|
|
New Labour inviolate
TONY BLAIR was the first prime minister in British
history to depart the House of Commons to a two-minute standing ovation
from both sides of the house – Labour and Tory. The Tories were waved to
their feet by their leader, David Cameron, who is as anxious to claim
the mantle as Blair’s rightful successor, as Blair once was to declare
himself a child of Thatcherism.
As a result of the occupation of Iraq and his
government’s pro-big business neo-liberal policies, only 22% of the
population believed Blair was doing ‘a good job’, making him one of the
most unpopular prime ministers ever. However, in the Alice-in-Wonderland
world of Westminster he remains a politician to be emulated rather than
reviled.
The new New Labour prime minister, Gordon Brown, has
mentioned ‘change’ several times in his first few speeches to try and
indicate that he will be different to Blair, and thereby improve his
chances of winning a general election. Nonetheless, his overriding
concern is to make it clear to the working class that his premiership
will be no change, that it will not be a ‘shift to the left’. As a
result, he spent most of the six-week period leading up to his
coronation emphasising his continuity with Blair, in particular his
intention to step up ‘reform’ (privatisation) of public services. While
Brown’s style may be different, nothing fundamental will change.
On the contrary, the weeks running up to Brown’s
coronation, and his first days as prime minister, have reconfirmed the
Socialist Party’s conclusion that the Labour Party in the 21st century
is a capitalist party which cannot be ‘reclaimed’ by the working class.
Brown came to power declaring that he wanted a
‘government of all the talents’, that is, a ‘national government’ with
representatives of other capitalist parties, particularly the Liberal
Democrats, in the cabinet. Back in 1997, Blair declared that the Labour
Party should never have been founded and that there was no need for an
independent party of the working class. It was originally Blair’s
intention to bring Liberals into the cabinet in 1997, but the scale of
Labour’s victory made it difficult to justify. However, the destruction
of any remaining elements of working-class representation within the
Labour Party, leaving the leadership free to follow the dictates of big
business, has meant that the difference between a ‘national government’
and a New Labour one has been purely cosmetic.
The lack of any vocal opposition within the Labour
Party to Brown’s ‘government of all the talents’ reflects this reality.
The defection of Tory MP, Quentin Davies, citing Brown as the primary
attraction of New Labour, drives the point home. All three establishment
parties are becoming interchangeable, not just in terms of policies, but
increasingly of personnel. Brown has even been able to appoint leading
representatives of big business to his government, including Sir Digby
Jones, the viciously neo-liberal ex-leader of the Confederation of
British Industry, and Damon Buffini, the hated private equity chief,
with barely a murmur of opposition.
Nonetheless, Labour left MP John McDonnell and his
supporters have done their best to draw positive conclusions about the
Labour Party from the events of recent weeks. Brown was nominated by 313
of the 355 Labour MPs, making it impossible for McDonnell to get on the
ballot paper. However, McDonnell and his supporters argue that, had
there been a contest, he would have received widespread support from
ordinary Labour Party members and trade unionists.
Undoubtedly, some Labour Party members, and
particularly members of affiliated trade unions, would have voted for
John McDonnell had they been given the chance to do so. However, this
does not answer the question about why it proved impossible to
pressurise Labour MPs to nominate McDonnell, and what this says about
the state of the Labour Party.
Prior to the close of nominations, Labour Left
Briefing was pointing out that "backbench MPs respond to pressure. If
the nearly 100 MPs who voted to reject Trident are serious about their
opposition to a new generation of nuclear weapons they should nominate a
candidate who will stop them being built. Now is the time", Briefing
continued, "to mount maximum pressure on Labour MPs to ensure we have a
real discussion about the Party’s future and not some Albanian-style
coronation".
But of course an ‘Albanian-style coronation’ was
what the Labour Party got. Most backbench Labour MPs have failed
miserably to vote against the government’s right-wing policies on a
consistent basis. Since 1997, there have been only three substantive
issues with rebellions of 100 or more – Trident, the war in Iraq, and
House of Lords reform. A majority of trade union sponsored MPs have not
even supported the TUC-backed Trade Union Freedom Bill to remove the
most repressive aspects of Thatcher’s anti-trade union legislation. In
reality, unlike Trident and particularly Iraq, where MPs felt under
pressure from many of their constituents, Labour MPs were not under any
serious pressure to nominate McDonnell for Labour leader because the
Labour Party is an empty shell, virtually without activists or local
structures. In Birmingham, the second biggest city in Britain, the
party’s constituency delegate organisations, the general committees,
have been formally abolished!
The only contest that took place was for the
virtually powerless position of deputy leader of the Labour Party. Even
if a left-wing candidate had been elected s/he would be unable to do
more than whisper in Brown’s ear. However, there was no possibility of
this happening. All six deputy leadership candidates nominated Brown for
leader. Some, it is true, in the hope of winning the backing of ordinary
trade unionists, attacked the obscene wealth at the top of British
society. However, even Jon Cruddas, who went furthest – stating the
obvious that New Labour has ignored the working class and lost five
million voters as a result – was quick to deny that he supported any
concrete increase in taxation of the rich.
Having failed to get on the ballot paper for leader,
McDonnell put a brave face on the situation: "Thousands of socialists
have joined or rejoined the Labour Party… We’ve recruited a whole new
generation of young socialists – and won back those who had long since
given up hope".
This does not fit the facts. Over the past 18
months, New Labour’s membership has slumped from 198,000 (half the level
of 1997) to 182,000. While a trickle may have rejoined the Labour Party
to vote for McDonnell, they were far outweighed by the flood heading out
the door. Even those who did rejoin are unlikely to stay. Their attitude
is likely to be summed up by one letter to The Guardian, sent after
McDonnell’s leadership bid collapsed, which simply said: "Ah well, saves
us having to rejoin what used to be called the Labour Party after all
then".
However, it was the attitude of ordinary trade
unionists to the Labour Party that was most clearly revealed by the
elections. Only 8% of members of affiliated trade unions and
organisations voted in the deputy leadership contest! The majority
clearly did not see Labour as ‘their party’. The number who voted must
have been affected by the fact it was required to tick a box saying you
"support the policies and principles of the Labour Party" in order to
take part.
Nonetheless, if McDonnell, whose programme did take
up many of the issues affecting trade unionists, had been on the ballot
paper, a bigger layer of trade unionists would probably have voted for
him. For that reason the majority of the national leaders of the
affiliated trade unions moved might and main to prevent McDonnell
getting on the ballot paper and to ensure Brown’s smooth succession.
They hope in vain for a few ‘crumbs’ from Brown’s table in return.
However, as Brown continues to attack workers’ pay and conditions they
will face overwhelming pressure from their members to take action,
particularly in the public sector. In that situation, the idea that
trade unions should continue to fund New Labour will become increasingly
unsustainable.
In a premonition of future developments, Dave
Prentis, general secretary of UNISON, denounced an alleged "major push"
by the Socialist Party to break the link with Labour (presumably he
means our support for the Campaign for a New Workers’ Party), and
lamented that he is "seen as an apparatchik for Gordon Brown". In an
attempt to distance himself from New Labour’s attacks he declared:
"Labour is drinking in the last chance saloon".
The right-wing trade union leaders will do all they
can to prevent workers moving to found a new mass party which genuinely
represents their interests. Unfortunately, McDonnell is continuing to
argue, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that the Labour Party
can be reclaimed. Nonetheless, workers’ experience of Brown in office
will lead to growing numbers drawing the conclusion that a new mass
workers’ party needs to be built.
Hannah Sell
|