05.06.1997
The 1997 general election and perspectives for Marxism
Below we reprint an edited version of the Socialist Party’s internal discussion document on the political landscape following the general election. We hope this will serve to open up the discussion around the tasks of the left
The following statement has been prepared by the EC for the consideration of Socialist Party members. It is by no means a complete analysis of perspectives (Scotland, for instance, has not been dealt with because of the material produced by the Scottish comrades which will be circulated). We are preparing a full statement on perspectives for the National Conference. It was felt, however, that we needed to quickly get out to our members an internal analysis of the election results and the immediate situation facing our party. This statement should be discussed at the branches and at the next National Committee in June.
1) The 1997 British general election has ushered in an entirely new period for Britain, for the working class movement, for the Socialist Party and its members. The result of this election has also had European and even world repercussions. Blair’s apparent success has sped the process of bourgeoisification of the workers’ traditional parties as their leaders seek to emulate him.
2) Nobody could have anticipated how the stored up hatred of the Tories, of Thatcherism, would have precisely translated into parliamentary arithmetic. The May 1 result signifies a colossal anti-Tory landslide. The scale of the victory over the Tories - a 179 majority for Labour - is a vital factor which has produced a new, and to some extent unexpected, situation which the Socialist Party must take full account of. We did correctly indicate, in broad terms, the results of the elections. We stated that it was likely to be both a landslide against the Tories and, at the same time, “probably the lowest turnout since the war”. But how this translated into a 179 Labour majority nobody foreshadowed.
Anti-Tory vote
3) The statistics about the election have been covered in the paper and in the journal. It is, however, necessary to underline a few facts here, in order to fully grasp what has happened. Contrary to what Blair and his fawning acolytes in the press claim, it is clear that the vote signified, predominantly, an anti-Tory rather than a pro-Labour sentiment. Many bourgeois commentators accept this. William Keegan, writing in The Observer, commented: “When the sycophants say ‘it was Tony’s victory’, he knows quite well that it was the Conservatives’ defeat.” ...
Dull campaign
14) The campaign itself, as all commentators have admitted, was the dullest in living memory. It was dominated by the party machines with little participation from the population, other than watching television, or as participants in specially selected audiences on TV programmes. All of our comrades reported the apathy, sometimes tinged with hostility to ‘all politicians’. Pensioners, in particular, were hostile to Labour who they identified as abandoning “the poor, the old and oppressed” ...
Low turnout
18) The ‘Americanisation’ of British politics, which we had foreshadowed in our discussions over the change in our name, was also underlined by this election. Not only was it largely fought on TV, and was the most boring, but the turnout was a post-war low ...
A landslide without Illusions?
20) On the other hand, The Guardian has produced figures which, it claims, show that it was largely Tory abstentions which were responsible for the lower turnout. The Guardian is almost like a house journal of ‘New Labour’. Therefore its conclusions have to be treated with caution, but it is probably true that the lower turnout arises from a combination of factors - a lack of enthusiasm amongst the working class for what Labour was offering, and Tory abstentions. One writer, in the New Statesman, has gone so far as to say: “We have witnessed what I can only describe as a landslide without illusions.”
21) In a certain sense this was true. All comrades noted the scepticism, and even hostility, towards Labour during the course of the election campaign itself. This, however, changed when the scale of Labour’s victory became apparent. Paradoxically, this created illusions even amongst those who were sceptical before. The very sweep of the Labour victory would now mean that, “nothing could stand in the way of a Blair government solving our problems”. Teachers reported that the day after the election, working class people, many of them unemployed single mothers, etc, were triumphant and expecting that “Tony was now going to solve their problems”.
22) Yet it is precisely this group, single mothers, who Blair and Field are intending to attack. A local grocer commented to one of our comrades that, “Blair can do anything now”. Workers who were sceptical were swept along by the mass who now thought that everything was possible. At the same time, there is a layer of more advanced, thinking workers who understand, in general, the situation and are somewhat apprehensive, to say the least, of the way Blair will behave. Undoubtedly, the mood exists amongst the mass that the government must be ‘given some time’ to see what it can do.
Sensitive approach needed
23) This new situation demands a sensitive, skilful approach towards how we present our ideas and criticisms of the government. This government is a bourgeois government. Its actions, within days, underline this: the appointment of the chairman of BP as a minister, Brown’s decision to denationalise the Bank of England and the appointment of Frank Field to the sensitive social security post. ...
25) The mass of the working class, despite our characterisation of the government as a bourgeois government, nevertheless considers that this is ‘their government’. Some of the advanced workers, on the other hand, perceive that little has changed. But it would be wrong for us to crudely, and impatiently, go against the mood of ‘give them time’.
26) There are big illusions, but they will only be overcome on the basis of the experience of the masses of the retreats of New Labour and of our propaganda and intervention. Therefore, we cannot address the New Labour government in the same way that we approached the Tories. We cannot speak in the kind of hostile tone with which we approached Thatcher and Major. We have to pose our demands, above all on issues like low pay, the minimum wage, the Private Finance Initiative in the health service, education, etc, in terms of pressurising the government to take action in favour of the working class.
27) The period of illusions can last for some time - certainly for months and, possibly, for a year or so. This does not mean to say that there will not be significant groups of workers who will come into collision with the new government. Look at the firefighters’ strike in Essex and the one-day strikes of university lecturers.
28) At local level cuts are still being made, often by Labour councils. This provides us with the opportunity to carry on with our local campaigns. The workers will differentiate, for a time, between what is promised at national level by the government and what is happening in the local community, the local hospital, etc. The situation has changed with the election. But this does not mean that we cannot get a sympathetic response to our ideas, so long as we correctly gauge the mood and act in a sympathetic and skilful fashion. ...
Battles In education ahead
31) Further battles are inevitable in higher education. New Labour may ‘privatise’ student loans and may even end loans completely, replacing them with a graduate tax. Further attacks on lecturers are inevitable given the underfunding of colleges and universities. Students, who perhaps had more illusions than others going into the election, will be brought down to earth with a bump. They could be radicalised quicker than other groups. It is therefore essential that we pay special attention to this work.
A ‘New Labour’ government
32) Even if big changes do not come into operation immediately, the impression will be given that the government is taking action in favour of the working class. The six months moratorium on the closure of London hospitals and the various investigations into issues like the ‘Gulf War Syndrome’ reinforces this picture. At the same time, within days of being elected, Blair has given notice of the character of this government. It was not an accident that, standing on the steps of Downing Street, he warned that, “We were elected as New Labour, we will govern as New Labour.” This reads: ‘We promised little and we will implement even less.’ ...
34) There is an expectation of action in the health service. This implies not just improvements in patient care, length of waiting times, but on the issue of the abominably low wages of health workers. This can mean clashes between the government and health workers. It is possible that some concessions will be given to one section of workers while others will be sat on by Dobson and the government.
Economic policy
35) The inclusion of the millionaire Labour MP, Geoffrey Robinson, in the government is also an indication of its standpoint. Within days, Brown had poured a bucket of water on the expectations that Labour will seek greater controls over the economy by denationalising the Bank of England and introducing a quarter percent increase in interest rates. The contrast between the ‘reforming’ 1945 Labour government and Blair’s could not have been more striking. To shuffle off responsibility for interest rates onto ‘faceless bankers’ is to unload responsibility from the government from a big area of economic decision making ...
Relations with the trade unions
39) At the same time, we cannot underestimate the expectations which have now been raised by the results of the election, particularly with regard to wages. The wages of workers in the public sector have been held down. There are colossal pressures for advances to be made in what is now considered to be a more favourable climate.
40) At the same time, the Tories’ anti-union laws remain in place. Trade union rights will, of course, be restored at GCHQ. Nevertheless, the Blair government will attack quite viciously the first section of public sector workers who engage in serious action. Polly Toynbee, columnist for The Independent and close to the Blairites, indicated what lies in store when she predicted that any public sector workers who step out of line will be “hammered” by New Labour.
41) The trade union leaders, for their part, will not be eager to seek a confrontation with the government. Indeed, as we have pointed out, it is likely that they will seek some kind of ‘accord’, either officially or unofficially, along the lines of what happened in Australia. The scandalous statements of John Monks, the general secretary of the TUC, are an indication of the thinking of the trade union officialdom. He not only seeks ‘equidistance’ between the unions and Labour, but has proffered “useful” advice to the Tories over their forthcoming leadership contest. Unbelievably, he maintained that the “country” needs a “responsible opposition”. Only an earthquake from below would shift the trade union officialdom into opposition to the government.
42) How the trade unions will develop under a New Labour government is a key question for us. We will be devoting special material for perspectives in the trade unions. It is just necessary to say here that, because of the atrophy of the trade union tops, their incapacity to move in defence of the membership or to build the unions, unless faced with an explosion from below, means that the kind of rank and file activity witnessed by the Liverpool dockers and the Hillingdon workers, could become much more common. We must be to the fore in pressing for the immediate re-instatement of the sacked Liverpool dockers.
43) This does not mean to say that official strike action is not possible. The firefighters engaged in official strike action. But the tendency of the trade union tops to enmesh themselves with the state machine and the employers’ organisations, has been taken to unheard of levels. Splits from the unions are now a real possibility. Above all, we must be prepared to take initiatives from below when it is demonstrated that the tops of the unions are incapable of responding to the pressure of the workers. ...
Welfare reform
46) The Private Finance Initiative, as the experience in a number of hospitals has demonstrated, is a formula for conflict. This will be extended, undoubtedly, into the schools. And already in the election campaign, Brown and Prescott promised privatisation, at least of a partial character, of the Post Office. Margaret Beckett has now “ruled out” privatisation. But it still remains a possibility, particularly partial privatisation. On a measure which even the Tories were defeated on, New Labour indicates they would proceed. The Tories were defeated by a combination of the campaign of the union, public opposition and an uprising in the rural areas, the electoral base of the Tories. New Labour believes they can proceed with partial privatisation, with either 49% or 51% handed over to the private sector, and/or the sale of Parcelforce.
Two terms?
47) The very scale of Labour’s majority poses the possibility of Blair serving two terms. We cannot discount such a development, but it is not at all certain. We have cited the example of the Atlee government, which also came to power with a landslide, and with a greater share of the popular vote. But within six years, the Tories were back in power. In France, also, it is possible to see how extreme swings form left to right and back again towards the left, can develop ...
49) The possibility of a further term for Blair is conditional on two factors. On the one side are the perspectives for the British and the world economy. And on the other, the state of the opposition, particularly of the Tory Party.
50) The idea, postulated by Brown, that a New Labour government can avoid the cycle of ‘boom and bust’ has been tried by many others and failed. He is only echoing the utopian hopes in bourgeois economic circles in the USA, that the present ‘boom’ in the US economy shows that the ‘business cycle’ has disappeared. These illusions will be dashed by developments within 12-18 months. The process of upswing, culminating in overproduction and, either a slowing down in the economy (‘growth recession’), or a small slump, is organic to capitalism.
51) The present growth cycle is beginning to slow down and could result in a new recession in the world economy and in Britain in the next l8 months to two years. This would shatter the basis upon which the ‘optimism’ of Blair and Brown is founded. The intention to rescue the depleted industrial base would require colossal investments, which are beyond British capitalism. ...
A defeated Tory Party
54) Moreover, the election demonstrated that complete meltdown looms for the [Tory] party if there was any attempt to shift even further towards the right. Even Lilley, days after the election, spoke in soothing tones about jettisoning the image of the “hard men” of the right. Redwood also attempted to project a more ‘caring’ image, while remaining firmly ‘Eurosceptic’. The problem for the Tory Party’s attempt to move towards the ‘centre ground’ is that this arena is already very crowded with New Labour and the Liberals. If a rightwing leader is elected, the Tory left could split and form a separate parliamentary caucus.
Racism
55) The vote for the BNP in East London is a warning about a future revival of racism. In the election social and economic issues were to the fore. Even Budgen in Wolverhampton, who had attempted to fan the flames of racism with dire warnings about a tide of immigration engulfing Britain, was swept away in the anti-Tory landslide. But inevitable disillusionment with the Blair government could be exploited by the neo-fascists and even the Tory right. We must point to the examples of France and Austria. There the extreme right and neo-fascists have captured the support of some workers disillusioned by the policies of the ex-workers’ parties when they were in power. The same thing could happen here. We must be ready to revive our anti-racist work particularly through the YRE. ...
Prospects for the left
57) What then about the possible perspectives for the left? An analysis of the new intake in New Labour’s parliamentary party demonstrates its overwhelmingly Blairite character. Teachers, university lecturers, professors and academics of one kind or another, predominate.
58) The new intake also reads almost as a ‘who’s who’ of former rightwing Labour students who earned their spurs in the battle against us. The Lord Chancellor, Irvine, was the Labour Party barrister, with Blair as his junior, in the case which saw the courts uphold the expulsion of the Militant editorial board. A former Tory, Tristan Garel-Jones, a friend of Major’s, commented in The Observer, that Sally Morgan was a very effective aide of Blair because of her ‘record’ against the pernicious ‘Militant Tendency’.
59) Time and time again we see New Labour MPs cited for their ‘courage’ in the battle against us and the left. It is true that the very scale of Labour’s victory has meant that some with a leftwing past, who were candidates in what appeared to be unwinnable seats, have entered parliament. Some MPs were once connected with our organisation.
60) The size of Labour’s majority does give scope to opposition developing towards the rightwing drift of Labour policy. Already a number of left MPs, such as Alan Simpson and Ken Livingstone, have opposed Blair orthodoxy. Livingstone has proposed taxes against the better-off, and Simpson, together with an expected 50 Labour MPs, is threatening to vote against the denationalisation of the Bank of England when it comes before the commons.
61) At the same time, the counter-reforms introduced by Blair in the run-up to the election must be kept in mind. There is now a draconian MPs’ ‘code of conduct’. If this is sinned against, Blair and Mandelson will not hesitate to discipline and even expel left MPs. At the same time, further measures to emasculate the national conference will be introduced by Blair with the authority he has gained from the election victory.
62) He will also proceed to distance New Labour from the unions, with at least the weakening of the link with the unions and possibly a complete breach. At the same time, it is possible that the Blair government will introduce the state financing of parties. The financing of the Tory Party by foreign backers, which is to be outlawed by the government, can provide ammunition to justify state finances for parties.
63) At the same time, a referendum in favour of proportional representation will be proposed, possibly towards the end of the parliament. It is not certain that Blair and his supporters will back this. However, he has already given an undertaking to Ashdown that the referendum will go ahead. But if it appears that New Labour can secure a second term on the basis of the present rules it is likely that all the guns will be brought out to defeat this proposal. We shall have to see how events shape up over the next period.
64) Undoubtedly at a certain stage, the rightward evolution of the government will bring them into conflict with a body of MPs, on the left, and with the unions. Splits are not only possible, but inevitable. However, the Labour left is extremely feeble. Only an earthquake would shift it out of the orbit of New Labour. They would be reinforced, temporarily, in their decision to remain in the Labour Party, both by the scale of Labour’s victory and by what appeared the limited success of the SLP and ourselves outside the ranks of New Labour.
65) Even if they are either pushed, or break from Labour, this will not be, as we have pointed out in the past, along the lines of the split of the ILP in 1932. There is no mass basis, in the form of thousands of leftward moving workers within the Labour Party, which can provide the basis of a sizeable split from the Labour Party at this stage. It is possible that a parliamentary split will first take place, which will then seek a basis amongst workers outside of the party. The problem for the Labour left is the existence of our organisation and others, like the SLP. We must carefully chart the evolution of the left within the Labour Party. But of far more importance is what we do in the changed situation which has opened up.
Our Party’s campaign
66) Our election campaign was very good, although there was some disappointment amongst comrades about the number of votes which we achieved. This was despite the fact that the leadership argued in meetings prior to the election, that we would get a very limited vote. Because of the overwhelming desire to get rid of the Tories, we predicted that we would be squeezed. We pointed out that there would be many workers who would agree with us, almost on every detail of our programme and criticisms of New Labour, but who would nevertheless vote Labour as a means of getting the Tories out.
67) This was confirmed in the experiences of all those comrades who participated in the election campaign. Some workers explained, “We agree with everything that you say but we will not vote for you this time. What is at issue here is governmental power, to be precise to get out the most hated government in living memory. The only practical way of doing that is to vote Labour.”
68) However, in the local elections, many workers who voted Labour in the general election were prepared to support us (see the results in The Socialist). Also many workers on the doorstep explained to our comrades: ‘Not now but in May 1998, perhaps.’ Our vote was not earth shattering but it is a useful pointer, in the most difficult circumstances in which we could have stood, as to how events will develop on the electoral plane in the future.
SLP vote
69) There is, perhaps, more disappointment over the comparison of our vote with that of the SLP. Why did the SLP do better than us in general, and even in the seats where they stood against us? Firstly, our two best known public figures received the best votes of independent socialist candidates. The EC believes that the vote for Tommy Sheridan and Dave Nellist was very credible in the circumstances. We could not have expected to do even as well as we did in 1992. For every worker who voted for us in Pollok and Coventry, there must have been three or four, if not more, who agreed with everything that we said, who wished that they could have voted for us, but were voting on a national plane for a government.
70) There are other factors which explain the SLP vote. Some complete charlatans were supported by Scargill in opposition to our candidates, for example the ‘jeweller’ in Southampton. The selection of a black candidate without clear socialist credentials or programme, in Peckham, was calculated to deliberately appeal to the big black population in that area. Both in Southampton and Peckham, our campaign was far superior. There were also some accidental factors, such as the vote for SLP candidate Terry Burns, who got a higher vote than Scargill himself, in Cardiff. The Welsh comrades have explained that there were many who had voted for Burns on the basis of ‘Labour’.
71) But the most important explanation for the vote of the SLP, which is in any case very limited, was the ‘Scargill factor’ and the fact that they had a national broadcast. There is evidence to show that in areas where we stood, the very successful campaigns that we conducted also rebounded to the benefit of the SLP. People were attracted to the ideas of ‘socialism’, which we alone popularised on the doorstep, in public meetings, on the streets, etc, but then voted for the SLP, which had an easily recognised national figure. There was also an element of ‘old Labour’ supporting a party with ‘Labour’ in the name.
72) Does this mean, then, that it would have been better from an electoral point of view for us to have retained ‘Labour’ in this election? The answer to that is, no. Electorally we may have gained by confusion with ‘Labour’, but it would have been a barrier for us in approaching the most outstanding, combative workers who are looking for a revolutionary organisation. We were standing, not just for this election, but for the future, and laying down a marker for socialism and our party.
73) What, therefore, are the perspectives in the aftermath of the election? Undoubtedly, the drift towards the right of New Labour will open up the possibility of socialist candidates gaining in by-elections, both for parliament and for local councils. Because the SLP did better than us does not mean that they will automatically continue to do so in the future. We must prepare, of course, for May 1998 as, undoubtedly, will the SLP.
74) Nothing in this election suggests that we have to alter our perspective in relation to the SLP. The SLP can grow, particularly form an older layer formerly in the Labour Party. But there is no possibility of them becoming a mass force. There is enormous disquiet within the party at the methods of Scargill in running the party and his conduct during the general election. He imposed candidates over the heads of the local membership, particularly in the areas where we were standing. The programme upon which many SLP candidates stood was very good, and was little different to our own. On the other hand, the material of other SLP candidates - witness the situation in Southampton by the infamous ‘jeweller’ - were a million miles removed from a revolutionary programme.
75) What should our approach be towards the SLP in the aftermath of the election? We stand for principled ‘left unity’. We are writing to the SLP suggesting a reopening of the discussion on the need to build a new, mass socialist party. At the very least, weare proposing to the SLP that a common electoral front should operate in the event of any elections in the future. We do not expect that Scargill will reply to this positively, but we can have an effect on the ranks of the SLP.
Favourable position opening up
76) Despite the complications in the short term, the position in the medium and the long term, which is opening up for our organisations, is now favourable. The major gauge of our success in this election, we said in advance, would not be the number of votes that we got, but whether we significantly built the party.
77) It could be argued that we should have been bolder and gone for, at least, 50 candidates, thereby securing a national broadcast. We do not think that this would have been possible because of our financial situation. Of course, we were not opposed, in principle, to taking such a step, indeed we considered it carefully prior to the election. If we would have secured a national broadcast, then we would have undoubtedly gained in membership. But it would not have significantly altered the number of votes that we would have got. The broadcast of the SLP was very poor, but compared to what else was on offer, had a certain impact. They claim that 500 people have applied to join their party as a result of this one broadcast. When we did a TV broadcast in the 1980s, through the Labour Party Young Socialists, more than 2,000 people applied to join the YS.
Build our party!
78) We have come through this election strengthened in numbers, in confidence, and in the élan of our organisation. We must now face up to the task of building our party. We must act like a party, which requires a change in the way that we approach our party publicly and internally.
79) We must be much bolder in asking workers to join. We must also apply greater flexibility in how we join members up and how we integrate them into the organisation. The cards, which were handed out for people interested in joining our party, were very successful during the election. We must be audacious now in asking workers and youth to join our party. We should also discuss the possibility of using the first week’s subs as payment for a subscription to the paper, over a month or a couple of months.
80) We should understand that many workers who would join would not immediately attend a weekly meeting. Weekly branch meetings are absolutely crucial but will be largely attended by the cadres who are critical in the development of a revolutionary party. One of the ways of integrating new members, many of whom will not be prepared at this stage to attend a weekly meeting, is the organisation of monthly, or even two-monthly, aggregates with specially prepared posters, leaflets, etc. At the same time, we must build an apparatus at the centre which will allow us to produce a regular members’ bulletin which could be sent to all members, particularly the newer ones.
81) The next National Committee must discuss, on the basis of a well worked out resolution, the question of recruitment, integration and education of members. The programme of education must be thoroughly discussed both at national, at regional, and local levels. We must have a thorough discussion on the kind of education which weprovide to all members of our party, particularly to the newer ones who are travelling into our organisation.
82) We have got to familiarise them with the basic ideas of Marxism. Of course we must deal with the topical issues, but the basic tenants of Marxism, explained in a new and exciting way, must form the bedrock of the education of our new members. We have to give the ammunition to these new members, and to the older, more experienced comrades, to carry them through the era which is opening up.
83) There are going to be complications in this situation, as we have explained. But if one takes the medium and the long term, it is going to be a much more favourable position than the early 1990s. We will have great scope in organising and carrying through campaigns which can reach, and mobilise, workers.
84) Work amongst the youth, particularly in the student field where there could be a crisis very quickly, is absolutely essential. The issue of the minimum wage, which already the CBI has said must be set at no more than £3 or £3.50 an hour, is going to form a big battleground within the organised labour movement. We must campaign on this. We can find a big echo amongst workers in the most sweated industries.
85) We will have the opportunity of pursuing not just a propaganda campaign, but also concretely involving groups of low paid workers. They will attempt to use the victory over the Tories as a means of advancing their case for wage increases, changes in conditions, etc.
86) The revolutionary party, the Socialist Party, can advance in this period on condition that we understand the broad framework of developments and how the rhythm of the class struggle develops at each stage.
87) The next National Committee will have the task of fleshing out and concretising the broad perspectives outlined here, in order to prepare our party for a qualitative growth in membership and influence in the British working class in the exciting period that will open up.
May 9 1997