|
|
The Brown ascendancy
Tony Blair’s days as prime minister are numbered.
Almost certainly, Gordon Brown will replace him. Despite their intense
personal rivalry, they have been the key architects of New Labour’s
neo-liberal policies. So, how different would a Brown government be?
HANNAH SELL writes.
IN ITS NINE years in office New Labour has presided
over the brutal occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, the privatisation
of more public services than the Tories, and a bonanza of riches for the
elite at the top of Britain’s society. While the economy is predicted to
grow by less than 3% in 2006, the average pay of the UK’s top company
bosses rose by an incredible 43% last year. This compares to 1.5% being
offered to nurses and other health workers which, at half the rate of
inflation, is effectively a pay cut. This disgusting pay offer sums up
the programme of New Labour – attacks on the NHS and workers’ pay!
The share of income owned by the top 1% of the
population in Britain is back to pre-second world war levels. Meanwhile,
60% of people earn less than £20,000 a year, 80% less than £30,000. For
millions the minimum wage has become a maximum wage, a glass ceiling
that they cannot rise above. Twelve million Britons live below the
poverty line.
This gaping chasm between rich and poor underlies
every aspect of life. First under the Tories, and now under New Labour,
the ruling class has pursued ferocious neo-liberal policies – relying on
cheap, sweated labour rather than investment to boost profits. However,
the global race-to-the-bottom means that Britain can no longer rely on
low wages to be competitive. Big business and New Labour have partially
compensated for this by encouraging migration from the new EU countries
to Britain. But there is no doubt that the potential exists for major
struggles over pay, involving both migrant and indigenous workers.
This has not happened to date, partly because of a
lack of confidence which still exists at this stage, but primarily as a
result of the lamentable role played by the national trade union
leaders. Most of them have accepted the role of the market in society,
and have therefore proved incapable of leading a determined struggle
against its consequences. A glimpse of the potential is shown by the
Whipps Cross hospital strike, a local strike of auxiliary staff,
including migrant workers, which recently won a victory on pay after
eight days of strikes. This shows that workers are prepared to take
determined strike action, and can win victories, if they have a union
leadership which gives a lead.
Another complicating factor is the changed nature of
industry in Britain, with the almost complete destruction of
manufacturing and the expansion of the financial and service sections.
This means that most young workers, potentially the most combative
sections, are currently in workplaces which are untouched by trade union
activity. A key task of the union movement in the coming period is to
reach and organise these sections of workers.
However, if this is done simply as an exercise in
increasing union membership, not linked to struggle, it will only result
in a revolving door as members leave as fast as they are recruited.
Nonetheless, where the unions are prepared to fight for their members,
there is no question it is possible to dramatically increase membership
in unorganised sectors. For example, the PCS civil service union was
able to win an overwhelming ballot for union recognition among teenage
agency workers in Carlisle: 65% of the 500 workers voted and every
single one voted in favour of union recognition!
The scale of low pay in Britain is still partially
disguised by workers staying afloat by borrowing, resulting in record
levels of debt. The recent creeping up in interest rates, while modest
by historic standards, has hit workers’ pockets hard because the level
of indebtedness is so vast. The number of people going bust has reached
record levels and is likely to hit 100,000 this year for the first time.
Young people are the worst affected. There has been a rise in bankruptcy
of 18-29 year olds of 288% between 2001 and 2005. However, this is the
tip of the iceberg compared to what will happen in the future. At the
moment, the British economy is still growing, largely fuelled by the
consumer credit bubble and the housing market. This is not sustainable
in the medium and long term.
Disenfranchised working class
EVEN BEFORE A recession, the sharp nature of the
class divide is the defining feature of British society. Yet according
to Tony Blair, ‘we are all middle class now’. Jack Straw has even
suggested that it is religion not class that is the major divide in
society. However, it is class that is largely responsible for New Labour
losing four million votes between the 1997 and 2005 general elections –
as wide sections of working-class voters abandoned a party that they
rightly see as standing in the interests of big business. New Labour is
only able to maintain its position that class is no longer relevant
because, as with the emperor’s new clothes, nobody is challenging its
claims. The lack of any mass party which stands in the interests of the
working class means that, in the Westminster bubble, class is scarcely
ever mentioned.
Meanwhile, while there is enormous underlying anger
on the question of pay and cuts in public services, because of the
absence of a lead from the trade unions nationally, it has not yet been
translated into national mass action. The key question facing socialists
and the labour movement remains the development of a new mass party that
represents the interests of the working class. Such a party would play a
major role in increasing the confidence of workers to struggle in
defence of their pay and conditions.
Nonetheless, Blair’s imminent retirement has
inevitably raised the question again, at least in the minds of some
trade union activists: can Labour be ‘reclaimed’? Blair used his speech
to the Labour Party conference to argue that there was no fundamental
difference between ‘old’ and New Labour. He pointed out, for example,
that in 1969 Labour prime minister, Harold Wilson, tried to introduce
anti-trade union legislation in the form of the misnamed ‘In Place of
Strife’ bill. Blair argued that the difference then was that Wilson did
not dare to go ahead. In a sense Blair was right. The tops of the Labour
Party have always acted in the interests of big business. Nonetheless,
Labour governments in the past were forced to respond to the pressure of
the working class.
In 1969 a series of strikes put the government under
such pressure that the cabinet openly split and Wilson was forced to
retreat. Today there is a fundamentally different situation. The
Blairites have destroyed the democratic structures of the Labour Party
and completely insulated themselves from the pressure of the organised
working class.
While the trade union vote still has some weight at
the Labour Party conference, (at least for now, and far less than that
exercised in the Wilson-era Labour Party) the conference itself has no
decision-making power at all. Even so, New Labour was anxious to limit
the bad publicity and used bureaucratic means to prevent discussion on a
wide range of issues: Iraq, Trident replacement, the council housing
‘fourth option’, nuclear energy, trade union laws, Venezuela, incapacity
benefit, school admissions’ policy, party funding, Thames Water and the
Labour leadership! Nonetheless, as in recent years, the trade unions
were able to get motions debated and passed in the face of government
opposition, on health service privatisation, council housing and
corporate manslaughter legislation.
Unfortunately, as with last year’s ‘victories’, they
will not make one iota of difference to government policy. On the
contrary, Patricia Hewitt used her speech at a fringe meeting sponsored
by Axa, a private insurance company, to emphasise again that there are
‘no limits’ to how much of the NHS will be sold off to private
companies. It is these multinational companies, not the trade unions,
which the government listens to. Axa, incidentally, refused to pay for
the cancer drug Herceptin for patients who had taken out its insurance
policy on the assumption that would entitle them to a higher level of
healthcare.
The Brown agenda
BLAIR’S SPEECH TO the conference was a determined
defence of Blairism. It is an indication of the nature of the event,
that he was met with rapturous applause even while he was arguing in
favour of the policies the conference, thanks to the trade union vote,
rejected – privatisation of the health service and council housing.
Unfortunately, the trade union leaders did not fight to reclaim the
Labour Party in the determined way that Blair fought to defend his
record. On the contrary, while they used their bloc votes to oppose one
or two of the worst aspects of Blairism, they simultaneously acted as a
cover for the government and, in particular, for the heir-apparent,
Gordon Brown.
Dave Prentis, general secretary of the public-sector
union UNISON, in his speech to the motion against further privatisation
did not oppose the government’s general direction on healthcare: "We
signed up to a reform programme which we believe was working". He only
asked to slow the "pace" of reform, and to halt the "headlong rush" to
privatisation. Behind the scenes, at the Labour Party National Executive
Committee (NEC), it was Brown who intervened to ensure that the UNISON
motion on the NHS did not receive the NEC’s backing. In particular,
Brown emphasised that the government would not back down on its plan to
privatise NHS Logistics. And Brown used his speech to propose handing
over the NHS to an ‘independent body’, in reality, a further
acceleration of privatisation, which Brown has promised to "intensify".
Yet Prentis welcomed Brown’s speech because of its "emphasis on
listening and learning". Prentis added, "there was enough in his speech
to give us hope that he will listen about the direction of reform".
Undoubtedly, there will be some workers who are
hoping against hope that Brown will reveal his ‘true socialist colours’
once elected. Unbelievable as it seems now, many once harboured the same
hopes about Blair. However, there is no more possibility of this
happening than there was with Blair, a fact recognised by many trade
union activists, who have the opportunity to see Brown at closer
quarters than other sections of the working class. There are no serious
ideological differences between the ‘Blairites’ and the ‘Brownites’. In
this situation, for Prentis and other union leaders, who have sat and
listened to Brown argue for the privatisation of their members’ jobs, to
make such favourable comments is a dereliction of duty.
The left’s last stand?
AT THE CONFERENCE fringe meeting sponsored by the
‘big four’ unions – the GMB, UNISON, TGWU and Amicus – none of the trade
union general secretaries were prepared to say who they would support as
the next leader of the Labour Party, all confining themselves to
statements that ‘it is not about personalities’ but ‘programme’.
However, there is one candidate, John McDonnell MP, whose programme on
the major issues – anti-cuts, anti-privatisation, anti-war, and for
trade union rights – matches the demands of the trade unions. If the
‘big four’ union leaders were serious about reclaiming the Labour Party
they would be campaigning for McDonnell, and arguing for their sponsored
MPs to be mandated to nominate him. Unfortunately, they will not do
this. In all likelihood the big four will back Brown. Even if pressure
from their membership forces them to support another candidate, it will
be another of much the same stripe.
The union leaders’ lamentable approach will prolong
the period of time during which working-class people will be condemned
to have no mass party of their own. If union leaders are serious about
reclaiming the Labour Party, they should use McDonnell’s campaign to
launch a serious battle to democratise the party and commit it to
defending workers’ interests, starting with the scrapping of anti-union
laws. We are not at all convinced that such a campaign, even with
significant union backing, would succeed. But let them test out the
possibilities. If the campaign is not successful, we believe they should
then be prepared to draw the necessary conclusion – and move to
disaffiliate from the Labour Party in order to begin building a new mass
workers’ party.
Instead of waging a serious struggle on either
basis, however, the right-wing trade union leaders are acting as a fig
leaf for Brown. McDonnell has nonetheless declared that he is ‘fighting
to win’. If McDonnell succeeds in getting on the ballot paper (which
requires nominations from 44 MPs) socialists should call on trade
unionists who can vote to support him. It is also necessary to discuss
with John McDonnell and his supporters about what conclusions they will
draw if they do not succeed.
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 last year’s
New Labour conference) elected onto 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, this 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 rail and maritime union,
correctly pointed out, most RMT members, seeing the anti-trade union
laws and privatisation of public services, could not be convinced to
join the party. This is not just true of RMT members, the main trend is
not for people to join New Labour but to leave it. McDonnell himself
estimates that real Labour Party membership is as low as 100,000, with
10-20,000 of those active. Most of those are part of the New Labour
bureaucratic machine rather than genuine activists. We believe these
factors make the campaign to ‘reclaim Labour’ utopian.
Bob Crow is therefore correct to oppose
re-affiliation to the Labour Party. However, non-political trade
unionism is not a way forward, and Crow and others like him have a
responsibility to work towards the foundation of a new mass workers’
party. It was a mistake that the RMT-initiated conference at the end of
October was limited to discussing the question of building a shop
stewards’ movement and, unlike the RMT-sponsored conference earlier this
year, was not organised to also address the question of political
representation. In reality, the rebuilding of the base of the trade
union movement, and the development of a new layer of shop stewards,
needs to be linked to the question of building a political alternative.
The shop stewards’ movement in the 1970s arose out
of the major class struggles that took place at the time. Today, after
the retreats of the 1990s, the layer of activists in the trade unions is
still much thinner than it was then. It is being rebuilt as a new
generation is drawn into struggle, and this is taking place more quickly
in left-led unions, such as the PCS. However, it will take time to
develop, and the existence of a new party or pre-party formation would
help raise the confidence of potential shop stewards and therefore help
to speed the process up.
Blair’s final phase
BLAIR HOPES THAT, following the Labour Party
conference, he will be able to stay in office until the summer of 2007.
This is possible, but it is more likely that he will be forced out as a
result of a new crisis before then. The trigger for the last round of
infighting – the prospect of disastrous results in next May’s elections
in Scotland, Wales and local authorities – still remains and will loom
again if Labour suffers further electoral damage.
However long it lasts, the final phase of the Blair
government is going to be unstable and include brutal attacks on the
working class. Blair is under huge pressure to withdraw from the
quagmire of Iraq, not least from sections of the British ruling class,
as shown by the incredible public statements of Richard Dannatt, chief
of the army. He condemned the whole basis of the invasion: "As a
foreigner you can be welcomed by being invited in to a country but… the
military campaign we fought in 2003 effectively kicked the door in". It
is virtually unprecedented for the military to publicly break ranks with
government and is an indication that the military wing of the ruling
class feels it is crucial to get the troops out of Iraq as soon as
possible.
However, Dannatt, has not, as some have suggested,
‘joined the anti-war movement’! On the contrary, he is in favour of the
continuation of the occupation of Afghanistan, which is resulting in
more British soldiers dying than has been the case in Iraq. And his only
‘solution’ for Iraq is that it has to accept "less than liberal
parliamentary democracy". This is thinly-veiled code for the conclusions
being drawn by increasing sections of the ruling class in the US and
Britain that the only way to protect their interests, given the
nightmare they have unleashed in Iraq, is to accept a ‘new Saddam’ or,
more likely, three Saddams in a divided Iraq.
It is possible that Brown, regardless of the
position he takes now, will be forced to remove the troops from Iraq. If
Blair stayed in office he would probably also be forced to do so at a
certain stage. However, this would not alter the general direction of a
Brown government of supporting US imperialism’s brutal foreign policy,
including continuing operations in Afghanistan.
The occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan are now more
unpopular than at any time since 2003. Among the Muslim population of
Britain they have led to a profound anger with New Labour. This is being
enormously added to as the government, desperate to recover ground in
the polls and frightened of being undermined by the Tories and, in some
areas, by the far-right, is resorting to using anti-Muslim prejudice – a
dangerous game. The various statements that have been made by Straw,
Ruth Kelly and Blair, and the baying they have produced in the
right-wing press, have resulted in an increase in racism, particularly
aimed at Muslims, and will increase instability and the potential for
ethnic conflict.
Ironically, the Tories, who traditionally have been
the ones to ‘play the race card’, appear to have taken a more careful
position than New Labour. However, Muslim workers would be making a
mistake to imagine that the Tories are any better than New Labour. While
the Tory party is anxious to change its brutal right-wing image, David
Cameron is only giving a slick gloss to the same old policies. This was
made clear at the Tory party conference where Cameron clearly attempted
to blame Muslims for the divisions in society.
The best traditions of the labour movement have
historically been to defend the right to criticise others’ beliefs,
including religious beliefs. This should remain the case today. However,
it is also a duty of the labour movement to defend oppressed minorities
and to fight against racism, prejudice and religious intolerance, and to
explain that such ideas can only weaken and divide the working class.
NHS fightback
DESPITE ITS EFFORTS, it is unlikely that New Labour
will gain ground in the polls. Not least because Blair obviously wants
his ‘legacy’ to include large-scale ‘reform’ of the NHS. By pushing
ahead with cuts and closures of hospitals, combined with widespread
privatisation, Blair is risking a legacy similar to Margaret Thatcher’s.
The Tories went ahead with the poll tax partly
because they mistook the mood of the trade union and Labour leaders for
the mood of the working class. Blair may be doing the same again on the
NHS. The Health Emergency campaign 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 it, 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
different levels and timescales, depending on the local area. Also,
while there was enormous spontaneous anger against the poll tax, the
movement against it was organised and co-ordinated by the national
anti-poll tax federation, in which Militant (predecessor of the
Socialist Party) played a central role. At this stage, while there is
enormous anger and protests locally, the NHS campaigns have not been
effectively coordinated nationally.
The TUC lobby of parliament on 1 November was
welcome but not sufficient. The Socialist Party supported a feeder march
to the lobby, called by the London Pensioners’ Confederation, as a step
towards a national demonstration. 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 Britain has seen since the poll tax.
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. For the first time since the NHS was founded by
the 1945 Labour government, the Tories are now ‘more trusted’ to run the
NHS than Labour. 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 the Labour and Tory parties support the
destruction of the health service, but this does not preclude a new
Brown-led government making concessions on NHS cuts, albeit temporarily.
This would not be the 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. Once such a generalised movement develops and gains
concessions, whether on the NHS or another issue, it will enormously
increase the confidence of the working class.
However, Brown’s general policy will be to continue
to tighten public spending. Over the last few years, Brown has expanded
spending in the public sector, albeit linked to privatisation, which has
helped to keep the economy afloat. This has been done on the basis of
increased borrowing. In 2001, Brown predicted that the public sector’s
net borrowing would be £12 billion by 2006. In fact, it is £136 billion
and climbing. Now, the government is attempting to claw back public
spending, resulting in the attacks on the NHS. Brown intends to continue
this trend. In addition, having been a lucky chancellor, he is likely to
be a very unlucky prime minister, coming to office just as the
underlying economic trends are played out and Britain is pushed into
recession.
Even if this is not the case in the short term, it
is clear that Brown will carry on with the same neo-liberal policies as
his predecessor. He will be faced, however, with a working class which
has suffered nine years of New Labour government. Once they realise that
Brown will be no better, workers will be increasingly determined to
fight against the Thatcherite onslaught on public services and living
conditions that they will inevitably face.
|