29.09.2004

Tasks and means

With the Constituency Labour Parties in disarray, the main opposition in the Labour Party comes from the trade unions - and they are proving unrealiable allies indeed, writes Ian Mahoney

There were no big surprises at this year’s Labour Party conference. Themes that were evident in the 2003 conference continue to loom large this year.

The spectre of Iraq still haunts Blair’s premiership, despite forlorn attempts to move on and focus on the domestic agenda. In the absence of any serious opposition to the Labour leadership - either from the useless Tories or the left of the party itself - the media again spent a great deal of the week speculating on the important rift between Blair and Brown. In the aftermath of the minimal concessions wrung from Labour at Warwick - and with the next general election looming - the leadership of the large unions were intent on not causing the Labour leadership too much trouble - just enough to make their presence felt. After all, they have now secured a positive reason to recommend a Labour vote to their rank and file next year.

The key lesson to draw from the week is the scale of the task that faces the Labour left. As Graham Bash points out, the constituency Labour Parties continue to languish in a state of organisational and political collapse. This means that for the time being the centre of opposition to the Blairites in the party is in the trade unions - in particular the big four of Amicus, TGWU, Unison and GMB. The Labour Representation Committee has thus been marginalised by the decision of these powerful unions to pursue an independent line of ‘positive engagement’ with New Labour - the Warwick agreements being the minor, but tangible achievement of this tactic so far.

Yet the leaderships of these unions operate without any sustained, organised left pressure from the rank and file or any real democratic accountability. It is true that in a series of leadership contests over the past few years union memberships have expressed their alienation from New Labour by electing leftwingers. Yet the unions remain characterised by the lack of control from below and by an absence of real engagement by the membership.

Thus, while the unions were able to muscle a resolution on rail renationalisation through conference, it is unlikely that this will have much more than symbolic value. After all, left activists in the party complain that it is hard enough to get actual union delegates on bodies such as the NEC to vote for union policy, let alone anyone else. And, of course, Labour’s top leadership traditionally ignores conference resolutions it does not approve of in any case.

The severe political limitations of the trade union bureaucracy were highlighted particularly vividly once again this year by the issue of Iraq.

Last year, the RMT failed to get its emergency motion on Iraq debated in the face of opposition from other unions - notably Unison. This year, we had the unedifying sight of trade union leaders holed up with party apparatchiks attempting to scupper Thursday’s vote on a motion demanding troops out of Iraq. According to The Times, Dave Prentis of Unison, Tony Woodley of the TGWU and Derek Simpson of Amicus are “among union leaders … who do not want a clash with the government over Iraq after the deal negotiated this summer on improving workers’ rights” (September 26).

While the revolutionary left continues to thrash about in political confusion and sectarian impotence, the chances of positively influencing these developments remain negligible. The left in Labour has shown some stirrings of life again this year. This is something we should all welcome. What is urgently needed now on the revolutionary left - both inside and outside Labour - is a sober audit of our collective tasks and means. Given the political level of our movement today, it would be criminal to squander even small opportunities.