The Economist (6 January 2007) urges Brown to continue with Blair’s policy of “shaking up the NHS”. However, it points out that the easiest way for Labour to gain ground in the polls would be “to go slow on reform” of the NHS. Brown has made it clear that he intends to “intensify” reform of the NHS, although he appears to think that he might be able to escape responsibility for this by hiving it off to an ‘independent board’. In reality, this would be a further step towards privatisation and would do nothing to convince people that the government was no longer responsible for the crisis in the NHS. But while he may not intend to go slow, that does not alter the fact that, under mass pressure, he could be forced to retreat on the Blairite programme to reform the NHS.
More than 100,000 people have taken to the streets against cuts in the NHS in the second half of 2006. Health Emergency was correct when it said: “There’s been nothing like this since the spontaneous rebellion against the poll tax.” There are, of course, many differences with the mass movement against the poll tax, where 18 million refused to pay the tax, resulting in the defeat of both the tax and its chief defender, Thatcher. The poll tax was a uniform attack on working-class people across Britain (although it was introduced a year earlier in Scotland). Cuts in the NHS are taking place on an uneven basis, on a different scale and timescale, depending on the local area. Also, while there was enormous spontaneous anger against the poll tax, the movement against it was not spontaneous but organised and co-ordinated on a national level by the National Anti-Poll Tax Federation, in which the Militant, the predecessors of the Socialist Party, played a central role. At this stage, while there is enormous anger and protests organised at local level, the NHS campaigns have not been effectively or fully drawn together nationally.
Responsibility for this lies with right-wing national trade union leaders. We and many other health campaigners, are, at the time of writing, fighting for a national demonstration in defence of the NHS. The TUC leadership is doing all it can to prevent such a demonstration taking place. There is no doubt that, if the trade unions were to call a national demonstration in defence of the NHS, they would receive an enormous response – which would be a springboard for the biggest movement on a social issue Britain has seen since the poll tax. We should not assume, however, that the union leaders will continue to succeed in holding back a movement on the NHS. We have to attempt to act as a catalyst by campaigning for a national demonstration to take place as the next step forward. We cannot predetermine whether we will succeed in bringing about a national movement. However, this was also the case at the start of the anti-poll tax movement. Our attitude should be ‘engage and then see’.
Tragically, given the lack of lead given by the TUC, in some parts of the country the Tories are successfully posing as defenders of the NHS. However, Cameron’s chief policy strategist, Oliver Letwin, blurted out the truth to the Sunday Times when he explained that the Tories, like New Labour, oppose any limits on private companies running parts of the NHS. Both Labour and the Tories support the destruction of the health service. But this does not preclude a new government making concessions on the NHS cuts, albeit temporarily. However, this would not be as a result of a ‘move left’ by Brown but, like John Major on the poll tax, under the pressure of a mass movement of the working class, or possibly to a ‘mass mood’ to which they feel it is necessary to make concessions in order to win an election. Particularly if concessions are won on the basis of a movement, whether on the NHS or another issue, it would enormously increase the confidence of the working class.
Working-class confidence
The current lack of confidence of the working class in Britain has been one of the key factors which has prevented trade unionists pushing the right-wing leaders aside and, as a result, the outbreak of a more generalised struggle. After almost 30 years of more or less constant neo-liberal attacks, there is undoubtedly a feeling among broad sections of the working class that nothing can be done to stop the onslaught. This is still partially a legacy of the defeats Thatcher inflicted in the 1980s, combined with the collapse of Stalinism and the opportunity it gave to the Labour Party right wing to destroy the elements of working-class control which had previously existed in the Labour Party. In addition, the failure of the anti-war movement to stop Blair invading Iraq has added to the feeling of powerlessness among some sections. The decimation of manufacturing industry and, as a result, the weakening of the trade unions, has also been a major factor. In Britain this was a semi-conscious policy by the ruling class in order to weaken the organised working class. The manufacturing that remains is often in relatively small workplaces today. Nonetheless, successful struggles are possible, as has been shown at Visteon. However, in Britain, many of the largest workplaces, and many of those that contain a majority of the youngest, most oppressed sections of workers, are in the retail or service sectors and, at this stage, have little or no trade union organisation.
Nonetheless, it would be completely wrong to conclude that there will be no mass class struggles in Britain in the near future. If the union leaders were not acting with such determination to protect the New Labour government and prevent mass struggles we would have already seen far greater battles than have taken place so far. But, because of the lack of lead from the trade unions, enormous anger is building up beneath the surface which can lead to sudden, explosive outbursts of struggle as workers conclude that they cannot take any more. This is dimly understood by the ruling class. For example, the Metropolitan Police has been lobbying for increased powers to prevent demonstrations, “because officers believe that large sections of the population have become increasingly politicised”. (Guardian, 27 November 2006)
Potential for struggle
Where a lead is given, the potential for workers to struggle has been shown again and again. Our party has played an important role in leading struggles at local level. The recent Whipps Cross hospital strike, the victory of Glasgow local authority workers, the important concessions won by the Visteon car component workers all demonstrate that workers can be confident to struggle, and that it is possible to win victories, provided a determined lead is given.
On a national level, the PCS civil servants’ union has also shown that concessions can be won. It should be remembered that it was the intervention of the PCS leadership which prevented public-sector unions accepting a deal on pensions substantially inferior to that which was later offered, and which conceded the continued right to retire at 60 for existing staff, although not for new starters. Had the leadership of the other public-sector trade unions been willing to organise a fight on the issue of new starters, it would have been absolutely correct to do so. However, given the absence of a lead from the other public-sector trade unions, in the current period, when workers in general are on the defensive against what feels like an endless raining down of neo-liberal attacks, we believe it would not have been possible to convince PCS members to ‘go it alone’ on the question of new starters. On the contrary, PCS members felt that as much had been won as was possible at this point in time. However, Brown has already intimated that he may wish to unpick the public-sector pensions deal in the future, and we have to warn public-sector workers that further struggles on all aspects of public-sector pensions will take place in the future. Nonetheless, we believe that the deal is the best that could have been achieved in the current circumstances. However, it is absolutely correct that it is being put to a ballot of the membership before it is accepted.
For local government workers, no concessions have been offered on the question of pensions, and a struggle is still ongoing. Prentis, who incorrectly accepted a deal for NHS workers while local government workers were being offered nothing, obviously hoped that a similar deal would be offered in local government. It hasn’t been and, as a result, strike action is likely in the near future. This is one of a whole number of issues on which we could see action in the coming months. In addition to the NHS, which is the single most over-riding issue, there is also likely to be a whole series of strikes over the question of single status in local government. In his pre-budget report, Brown declared that 46,000 jobs had already been cut from the civil service. While this is probably an exaggeration, there have undoubtedly been swingeing cuts, particularly in the Department for Work and Pensions. The PCS is being forced into strike action over the issue of compulsory redundancies, which the government is trying to force through for the first time.
Pensions
New Labour claims to have solved the pensions crisis by promising to restore the link with earnings. However, more than three million pensioners will die before the link is restored. The supposed pensions crisis has been created by almost three decades of neo-liberal government and big business gambling their workers’ pension funds in order to make a quick buck. As a result, occupational pension funds went from an £80 billion surplus in 2000 to a £77 billion deficit in 2002. At present, this crisis means that four out of ten pensioners live on less than £10,000 a year. More than 1.6 million pensioners have returned to work to supplement their meagre pensions. Millions of pensioners cut back on the essentials of heating and electricity just to live. Women pensioners are particularly badly affected. However, the proposal to restore the link is too little, too late and is linked to raising the retirement age. Even this may well not be granted. Brown was to the right of Blair on the issue: questioning the restoration of the link because he was worried it would cost too much!
Movements of young people
Brown could also face movements on some issues which Blair-led governments have already forced through. In higher education, for example, the leadership of the National Union of Students effectively prevented a mass movement against the introduction of fees and then top-up fees. Despite this, the mood on this issue puts enormous pressure on MPs, resulting in the bill on top-up fees being passed by only five votes. This academic year the top-up fees have been implemented. As a result 15,000 less students registered for university, the equivalent of the entire population of Coventry University. Students, who are starting to feel the reality of increased fees in their pockets, may now feel compelled to struggle despite the attempts of the NUS leadership to prevent it. There have already been significant protests against cuts and rent increases at a number of universities. This is undoubtedly linked to the implementation of the fees, as students feel that as long as they have to pay through the nose they should at least get a decent education in return.
Student nurses and other healthcare students have been hit particularly hard by the cuts in the NHS. In October a survey showed that almost three quarters of newly qualified nurses are still searching for a permanent job months after graduating. In most areas we have already seen a small layer of student nurses and health students participating in local campaigns. On this, as with the fees and other issues, the development of a movement on a national scale around the NHS or a greater amount of strike action will very likely boost the confidence and have an effect on young people’s willingness to take action.
There are other, social issues which will radicalise important sections of young people. New Labour’s proposal to build a new alternative to Trident will undoubtedly trigger movements of a section of young people. The broader issue of the environment – and also of the ruling class’s ‘alternative’ to global warming, nuclear power – is also becoming seen as increasingly urgent by broad layers of young people. This year’s demonstration against climate change was significantly bigger than in previous years, and included layers who were very open to socialist ideas. The Greens, who have not been in power and therefore have not been discredited in the way that the Greens in Germany and other countries have, are also picking up the support of a layer of youth, mainly from a middle-class background. However, this includes a minority who consider themselves to be socialists. If there are further delays in the creation of a new mass workers’ party it is possible we could see more significant developments in this direction.
The ruling class itself is being forced to recognise that action on the environment is necessary. However, this does not mean that capitalism is capable of acting effectively. It is true that the international phasing out of CFCs was carried out successfully and, as a result, the hole in the ozone layer is now shrinking. However, this only required the relatively easy replacement of one chemical with another. Even so, US imperialism was only prepared to do so when a US multinational, Dupont, had successfully patented an alternative to CFCs. Global warming, however, requires far more fundamental change in world energy supplies. As Brown has repeatedly pointed out (as an excuse for inaction), this requires international cooperation. In fact, it requires global planning, something that capitalism is intrinsically incapable of.
Nonetheless, capitalist politicians are being forced to appear to take the environment seriously. Cameron, in particular, is trying to use it as a means to alter the Tories’ image. However, measures put forward by future capitalist governments, whether Tory or Labour, are likely to be mainly a turn to nuclear power (although there is also a limited increased investment in wind and other forms of power) and regressive taxation dressed up as ‘saving the environment’. It is estimated that road taxation, for example, would raise £28 billion for the government. The importance of explaining to the best sections of the environmental movement the need for a socialist programme – for affordable public transport instead of road taxation, for example – will become increasingly important in the coming years.
