05.02.2004

Don't break the link

Marcus Ström calls for increased, not decreased, union affiliation to the Labour Party

The Rail, Maritime and Transport union is facing summary expulsion from the Labour Party. Unless its Scottish region drops support for the Scottish Socialist Party the Blairite axe will come down. On Friday February 6, RMT representatives meet in Glasgow to decide their response. They are not expected to climb down. So it is quite likely that this union - which helped found the Labour Party in 1900 - will be thrown out in 2004 for daring to endorse socialist candidates who support its policy on safety and public ownership of the railways.

Clearly, the debate around trade union affiliation to Labour and the question of working class representation is no mere invention of the Marxist left. Not just RMT, but just about every major union has been debating the link with Labour.

The aim of the February 7 Convention of the Trade Union Left, initiated by the Socialist Alliance, ought to be about providing some clarity around the issues raised by the delabourisation of Labour. Yet the event is likely to be no more than a rally with very little by way of serious discussion. The highlight of the day is billed as a debate between Mark Serwotka, general secretary of the PCS civil servants union and prominent supporter of Respect, and Billy Hayes, general secretary of the Communication Workers Union, a keen advocate of 'reclaiming' Labour. However, I understand that brother Hayes will not be turning up. Various unsatisfactory explanations - from pressure within his union to forgetting his son's birthday - have been mentioned.

The opening session will consist of keynote speeches (ie, a rally), then, after what now looks like being a rather one-sided debate, a final rallying session in the afternoon. Not an inspired agenda. Discussion will be pinched. Despite this, the fact that the convention is taking place at all has caused difficulty for some union bureaucrats. Dave Prentis, general secretary of Unison, the public sector union, has issued threats against branches and regions sending delegates to the convention, notably the London regional committee.

Divisions in RMT are particularly sharp. There is a left versus left and right split. Non-Labourites face a united bloc of Labourites. The standing orders committee was due to meet on Thursday February 5 to decide the final agenda for its Glasgow conference the following day. It is still not clear whether motions will be taken from branches, since the executive has not, at the time of writing, published its proposals. However, Camden No1 branch, home of Pat Sikorski, deputy general secretary, has submitted a motion insisting that, while the RMT does not wish to leave the Labour Party, it should not reverse its decision. It is likely that the RMT executive will propose a similar stance. Quite correct in my view.

The struggle in RMT will provide a dramatic backdrop to the convention on Saturday. No doubt Bob Crow, RMT general secretary, should he speak, will get a deserved standing ovation. Yet any triumphalism over the outcome of the RMT conference will be misplaced. While the expulsion of unions from the Labour Party brings dramatic opportunities, without the foundation of a serious working class alternative it can also pull the labour movement towards dangerous waters. Comrade Crow has previously endorsed non-working class candidates, from Plaid Cymru to the Greens. It remains unclear what the RMT stance will be regarding the left populist Respect coalition. Many in the Socialist Alliance have proposed a campaign for union disaffiliation from Labour - a position previously held by the Socialist Workers Party before it agreed to go along with the correct tactic of demanding the democratisation of union political funds. The left nationalists of the SSP argue for breaking the link, as does Peter Taaffe's Socialist Party. Nick Wrack, SA chair, has said he would not have opposed disaffiliation of the Fire Brigades Union had Andy Gilchrist summoned the courage to hold an annual conference last year. They are all wrong.

Here lies the danger. Over the past decade, the left has failed to form a coherent and united organisation that is able to do long, patient and consistent work in the unions, in working class communities and in the Labour Party. The SA was deliberately held back as an electoral front and prevented from fulfilling that role. Now the SWP looks set on killing off the alliance and attempting a short cut to electoral success that will most likely be a dead end.

In these circumstances calling for disaffiliation is tactically foolish. Worse, it is another desperate attempt to bypass the Labour Party. It does not engage with one of the central struggles facing the working class - the overcoming of Labourism: ie, bourgeois ideology in the workers' movement.

The trade union convention comes at an interesting time. The decline of Blairism is well underway. Teflon Tone is no more. Backbench MPs do not see the premier as an absolute necessity in keeping their seats. Indeed many view him as a liability. Alongside this there is discontent in the unions. Not only in the RMT, but also in the FBU, CWU, TGWU, Amicus and Unison. The rank and file and sections of the bureaucracy are deeply disaffected with the deal they are getting from New Labour.

It is unfortunate that the Socialist Alliance majority has plumped for a populist electoral coalition at this stage. Such a formation is unlikely to develop into a working class political party, though this cannot be ruled out completely. Had this convention taken place with the Socialist Alliance united around a platform for independent working class representation, our case would be far stronger. Even so, our arguments would not simply be 'Come and join us'. Ours must be a many-faceted struggle: in the unions, in the workplaces, in the localities, in the Labour Party, in the ballot box.

The SWP and its International Socialist Group poodle do not have the necessary politics. Formerly auto-Labourites, they have flipped into auto-anti-Labourites - a development which has led directly to the pursuit of a broader, classless, non-socialist electoral bloc.

So we now have Respect. Rather than a positive engagement with the Labour left and Labour's mass base, the SWP and ISG are increasingly treating the Labour left as simply part of the problem, not part of the solution too. Even before the days of Respect, an unsigned editorial in Resistance (presumably written by comrade Alan Thornett) said: "The [Socialist] Alliance needs to prove itself and to develop a credible presence if it is to make the gains that it should, and to play the role it should in opening the way to a new working class party. There is competition: already there are signs that the huge [anti-war] movement that began on the streets is having an impact on layers of the Labour Party: the Campaign Group of left MPs, until now little seen or heard under pressure from the Blairite machine, have called for Blair's removal as leader and for pro-war MPs to be deselected - and even urged people to join the Labour Party to promote this campaign" (Resistance April 2003).

In short the comrade views the growth of the Labour left as a competitive pressure for Marxists organised outside the Labour Party rather than as an encouraging sign. The SWP sings from the same hymn sheet. Struggle in the Labour Party is a diversion. On Ken Livingstone's readmission to Labour, Alex Callinicos said: "he is swimming against the political stream, as larger and larger elements of the left regroup outside the Labour Party" (Socialist Worker January 24).

This is fantasy politics. Respect contains the SWP and its new allies but hardly counts as a new mass force. Even if it were, it would be a profound mistake to boycott or stand aloof from the internal struggles in the Labour Party. In this week's plebiscite on Livingstone's candidacy as mayor, 94% of London Labour members voted to support him. Not something to ignore.

Compare Callinicos's approach with the more considered thoughts of George Galloway. He said: "No progress on the left is going to be possible that does not win the hearts and minds of Labour's members and - most importantly - its voters. Labour retains the electoral alliance of perhaps 10 million or more British people - the majority of them working people whose families have often supported this party for generations. So, an acerbic, sectarian approach to Labour and its supporters is not only wrong: it is counterproductive "¦ We should not allow a false dichotomy to be created. If outside Labour a progressive, mass left burgeons and starts to score successes, that can only have the effect of strengthening the left inside the party. It will encourage people to pull the plug on Blair and the New Labour clique" (Weekly Worker December 4 2003).

Clearly he wants to leave open the possibility of triumphantly returning to Labour's fold. Nevertheless he is right to insist that a mass movement will find reflection in the strengthening of the Labour left. Instead of bemoaning that fact and issuing empty appeals to jump ship, we need a strategy to defeat not just New Labour, but Labourism. The SWP does not even recognise that need. The central point here is that struggle in the Labour Party and the unions and struggle outside the Labour Party is not a counterposed dichotomy. The Socialist Alliance majority have never grasped this point and that hardly bodes well for Respect.