Campaign for a New Workers' Party | Home | News | The socialist 

Join the Socialist Party  |  Donate  |  Buy the pamphlet

 [Previous] [Next]

Roy Hattersley, who has managed to move from the right to the left of the Labour Party by simply standing still, went so far as to say:

"There is a legitimate argument in favour of separation [of the unions from New Labour]. Without the obligation to pussyfoot to protect politicians seeking re-election, the unions could pursue their members’ interests with a single-minded determination.

For the first time in a century, the case for disaffiliation is being canvassed. "

What Hattersley wants, whether unions are affiliated to the Labour Party or not, is essentially non-political trade unionism, which we do not support.

However, the case for disaffiliation is indisputable.

One threat of strike action has got more out of the New Labour government for trade unionists than eight years of funding New Labour.

For trade unions to continue spending their members’ money on Labour affiliation fees amounts to give money to their worst enemies.

It is a step forward that the RMT and the FBU (Fire Brigades’ Union) are no longer funding New Labour.

As Tony Maguire, of the Northern Ireland FBU, explained when he moved the historical proposal for the FBU to disaffiliate from New Labour, this is not about ‘non-political trade unionism’ but building a class struggle based alternative:

"Our choice is whether to stay in the Labour Party, docile and tame, or leave and fight like tigers for what these class traitors have denied us... The future starts here and the future starts now...You have the power - you can do it."

We need a new party that will actually fight ‘like tigers’ in the interests of trade unionists and the working class.

This is not specific to Britain.

In most countries of the world working people have been left without political representation and are facing the task of struggling to build new parties.

In a number of countries the process has advanced further than we have in Britain as yet.

The recent success of the new left party in Germany, winning 8.8% of the vote and 54 MPs, gives a glimpse of the potential for a new left force.

In the Socialist Party we are doing all we can to bring such a party into being here in England and Wales.

Obviously, we will put forward, within the democratic structures of any new party, a programme for the party which we believe will best assist both the party and the struggles of working-class people.

The programme of any new party can only be decided on the basis of democratic debate, leading to clear agreement amongst all the forces involved.

And we recognise that any party which brings together important sections of the working class to fight ‘like tigers’ 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, is something completely different to the existing order.

It is not apathy which stops people voting, but total alienation from the pro-big business policies which are on offer from all three mainstream parties.

It is only by breaking with the old, worn-out ideas of slavishly following the free market, bowing before the dictats of global capitalism, that it is possible to build a party which can actually attract the millions who have currently turned away from ‘politics’ because they see it offering nothing but continuing attacks on living standards and the same lies and corruption from every capitalist party.

On becoming Labour leader, Blair’s first act was the removal of Clause IV, Part IV from the Labour Party’s constitution.

Added to the Labour Party constitution in 1918, this clause was printed on the back of party membership cards for decades.

While Labour Party members undoubtedly had different interpretations of its meaning, and Labour governments never implemented it, Clause IV was nonetheless seen as the ‘socialist core’ of the Labour Party’s constitution.

It stated that the Labour Party would strive:

"To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service."

Blair argued that Clause IV was outmoded.

But what has he replaced it with? Today, in Britain, around 150 companies completely dominate the lives of 60 million people.

Worldwide 500 multinational companies control 70% of world production. The richest 356 people enjoy a combined wealth that is greater than the annual income of 40% of the human race.

But rather than aspiring to common ownership of the vast resources that are currently in the hands of a few billionaires – so that they can be used to meet the needs of humanity instead of for the profit of a few - Blair has prostrated himself before these billionaires.

This is the logical consequence of his acceptance of the capitalist profit system.

This is not a new idea, it has been the normal practise of the majority of politicians over hundreds of years.

The Labour Party itself was formed out of struggle against the big-business leaders of the Liberal Party.

Polly Toynbee is right to say that, "people flock to parties attracted by great ideas", provided that the party also actively struggles to realise them.

However, New Labour has long since thrown away its ‘great idea’ and Toynbee has no proposals for a replacement.

While the exact nature of the ‘Clause IV’ of a new party will be decided in the future, its ‘great idea’ will clearly be to fight with determination on the side of the working class, the poor and oppressed against the giant multinationals whose profits are the driving force of our society and whose interests the mainstream parties loyally defend.

Instead, a new party will fight for a society where the enormous wealth, science and technique created by capitalism will be harnessed to meet the needs of all.

The Socialist Party will argue that this means the new party should adopt a democratic socialist programme.

New Labour gives only one compelling reason why people should vote for it: that the Tories would be even worse.

Of course, no-one who remembers the 18 terrible years of Tory government wants them back, but nor can we accept that, in order to avoid a Tory government, we have no choice but to put up with New Labour’s ‘Tory policies with added smarm’ (also now on offer from the Cameron-led Tories!).

If we accept this we are accepting the nightmare of the endless continuation of right-wing governments raining down attacks on the working class.

Exactly the same argument was used against the foundation of the Labour Party over 100 years ago - at that stage, that Labour would ‘split’ the Liberal vote and let the Tories in.

Just as today, many union and workers’ leaders initially accepted this argument, while others wavered between supporting the Liberal Party and helping to found the Labour Party.

However, the Liberals were a party of big business which offered no way forward for working-class people and it was this that led to the Labour Party being founded and, eventually, to the marginalisation of the Liberal Party.

In particular, it was the viciously anti-trade union Taff Vale judgement which pushed many trade unions into recognising that they needed their own party.

A mass party, made up predominantly of working-class people and which fought in their interests, would have a huge effect in giving confidence to those struggling against the attacks of big-business governments.

At the moment, any worker who goes on strike, or campaigner who opposes privatisation or cuts, faces nothing but vitriol from the mainstream media and politicians.

Even just having a major political party that told the other side of the story, and that stood side-by-side with workers in struggle, would play a key role in raising the working class of England and Wales from its knees and giving it the confidence to fight back.

But a party would do more than that.

It would attempt to cut across the racist and divisive ideas peddled by the capitalist media.

It would be active and involved in every struggle of working people and would assist in linking those struggles together.

It would encourage international solidarity and publicise the struggles of the working class and oppressed worldwide which are almost completely ignored by the capitalist media.

For example, at the same time as the public-sector pensions campaign in Britain, workers in Belgium were taking part in general strikes in defence of their pension rights, but the only reference to this in the British mainstream media was that the Eurostar train service was disrupted!

Fundamentally, a new party would be a force for working-class emancipation.

It would link together the day-to-day struggles to defend and improve our living conditions with the long-term interests of the working class.

Continued...