12.02.2004

Reinstate the RMT

Bob Crow, general secretary of the RMT transport union, was in full flow at Saturday’s Convention of the Trade Union Left in London: “It’s two minutes to go now,” he said. “And I feel like the Birmingham Six when they got out of jail. In fact, it’s almost a relief. I feel free. And perhaps some of you might try it as well. You’ll feel just as good, just like I feel today.”

It was, of course, two minutes until the moment the Labour Party’s ultimatum to the RMT came into effect - reverse the Scottish region’s affiliation to the Scottish Socialist Party or be expelled from the Labour Party. The day before, at a special general meeting of the union in Glasgow, delegates had voted 42 to eight in favour of upholding the union’s policy of allowing branches to back political parties that support union policy, and specifically backed the executive’s decision to endorse the Scottish region and its seven branches to affiliate to the SSP.

Communists, of course, defend the right of the RMT branches to support the SSP. Despite its explicit nationalism, for sections of the working class in Scotland it stands as a beacon of socialism. It supports renationalisation of the railways under workers’ control and it calls for the end of Blair’s anti-trade union laws. It calls for a socialist society.

But are Bob Crow and the RMT really free? Is the fight against Blairism weakened or strengthened with the RMT outside the ranks of the Labour Party? This is no quibble. As we have said many times, the fight against Blairism and for a new workers’ party must take place on many fronts: in the unions, at the ballot box, in the workplaces, in the localities and in the Labour Party. Our strategy aims to coordinate the battle. Work in one area must complement all the others: they are not counterposed arenas of struggle. Tactics will be different in different fields of battle, yet we are not about withdrawing from any one of them.

Many on the Trotskyite left have taken up the cry, ‘Break the link’. From automatic support for the Labour Party, they have plumped for its polar opposite now that they can no longer stomach issuing the ritual ‘Vote Labour, but …’ at election time. Of course, neither approach is correct. To break the link is to abandon a vital site for struggle in the unions and in the Labour Party. It is moralistic and unserious. The working class does not free itself of Blairism, let alone Labourism, by abandoning the Labour Party and leaving it uncontested.

Quite rightly, the RMT did not quit the Labour Party. It did not jump: it was pushed. As Bob Crow said at the February 7 convention, “We’ve sent the affiliation cheque. If the Labour Party doesn’t want to cash it, that’s interest in our bank account.” Comrade Crow and the RMT have been at pains to point out that the union has not had a fair hearing in the Labour Party. And no right of appeal. At the special general meeting (SGM) in Glasgow, brother Crow said to delegates: “Even Harold Shipman got a trial; we didn’t even get a hearing.”

According to Martin Wicks, Socialist Alliance member and a delegate from Swindon to the SGM, there was no real argument on the substantive issue. The only resistance came from people such as Steve Smart, a delegate from East Anglia. He argued on constitutional grounds that the annual conference resolution only allowed for “support” for non-Labour candidates and parties, not outright affiliation. This was brushed aside by the SGM. Affiliation, after all, is one form of support.

One shipping delegate argued that New Labour was not so bad. For example the privatisation of the shipping industry was not the government’s fault: the European Union was making them do it. Pretty desperate stuff.

Rick Grogan, station grades committee secretary, told me there were seven motions submitted from branches, but these were laid on the table as being outside the remit of the SGM. The final vote of the SGM was taken on a report from the standing orders committee. Grogan said that, of the seven branches submitting motions, six were of the ‘You can stick your ultimatum’ variety, with only one coming from a “pocket right” branch supporting maintaining the link with Labour even at the cost of dropping support for the SSP.

Encouragingly, it seems many delegates at the SGM support a campaign for reaffiliation. While Bob Crow may breathe a sigh of relief at being outside the Labour Party, his union should begin a campaign of reaffiliation and call on all unions to defend the RMT. The Finsbury Park branch motion argued that: “This SGM … instructs the council of executives to immediately launch a campaign within the labour movement to defend the RMT’s affiliation to the Labour Party against the party’s threat to expel us. In particular:

(1) all our representatives on Labour Party bodies should raise this issue as a matter of urgency;

(2) we call on other Labour-affiliated unions to demand the Labour Party withdraw its threat;

(3) we call on other unions to take an RMT speaker at their conference this year;

(4) we call on other Labour-affiliated unions to ensure that this issue is debated at Labour Party conference this year, with an RMT speaker there;

(5) we call on constituency and regional Labour Parties to continue to recognise RMT delegates even if the expulsion goes ahead;

(6) an initial meeting to organise this campaign should be held within one month of this SGM.”

This is in general the correct approach. It is a disgrace that only three members of Labour’s national executive committee voted against the ultimatum from Blair to the RMT on January 27: Mark Seddon, Christine Shawcroft and the RMT’s Mick Cash. Twenty-one voted for the report, which was moved by Mick Griffiths.

Dennis Skinner moved an amendment to the report calling for a special meeting and for negotiations. It received seven votes: Skinner, Black, Seddon, Shawcroft, Holland, Cash and Beecham. Shahid Malik abstained. It fell. Subsequently, the Communication Workers Union executive condemned the Labour Party’s move.

Where now for the RMT and other unions contemplating the democratisation of their political funds? Where will they put their money? Already the RMT has backed John Marek, an independent for the Welsh assembly, as well as the SSP. In 2000 a whole number of unions endorsed Ken Livingstone’s campaign for London mayor.

In the background looms the Galloway/Socialist Workers Party left populist Respect coalition. Sunday’s Observer carried a report by Stephen Khan, the paper’s Scotland editor. In it he claims: “Candidates standing for George Galloway’s Respect coalition at the European elections in June will be supported by the Rail, Maritime and Transport Union, following its exclusion from the Labour Party.” Either someone has been briefing the reporter or he is jumping to conclusions.

Unjum Mirza, the RMT London region political officer, is quoted as saying: “A lot of people are keen to see us formally support Respect and should the union’s policy be upheld at this Friday’s meeting then moves will soon be made in that direction.”

Comrade Mirza, a member of the SWP, spent a fair amount of time at the RMT special general meeting drumming up invitations about Respect to speak at various RMT branches. Good luck to him. However, according to Martin Wicks, there is “no groundswell” of support for Respect.

My attempts to gain clarification on this issue did not get very far. The RMT’s press officer said he had not seen the Observer article and referred me to the London regional office. I had little luck there. Attempts over two days to speak to Alex Gordon, a member of the RMT council of executives, yielded nothing, despite brother Alex’s most helpful voicemail message on his mobile phone assuring any caller that he would “be right back to you”.

While comrade Wicks says there is no hunger among RMT delegates to back Respect, there are obviously moves by the SWP and others to gain the support, if not the affiliation, of the RMT. Yet even by the RMT’s own yardstick there may be some problems with this.

Bob Crow said of the SSP affiliation: “The Scottish branches - all seven of them, through debate - said that they wanted to affiliate to the SSP and we endorsed it. The Scottish regional council, by 70% to 30%, voted to affiliate to the SSP. We are now going to put our full-time official on the executive of the SSP.’

What was the basis of this? - “If an independent branch has a debate and wants to support a political party whose aims and objectives are the same as ours, which says that we want a socialist society, subject to the executive committee endorsing it, why shouldn’t they?” asked Crow.

And herein lies the rub. The RMT’s objectives, set out in its rule book, includes socialism as an aim. Rule 1, clause 4 (b) states that an object of the union shall be “to work for the supersession of the capitalist system by a socialistic order of society”. This is more than Respect aims for. Even the RMT’s mooted support for Plaid Cymru candidates is dressed up as support for a party that has socialism as an aim, as indeed Plaid formally does.

The expulsion of the RMT puts us on a new political terrain. The left must respond with all the seriousness this deserves. For the RMT to blithely affiliate to a political coalition with an uncertain shelf life and no serious political commitment to the working class is a questionable move. The fight within the Labour Party is far from over: it has barely begun.

The RMT’s expulsion has sharpened the debate, but it does not mean that all unions should be rushing to follow it outside the Labour Party. The call should be: maintain the link, but don’t bow to Blairite ultimatums.

Bob Crow invites other unions to “try it too”. Well, that depends. Different unions, different tactics. Our aim is to swing the balance of forces throughout the entire working class movement - not only away from Blair, but away from Labourism itself. We aim to lay the basis for a genuine party of the working class that not only calls for the “supersession of capitalism” but can assemble the political and material tools to accomplish this historic task of the working class.