11.09.2002
TUC - left revives
On September 10, the Financial Times promised us that Tony Blair would have to "try to face down intense trade union opposition to a military strike against Iraq" in his speech that day to the Trades Union Congress. The next day, it reported that the prime minister had "turned on the charm "¦ and escaped a predicted clash with the trade unions". In fact he milked the horrors of September 11 and reminded his audience of their collective failure before the challenge of Thatcher's Tories. Blair successfully sidestepped a spat and left Blackpool without a mauling from conference floor. Yes, he was listened to in a rather loud silence and over a third of conference did not join in with the mandatory standing ovation. But this was of comparatively minor concern. Far more significant was the serious embarrassment averted on the first day. A motion opposing military action outright was narrowly defeated by the block votes of the right and centre in favour of one demanding UN sanction for an attack - carefully cobbled together by the GMB's John Edmonds. Although even this declares its "unambiguous opposition" to unilateral action by the US or any other country. As Blair aides said later, he "could live with" the compromise formula (The Times September 10). Interestingly, congress delivered a rebuke to high-decibel militancy in the form of Bob Crow, the leader of the RMT. He was rejected for a place on the TUC general council. Mick Rix of Aslef also saw a sharp decline in his support, scraping home in tenth position out of the 11 reserved for smaller unions. Last year, he came second. Similarly, the vote to reconfirm the TUC's pro-euro stance (see below) was a defeat for the left. So on these three fronts at least, it looks like not too bad a TUC for the Labour leader. But to conclude from this that there are not rumblings of revolt in the labour movement would be very wrong. There is a growing disaffection in the ranks of the organised working class with the performance of Labour in power. Openly pro-Blairite trade union officials are now virtually unelectable. The trade union bureaucracy is shifting to the left. Where there was once almost total prostration before New Labour, now there is a clearly defined left minority. The results of congress are complex. Battle looks set to be joined around four issues: Anti-trade union laws - the first day of congress adopted a series of demands against all the Tories' anti-trade union laws that - if actively fought for - would inevitably mean sharp confrontation with the government. Pensions - fast becoming the main concern of many workers. Such is the level of disaffection with the bosses' blatant pilfering of pension funds that even TUC general secretary Monks - arch-collaborationist and moderate - told a pensioners' rally on September 8 that British workers were facing "the biggest robbery that we have seen since World War II in terms of pay and conditions". Monks told the gathering that he supported strikes against this rip-off such as the current dispute with Caparo, the steel producer owned by Labour peer Lord Paul. Ominously for the government, Monks comments that "some people like to divide the trade unions into moderates and militants. Let me tell you we are all militants when it comes to defending and advancing pension rights." A CBI survey shows that a third of large employers are considering scrapping or have already scrapped final salary pension schemes and pensions are being described as Blair's potential "poll tax" by Mick Leahy, leader of the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation, the main trade union involved in the Caparo dispute. Privatisation - last year, after the terrorist attacks on the US congress closed early. The curtailment meant that TUC policy on the privatisation issue remained that formulated by a pre-congress general council meeting - a 'wait-and-see' fudge based on a commitment to "a grown-up dialogue" with the government, a "genuine partnership" - the usual nonsense. This year, the unanimous support for composite motion number 8 considerably beefed up the trade unions' approach. This harder position undoubtedly more accurately reflects the mood in the movement. The euro - ironically, the shift to the left in the leadership of some important unions has brought their views more in line with the narrow nationalist right. As Rupert Murdoch's flagship The Times comments, "union sentiment, once idealistically sympathetic to the single currency, has swung towards a more sensible, reserved position" (September 9). In the last debate of the day on September 11, conference voted by 3.5 million to 2.3 million to "press the case for positive support for UK membership of the single currency", rejecting a challenge from the left. Despite this defeat, opponents of entry such as Bill Morris (TGWU), Dave Prentis (Unison), and the leadership of the RMT and FBU mounted a serious challenge to the pro-euro consensus - even if on the basis of deeply flawed left reformist politics. The recently elected joint general secretary of Amicus, Derek Simpson, is also anti-euro and has indicated that his union might withdraw funding from pro-euro groups if his members reverse the union's current stance. So troubles ahead for Blair, despite this vote. Iraq - Blair has conceded ground. Parliament will be recalled on September 24, just after the publication of the much heralded dossier detailing Saddam's military capabilities. Before countenancing action, Blair promised in his conference speech to work "through and with the United Nations". Significantly though, he stopped short of meeting the call of the conference resolution passed on September 9 demanding action could only be sanctioned after agreement by the UN. The looming war with Iraq remains a potentially huge flashpoint with the union leaders, reflecting a deep scepticism amongst the mass of British people about the prospect of war on Saddam. The scale of opposition to the war clearly shocked the more Blair-loyal bureaucrats in Blackpool - and perhaps augurs well for the left at the Labour Party conference at the end of the month. Votes representing some 2.4 million trade unionists (40% of the movement) back the 'intransigent' position. As the Financial Times observed, the vote "demonstrated the growing strength of the 'awkward squad' generation of union leaders, a group of leftwingers that is prepared to openly defy both the government and the TUC's own moderate wing" (September 10). But significantly, even the moderates are clearly marking out territory to the left of Labour and talking tough to a government perceived of as offering little to the movement. The fact that the left was so visible and vocal at this year's conference is a straw in the wind. The growing Bolshieness accounts for the annual congress actually being taken more seriously than for many years by both the government and the bourgeois media. However, two clouds still darken the sky. First, the events of September 11 and its political fallout continue to cast a shadow over all contemporary politics. In many ways, this was the TUC we should have had last year if the terrorist outrage in the US had not happened. Twelve months ago, the TUC general council seized on the suicide attacks to quickly close congress proceedings. Delegates were geared up to give the government a rough ride. As Derek Hunter commented in the Weekly Worker at the time, "Things had been showing clear signs of moving to the left and of reflecting dissatisfaction with the second-term Blair government. Here was the first domestic casualty of imperialism's 'war against terrorism' (September 20 2001). Second, the 'dark years' of the Tories is still an active agent of fear - a fact that Blair is not shy of using for his own ends. The PM was blunt. Turn your back on what he chooses to call "partnership", he told congress, and you are out in the cold: "It happened before: in 1948, in 1969, in 1979. The result then was the folding of a Labour government and the return of a Tory government. Not this time. It will just be less influence with the Labour government." Despite recent victories for the left, Blair still feels confident enough to one-sidedly dictate the terms of the "partnership" with the unions: 'My way or the highway,' he is still telling us. The revival of militancy in the unions - even if it has not translated into statistically significant mass strikes and protests yet - is welcome. However, clearly this mood lacks any real political coherence - where is the Socialist Alliance as an active, shaping factor? The fact that 'Red' Charles Kennedy of the Liberal Democrats addressed the conference - and was able to pose markedly to the left of Blair - indicates the political confusion in the workers' movement at present. We must get our act together, primarily through the building of Socialist Alliance fractions in the unions. Left talk from trade union officials is one thing. Action another. The mood exists for us to move forward. The political context also exists, with the government seemingly set on pursuing a deeply unpopular war abroad and discredited policies such as large-scale privatisation at home. And in the European Union the international conditions exist, with a mighty and undefeated working class beginning to set its own agenda: Brussels, Paris, Rome, Seville. We are seeing the left beginning to stir in the trade unions and the Labour Party itself. So now, where is the revolutionary left? Mark Fischer
Worker