14.07.2004

Reclaiming Labour dominates debate

Steve Cooke reports from this year's Durham Miners Gala, which took place on July 10

Thousands braved the on-off rain to participate in the 120th annual Durham miners’ gala on Saturday July 10. Although it is 11 years since the last pit in the north east closed and the festival is not as large-scale an event as was once the case, many former miners have made a determined effort to keep the tradition alive, and this year - the 20th anniversary of the 1984 strike - saw six new banners representing former colliery communities joining the annual parade.
Respect and most of the key groups on the revolutionary left were present selling papers and running stalls, alongside the usual summer festival attractions of new age paraphernalia, hot dogs and ice cream.

Following music from one-time radical Billy Bragg, a South African choir and the traditional rendition of ‘Abide with me’ by a local brass band, Durham miners’ president David Guy introduced the dignitaries on the platform. Many familiar faces from Labour’s past were present, including Tony Benn, Arthur Scargill, Ron Todd and Rodney Bickerstaff, though none of these were on the speakers list.

There was noticeable discomfort among the crowd when Guy concluded his pep talk by looking forward to a third term for the Labour government - only a few people clapped at the prospect. This sense of unease, accompanied by the ominous sound of a brewing thunderstorm that never quite arrived, was soon reflected in the contributions from union leaders and politician speakers, which were dominated by the debate about whether the movement can ‘reclaim’ the Labour Party and whether unions should continue to support it financially.

The first guest speaker was Steve Kemp, general secretary of the National Union of Mineworkers, whose total membership is now only 3,000 workers based in 11 pits. After a dignified description of the miners’ dispute as the “most honourable strike in labour movement history”, he got some easy applause by saying that there would be the “biggest celebration we’ve ever had” when Margaret Thatcher “leaves the scene”. Kemp expressed his support for the link with Labour and warned trade unionists against switching their allegiance to “fringe parties”. However, he said that he wanted “nothing to do with New Labour” and felt that the unions’ financial support could not continue solely on the basis of historic loyalty. The party’s policies, he argued, should reflect union wishes and he called for a “radical third term”.

RMT general secretary Bob Crow said that it was not enough for Tony Blair to resign - the entire cabinet had to go. Referring to his union’s recent expulsion, he denied that the RMT had left the Labour Party: rather the party had walked away from the movement that started it. Condemning the government’s privatisation of the London Underground and the free market chaos of the current energy industry, he argued that there was no longer any difference between blue rosettes and red ones - not when they were worn by New Labour politicians anyway. Nothing less than a “total transformation of society” was required, “just like the Tories did for their class.”

Next up was Vera Baird, Labour MP for Redcar. She recalled her involvement in the pit strike as a young barrister defending miners against trumped-up charges and false testimony from the police in the magistrates’ courts. She saw parallels between the treatment of picketing miners at that time and the systematic torture of prisoners taking place in Iraq today. Her experiences in 1984 had shown her the importance of collective action by workers and demonstrated that “civil liberties must always be defended against the ever encroaching power of the state”. Despite her disquiet over some government policies and the Iraqi occupation, Baird argued that the union movement’s priority should be to ensure that the Conservative Party does not get back into power again at the next election and the Labour Party offered the only way to prevent that from happening.

TGWU leader Tony Woodley conceded that the trade union movement had retreated in recent years, spending “too much time listening to bosses and not enough fighting back on behalf of working people”. The unions needed to push for the adoption of a “progressive programme” by the Labour Party. He expressed outrage at New Labour’s failure to protect workers’ pensions and his disgust at the sight of Tony Blair and Jack Straw promising the Confederation of British Industry that the UK’s restrictive anti-union laws would be kept in place. “This government,” he declared, “isn’t good enough for workers.” However, the unions did not need to reclaim the party because it already belonged to them. Labour’s leaders needed to be changed, but disappointment in the current leadership must not be allowed to bring about the disaster of Tory rule and the danger of letting in extremist groups like the British National Party.

Dave Prentis, general secretary of Unison, also highlighted the growing pensions crisis and noted the irony of company directors and MPs simultaneously awarding themselves with more generous retirement schemes whilst cutting workers’ pensions. He criticised New Labour’s obsession with the ‘choice agenda’, which he argued really meant hospitals choosing patients, schools choosing pupils, etc, rather than the other way round. Current policies on health, education and pensions offered no genuine choice for the poorest in society and Unison was resolutely opposed to the government’s advocacy of “choice based on rightwing principles”. Prentis’s “choice words for the government” were “peace, not war” and “public, not private”. Unison would not walk away from Labour, however, and the unions working together offered the best hope of “winning back the party”.

Showpiece speeches might have been expected at a gala celebrating the 20th anniversary of the great pit strike, but the disaffection of many rank and file union members with New Labour ensured that the future of the movement’s relationship with the party could not be ignored and the speakers had to address those concerns. Although a majority of the Saturday’s speakers argued against disaffiliation, virtually none had a good word to say about the party leadership that their members’ political subs help to finance, and there was a clear sense that those still hoping to reclaim Labour feel increasingly besieged by those who have lost faith in that strategy.

It will be fascinating to see how solid their defence of this approach is at next year’s gala.