However, despite these attempts to cast the Tory party in the image of the US Republicans as “compassionate conservatives”, it is still perceived as a right-wing neo-Thatcherite party.
The whole mood in British society is temporarily against them. Hugo Young in The Guardian declared last year: “In the public mind, business now seems much more like an enemy than the unions”.
The Tory party is closely identified as the party of the rich and powerful if not still of business. They also carry the baggage of Thatcher, who is now an utterly discredited figure. The election of IDS has further driven a wedge between the right and the ‘centre’ Clarkeites. The latter wing of the party, including Kenneth Clarke himself, has refused to serve in the shadow cabinet. Portillista Francis Maude has even suggested that every Tory MP should serve time as a nurse or hospital orderly in order to reacquaint the party with the realities of Britain today! Their contempt, however, for IDS is open, with one shadow cabinet member commenting to The Guardian: “His pronouncements are half-baked, immature ideas. Iain is not the sharpest knife in the drawer”!
There is very little hope that Duncan Smith and the Tory party could travel down the same road as Bush in the US. Yet, such are the political convulsions that could flow from the government’s failures, resulting from the economic catastrophe that looms in Britain, it is not entirely excluded that even a right-wing Tory party led by Duncan Smith could achieve the almost impossible and come to power. Look at what happened in Australia, where the right-wing Liberal-National coalition was on its knees and expected to lose last year’s general election. But when Howard, the prime minister, switched to a virulent anti-immigrant stance over the Afghan-Iranian ‘boat people’ he soared massively in the polls and won the subsequent election. It is doubtful whether the Tory party could pursue a similar policy, a variant of ‘Haiderism’, given the position that Britain occupies on the world stage, and the social and racial situation here.
However, the post-11 September period is a disturbed one in which the norms of politics have been thrown up in the air. The economic and social situation will boil over at a certain stage into a movement against the government, as the fuel protests did during Blair’s first term. Violent swings in opinion are possible in the conditions into which we are moving. The Tories will put forward anything, do almost anything, in order to climb back to power. Duncan Smith’s team is even whispering that ‘tax cuts’ are off the agenda and that the Tory party will now be the champion of “high quality public services”.
Of course, they don’t mention that the subtext is that this will be paid for by a massive extension of privatisation, even greater than Labour is carrying through. Nevertheless, the concern over the public services in Britain is indicated by a report from the GMB, which revealed that only 20 per cent of voters think schools and hospitals have improved since Labour won power in 1997. This points out that a staggering five million voters could abandon Labour at the next general election if public services do not improve. Therefore, in this situation, notwithstanding the ineptitude of Duncan Smith and his front bench team (who one Tory commentator said should not be put on the stage at the Tory party conference, so bad are they) it is not excluded that disgust with New Labour could result in a Tory election victory, almost by default. There could be an even greater abstention in the next election than in 2001, as the ‘Americanisation’ of politics in Britain deepens.
Moreover, the government is pursuing a Tory agenda, not least on the issue of race and immigration. First Straw now Blunkett, as Home Secretary, have fed the myth that Britain is flooded or is about to be, by a massive wave of immigration. Up to now, Britain has been more ‘liberal’ in allowing asylum seekers to settle in Britain. At the same time, the low unemployment, the accessibility, probably temporarily, of low-paid jobs in places like London – features of the last stages of a boom – have also acted as a magnet to draw ‘economic immigrants’ to Britain. Yet half of Britain’s ethnic minority population was born in the UK. The riots in Bradford, Oldham and Burnley expressed the frustration which now exists at the collapse of the jobs market with the deindustrialisation of these areas allied, of course, to racial discrimination. The same phenomena could be experienced in formerly prosperous areas of London and the South with a consequent rise crime as well as racial and ethnic tension.
Blunkett’s bone-headed remarks on the need for the ethnic population to show ‘loyalty’ to Britain and its sporting and other institutions even drew support from the British National Party. It has undoubtedly alienated the ethnic minorities in Britain, who hitherto have sustained Labour in elections by massive majorities. Even before the war in Afghanistan a significant section of black and Asian youth were alienated completely from the system. The same plague of unemployment, crime and drugs now touches the Asian population as it did the black population and the population as a whole before.
An expression of this was the so-called ‘shoe bomber’. Malcolm X went from alienated petty criminal to the Black Muslims in the US. He subsequently developed a class awareness and was evolving towards a socialist position at the time of his assassination. The so-called ‘trainer bomber’ also underwent a conversion from petty crime to Islam while in a British prison. There are many similar to him, it seems, in the British prison system. The difference between Malcolm X and these youth today is the rise of right-wing ‘political Islam’ and the weakness of the forces of socialism and Marxism, which propel people like this towards the dead end of Islamic fundamentalism.
The need for Marxism to dig roots amongst the Asian, black and other ethnic minorities in Britain is a vital task. The best of these youth alienated from capitalism can see through the illusion of fundamentalism very quickly as a means of remedying the problems of the minority populations. However, the events of 2001 in the Northern former ‘mill towns’ are a warning to us, the trade unions and the working class movement as a whole. An element of ‘Belfast’ was created in Oldham with the erection of a mini-’peace line’. It would be wrong for us to exaggerate this at this stage but it does show the degree of alienation and segregation, hitherto a hallmark of the US rather than Britain, which is now taking place in some of the major urban areas of Britain. In some inner city areas junior school rolls are almost 100 per cent composed from the different ethnic minorities. The government’s policy of encouraging faith schools can only serve to reinforce these divisions.
There is also the danger of conflicts within and between different ethnic minorities, which can be further fuelled by developments in the neo-colonial world. The BNP has already seen the possible mileage in singling out ‘Islam’ and attempted to instigate animosity between Muslims and other Asians.
This is only one example of what may be possible under the conditions of a severe economic downturn and return of mass unemployment, deterioration in housing and further cuts in public spending. Only the conscious and organised intervention of the working class can decisively cut across such developments. However, our party, even with limited resources, can play a role in defusing potential conflicts by campaigning for class unity.”
The development of our work in the YRE and the building of a strong black and Asian caucus are a vital component of the work of Marxism in this period.
New Labour at the moment seems to be heading towards an even greater authoritarian approach towards democratic rights, which was the distinguishing feature of the Tories in the past. Brian Sedgemore, the ‘left-wing’ Labour MP, said that Blunkett’s proposed anti-terrorist legislation was “manna from heaven for any future or present Home Secretary who wants to establish a police state”. Blunkett was compelled to beat a retreat on some aspects of this legislation, because of a ‘revolt’, not within an abject, prostrate House of Commons but in the House of Lords! However, the Act which was passed taken together with other attacks on civil and democratic rights mean that the British state has more draconian powers at its disposal than almost any other advanced industrial country.
The fact that only a handful of Labour MPs voted against the legislation is also an annihilating condemnation of the composition of New Labour’s parliamentary party. It is so under the control of the Blairites, so mute in any opposition to outrageous attacks on civil liberties and the rights of the working class, that Blair can virtually ride roughshod over them. Even a formerly loyal Blairite such as Mo Mowlam can denounce ‘President’ Blair for his dictatorial forms of rule. ‘Cabinet government’ is a myth as a narrow cabal around Blair and Brown agree decisions which are nodded through in Cabinet. We have in effect an ‘elected dictatorship’, rule by a handful of mainly men, which determines the fate of the British people.
It is this aspect of what is increasingly seen as a ‘sham democracy’ which has contributed to the alienation of more and more layers of the population from the political process. This was shown in the first by-election of the new parliament in November 2001 in Ipswich. The turnout of 40.26 per cent was considered a ‘relatively high turnout’. Labour’s share of the vote fell by almost 11 per cent and the Conservatives by almost 1 per cent. The Liberal Democrats were the main beneficiaries. Because Ipswich Town was playing Inter Milan on the same night, with 30,000 at the ground and tens of thousands more watching on the television, polls effectively closed two hours early. The most telling comment was from a Labour MP, who after canvassing in the town commented: “I don’t sense that anybody here actually cares” [Financial Times, 21 November].
The same picture exists in local government, which has been increasingly emasculated by Blairite ministers. In the Labour Party in the pre-Blairite/Kinnockite period, local Labour stalwarts saw serving on the council as a means of ameliorating the conditions of the working class. Now it is a ticket for a bigger feedbag as New Labour council leaders award themselves massive ‘salaries’ while thousands of ‘ordinary’ Labour councillors are now on a financial payroll. This has been accompanied by an attempt to circumvent even the limited local democracy with ‘Cabinet government’ on local councils and a programme to install directly elected, executive ‘mayors’. This has met with mixed results where in in Lewisham only a tiny percentage of the local population approved, as was the case in Blair’s own Sedgefield constituency. There was a bigger majority in Middlesbrough, and close results in Hartlepool and North Tyneside.
Of course, the triumph of Ken Livingstone over the New Labour machine in London was of a different order. However, his programme since he came to power has been seen to be little different in fundamentals to New Labour. So much so that there is a powerful lobby, it seems, amongst London Labour MPs, to allow him to return to Labour Party membership before the next mayoral contest and stand as New Labour’s standard bearer. If Livingstone had taken up a pronounced left-wing stand, sought to mobilise the potentially powerful left opposition in London, then he would have found a huge echo. Instead, he has appeared to be ‘reasonable’ and accommodating, apart from on the issue of the privatisation of the tube.
Europe – in or out?
On Europe also, a battle could take place even before the next general election but this partly depends on the perspectives for the introduction of the euro. It has been introduced in the most inauspicious economic circumstances and there is no long-term guarantee that it will be maintained.
Nevertheless, the fear that Britain will be ‘left out in the cold’ has been played up by the government and is even reflected in a certain shift towards acceptance of the euro in Britain. At the same time sections of industry, a majority in the last poll, are opposed to entry at this time and even the Financial Times has cautioned: “This success [of the euro] does not necessarily make Britain’s entry either inevitable or desirable” [24 November]. It is the possible long-term unworkability of the euro which is making British capitalism cautious about entry at this stage. Blair will continue to push for entry and this could result in a significant split in New Labour, as with the Tories also, but which would then spill over into social and economic policies. Blair and Brown could still be on opposite sides in any referendum campaign, which is most likely after the next general election but could not be excluded as early as 2003.
Paradoxically, it could be on an issue like this against the background of economic and social unrest, which could be a trigger and point of reference for the discontent that is gathering within British society. This could in turn result in a serious rupture within New Labour. However, the most decisive fact for shaping events in Britain will be the movement of the working class and particularly the reflection of this within the trade unions. After 11 September, the trade union tops were also part of Blair’s unofficial national government. The GMB leader John Edmonds pointedly abandoned the £1 million anti-privatisation campaign. Prior to this industrial ‘truce’, at least as far as the right-wing trade union leaders were concerned, increased hostility grew between New Labour ministers and TUC and trade union leaders. At the TUC, Patricia Hewitt, trade and industry secretary, had defended the government’s ‘pro-business’ stance and received a half-hearted 10-second applause. This did not stop New Labour at national and local level from pursuing their privatisation agenda.
Explosive mood in workplaces
As commented earlier, the police came into confrontation with the government and promptly, at the end of 2001, Blunkett offered increased wages and better conditions to the union representatives. It is not clear whether this is enough to avert a collision between the government and the police.
The idea of trade unionism is now much more popular as many commentators have remarked. Even the threat of strike action and the solidarity shown by the top footballers such as Beckham with those who would benefit from the deal in the lower divisions, is a symptom of the situation which has developed in Britain. The number of strikes is still historically low but the elections of some more radical general secretaries in the unions combined with the threat of strike action and strikes themselves in the recent period indicate the changes which are taking place. The election of Serwotka in the PCS, along with Andy Gilchrist, the new general secretary of the FBU, Billy Hayes in the CWU and Mickey Rix in ASLEF (despite the fact he has left the SLP and rejoined the Labour Party) are indications of this change. There are severe limitations in their outlook, they vacillate but nevertheless it indicates the way things are developing in the unions.
The attacks which have been launched by the employers, with further attacks to come, could hugely radicalise the unions. The threat of 30,000 job losses in the Post Office, the strike of benefit workers over safety, power workers and railway workers threatening to strike and actually striking, is symptomatic of this period. An indication of the rightward move of the New Labour tops is their reaction to workers who exercise their right to strike. Theirs is the traditional stance of the employers and their organisations. New Labour ministers used strike breakers against the benefit workers strike and threatened the withdrawal of maternity leave from women workers who were merely striking against the physical harassment which they face daily in their working lives. In the case of the Consignia workers, Blair declared that this had nothing to do with the government. Taken together with the pressure which the trade union leaders will come under with mounting unemployment and other issues a big change is underway in the mood of the British working class. Argentina shows how a bitter mood of hostility to the capitalists and government could seemingly spring from nowhere. Not one organisation, including the small Trotskyist groups, expected upheavals like this. We cannot make the same mistake in Britain. The British working class has taken a lot from the employers, the nibbling away of its rights and conditions. An explosive mood, which can burst to the surface quite quickly, is possible here as much as in Argentina. The short ‘sit-in’ by irate commuters left stranded by South-West Trains last year shows that this exists as much amongst white-collar workers and sections of the middle class as it does amongst workers.
Even seemingly New Labour loyalists like Ken Jackson and Co who lead the AEEU have threatened the withdrawal of funds from the Labour Party because of the plunge in manufacturing jobs and the failure of New Labour to do anything about it. We have commented in detail in the journal about the big swing amongst ordinary trade unionists towards separating political funds from support for the Labour Party. Under the impact of events this will grow, and we will further this process. There is a danger in this that the trade unions, with the right-wing national leaders showing the way, will move towards a form of ‘non-political’ trade unionism. We will fight this and call for unions to finance candidates who reflect the interests of the ordinary union members. The GMB leader John Edmonds restated that the union would sponsor ‘independent’ council candidates in this year’s local government elections. A few days later, however, this appeared to have been amended. A GMB spokesperson said that the union would cut its donation to Labour and consider support for independent ‘Labour’ candidates. Nevertheless, this does show the pressure which even the most right-wing union leaders are under.
At the same time, however, we will not support a carte blanche motion in union branches to give donations to the ‘Socialist Alliance’, irrespective of their programme and record. We have been compelled to separate ourselves from the Socialist Alliance in England because of the undemocratic nature of its constitution and the equally undemocratic leadership of the SWP and their acolytes. That does not mean to say that we do not fight for left unity in all spheres, including in the electoral field. But the Socialist Party, as the only left organisation with elected councillors and significant positions on trade union national executives, has a better claim than most for trade unionists to support us in elections. At the same time there will be important sections of workers who will want to stand in elections themselves. We should welcome these steps even if initially their programme is limited to anti-cuts or anti-privatisation demands. At all times we will strive for the closest unity, at all times trying to ensure that socialist candidates do not stand against one another.
Building for future struggles
The period that is opening up to us in Britain could be one of the most exciting for over a decade. Capitalism is in trouble worldwide and in Britain, and all of those who hitched their star to this system will face difficulties in the period we are moving into.
While never falling prey to the pessimism of those who are on the sidelines of the class struggle, we have nevertheless recognised the difficulties for Marxism and socialism in the 1990s. In ‘official’ society we were swimming against the stream and even within the labour movement we were pushed back into a small minority. This never prevented us from seeking to involve ourselves in all the major struggles, very often initiating them ourselves, of the working class and of raising the banner of socialism. The reward for this painstaking labour will come in the next decade. No other organisation, in Britain or internationally, has the analysis or the topicality of ideas that we have.
But ideas alone are not enough. We need forces, vastly increased numbers, in order to take these ideas to more and more sections of the working class. We are not utopians. We cannot move from a position of thousands of members to tens of thousands or millions overnight. But on the basis of the past year’s experience – of Gothenburg, Genoa and Brussels, and of the impact and aftermath of 11 September, within which we have gained important members – it is possible now to be much more optimistic about our future prospects.
We must urgently double and treble our membership. That is not the task just of the leadership and the full-time apparatus but for every member, and above all the newer generation who have travelled into our ranks. Every comrade must recruit at least one member in the next period and as a party we must struggle to integrate every new member and the older generation into the party. We must dig even deeper roots, recruit from the fresh layers who are moving into the unions, in the workplaces and the offices and enhance our position in the union branches. As important as positions on national executives of unions are, it is much more vital that we establish a base at local level. The ability to intervene and lead struggles of the working class in this period will open up on a local and a regional level. At the same time, even one or two Marxists on the national executives of unions can play a vital role, as our experience in Unison in the 1990s has demonstrated.
We must build our base amongst black and Asian workers and youth. We have a special responsibility to ensure that we win and integrate women, especially working class women, into our party. Top priority, of course, must still be given to the youth work, which is the lifeblood and the future of our party. From this, if it is approached in a proper fashion, can come some of the best leaders in all the other fields in which we are involved.
Building the Socialist Party
The struggles of the working class never proceed in a straight line. Trotsky once declared that the working class advances historically by hewing out for itself from granite the upward steps of its advance.
Sometimes, however, it is forced down a step or two. Sometimes the capitalist enemy dynamites the steps making it more difficult to advance. But the progress of the working class is unstoppable. In social weight, in numbers, in potential power it has never been stronger. This does not mean that it can automatically conquer power against a numerically small but still powerful ruling class. For that it needs a consciousness of its position and a socialist alternative. This in turn requires a mass party with a conscious farsighted leadership. We have already demonstrated historically what is possible when the working class have at their head, even in outline, such a party. We were not a mass party in Liverpool, or during the poll tax campaign, but we nevertheless provided the theoretical, organisational, strategic and tactical backbone to ensure victories in those struggles.
However, history took an unexpected turn, particularly with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the temporary ideological victory of world capitalism which followed. That is now coming to an end. On the agenda is the movement of the working class, the ideas of socialism and Marxism, which will become the property not of the thousands who are in our party now but of the tens of thousands and millions who will move into action in the coming period.
