12.02.2004

Don't disaffiliate "“ democratise

Labour Party

Over 700 comrades gathered in Friends Meeting House, London, on February 7 for a fruitful discussion on Labour and the unions at the Convention of the Trade Union Left, organised by the Socialist Alliance.

Like the meeting at the same venue to launch Respect two weeks earlier, the largest section of those present, perhaps the majority, was made up of members of the Socialist Workers Party, although SWP attendance was by no means as overwhelming as it had been on that occasion. Unlike the Respect launch, however, there was a positive atmosphere of democratic inclusivity last Saturday.

There were two reasons for this. Firstly, the SWP is much more keen to debate with those it considers are to its right - eg, the Labour-supporting union leaders and rank and file militants it was hoping to attract to the convention - than with its left critics. Secondly, neither of the two speakers billed to open the main discussion turned up. This meant that the entire two hours earmarked for the debate on the political fund and the Labour link was freed up for speakers from the floor.

Mark Serwotka, general secretary of the Public and Commercial Services Union, was called away to deal with a crisis in a PCSU branch, while Billy Hayes, leader of the Communication Workers Union, sent his apologies - he had apparently forgotten that the convention clashed with his son’s birthday. Brother Hayes stated in his message to the meeting that he regarded debate as both “necessary and healthy” (although not so necessary on this occasion, obviously) and that our differences ought not to prevent united action.

One general secretary who did show was Bob Crow of the Rail Maritime Transport union, fresh from its Glasgow conference the previous day. The RMT refusal to bow down before New Labour threats over the affiliation of the Scottish region and several of its branches to the Scottish Socialist Party had, of course, provoked a Labour Party ultimatum which actually expired as comrade Crow was speaking. As the clock above the hall showed 12 noon, he announced that, now that his union had been disaffiliated by the Blairites, he felt “free, like the Birmingham Six”.

This was an unfortunate attitude. Free to do what? Yes, the RMT has decided, correctly, that branches and regions may, subject to the leadership’s endorsement, offer support to political parties, groups and individuals that give their backing to union policy. But this hardly constitutes a strategy for the labour movement. And what about the struggle inside the Labour Party itself? Wishing to be “free” of that sounds like a cop-out.

Nevertheless, comrade Crow’s main points were good ones. He placed the blame for the split fairly and squarely on New Labour, which had “treated us with contempt”, not on the RMT’s moves to democratise its political fund. He explained that it was impossible to continue writing Labour a blank cheque, while it was implementing policies in direct contradiction to his members’ interests: eg, rail and tube privatisation - “I can’t see why we should support that.”

Privatisation was the same, whether it was carried through by “someone wearing a blue or a red rosette”. In fact he would rather have an “independent rosette” if the man wearing it - he referred to John Marek, independent member of the Welsh assembly and now leader of Forward Wales - backed working people.

Such statements are perfectly consistent with the viewpoint of a militant union leader - the RMT will continue to sponsor John McDonnell, Jeremy Corbyn, etc, but it seems that just about any other politicians who “roll up their sleeves to fight for our members as hard as I do” could be backed (he specifically ruled out only the British National Party) - however, you could see how they gave rise to fears of “fragmentisation”, as Pete Firmin of Workers Action put it.

In the absence of brother Hayes, comrade Firmin was called upon to open the debate after comrade Crow had departed. Precisely at a time when Blair was “in trouble”, he said, it was all the more necessary for the unions to “step up the fight” to force New Labour to retreat. Since the “big four” unions were in Labour to stay, it was pointless smaller unions like the RMT letting themselves be ousted. It was also pointless for socialists to “continue to put motions for democratisation” instead of “fighting to influence Labour”. The RMT case had shown that it was one or the other: “Democratisation and affiliation does not work.”

John Rogers, a member of Unison’s national executive, went further. Though he was right to stress that the party was a key “site of struggle”, since “tens of thousands of party members hate New Labour”, he was wrong to conclude that “you shouldn’t set up a party outside Labour”. As I pointed out in my contribution, the key issue, both inside and outside of Labour, was the fight for a genuine working class party.

I argued that democratisation and continued affiliation were perfectly compatible - it all depended on the strength and breadth of the democratisation campaign. For example, when several major unions openly backed Ken Livingstone for London mayor in 2000, there were no moves from the Blairites to try to bring them to book.

However, I warned against calling for disaffiliation - a recipe for the depoliticisation of the unions in the absence of any viable political alternative. This absence was highlighted precisely by the case of RMT support for the SSP. “Why hasn’t Bob Crow advocated support for Socialist Alliance candidates? Why haven’t RMT branches tried to affiliate to the SA?” The alliance had been held back from becoming a party and Respect, as an electoral coalition pure and simple, was hardly likely to attract much in the way of union support either, despite the appeals from Linda Smith (Fire Brigades Union) and Unjum Mirza (London RMT and SWP).

This only served to underline the weakness of SWP speakers’ arguments in contrast to the ‘fight within Labour’ protagonists, who, unlike the SWP, could not be accused of lacking a strategic vision. For example, SWP member Yunus Bakhsh of Unison, Mark Serwotka’s stand-in, said that the influence of the unions, who were “treated with absolute disdain” by New Labour, had never been weaker in the party: “Look reality in the face.” For him democratisation was necessary not in order to take on and defeat Labourism within the beast itself as part of the fight for a revolutionary party, but because such a fight inside Labour was not possible.

A completely different view was put by Tony Richardson, a Labour councillor and Bakers Union militant: “Labour is my party, not Tony Blair’s.” What is more, because of the lack of any vibrant branch life, the party was “there for the taking”. Despite his conviction that Labour must be ‘reclaimed’, comrade Richardson reported that he had moved the motion at his union’s conference in favour of democratisation. Although this was overwhelmingly defeated, he saw it not as a means to jump ship, but as a way of pressurising the Labour leadership.

Neil Williams of the FBU was another who stressed democratisation, not disaffiliation: “We don’t want to cut ourselves off.” He called for members of every union to put in emergency motions condemning the decision to expel the RMT and demand its reinstatement, emphasising the need for rank and file action to control the bureaucrats. Several other comrades pointed out that union representatives on Labour’s executive had backed not only the disaffiliation of the RMT, but the expulsion of George Galloway too.

Comrade Galloway was the final speaker in the closing rally, following Sue Bond, an SWP member on the PCSU executive, and Geoff Martin, Unison’s London region convenor. Comrade Bond made an eminently forgettable speech, almost entirely devoid of political content. I noted only her rhetorical question: “Is it really seven years ago we celebrated the end of Tory rule?”

By contrast, comrade Martin’s contribution was to the point. While he was a “supporter of continued affiliation”, he was absolutely clear on the need for a campaign for the right of the RMT, like every other union, “to decide what to do with their own money”. Why should it be used to back MPs who continually voted against union policy? It was a “disgrace” that most of Unison’s parliamentary panel backed the invasion of Iraq.

Comrade Martin said he had heard that general secretary Dave Prentis had consulted a QC about the “legality of this convention” and had been considering taking out an injunction to prevent him speaking. It was “nonsensical to say don’t engage in debate”, said comrade Martin.

Galloway’s speech was also largely sound. He warned of the “false dichotomy” of opposing Labour Party work to organising outside it. “Respect is not calling on unions to disaffiliate,” he said, but, at the same time, they must not be “wholly owned subsidiaries of New Labour”. However, while it was important not to walk away from the party, it was “equally important not to exaggerate the possibility of success in the Labour Party”. He urged RMT branches in particular to consider supporting Respect.

During the lunch break, there were caucuses for the main union groupings, although most of them were talking shops that seemed to have no clear purpose apart from the vague idea that it might be useful to get together.

Nevertheless the day as a whole was - perhaps surprisingly - rather constructive, with around 30 speakers able to put forward positions that attempted to grapple with this key question facing the union movement - the Labour link.