22.09.2004

Partners in crime

In his regular column 'Labour Left View' Graham Bash this week discusses the forthcoming Labour Party conference

During next week’s Labour Party conference the media will no doubt concentrate once again on the conflict between Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.

The conflict is real enough, but it has no political substance and, of course, it would be a major error for the left to give any support to Gordon Brown. This might be quite obvious to Weekly Worker readers, but unfortunately some valued comrades on the Labour left seem to have got that wrong.

Mark Seddon went so far as to write in The Independent that the future direction of the party depended on the outcome of the contest between Blair and Brown. And left MP Alice Mahon, who has been a major figure in the anti-war movement, made it clear that in her opinion Alan Milburn had a lot to live up to, given that Gordon Brown delivered Labour two major election victories.

I think that on this issue Labour Left Briefing is absolutely right. The front page of the new edition is entitled ‘Partners in crime’ and shows a picture of Blair with the words, “War on Iraq: breaking international law”, coming out of his mouth. Brown’s speech bubble reads: “Privatisation, civil service job cuts”. Blair and Brown were the two main co-founders of New Labour. Although there are political differences between the two, in my opinion these are mainly to do with the language they use.

However, when it comes to perception, there is indeed a difference and in that respect Brown is, if anything, even more dangerous. He speaks much more in the language of the labour movement and, as chancellor, has to deal with some sections of the trade union leadership. The danger is that a Brown succession would help to neutralise union opposition to New Labour. Let me quote Alan Simpson from this week’s LLB: “You could make a film about the Blair-Brown-Milburn dispute and call it Dead men squabbling. The people might be alive, but the argument is sterile.”

Brown, more than anyone, is responsible for the vicious attacks on civil service jobs. At the TUC congress, these attacks were identified as a “key issue” for the movement, but if that is the case then the ‘key enemy’ must be Gordon Brown, who has been at the forefront of attacks on workers’ rights over the last seven years.

Warwick limits
What the big four unions (TGWU, Amicus, Unison and GMB) have obtained through the so-called ‘Warwick agreement’ is very limited indeed. They have not so much sold out the movement as sold it short. Because, limited as these gains seem on paper, they will be even more limited once they find their way into government policy documents (if they ever get that far).

This kind of top-down approach by the big four cannot ever deliver the goods, let alone mobilise people sufficiently to rebuild the movement and reclaim the party. The whole approach of handing down tablets of stone is exactly the opposite of what is needed at the moment. The praise that the big four have heaped upon Warwick illustrates the gap that exists between the union leaderships and their rank and file.
At the fringe meeting of the Labour Representation Committee at the TUC conference, T&G general secretary Tony Woodley said that the deal was “the best that could have been obtained”, but, I must say, it is not a very good one. It excludes vital trade union priorities: the repeal of the anti-trade union laws, respite for those tens of thousands of civil servants that Gordon Brown is sacking, etc. Key demands of the trade union movement are not there at all.

But it would be wrong to simply call Warwick a sell-out. There have been some minimum pledges extracted from New Labour and it would be ultra-left to claim that this is of no importance. On the other hand, they should not be given a significance they do not have. And there is a huge price to be paid for them: Warwick has neutralised trade union opposition to New Labour in the run-up to conference the general election and that is very dangerous indeed.

What role, for example, will the unions play on the issue of Iraq at conference? If it gets on the agenda (and it looks as if it will), it will be because of constituency parties who put the issue forward, not the trade unions. What will they do about the struggle of the civil servants against Brown’s attacks? The danger is that on such questions the big four will be silent because of the (very limited) pledges that they have obtained.

The trade unions are massively underplaying their potential power. I am doubtful as to whether they can or would supply an army of activists to help New Labour in the forthcoming general election. But Blair appears to have secured the union’s neutrality, which means that - once again - there will no real labour movement option available at the ballot box.

Reclaim or rebuild?
The hollowing out of the Labour Party and its constituency parties has become a real problem for the left. I often feel that, as a result, the immediate possibilities within the party are overestimated. The key part of any socialist strategy must be the rebuilding the labour movement - within and outside the Labour Party. In the past, we have often used the phrase ‘reclaim the party’, but in reality there is a need to rebuild the party now, because it hardly exists. Unless we are engaged at that level, then none of the single-issue campaigns around the civil service and around the war will find any electoral expression.

Blair’s position has weakened in the last year. New Labour’s credibility has been damaged tremendously by what has happened in Iraq. The current situation shows what kind of hollow victory the coalition has achieved. Iraq has become ungovernable - and still they have no exit strategy. This could have serious electoral consequences for New Labour and, unfortunately, for the Labour Party itself.
The problem is that New Labour’s weakness has not been met by labour movement strength. The big four undoubtedly think that at least they have got some crumbs from the table, which they never previously had. However, there is nothing happening within the Labour Party itself that could help rebuild its structures. The membership of the party is now at its lowest since Ramsey Macdonald’s time.

This brings me to the Labour Representation Committee. This is, of course, a terribly difficult time for it to be created and yet it could not have waited any longer - otherwise there might not have been a Labour Party left in which to fight. It was absolutely right to launch the LRC and it is now taking its first steps to becoming a visible force in the party.

You would think that the hollowness of party structures might have given the left some real opportunities to march in and begin to take some positions of power. But unfortunately it is proving very difficult to persuade people outside the party to join and make a real difference. When I first came into contact with left politics over 40 years ago, the Labour Party was the obvious place to be. But I have to say it is quite a struggle trying to win the young people on the left to that idea today. But it is an argument that needs to be had, because ultimately, in order to build a socialist leadership, there really is no alternative but to fight within the party as well as in the broader movement.

I am sure that, as things stand, we might win the odd victory at conference - such as rail nationalisation, for example. But, looking at the bigger picture, there is quite clearly a massive way to go until the left can once again become a visible force that can attract people back into the party.