The
crisis of working class political representation is the crisis
Will Labour’s third annual
conference under the Con-Dem government see any sign that the party
could be reclaimed? Or is a new vehicle for working class political
representation necessary? Earlier this year Sarah Sachs-Eldridge, editor
of the Socialist, the Socialist Party’s weekly newspaper, hosted a
discussion between the Labour left activist OWEN JONES, author of Chavs:
The Demonization of the Working Class, and CLIVE HEEMSKERK, deputy
editor of Socialism Today and the national election agent of the Trade
Unionist and Socialist Coalition (TUSC).
Sarah Sachs-Eldridge:
What would it take for you to draw the conclusions we have – that the
Labour Party is no longer a vehicle for working class political
representation?
Owen Jones (OJ):
That’s simple – it’s the breaking of the union link. If the union link
is severed then the Labour Party no longer exists in any meaningful way.
I’m not someone who’s attached to Labour out of any sort of dewy-eyed
nostalgia or because of the name. It’s simply a fact that as things
stand it has at least the potential to be a vehicle for working class
political representation precisely because of that trade union link,
however problematic and how bureaucratic that link is. That’s my
difference with the Socialist Party, which says that the Labour Party
was a bourgeois workers’ party which then changed into an out and out
bourgeois party. But I don’t know that structurally there was any change
in that dynamic. There was change in terms of the expulsion of Militant
– of course which was only ever a minority – the persecution of the left
and the ideological shift that was part of it, but my starting point
would be the severing of the union link. If that were to happen then
that’s the end of the road.
If I compare now to when my
dad was in Militant in the 1970s and early 1980s, the left then existed
as a mass political force and I don’t think it does now in any
meaningful sense. It was consumed by a perfect storm, the rise of the
new right, the ruling class offensive which that represented, the
devastating defeats of the working class – the Stockport Messenger
dispute, the steelworkers, the miners, etc – and then the collapse of
Stalinism that unleashed a wave of capitalist triumphalism and the idea
that there is no alternative. With all of that together then it wasn’t
just Labour that was affected – the left across the world almost
disappeared whether that was the ex-communist parties like the Italian
CP which became the Democratic Left, or the African National Congress
which advocated the nationalisation of the mines and then moved over to
a position of neo-liberalism. Social democracy, communism, all of it –
it all disintegrated at the same time and on a global scale. So I get
frustrated with that analysis of New Labour which seems to adopt a
‘great individuals’ view of history, ie that a right-wing cabal,
starting with Neil Kinnock, took over the Labour Party and made it
right-wing, when actually it was just a product of all those defeats and
what happened globally and that’s why things shifted in the way they
did.
Clive Heemskerk (CH):
The Socialist Party certainly puts the transformation of the Labour
Party in its historical context, particularly the effects on the labour
movement internationally of the collapse of Stalinism. Of course
Stalinism for us was never a model of socialism but it was held in mass
consciousness as an alternative to capitalism. But there is a point
about the Stalinist regimes, where the ‘form’ of socialism, a residue in
their constitutions etc, existed for a long time after their content had
completely changed. Why isn’t that the same in relation to the Labour
Party? Or do you rule out that the Labour Party could be qualitatively
transformed? You seem to be saying that only if the unions formally
disaffiliated…
OJ: No, it could take
a number of forms – state funding could sever the union link, for
example, but I don’t think that’s going to happen. Blair’s original idea
of Labour merging with the Lib Dems into some sort of US-style
Democratic party – that’s just not going to happen now, in the
foreseeable future anyway. As things stand I think it’s unlikely the
union link will dissolve.
But the problem is that the
union link hasn’t properly been used by the trade unions. You end up
with unions backing right-wing prospective parliamentary candidates for
selection, because they’re members of their union, against candidates
who actually support the union. You’ve seen how the union reps vote for
the leadership on Labour’s National Executive Committee. They don’t
organise to use their votes properly before the party conference. But
the problem there again is that there is not a sufficient groundswell of
pressure from below – it’s in no way what it was before, when my parents
were involved.
But Unite now are talking
about using the link in a way that they didn’t before, to get candidates
elected who actually back their policies.
CH: But how are they going to
do that? Unite’s political strategy document talks about recruiting
5,000 union members to local Labour Party wards…
OJ: But they don’t
have to just do that, because that’s not how MPs are selected. Trade
unions have a role in selecting candidates. Trade unions could actually
change the complexion of the parliamentary Labour Party.
CH: Recruiting 5,000
Unite members to local party branches by December 2012 was one of the
strands of the political strategy that was agreed by the Unite executive
in December 2011. Another was to increase the number of delegates to
Constituency Labour Parties (CLPs). But the new rules introduced under
the Refounding Labour process ‘encourage’ CLPs to replace delegate-based
general committees with all-members meetings. And anyway parliamentary
selections, with shortlists ultimately centrally approved, are made on a
one member, one vote (OMOV) basis, which was introduced, of course, to
dilute trade union influence.
You say the Labour Party has
not changed but in Liverpool, for example, in the council’s struggle
against Thatcher from 1983-86, you had mass meetings of the District
Labour Party (DLP) with 400 or so delegates from unions, ward parties
and so on – there as representative delegates, not accidental
individuals – who would decide on the conduct of the struggle, like a
parliament of the labour movement. That couldn’t exist now. Refounding
Labour is finally abolishing the already previously-neutered DLPs in
favour of Local Campaign Forums led by the leader of the council Labour
group. Effectively councillors dictate to the party, not the other way
round. So while you say there are no structural changes there have in
fact been fundamental structural changes. OMOV itself was a fundamental
change in the character of the Labour Party.
OJ: The fundamental
change is the collapse of the labour movement that has taken place. Look
at the number of workers who were unionised in 1979 compared to now.
Look at the collapse in the number of shop stewards – it’s nothing
compared to when Jack Jones was around. If you look at trade union
branches again participation has plummeted over the last 30 years.
That’s a phenomenon that’s not restricted to the Labour Party.
The attacks on the Labour
Party are taking place because there’s not sufficient countervailing
pressure from within the Labour Party or from the trade unions.
CH: Exactly, and
that’s allowed the capitalist wing of what was a capitalist workers’
party, the leadership wing, to carry out an historical change…
OJ: It’s not an
historical change. Yes there have been massive attacks and a shutting
down of basic democratic avenues within the Labour Party but the union
link is still very considerable…
CH: These are
processes, and they’re not finished processes, but the direction is
clear…
OJ: The problem is
that the union people are not working with the left. I don’t think it’s
a bourgeois party – how can it be? Ninety per cent of its funding comes
from the trade unions.
CH: But what about
union funding for the Democrats in the USA? The AFL-CIO trade union
federation spent $53 million backing Barack Obama in 2008. At the 2008
Democratic convention 10% of delegates were members of the teachers’
union.
OJ: But there’s no
organic link. There’s absolutely no democratic participation at all.
CH: Union members are
mobilised to vote in primaries to select candidates. At the convention
they vote for the policy platform…
OJ: In a kind of
approval or not approval way…
CH: But the Labour
Party conference doesn’t decide policy does it? It just approves or not
approves statements from the National Policy Forum…
OJ: Yes there’s a
bureaucratic structure but you do have input, whether you like it or
not. Do the unions use the link properly? As I said they don’t. Through
their funding and organisation both at local and national level they
could actually have got lots of people selected as parliamentary
candidates and they failed to do that. They’re beginning to own up to
that failure and to have a strategy to change that. But they’re not
there yet and until that happens, and until there’s an organised
strategy to take on the right-wing tendency within the Labour Party,
then things will not change. And there does need to be a fight to
re-democratise all those structures – but you think that it’s a
bourgeois party and that therefore there’s no struggle to be won anyway.
CH: Do you really
think we operate in such crude and simplistic terms? That we would
oppose Unite conducting a serious fight within the Labour Party, for
example?
OJ: But what’s the
point if it’s a bourgeois party? Do you think the Labour Party is a
bourgeois party?
CH: We think that it
has moved on from its roots as a capitalist workers’ party. We think
that the capitalist wing of the party, using the historical situation
created by the collapse of Stalinism and the whole period since,
including the processes you described in relation to the labour movement
as a whole, has consolidated its position in the Labour Party. They have
used the historical conjuncture to make changes – obviously
ideologically, but also structurally and organisationally – to entrench
their position, making it extremely unlikely that a successful struggle
could be conducted. Unless it was literally to ‘re-register’ the
parliamentary party – probably throwing out 90% – to restructure the
Labour Party from top to bottom…
OJ: You don’t have to
throw out the parliamentary Labour Party – I mean I know them. You
wouldn’t have to purge them. You just need pressure from below to drag
people kicking and screaming. Look at how Tony Benn moved politically in
the 1970s – people change under pressure from below.
CH: And from above. Do
you think the ruling class would just sit there and watch thinking,
‘that’s fair enough – we’ve managed to achieve this historical change,
to gain effective control of the Labour Party – let’s now allow the
unions, the organised working class, an avenue back onto the political
plane’? You don’t think that they’d organise…
OJ: Of course they
would…
CH: So it would be a
battle, a bloody battle. But actually there is another question here,
about those unions with a political fund who are not affiliated to
Labour. Their combined membership of 1.673 million is bigger than those
who came together to form the Labour Representation Committee (LRC) in
1900. We think that they could be the nucleus of a new workers’ party.
But what’s your advice to activists in the NUT, PCS, FBU, RMT, POA, and
UCU – that they should set up campaigns to get their unions to affiliate
to the Labour Party?
OJ: The only way that
would happen is if the affiliated unions showed it’s possible to
transform the Labour Party and how it works. There’s no point going
round leafleting NUT or PCS conference saying ‘brothers and sisters,
pass a motion for affiliation to the Labour Party’, of course I
wouldn’t.
If the affiliated unions used
the link which does exist to change the policies and get candidates
elected who will fight for working people then that would show it’s
possible to fight within the Labour Party. It would show that it’s
possible for trade unions to transform the Labour Party, and that would
provide an opening for the other unions to do the same. But of course
we’re not there yet – and we need to democratise the trade unions too.
CH: Is there a
groundswell even in the affiliated unions to join the Labour Party to
change it?
OJ: Well if you look
at the number of people paying into the political fund in those unions,
if you look at the fact that…
CH: Sorry, is that a
yes then?
OJ: There’s not a
groundswell for anything at the moment, not sufficiently. There’s not
enough pressure from below anywhere on anything.
CH: But which way is
the direction going? Do you think there’s more active participation in
the Labour Party?
OJ: Well we’ve got a
Tory government now. And if we look at the class breakdown, the Tories
retain their support among the ABs and as you go down the social scale
support for Labour increases…
CH: Sorry – you’re
talking about voting now. We were talking about participation in the
structures of the Labour Party.
OJ: Political
engagement, political activity, political consciousness are all at very
low levels so of course there’s little of that sort of engagement –
nowhere near what there needs to be. That has to change. But that is an
issue affecting the left generally. There’s not enough active
involvement even in the unions. That’s the broader problem – there’s
growing anger and frustration without any political direction.
CH: So why would you
direct those who are active, or being pushed by events into being
active, down an avenue that they don’t see as viable?
OJ: They don’t see
anything as viable. The LRC was founded 112 years ago. The Labour Party
was founded 107 years ago. There have been no shortages of attempts to
form new workers’ parties in that time. The Social Democratic Federation
walked out of the early Labour Party, the Communist Party was formed in
the 1920s, the Independent Labour Party in the 1930s, Militant Labour
and the Socialist Labour Party in the 1990s – every single attempt
without exception has failed. TUSC’s vote at the last general election
nationally was half of what John McDonnell got in his one constituency.
I don’t understand the basis for arguing that, given every single
attempt to form a new workers’ party in history without exception has
failed in far better political conditions, why would it be any better
now? You talk about blind alleys and me directing people up a blind
alley – why is your blind alley any better?
CH: Seriously Owen, we
had a discussion at the start on the new world situation after the
collapse of Stalinism and the massive ideological retreat that followed,
with all its consequences. This is a new historical period and yet now
you’re talking about the 1920s and 30s when the Labour Party was still a
relatively new formation, you still had the attractive force of the
Russian revolution – even the 1930s with the rise of fascism was still a
period which saw possibilities for the balance of class forces to be
changed – and you seem to say that they’re part of the same historical
period as now when they’re obviously not.
OJ: But what makes you
think you’re going to succeed in this new historical period?
CH: Who said that the
post-Stalinist period of ideological retreat, and the need to re-build
the labour movement, made the struggle for working class political
representation easier than in the past?
OJ: What’s your point?
Of course it won’t be easy. Changing the Labour Party won’t be easy. If
we can’t get the unions to use their link properly what hope do you have
of getting the unions to form a new workers’ party?
CH: Because of the
argument that you yourself raised that the Labour Party is not seen by
union members, even in the affiliated unions and certainly not in the
non-affiliated unions, as an arena that they want to enter and fight in
for working class interests…
OJ: But obviously they
vote Labour.
CH: What’s that got to
do with changing the Labour Party? Why aren’t the public sector pension
strikers, for example, joining it to change it?
OJ: Ah but if they
were disgusted enough they’d leave the political fund. That hasn’t
happened in droves either.
CH: Hasn’t it, in the
affiliated unions? That’s what I was asking you. The number of ballot
papers issued to affiliated union members in the 2010 Labour leadership
election was 300,000 less than the number issued in the
deputy-leadership election in 2007, for example. That’s some decline.
OJ: Well the unions
are facing a decline in membership numbers. The point is actually that
most of those members, disproportionately, do regard Labour as their
party. There’s no question about that whatsoever. It hasn’t changed. You
can see that from voting patterns.
CH: Again that’s a big
interpretation: they see Labour as a possible governmental alternative.
OJ: Well they might
see it as a lesser of two evils but again let’s not overstate people’s
political consciousness. It’s not like, as much as I’d like to think
it’s the case, there’s hundreds of thousands of trade unionists going
‘well, Labour’s betrayed the working class, I’m so disgusted’. That
hasn’t happened.
CH: But there is mass
alienation from all establishment parties and institutions and, amongst
a much smaller layer, a beginning of a search for an alternative means
of political representation. The non-affiliated unions with a political
fund represent about 7% of the British workforce at this stage, out of
the 27% or so of the workforce that is unionised. So they represent, as
a fraction of the unionised workforce…
OJ: But isn’t that
syndicalism?
CH: Why?
OJ: Look at the RMT
and the FBU. Both left the Labour Party – and I’ve got nothing but
admiration for the leaderships of Bob Crow and Matt Wrack – but there
has not been any coherent political strategy to replace the Labour Party
as a workers’ party. Bob Crow occasionally comments on working class
political representation across the road [in Euston] but that has not
translated into any steps forward for the kind of project you put
forward. Your project is no further down the road than it’s ever been.
CH: I’m not sure why
you say that. You know the RMT formally endorsed all TUSC candidates in
the 2012 local elections?
OJ: Well I don’t think
you’ve had a huge step forward in trade union backing. The RMT is very
welcome but you’re talking about an absolutely tiny proportion of the
labour movement.
CH: But I just gave
you figures to show that potentially even just the non-affiliated unions
are not a tiny absolute proportion…
OJ: They’re not
actively backing any alternative to the Labour Party.
CH: Leading members of
those unions are involved in TUSC…
OJ: They were in
Respect and the Socialist Alliance as well…
CH: Actually no they
weren’t, not in the same way. Trade union leaders did not participate to
the degree that they do in TUSC. They had no rights within those
organisations. Now the trade union leaders that are involved in TUSC
have a veto over what’s decided because TUSC operates on a consensus
basis – in other words they have ownership of TUSC.
OJ: What percentage of
the British trade union movement do you have backing TUSC at the moment?
In terms of the membership that’s represented by those unions?
CH: When the Labour
Party was formed in 1900 the unions involved represented less than 3% of
the workforce. It was the smaller unions, one of the biggest was the
railway workers’ union with 54,000 members…
OJ: I know. A motion
passed at the TUC in 1899 from the Amalgamated Society of Railway
Servants, as it was, to secure representation of the working class…
CH: So the Labour
Party when it was formed represented less than 3% of the workforce at
that stage. I’m not saying…
OJ: Yes you are. But
I’m sure you find it encouraging and I won’t say it’s discouraging in
any way. However I don’t think in practice you’re seeing the nucleus of
a new workers’ party. Even at a time of capitalist crisis and a woefully
unpopular Labour government which had been around for 13 years you did
very poorly at the last general election. And I don’t see why now that’s
going to be any different. Because what happens now is that when people
become disillusioned you get a leap in Labour support, simply because
they are the receptacle of discontent. I can’t see how as people get
more disillusioned with the Tories your potential vote won’t be
squeezed.
CH: There’s two things
here. There is votes but we’re also talking about whether it is possible
to mobilise conscious fighters to go into the Labour Party. I’m trying
to explore this issue about how you can cohere together that more
politically thinking layer. They are generally not looking towards the
Labour Party so how would trying to convince them to participate in the
Labour Party bring them together? Isn’t it at least as profitable to
argue for them to participate in a campaign to build a new workers’
party, certainly in unions such as the PCS and NUT, and as a weapon
against the right-wing leaders in affiliated unions such as Unison?
OJ: Er, no, obviously
I don’t agree it would be as profitable – there’s no precedent for its
success.
CH: Well there is. The
Liberal Party was replaced by Labour…
OJ: OK there is a
precedent but it was 112 years ago in Britain. There’s no precedent for
a new workers’ party having any success although there’s been countless
attempts at building one. I personally feel that it is a dead end and a
waste of people’s political energy. And what will you say when you get
very poor election results? What will your conclusions be?
CH: What do you mean
by a poor vote? Is one vote for every ten Labour votes poor?
OJ: It’s not a great
result. If that means Labour got 35% that’s a way of saying you got 3.5%
which is not very good. You don’t have to say it like that. Just talk in
terms of percentages. Comparably, let’s say if you consistently get less
than 15% then that’s not a particularly good result. But compared to
most left projects if you consistently got 5% – that just shows how low
the expectations are.
CH: What I’m trying to
ask you is what would be a ‘good’ result in the context of what we’ve
been discussing, on how could you impact on the Labour Party. You’re
saying that when there are new struggles it’ll be possible to draw a
significant number into the Labour Party to conduct the battle there for
political representation. We’re saying well actually that won’t be seen
as an attractive proposition to many of those workers – often struggling
against Labour councils, or facing denunciation from the Labour
leadership – and that it’s entirely possible to draw them into a battle
for a new workers’ party, which would also have the effect of forcing
Labour to look over its shoulder. And therefore the question of the
comparison with Labour is not unimportant. That’s why I’m trying to push
you – what do you mean by a ‘bad’ vote, in relation to Labour?
OJ: I mean if you get
consistently less than 5% of the vote then you won’t have any greater
impact than every single other attempt at a new party.
CH: The point of
debate between us is, will the most combative sections see it as viable
to have a political fight inside the Labour Party to reclaim it? Or will
they draw the conclusion that you need a new vehicle for working class
representation? But let’s approach it from another angle. We both
anticipate new levels of struggle…
OJ: It’s not
inevitable. Mass unemployment does not breed militancy. People are
scared to go on strike or stick their neck out at a time when there’s
millions of people out of work.
CH: There’s no
question that there is not a simple connection between crisis and
militancy. And actually there’ll be different events that can produce
electoral surprises, like Bradford West. Look at the household tax in
Ireland – there’s been limited industrial struggles but a mass movement
has emerged. These events will develop…
OJ: Well I hope so.
But whatever happens I’ll be utterly shocked, in truth, if we get a mass
upsurge and tens of thousands of people join a new workers’ party.