Today’s conference is potentially an important step forward in the
struggle for a new mass party of the working class. This is the first
time that a national trade union has called a conference to discuss the
question of working-class political representation.
At the 2005 general election this government was elected with the
lowest percentage of the popular vote, 36%, of any governing party in
Britain’s history: the most unpopular party to form a government since
the 1832 Reform Act.
Working-class people are faced with a Hobson’s choice of three
different brands of pro-big-business parties; increasing numbers are
abstaining in protest.
The last general election was the first where more people abstained
than voted for the victorious party. The need for a new party, which
fights in the interests of the working class, is clear.
Can Labour be ‘reclaimed’?
Some attending today will argue we should concentrate our efforts on
reclaiming the Labour Party. We do not think such efforts can succeed.
Since 1979 the trade unions have given £300 million of their members’
money to the Labour Party – £100 million of it since 1997 – but it has
not gained a fivers worth of ‘influence’ with the government.
"I have taken from my party everything they thought they
|
New Labour has shown since it came to power that it is firmly on the
side of big business. It has left the vast majority of the anti-trade
union laws intact. Blair and his ministers have gone to war both in Iraq
and against working-class people – attacking working conditions, the
welfare system, free education, public services and are now bringing
private companies into the NHS and schools.
Some trade union leaders have argued that the defeats they were able
to inflict on the Labour leadership at last year’s party conference are
an indication of how Labour can be pushed back to the left.
In reality, however, the Labour Party conference no longer has
any power, and ministers made it completely clear that they would ignore
the decisions that it made. This bears no comparison to the situation
that existed in the past, where the working-class ranks of the Labour
Party could exert pressure on its rightwing tops.
When in 1969, for example, the Wilson government attempted to
introduce anti-trade union legislation (misnamed In Place of Strife) a
series of strikes combined with pressure inside the party via its
democratic structures put the government under such pressure that the
cabinet openly split and Wilson was forced to retreat.
In reality the 2005 Labour Party conference was a graphic
illustration of the changed class character and utter disintegration of
the party; one-third of constituencies did not bother to send delegates
while corporate sponsors were present in unprecedented numbers.
A majority of constituency delegates voted against all of the
attempts of the unions to push Labour to the left. Even when Walter
Wolfgang, a visitor to the conference, was manhandled out by security
guards, no delegate found the will or the courage to protest.
The sad reality of New Labour today was summed up by Michael Howard’s
final speech to parliament as Tory Party leader where he quoted Blair’s
boast that: "I have taken from my party everything they thought they
believed in. I have stripped them of their core beliefs. What keeps it
together is power."
Nor would the election of Gordon Brown as party leader mean, as he
has made abundantly clear, a "shift to the left". Brown’s opposition to
the Turner Report on pensions – not because it is demanding we all work
until we are 68 but because it promises to increase the state pension –
sums up the reality of his approach.
Equally, all the potential leaders being floated in the event that
New Labour attempts to ‘skip a generation’ are arch-Blairites.
We believe that, without a major influx of workers into the Labour
Party, which will not happen, any campaign for rank-and-file control
will be ineffective.
As the LRC discovered when it attempted to launch a recruitment drive
in the anti-war movement, workers and young people entering struggle
have no interest in joining the party they are fighting against.
On the contrary, older trade unionists, who had been Labour Party
members for decades, are leaving in disgust. Labour Party membership has
halved since 1997. The LRC itself has only 500 members.
Break the link
We argue that not another penny should be given to New Labour by the
trade unions.
In an attempt to head off the growing anger of trade unionists with
the government that they fund, some ministers and union officials are
raising the introduction of state funding of political parties combined
with the breaking of the union link.
These right-wing trade union leaders want ‘non-political’ trade
unionism, where in reality they would continue to support New Labour.
This offers absolutely no way forward, but nor does continue to fund
New Labour in the vain hope of influencing it – what is needed is a new
party that represents the interests of trade unionists and other
working-class people.
The Left Party in Germany, which won 54 MPs and 8.7% of the vote in
its first time out, gives a glimpse of the potential for such a new
formation.
Which way forward after today?
The leadership of the RMT have made it clear that today’s conference
is not going to found a new party. Nonetheless, we welcome the RMT’s
decision to organise today’s discussion conference and also the
statements of Bob Crow, general secretary of the RMT, that a new
workers’ party is needed.
However, more than statements and discussion are needed. We believe
that the next step should be for the calling of a second conference
involving all of those who want to discuss working towards the
foundation of a new workers’ party to take part.
This could include approaching trade unions at national level (such
as the RMT, FBU and the PCS) but also appealing to individual trade
unionists, socialists, anti-capitalist young people, and community,
anti-war and environmental activists.
Such a conference could discuss the concrete steps needed to move
towards a new party. We appeal to trade unionists to campaign for this
within their unions – at local and national level.
There are those that will argue that it is not possible to build a
new mass party and cite the false starts of the 1990s as evidence of
this.
The same arguments were put a century ago when workers moved to try
found what became the Labour Party.
We are not in favour of creating a Labour Party Mark II, which, while
it was founded at its base as a workers’ party, had a leadership with
more than a foot in the capitalist camp from the start.
Nonetheless, we can learn lessons from the foundation of the Labour
Party. The process was convoluted and took place over decades.
The efforts of individuals combined with objective developments to
bring a new mass party into being.
In particular, it was the viciously anti-trade union Taff Vale
judgement which pushed many trade unions into breaking with the Liberals
and recognising that they needed their own party – a process in which
the railway workers’ union played an important role.
What kind of party?
The programme of any new party, or pre-party formation, can only be
decided on the basis of democratic debate, leading to clear agreement
amongst all the forces involved.
In the Socialist Party we recognise that any party which brings
together important sections of the working class to fight against the
big-business onslaught on our conditions of life and work will be a huge
step forward, even if its programme is initially quite limited.
However, it is crucial that a new party, if it is to succeed, breaks
completely with the existing pro-big business, neo-liberal order. The
Socialist Party will argue that this means the new party should adopt a
democratic socialist programme.
Just as the programme of a new party will come out of discussion and
debate, we believe it would be wrong, at this very early stage, to
attempt to decide all the details of the structure or every aspect of a
new party.
However, if it is to be successful, it is crucial that a new
party learns the lessons of history – including the federal nature of
the early Labour Party which brought together many different
organisations and trends, preserving the rights of all to organise and
argue for their particular points of view.
Conversely, the history of attempts to launch new formations in the
last decade, such as the Socialist Labour Party (SLP), demonstrates that
an undemocratic, top-down approach will not work.
The young people who are becoming active in struggle in the 21st
century correctly have a horror of bureaucracy.
Their experience of the betrayals of New Labour and the right-wing
trade union leaders, combined with the effects of the collapse of the
Soviet Union – which capitalism worldwide falsely equated with genuine
socialism – mean that democracy is particularly vital to the new
generation.
It is crucial that a new party, and any pre-party formations, be open
and welcoming to all those who want to work together against the
neo-liberal onslaught on the working class.
This means that all groups and individuals, provided they are in
agreement with the basic aims of the party, should have the right to
democratically organise and argue for their point of view.
Respect
At the time of the launch of Respect we took part in discussion with
Respect’s executive on the possibility of us joining. However, while we
have recently written to the Respect leadership again to ask for
discussion on how we can work together, we have not joined Respect.
Our attitude to any new party, or pre-party formation, is determined
by whether we think it represents a step towards the working class
establishing its own mass party. For a number of reasons we remain far
from convinced that Respect will prove to be so.
While it has made an electoral breakthrough in the election of George
Galloway, as yet Respect remains a relatively small party.
It claims around 4,000 members and has limited social weight. For
example, none of the members of Respect’s national council are
advertised as having a local or national trade union position.
Numerically it is dominated by the Socialist Workers’ Party (SWP). It
is therefore incorrect for Respect to claim, as it has, that its
existence has solved the ‘crisis in working-class representation’.
This will only begin to be solved when a party is created that brings
together broad sections of the most combative layers of the working
class – trade unionists, but also unorganised workers, community and
anti-war activists, and radicalised young people.
It is also crucial that a new party appeals to all sections of the
working class. Respect has concentrated in the main on one section of
society, the Muslim community, which it is important to win, but not at
the expense of reaching out to other sections of the working class.
To successfully build a new formation it is essential to have a
structure and approach which is genuinely federal, open and democratic.
This has not been the case in Respect up until now.
On the contrary, at the Respect national conference and at local
level the SWP use their weight of numbers to control decision making.
This means, for example, that the entire membership of the national
council and the overwhelming majority of decisions on election campaigns
and candidates are effectively decided by the SWP.
Genuine democracy is also important in holding public representatives
to account. That this does not exist in Respect is demonstrated by
George Galloway’s mistaken decision to take part in Big Brother without
first discussing with his party. Unfortunately, it is also shown by the
SWP’s determination to make sure that the demand for ‘a workers’ MP on a
worker’s wage’ is not discussed in Respect, for fear of alienating
George Galloway.
Campaign for a New Workers’ Party
The Socialist Party has initiated the Campaign for a New Workers’
Party to bring together workers, trade unionists, socialists, young
people and community activists to work towards establishing such a party
in England and Wales.
The Campaign has launched a declaration which states:
new mass workers’ party in England and Wales.
a step towards the founding of a new party.
independent working-class representation, including the conference
called by the RMT.
We appeal to you to sign the declaration and to encourage others to
do so.
One of the first steps of the campaign is the calling of an initial
national conference to discuss the programme and structure of a new
party or pre-party formation with all those that support the
declaration. We are inviting trade union branches, community campaigns
and other organisations to send representatives to this conference
which will be held on Sunday 19 March 2006 at the University of London
Union, Malet Street, London NW1. Individuals are also welcome to take
part.
For more information go to
www.cnwp.org.uk email
[email protected], write to
CNWP, PO Box 858, London E11 1YG and/or pick up a leaflet at today’s
conference.
Sponsors include: Janice Godrich PCS President, Chris Baugh PCS
Assistant General Secretary, Marion Lloyd PCS NEC, Rob Williams PCS NEC,
Mark Baker PCS NEC, Jane Aitchison PCS DWP President, Sevi Yesidalli PCS
NEC, John McInally PCS NEC, Danny Williamson PCS NEC, Kevin Greenway PCS
NEC, Diane Shepherd UNISON NEC, Glenn Kelly UNISON NEC, Jean Thorpe
UNISON NEC, Raph Parkinson UNISON NEC, Roger Bannister UNISON NEC,
Andrew Price NATFHE NEC, Bernard Roome CWU NEC, Gary Jones CWU NEC,
Linda Taaffe NUT NEC, Robbie Segal USDAW NEC, Molly Cooper NUJ NEC, Jim
Barbour FBU NEC, Dave Nellist Coventry Socialist Party Councillor, Karen
McKay Coventry Socialist Party Councillor, Ian Page Lewisham Socialist
Party Councillor, Chris Flood Lewisham Socialist Party Councillor.
The Socialist Party are holding a fringe meeting straight after the
end of today’s conference, on the issue of how to campaign for a new
mass workers’ party.
The meeting will be held in the Drayton Suite, on the lower ground
floor of Friends Meeting House.
Speakers will include Dave Nellist, Socialist Party councillor in
Coventry, Roger Bannister UNISON national executive and leading Left
candidate for UNISON general secretary and Hannah Sell, Socialist Party
executive and author of Socialism in the 21st century.
All welcome
