|
|
Blair’s ‘war on the home front’
"THE WORLD economy is suffering its sharpest downturn
since the 1974 oil crisis, a ‘synchronised slowdown’ that is the most rapid for
two decades", argued the chancellor, Gordon Brown, in his November pre-budget
report.
When New Labour came to power Brown declared that his
‘prudence’ would mean an end to ‘boom and bust’ in the British economy. Quietly
shelved some time ago, this claim is now in tatters. The reality of the
capitalist system that New Labour has so lovingly embraced, is going to be
increased hardship for working-class people. For New Labour themselves it will
mean coping with economic crisis and political and industrial unrest, with the
fire-fighters’ struggle the first, critical, instalment.
Since the March budget the value of the London stock market
has fallen by 22%. The government estimates that their revenue from corporation
tax has already fallen by 14% as a result of the economic slowdown. In the seven
months from April to October the government borrowed £10.3bn, while in the same
period last year it repaid debt of £2.6bn. According to economists at JP Morgan,
Brown could face a shortfall of £23bn over the next three years. In fact this is
likely to be an underestimate. In the 1989–1992 recession the then Tory
government’s budget plummeted from a surplus equivalent to 1.4% of GDP in 1988,
to a 7.8% deficit by 1992-93, as tax revenues decreased and spending
(particularly on unemployment benefit) increased. The world economic crisis
today is, as Brown confessed, far worse than that of the early 1990s. Yet even a
recession on a similar scale to then would mean a turnaround in the government
finances of something like £100bn. Like the Tories before them, New Labour will
turn to a massive increase in borrowing, combined with deep spending cuts and
increased use of ‘private finance initiatives’ (PFIs) to fund public services.
The economic crisis, however, will also create havoc for
their privatisation programme. The prospect of ‘a hundred Railtracks’ will be
posed. As some of the private companies running public services inevitably hit
financial crisis, New Labour will have two choices: to pour public money into
propping up private companies, as they have done with the privatised British
Energy company, or, as they were eventually forced to in Railtrack’s case, step
in and partially renationalise. Whereas one forced renationalisation could be
construed as bad luck, several would make a complete mockery of privatisation
and PFI.
But it would be wrong to imagine that New Labour will react
to economic crisis by moving to the left. They will cling to privatisation until
it collapses around them. It is true that Digby Jones, director general of the
employers organisation, the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), has loudly
expressed his fear that New Labour intends to increase corporation tax to try
and boost government income. Brown has responded with soothing (and accurate)
noises about the government being ‘the CBI’s friend’. And in fact Britain’s
corporate income tax rate is one of the lowest in the advanced capitalist world,
at 30%, with even George Bush’s USA levying far more (45%). New Labour’s mantra
about making Britain the most ‘business-friendly environment in the world’ is
graphically illustrated by fact that the total tax take from business has fallen
from 3.6% (as a share of GDP) in 1996 to 2.8% this year. Digby Jones’ grumbles
do not represent a real divergence between New Labour and big business; they are
more akin to someone beating their dog to ensure its continued obedience.
Nonetheless, there is no doubt that large sections of the British ruling class
must be desperately wishing that the Tories were in better shape. In the past
they relied on the Labour Party to be a ‘second eleven’ that could stand in for
the Tories when necessary, but now there is no credible party waiting in the
wings if New Labour hit the rocks.
The fire-fighters’ strike is by far the most serious
opposition New Labour has faced, and they appear weak, divided and incompetent
in the face of it. Before the strike New Labour was full of bravado about how
the fire-fighters would be Blair’s equivalent of the 1984-85 miners’ strike.
Andrew Rawnsley summed up their previous mood in The Observer when he recalled a
"conversation with a member of the New Labour high command just before they
first came to power. He positively looked forward to a strike by a big union.
His face lit up at the prospect of showing the unions – and the voters – who was
boss. ‘We will crush them’, he smiled". But as Rawnsley went on to comment, "I
doubt that he is smiling now".
Blair and his government, with no major strikes since 1997,
have never really been tested in a large-scale conflict. Blair didn’t even have
to win the battle to cleanse the Labour Party of socialism, his predecessors did
most of that and handed him ‘New Labour’ on a plate. The result is an extremely
arrogant and short-sighted government with a serious overestimation of its own
powers. They undoubtedly provoked the fire-fighters strike, firstly by blocking
attempts by the fire authorities to offer an incremental 16% pay rise earlier
this year, and secondly via the Bain report. Then, through incompetence, they
made doubly sure that everyone in the country clearly understood that they were
provoking the second round of strike action through the fiasco of John
Prescott’s last minute refusal to ratify the agreement reached between the Fire
Brigades Union (FBU) executive and the employers.
It has since become clear that John Monks, secretary of the
TUC, was deeply involved in these negotiations. His role was undoubtedly to
convince the FBU leadership to accept a ‘modest’ proposal on pay and some
elements of ‘modernisation’ (in reality cuts). However, having worked for a deal
and had New Labour throw it back in his face, Monks has had no choice, given the
fury of trade unionists with New Labour, but to step up his verbal support for
the fire-fighters. John Edmonds, leader of the general workers’ GMB union,
summed up the situation when he said that this is now "a fight between the
government and the whole union movement". Whilst the right-wing trade union
leaders currently have no intention of turning their words into solidarity
action, if the strike escalates they will come under phenomenal pressure.
The RMT union, which organises a section of London
Underground rail workers, are currently balloting for strike action after tube
drivers were sent home without pay because they were unwilling to drive, on
health and safety grounds, whilst the fire-fighters were on strike.
Unfortunately, the ballot will delay action in defence of those drivers until
the third planned eight-day strike in the middle of December – too late to put a
stop to their victimisation – but nonetheless, if the fire-fighters strike
continues, the prospect is raised of the whole London Underground being out at
same time as the fire-fighters. Even Monks has had to take a neutral position on
trade unionists on the underground and elsewhere refusing to work on safety
grounds during the fire strikes, saying that it was up to the unions concerned
to ensure that their members were safe.
Monks joked that there was no need to worry, he wasn’t
planning a ‘mini general strike’. If the government go on the offensive against
the fire-fighters, however, the need for words to be backed up with solidarity
action, including if necessary a 24-hour general strike, will be posed. If the
TUC are unprepared to do this the responsibility will fall on the newly-elected
left trade union leaders. A call to take solidarity action by trade union
leaders, if built for, could receive widespread support. There is an enormous
groundswell of sympathy for the fire-fighters. Over the last eighteen months
strikes have broken out amongst local authority workers, lecturers, London
teachers, civil servants, rail workers and, of course, the fire-fighters.
Significantly, the main issue in most strikes has been pay, although
privatisation is also a massive issue. After twenty years in which British
workers’ pay and conditions have been ceaselessly eroded, a tidal wave of
feeling has developed that ‘enough is enough – its time to take a bit back of
all that has been stolen from us’. The fire-fighters are rightly seen by trade
unionists as the ‘advanced guard’ of everyone’s struggle for better pay and
conditions. In addition, although the mood could change as events develop, the
Prescott fiasco has currently hardened support behind the fire-fighters well
beyond the organised working class. The majority of society, including sections
of the middle class, are supporting the fire-fighters because they want Blair
and New Labour to receive a bloody nose.
New Labour seems to be split and unsure on how to respond.
On the one hand, against the background of economic crisis, they are terrified
that a high profile victory by the fire-fighters would, as Eddie George,
governor of the Bank of England, warned, open the floodgates as other public
sector workers gained confidence to fight. Gordon Brown, above all, seems set on
taking on the fire-fighters.
On the other hand the deal that was blocked by Prescott
included major concessions by the FBU leadership. And New Labour is faced with
real difficulties if they escalate the strike. The fire-fighters are determined,
and seem prepared for a long and bitter struggle. Virtually all of the national
trade union leaders, under pressure from their members, are at least verbally
backing the fire-fighters.
At the same time the government is under attack from
different sections of the establishment for the way they are handling matters.
Some of the military chiefs are openly expressing their worries that, if the
strike continues, they will not be able to supply British troops for a war
against Iraq. The Chief Police Officers Association has said that they won’t
cross picket lines, and army commanders have also expressed their reluctance to
do so. This partly reflects the mood of the rank-and-file in the army and
police, but it is also an indication of the antagonism between the tops of the
police and army on the one side, and the New Labour government on the other.
Whilst New Labour has proved its dedication to neo-liberal capitalism again and
again, it cannot call on the same deeply-engrained loyalty from sections of the
state and the establishment that the Tories had in the past. When it appears
weak, as it does now, the instinct of a layer of those were traditionally Tories
is to kick a Labour government while it is down.
However, if New Labour steps up their offensive on the
fire-fighters these antagonisms will tend to be submerged by the class struggle,
and the different sections of the state will largely do what is asked of them,
including crossing picket lines and taking engines. The fire-fighters can only
rely on their own cohesion and solidarity action from other trade unionists to
win their struggle.
Against the background of increasing industrial militancy a
victory for the fire-fighters would massively embolden working people to fight
for decent pay. This could coalesce with the development of a mass anti-war
movement, as Blair follows Bush on the road to a showdown with Iraq. In the
latest opinion polls only 13% of people ‘strongly support’ a war on Iraq, while
59% think that a war would be fought to protect US interests in the Middle East.
It is possible that, in a matter of months, Blair could go from being ‘Teflon
Tony’ to being forced out of office. Brown, who imagines he will be Blair’s
successor, could find himself even more unpopular than Blair, given his
responsibility for the economy and his intransigence on the fire dispute.
At this stage there is still no mass political alternative
to New Labour and the other capitalist parties. The Socialist Party’s demand for
a new mass workers’ party is increasingly popular amongst rank-and-file trade
unionists, particularly fire-fighters. The FBU general secretary Andy Gilchrist,
unfortunately, is still arguing that the task is to force Labour back to the
left. Even he, however, had to admit at a fringe meeting at the November 16
London Labour Party conference that was starting to think that ‘I must have been
mad’ to argue such a position.
Certainly, he will not be able to convince his members that
they should keep paying money to the Labour Party. Even before the strike whole
watches had decided not to pay into the political fund. Once this strike is
over, it is doubtful that many fire-fighters will be still be paying money to
Labour. However, this urgently poses the question of what should be done with
the money. At this stage, given the lack of an alternative, some fire-fighters
have started to give the money to charity. What is needed, however, is for the
unions’ political funds to be used to build a new workers’ party that will fight
for the cause of the fire-fighters, and of the working class as a whole.
Hannah Sell
|