The issue of a political voice for the working class – a mass workers’ party – remains one of the key tasks for the working class in the coming years. As we have stated previously the objective possibilities for the first steps towards building a new party are present. The underlying anger and alienation from the big-business parties are extremely deep-seated in Britain and a new broad-based workers’ party, if it was seen as credible, could quickly gain support. If there had been a ‘subjective factor’, such as a nationally known political figure or trade union leader publicly campaigning for a new party, the process of bringing it into existence would be underway. The importance of such a figure is shown by the role Lafontaine has played in the development of the WASG in Germany and, to a lesser extent, the role of Jef Sleeckx in the new formation in Belgium. Unfortunately, at this stage, there is no figure with sufficient national profile prepared to actively campaign for a new workers’ party in England and Wales. Nonetheless, we have been able to use our own social weight very effectively, via the Campaign for a New Workers’ Party (CNWP), to raise the need for a new workers’ party.
However, at this stage, while we have had an enthusiastic response from a layer of workers, there has not been the crystallisation of a significant section of workers beyond our own ranks who are prepared to go beyond supporting our campaign for a new party in a relatively passive way, and to actively campaign to build one. Fundamentally, this is an objective question. The differences between Germany and England and Wales do not only relate to the role of Lafontaine, but also the acuteness of the capitalist crisis in Germany. While it is true that the situation in Britain is objectively ‘long overripe’ for the formation of a new mass workers’ party, it could still be a period of time before even a significant pre-formation comes into existence. Such a delay would undoubtedly complicate many aspects of our work. On the other hand, it is possible, on the basis of an increase in struggle, that a new party could be formed relatively quickly.
It is crucial that we continue to develop the CNWP. We have already been able to use it to raise the idea of a new party of the working class with significant sections of workers. In the early part of this year we should be raising the banner of the CNWP in the NHS campaigns. One of our aims from the CNWP conference in March should be the coordination of socialists and anti-cuts, anti-privatisation candidates in the May elections. However, it will be as struggle increases that the CNWP will really come into its own. It is still not possible to predetermine whether the CNWP will be the kernel of a new party or whether it will remain a campaign which helps to bring a new party into being. Nor is it possible to predetermine the programme of a new party. However, our recent experience among the most thinking sections of young people can give us a glimpse of how consciousness will develop in the working class on the basis of struggle. Socialist ideas are being adopted by a growing layer of young people (although still a small minority). This is an important step forward. However, they do not all immediately draw revolutionary conclusions. Many have hopes for gradual change (sometimes giving Venezuela as an example). The best of this layer will be convinced of genuine Marxist ideas, partly by our patient explanation combined with their experience of events. A new formation representing a step towards a new mass party, even if its initial programme is very limited, will give an opportunity for a layer of workers to discuss and debate these ideas, and give us the opportunity for patient explanation of Marxism.
It is already clear that without the CNWP we would not have been able to intervene as effectively in discussions on political representation. This includes our successful interventions in the two RMT conferences and our intervention in the Fighting Trade Unions conference organised by Respect. As we stated at our last conference, while Respect has had some limited electoral successes, it has done this by concentrating, in the main, on one section of society, the Muslim community. It is important to win Muslim workers, but not at the expense of reaching out to other sections of the working class. Respect has not developed a sizeable active membership beyond the ranks of the SWP and the few others who founded it. On the contrary, the false political basis on which Respect was founded, the SWP’s stranglehold on decision making within Respect, and the lack of accountability of its leadership, have alienated a layer of those who initially joined Respect, including some SWP members. The Fighting Trade Unions conference was effectively a Respect rally which did not allow any serious debate on political representation. Both Dave Nellist, who spoke on behalf of the CNWP, and John McDonnell, were invited to speak in other sessions, rather than the one on political representation, in order to make sure that Respect was the only alternative offered. The real approach of the SWP was summed up by its refusal to back our amendment arguing for trade union disaffiliation from the Labour Party as a step towards building a new party. The SWP argues that the Labour Party has not changed fundamentally and see Respect as orientating towards its members, in reality towards the remnants of the Labour left. In its international perspectives document it argues: “This means, moreover, that these new formations cannot succumb to the temptation to turn their backs on social democracy… Hence Respect, in initiating the Fighting Unions Conference on 11 November, has made a special effort to draw in and work with Labour Party supporters.” It is probable, in the future, that the best of the Labour left will find the courage to join a new formation. However, this will take place only when they are pushed into it by the most thinking elements of the working class – most of whom have long since broken from Labour.
Illusions in Labour?
Nonetheless, we have to be prepared for a section of the working class having illusions – or, to be more accurate, ‘hoping against hope’ – that Brown will reveal his ‘socialist’ credentials once in power. The depth of these illusions will depend on the timing of events. However, it is certain that they will be far weaker than those that existed when New Labour was first elected, and it is possible they will be very shallow and limited indeed. Brown has made it absolutely clear that his prime-ministership will not be “a shift to the left”. He has talked repeatedly about how he will “intensify” the privatisation of the health service, the need to break up national pay bargaining and impose wage restraint in the public sector, and his full support for the replacement of Trident. He is doing his utmost to shatter any illusions that might exist in him before he is elected. As a result, many trade union activists, who have had the opportunity to see Brown at closer quarters than the working class as a whole, are already deeply disillusioned with him. Nonetheless, even some of this layer, who are currently scathing about Brown, can temporarily allow hope to triumph over experience when he comes to power, especially given the lack of an alternative. Blair also made a conscious effort to dispel illusions and to promise nothing before New Labour was elected in 1997. However, this did not prevent a honeymoon period. While it is true that, after nine years of New Labour, there will not be illusions of that depth, we have to be prepared for a faint echo of the post-1997 honeymoon period, and recognise that, once these temporary illusions are shattered, it is likely to sound the death knell for New Labour among a whole layer of older trade union activists.
Trade union leaders cover for Brown
Unfortunately, the majority of the trade union leaders are going to do all they can to bolster the illusion that Brown is different. The leaders of the ‘four big unions’ (TGWU, Amicus, Unison and GMB) had made a private agreement that they would not openly back any candidate at this stage, realising that they would alienate their members by openly backing Brown. Simpson (Amicus), however, has already broken this by giving full support to Brown, and Prentis (Unison) has come extremely close to it with his regular positive comments about Brown. For example, he said of Brown in the wake of the Labour Party conference, “there was enough in [it] to give us hope that he will listen about the direction of reform”. This was after a conference in which Brown made it absolutely clear that there were no fundamental ideological differences between himself and Blair, and had intervened to try and force through support for the privatisation of Unison members’ jobs in NHS Logistics. In such a situation, to act as a cover for Brown by making favourable comments about him amounts to a dereliction of duty.
That is why it has been correct for us to argue that, if the union leaders were serious about fighting to reclaim the Labour Party, they would back John McDonnell MP and argue for union-sponsored MPs to nominate him. McDonnell’s programme on the major issues – anti-cuts, anti-privatisation, anti-war, and for trade union rights – comes closest to matching the demands of trade union members. However, the major union leaders will not back McDonnell and it is unlikely he will get enough nominations to stand. In fact, it is probable that Brown will have a ‘coronation’ without any opposition candidate. Of course, it is still possible, although not most likely, that John Reid or another ultra-Blairite will stand against Brown.
The hope that Labour can be ‘reclaimed’ may still flare up among sections of the working class in the course of the leadership election, particularly if McDonnell does get on the ballot paper. However, experience of Brown’s premiership will sound the death knell to these hopes within a relatively short period of time. In these circumstances it will become much more difficult for the trade unions leaders to continue to argue that they should fund the Labour Party.
As we have repeatedly argued, the Labour Party today is little more than an empty shell. McDonnell’s supporters have taken succour from getting Walter Wolfgang (the octogenarian who was physically evicted from the 2005 Labour Party conference) on to the NEC along with three other ‘centre-left’ candidates. However, the most important story told by the NEC elections is the collapse in the number of Labour Party activists. In 1997, the top candidate in the constituency section received 118,726 votes. Last year, just 19,491.
John McDonnell effectively recognises that New Labour is empty of rank-and-file members when he emphasises the need to get activists to join the Labour Party in order to support him. However, as Bob Crow, general secretary of the RMT, correctly pointed out, most RMT members, seeing the anti-trade union laws and privatisation of public services, could not be convinced to join the Labour Party. This is not just true of RMT members. The main trend is not for people to join the Labour Party but to leave it. McDonnell himself estimates that real Labour Party membership is as low as 100,000, with only 10-20,000 of those active. Most of those are part of the New Labour bureaucratic machine rather than genuine activists. These factors make the campaign to ‘reclaim Labour’ utopian.
Labour Party funding
The Labour Party today is more reliant on trade union funding than at any time since 1997. In the last quarter of 2006, 90% of funding came from the unions which, in addition to their regular donations, gave a £500,000 bail-out to the Labour Party. Big-business donations to the Labour Party have dried up, not because of any change in the character of New Labour, but as a result both of the ‘cash for peerages scandal’ and the perception of sections of big business that New Labour has been ‘used up’ over the last nine years, and that a Tory government will potentially be more able to drive through neo-liberal policies in the coming years. However, the Tories are also up to their eyes in dodgy scams and have financial difficulties, at root reflecting the unpopularity of capitalist politicians among all sections of society.
As a result, both parties are desperately trying to cobble together a deal that would secure their future funding. One possibility, raised by John Cruddas MP, is a move to a form of state funding where every voter could choose which party received £3 (per voter) of state funding. The problem for the ruling class is that this would give some advantages to new and smaller parties, including to a new workers’ party. However, weighed against this, ‘normal’ state funding would be extremely unpopular with the voters.
Included in the horse-trading on the funding of political parties are proposals to cap donations. It has been mooted that New Labour would accept an ‘individualisation’ of trade union donations in order to get round such a cap. It is not clear how this would work but, as it is likely to require some consultation with union members, it could pose problems for New Labour and the right-wing trade union bureaucracies.
Some on the left will claim that the trade unions’ current dominance of Labour Party funding shows the potential to reclaim Labour. This is not the case. The class character of the Labour Party has changed fundamentally, and the unions’ money is giving them virtually no influence. There is another prospect raised by the funding crisis in the Labour Party. When a new workers’ party does come into existence, the existence of an alternative pole of attraction will give trade unionists the confidence to force through an end to the funding of New Labour. This would be very unlikely to happen in one fell swoop. It is more probable that in the bigger trade unions, with a more entrenched bureaucracy, regions or branches would fight to support a new party while the link remained at the top. Nonetheless, one consequence of the link being broken could be the virtual collapse of the social basis of the Labour Party in a similar fashion to the catastrophic collapse of the Liberals in the aftermath of their 1906 general election victory; from which they have never recovered. This would not be in the interests of the ruling class, who always like to have a ‘second eleven’ on the substitutes’ bench, but would ultimately be a reflection of the extremely fragile social basis of all capitalist parties today – which carry out almost identical policies – which are opposed by the vast majority of the population.
Lesser evil
However, in the immediate aftermath of the election of Brown, the trade union leaders will use the only weapon left in their arsenal, the argument of the ‘lesser evil’. The possibility that the Tories could win the next general election will be used as a stick with which to whip out the Labour vote. This can have an effect, particularly among an older generation of workers for whom the Tories still bear the mark of Cain for the crimes they committed during their 18 years in power. The hatred of the Tories among broad sections of workers is shown by the fact that in the major cities of the North they have failed to make any breakthroughs. In Manchester they do not have a single councillor! However, while fear of the Tories will get a layer out to vote Labour, possibly even a significant layer of those who have sworn they would never vote Labour again, they will do so without an iota of enthusiasm. Nor can the doctrine of the ‘lesser evil’ work indefinitely, particularly when an alternative party comes into being, as the last election in the Netherlands demonstrated. The vote of the Socialist Party which, despite its limitations, represents a left alternative to both the Labour Party and the ruling coalition, increased from 6% to 16%. Meanwhile, the vote of the Labour Party fell by 5%. Even without the existence of a new workers’ party there will be large sections of the working class, particularly younger people, who can see no difference between the major capitalist parties.
If the Tories do win the next election it will be on the basis of a low turnout. However, there is a section of middle-class voters and even a layer of workers, particularly in the South and the Midlands, who have bought into Cameron’s attempt to rebrand the Tory party as a ‘nice’ party. In reality, Cameron’s Tories remain brutally neo-liberal, despite his attempts to dress up their policies in a slick ‘Blairite’ gloss. Unfortunately for him, ‘Blairism’ is hardly popular with voters! In the sick merry-go-round of capitalist politics each generation of party leaders models themselves on what has gone before. Just as Blair praised and imitated Thatcher, Cameron now praises and imitates Blair, seemingly oblivious to the fact that their predecessors are now hated for their vicious pro-big business policies. Another problem faced by the Tory party is that its membership and core voters do not support Cameron’s ‘nice’ approach. They may be prepared to accept it in the hope of winning power, but splits and increased support for UKIP or similar formations, are also inherent in the situation. Nonetheless, given the lack of an alternative, a hung parliament or even a Tory victory is possible, or even some kind of coalition; probably between the Tories and Liberal Democrats.
Such a coalition would be opposed by the most radical sections of the Liberal Democrats, and splits could not be ruled out. However, the majority of the Liberal Democrats today have fully embraced privatisation and neo-liberal measures, and would be willing to contemplate sharing government with the Tories.
We have no desire to see the Tories back in power. Nor do we share the illusions of some on the Labour left that a Tory victory would lead to a shift to the left at the top of the Labour Party. On the contrary, the conclusion of the Blairites and Brownites would undoubtedly be that they had lost the election because they were not neo-liberal enough. Nonetheless, it would become much harder for the trade union leaders to hold back struggle under a Tory government as the ‘bogeyman’ of a return to the Tories would no longer exist.
It is not yet possible to predict the exact timing of the next general election. It is possible, but unlikely, that Brown will go early in the hope of gaining a stronger mandate. Nor is it possible to predict the parliamentary arithmetic after the next election. Nonetheless, it is certain that, regardless of who is in power, it will be a very weak government with a narrow basis of social support. It will face many problems, including in the economy. It is also likely to face continued growth of the national question in Scotland – where it is currently resurging, with 52% supporting independence. If, as is possible, the SNP does well in the Scottish parliamentary elections in May, resulting in it forming part of the next Scottish Executive, the possibility of a referendum on independence could be posed. The Financial Times has already given a whiff of the massive opposition this would face from the British ruling class, stating in an editorial that it would “threaten Britain’s power and prestige”. We, of course, support the right of the Scottish people to self determination, including to independence, but point out that on the basis of capitalism independence would not solve the problems of the Scottish working class. Material on this issue is being produced by the Scottish section and will be circulated to comrades along with a Welsh perspectives document. However, it is also an increasing factor in perspectives for England and Wales. The existence of the Scottish parliament and Welsh assembly has also had an effect on consciousness in England – with 59% of English voters currently supporting independence for Scotland. The fact that New Labour relies on MPs from constituencies in Scotland to push through legislation which only affects England is a growing issue. This will be added to when New Labour has a Scottish leader. From the point of parliamentary arithmetic it suits the Tories to raise this issue; but for the ruling class any moves that will increase the momentum towards Scottish independence are enormously difficult.
However, the biggest threat to the next government will come from the working class whose frustration will, at some point, erupt in a mighty explosion. We have to be prepared for major movements, which can seemingly come out of a clear blue sky. At the same time we have to strain every nerve to build our party now. The most important conclusion for us to grasp is that the experience of capitalism – both the brutality of imperialism in Iraq and elsewhere, and increased exploitation at home – is leading to an increased discontent with the existing order. The kind of blatant pro-capitalist propaganda that was pumped out in the 1990s can no longer have the same impact. A small but growing minority, particularly of youth, is drawing consciously socialist conclusions, and can be won to the ideas of genuine Marxism if we can reach them.
