The problems of British capitalism place real limits on the room to manoeuvre for any capitalist government, but especially the current Tory government, which has lost virtually all authority, and is riven with splits.
Sunak and Hunt’s coming to power represented a certain limited stabilisation, at least compared to the Truss debacle.
Nonetheless, from day one Sunak has led an extremely weak government.
Throughout the second half of 2022 it was like a rabbit in headlights, unable to respond effectively to the rising tide of strikes.
Their seeming intransigence does not stem from a position of strength but from their complete inability to come up with, never mind agree, an effective response.
Undoubtedly, the government and the employers hoped that financial hardship would result in those strikes that started first – particularly the CWU and RMT – starting to crumble, allowing the imposition of management attacks.
However, the resounding RMT re-ballots – which revealed an increase in union membership, a turnout of 70%, and an average ‘yes’ vote of 91% for continued strike action – have shattered the Tories hopes on that score.
Nonetheless, that danger can exist in the future, and our demand for the whole trade union movement to build a massive strike solidarity fund, in order to prevent any group of workers being starved back to work, and to make it easier to escalate the action, remains very important.
At this stage, however, the determination of the strikes has forced the government to ‘blink first’ and abandon its unwillingness to even discuss pay with striking trade unions.
Large sections of the establishment have been urging them to do so, rightly fearing that their extremely brittle intransigence would result in the government shattering under the pressure of the strikes.
It is fear of the deep, radicalising effects of a strike wave forcing the Tories out of office that is motivating serious capitalist commentators – including editorials in the Financial Times and Evening Standard – as well as the head of Britain’s military, Admiral Tony Radakin, to attack the government’s approach.
Pressure has also been building in the Tory backbenches to make concessions to the nurses in particular.
However, so far the government’s change of stance amounts to a ‘big stick’, in the form of introducing new draconian ‘minimum service’ anti-union legislation to parliament, and only the faintest whiff of ‘carrot’, with some vague talk of an unconsolidated lump sum which, outrageously, they are initially trying to tie to ‘productivity increases’.
Most workers will treat this alleged concession with the contempt it deserves.
Let’s remember that before Christmas much was made about the SNP government in Scotland being willing to make concessions, in contrast to the Tories, and thereby avoiding strike actions by nurses there.
The average increase of 7.5%, however, was rejected by RCN members in Scotland by a massive 82%!
As we have demanded, the trade unions should meet the Tories’ combination of showing both weakness and contempt for workers by stepping up the struggle, and naming the day for every trade union with a live ballot to strike together, as a major step towards a 24-hour general strike.
Short-sighted as they are, the Tories are at least dimly aware they risk provoking such a response, hence their hesitation about introducing new anti-union laws up until now.
They have seen how their sister party in Ontario, Canada was forced to withdraw new anti-strike laws over the course of a weekend in the face of the trade union movement threatening general strike action.
The workers’ movement in Britain should take the same approach.
Such a day of co-ordinated strike action should of course demand inflation-proof pay rises for all, but also withdrawal of the new anti-trade union laws and repeal of the old, and emergency action to save our NHS.
Our demand for a 24 hour general strike is inherent in the situation, and serious steps towards it may take place even before our National Congress.
At the time of writing 1 February has been announced as a TUC day of action, with the possibility of coordinated strike action on that day.
However, this does not mean there are no obstacles to coordinating the strikes.
There is a general enthusiasm among workers to ‘all strike together’ but there are also pressures in the other direction.
Pat Cullen, general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing – which is not affiliated to the TUC – has opposed coordinated action, saying that “Our dispute is about the nursing profession and doing a deal for nursing is my only priority.”
There is a material basis for skilled sections of workers, like the nurses, wanting to fight apart from the cleaners and domestics in the same hospitals, never mind the broader working class.
The same is true of other sectors such as the train drivers, who are mainly organised in ASLEF, and the station staff who are overwhelmingly in the RMT.
Encrusted union officialdoms, even sometimes those on the left, lacking confidence in the working class, can have an interest in playing on those divisions in order to defend their own material interests.
Beyond these issues the right-wing leaders of the trade union movement share the capitalist class’s fears of the effect of generalised action.
At the start of 2023 the new TUC general secretary, Paul Nowak, tried to dampen down any talk of a general strike.
He said to the Financial Times, for example, that “such a mass walkout would fall foul of trade union legislation, and would make little sense to groups as disparate as teachers and physiotherapists who were worried about pay, but hardly inclined to militancy.”
There is no doubt that much of the TUC leadership prefer that protests such as on 1 February are no more than another polite lobby of parliament.
The right’s fear of coordinated action has the same root as our campaigning for it.
Fundamentally, they cannot conceive of the working class taking power and are desperate to avoid taking responsibility; they see the limits of the trade union movement’s role as putting pressure on the capitalist class and capitalist politicians.
For us coordinated action is not a question of principle.
Sometimes the ‘uncoordinated waves’ of strikes in the recent period can be effective in maximising disruption while minimising loss of pay.
However, ‘all striking together’ would have a much greater effect in increasing the cohesion and understanding of the working class as a whole about its potential power.
Millions having taken part in a 24-hour general strike which led the Tories to call a general election would undoubtedly make it harder for right-wing trade union leaders to hold back struggle under a future Labour government, and the right-wing leaders understand that.
Despite the obstacles, however, the mood for coordinated action is very strong and, under its pressure, meetings of representatives of all the TUC-affiliated unions with live ballots have taken place, and have begun to discuss the possibility of a day of coordinated strike action in February.
Under pressure from below even the most right-wing trade union leaders can be forced to take militant action which they had previously considered unthinkable.
Trade unions are basic organisations of the working class through which millions of workers can defend themselves against their employers in the workplace.
However, the constant attempts of the capitalist class to incorporate the union tops into the capitalist state mean that there is always an internal struggle within the trade union movement.
On one side stands the pressure of the mass membership, who the union tops ultimately depend on for their positions.
On the other, the huge pressure exerted by capitalism on all representatives of working people, especially in the unions.
The counter-pressure of the most militant trade union activists being organised in democratic trade union broad lefts is therefore vital.
