20.07.2005

Broken silence

The Labour Representation Committee annual general meeting was a success for two reasons, in my opinion. First, it was a relief to see the Labour left break its near silence on the London bombings. At the LRC conference, it made its collective position unambiguous: there is a clear and intimate connection between these atrocities and the continued occupation of Iraq. Until this conference, there had only been a Labour Against the War press statement (supported by Alan Simpson MP), issued on the day of the bombings itself. This made the connection clear. The only MP to make a principled statement highlighting the link on the floor of the House of Commons itself had been George Galloway. I was becoming increasingly concerned about this before the LRC conference, but John McDonnell made an excellent contribution in the morning, putting clear responsibility on the Blair government and at the same time totally condemning the bombing outrage and the people who perpetrated it. In this, he was strongly supported by Jeremy Corbyn MP - the same Jeremy Corbyn, I gently remind readers, that the CPGB could not bring itself to support at the last general election. The other positive feature was that this was a conference, not - as too often in previous years - a top-down rally. There was ample room for debate, and participants took the opportunity to have a much-needed discussion on Iraq and the campaigning tasks of socialists in this country. There was some controversy on the correct emphasis for opponents of the war in this country. My own view - as I stated when I spoke in support of the LATW motion and the John McDonnell statement, both of which linked the bombing with the occupation - was that the main enemy is at home. The main focus for socialists in Britain must be the terrorists in our own ranks: that is, New Labour, which misleads our party and was responsible for dragging this country into war in the first place. I was pleased that the point was forcibly and repeatedly made at the AGM that in doing so New Labour had put not only the British armed forces, but also the British people, in the front line. That is unforgivable and has a reaped bitter reward in the July 7 attacks on Londoners. The question of Iraq remains the clear line of demarcation in the Labour Party and in the wider movement. Blair wants to 'move on' from this awkward topic, but the quagmire that the occupation has created in Iraq means that he simply cannot. And we should certainly not try to help him extricate himself. Daily, it jumps out at him - and us, of course - from the pages of every paper, from every news report. And it became an extremely concrete question for the working people of London in the form of the nightmare of the London bombings, whatever the lame attempts of the political establishment to deny the link to the occupation. So, yes, it would be nice to simply concentrate on issues that the left can all agree on, that we do not even need to debate, perhaps. But we cannot escape this issue any more than Blair and need some clarity. The debate at conference was important, as it revolved around this need to identify the main enemy we face and the different emphasis our campaigning should have. The dangers of islamic fundamentalism are all too real - and there is no one in LATW that belittles them. But our main responsibility is to fight our own rulers and force them unconditionally to end the occupation of Iraq as soon as possible. A useful and very necessary debate, then. However, the conference had its down sides as well, of course. Above all, the fact that there were fewer people this year - I estimate something like 250, as opposed to over 300 in 2004. The reason? I would guess that there is a fatigue amongst the Labour left. I believe that comrades feel a certain flatness, produced by the continued domination of the party by New Labour and Blair, despite the fact that the British people decisively rejected the politics of this clique at the general election. Mass disillusionment with the New Labour programme and leadership has seen us leak millions of votes since 1997 - yet still it maintains its stranglehold on our organisation. Overall, however, the LRC conference showed the Labour left to be combative and intelligent. There were some very good speeches, particularly from Paul Mackney (Natfhe) and Jeremy Dear (NUJ), who both made some useful points about the relationship of Labour to the unions and the level of the wider class struggle. I also think it is important to pick out the contribution of Mark Serwotka, the general secretary of the PCS civil servants' union, which I found very interesting. I agreed with a lot of what he said, even though I do not support his particular political standpoint outside the Labour Party. The comrade correctly underlined that we had to seek unity in action between comrades inside Labour and those outside - both those involved in campaigns and disputes initiated by trade unions that are not affiliated to Labour and those in political formations that are not affiliated to or supportive of Labour. He told conference that the last general election had seen him campaigning for the Scottish Socialist Party and for two MPs specifically. John McDonnell, whom he regarded as the best Labour MP in the House of Commons, and for George Galloway in the East End of London, whose victory in Bethnal Green and Bow he welcomed, as I did. Despite that fact that I do not share the comrade's illusions in Respect, it was a very important point to make. The Labour left has to look outwards into the broader movement and, where appropriate, to joint campaigning initiatives with other political formations in the labour movement. The problem is that we are not currently in the shape to do that organisationally and we are not being politically encouraged to do it by a degree of sectarianism we encounter from these other political forces. Not all the fault for this political fragmentation in the workers' movement lies with the Labour left by any stretch of the imagination. With the Labour Party conference looming, the position of the big four unions needs to be looked at. Unison and the TGWU conferences have both passed resolutions for an end to the occupation of Iraq - not immediately, true, but in the near future. Given the current balance of forces in the movement, I will settle for that for the time being. But then it is one thing for them to pass resolutions internally and at the TUC. These are always good to see. But for those who have perhaps not been around as long others in the movement, we have to sound a note of caution. There is no guarantee that these resolutions will translate into actual motions and debates on the floor of the Labour Party conference. That is rarely so. The union leaders tend to be big on talk when it comes to their own conferences and the TUC, but a little short on action when it comes to taking the fight to New Labour. Last year's deplorable conference fudge on Iraq - when the big four hid behind the disgraceful role played by the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions - is a prime example l Related articles * Weak, but still alive. Report of the LRC conference * Questions that unite us. Interview with LRC vice chair Maria Exall