European Monetary Union, Maastricht, and especially the social chapter are supported by virtually every union. Opposition is limited to a fairly marginalised section of Labour MPs and activists. Although the recent conference of UNISON voted overwhelmingly to reject moves to a single currency, not one of its
A. ARANTE national officers is prepared to publicly argue for this policy. While many unions have conference policy commitments which go beyond Labour's programme around the anti-union laws, benefits, low pay and social spending, very few of their leaderships are prepared to countenance either leading a fight over these issues against the Tories now or challenging Blair's policies in the Labour Party.
The Constituency Labour Parties, made up of individual members and local trade union delegates, have moved significantly to the right over the years, not mounting any serious opposition to the policy changes. Nevertheless, the left still manages to take two of the seven places on Labour's National Executive from this section of the Party, and at the conference a majority of constituency delegates voted against the leadership on nearly all the crucial issues. This is why Blair seeks to go further in removing the ghts of
* Britain constituency parties to determine policy by means of postal ballots, bypassing collective decision-making and leaving Party members subject only to influence by the Party leadership and the supportive media.
Much is made of the large influx of new members over the last few years. They are often portrayed as unthinking Blair supporters. The reality is more complicated.
Many are trade unionists joining on the newly reduced rate, and nearly all join because they wish to see an end to the destruction the Tories have brought to the welfare state. No doubt they are by and large politically naive and see Blair as leading Labour to victory, but none of this means that they cannot be convinced of the inadequacies of his programme when its realities become apparent. Battles to Come
Blair's intention to scrap the Party-union link shows his wish to transform the Labour Party into either a social democratic party on the continental European model or into a straightforward bourgeois party on the lines of the U.S. Democratic Party. However, wanting such an outcome is a lot easier than achieving. While socialists will defend the link as an essential requirement for the working class to have an independent voice, the Trade Union leaders will also defend it • for their own reasons. The last thing they wish to be deprived of is a say in the policy of a Labour government, not only because it would deny them a place in the corridors of power, but also because it would deprive them of a smokescreen behind which to hide the fact that they are unwilling to defend their
Speculation is rife that if Blair wins the election he will attempt to get state funding for political parties in order to remove the need for the unions to fund the Labour Party, probably one of the few useful purposes he sees then as currently having. Despite its wooing of big business and a few large donations from the rich, Labour still gets half its funding from the unions.
The debate around the link, and Clause IV has sown confusion among many socialists as to the nature of the Labour Party and the changes it has undergone. Some, including Arthur Scargill, President of the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) argue that Labour used to be a socialist party, but with the scrapping of Clause IV it ceased to be one. This was his justification for forming the Socialist Labour Party (SLP).
Of course, what defines the Labour Party is not its ideology - this has always been politically "bourgeois", whatever certain clauses in its constitution say. The Labour . Party came about when the trade unions became convinced that the Liberal Party (which they had supported until that time) could not represent the interests of the working class and broke with it to form the LRC/LP. The break was organisational rather 24 International Viewpoint than ideological, but nevertheless was a basic assertion of class independence. Blair has gone so far as to recently state that the split with the Liberals was a "mistake", a clear
The Labour Party has never been a socialist party in any meaningful sense of the word. Unlike much of European social democracy it did not degenerate from a revolutionary party. Unlike the majority of the second international it could not be said to have "gone over" to social imperialism in the First World War - that would imply it had been on the right side on such issues in the first place. The Labour Party represented an organisational break from Liberalism but not a political one, exhibiting the limitations of trade union consciousness, or more correctly, that of the trade union bureaucracy. From its inception Labour has been a social democratic party or, in Lenin's words, a "bourgeois workers party".
To attempt to draw the line at Clause IV, or the policies which Blair is currently promoting, is to claim that Blair's policies are qualitatively different to those which the Labour Party has had throughout most of its existence. The Labour Party has always, in practice, been a party committed to the maintenance of the bourgeois order, to disciplining the working class while occasionally throwing it some crumbs of reforms. There never was a "golden age". If the Labour Party were to be defined by its policies alone it would have always been a straightforwardly bourgeois party.
To say that the Labour Party has not fundamentally changed is not to deny that Blair is attempting to do so. Success in breaking the union link would alter the character of the Party qualitatively, and Blair is promoting an ideology which goes far beyond traditional Labourism in its explicit support for the market and the denial of class conflict. Those who argue the Labour Party fundamentally changed with the dropping of Clause IV declare a battle lost which is still going on. Excluding the unions from the Labour Party would create maior shock waves throughout British politics and the workers movement.
Despite the reluctance of the trade union bureaucracy to challenge Blair, the battle over the union link will happen. Many union leaders are making statements in defence of the link now in the hope of scaring off those who want to scrap it. Even the Engineering and Electrical Union (AEEU), for long the
A. FRAU bastion of the hard right in the union movement, has come out against any further dilution of the link. But those who want to transform the Labour Party will not be diverted so easily. A major fight is brewing over this issue in the next period, and it cannot be assumed, as the SLP would have us believe, that the outcome is a foregone
The other factor which currents like the SLP ignore in the British political situation is the mood among the working class in the run up to the election. Workers will vote in their millions for Labour, some despite being aware of what Blair's programme means, others with illusions as to what he will do in government. Those socialists who see it as the primary task to stand against Labour in the election will not only be marginalised electorally, but also in their ability to relate to that mood of the class. Mass disillusion with Labour will come after the election when workers begin to realise what Blair's politics mean in practice, not before
Within the unions a central task for the Left is to hold the leaders to account for the support they are giving to Blair and to promote a fightback against the attacks still going on under the Tories and against the austerity programme which will be continued by Blair. One of the most important developments in this respect is the decision of left formations ("Broad Lefts") in about twelve unions to work together as a federation.
The way in which the bureaucrats can be pressured to fight is shown by developments around the postal workers' strike. Alan Johnson, joint General Secretary of the Communication Workers Union (CWU), has opposed this strike over the introduction of "teamworking" from the start, being defeated by his executive and the pressure of the rank and file. Johnson is Blair's favourite trade union leader, the first union general Secretary to sit on the Labour Party's National Executive in a long time. Yet after Blair postal workers should accept arbitration on their dispute, Johnson made a speech criticising him at TUC and even moved an emergency resolution at Labour Party conference critical of outside interference" in the dispute. * Neil Murray is a leading supporter of Socialist Outlook <outlook @ gn.apc.org>, the newspaper of British supporters of the Fourth International