The Labour Party Conference in Brighton was
the setting for clearing up one of the great myths expounded by many seen as
being on the left of the labour movement, particularly the leaders of several
trade unions, that somehow there was ‘clear red water’ between Tony Blair and
Gordon Brown. The idea that Brown has been secretly opposed to privatisation,
to the war in Iraq, to the Labour government’s assault on civil liberties – but
keeping quiet through ‘loyalty’ (to his career that is not to the Labour Party
or working class Labour voters) – is patently absurd.
In his Brighton conference speech Brown cleared up this confusion once and for all.
“New Labour Renewed” was his battle cry. But there are none so blind as those
who refuse to see and none so deaf as those who refuse to listen.
Derek Simpson (Amicus) and Dave Prentis
(Unison) for example, continue to see what is not there. More, they quote what
isn’t said, while blithely ignoring what is. “He didn’t try to defend New
Labour policies about private sector involvement in the NHS” said Prentis. No,
but he did say he would continue with Blair’s ‘reforms’ and ‘modernisation’ and
‘choice’.
They talk a lot about choice, but they are
not so keen on the labour movement making a choice in a leadership election. It
must now be clear that the ‘choice’ between Brown and Blair is like choosing
between Tweedle-dum and Tweedle-dee, or between the devil and the deep blue
sea.
One Minister after another now appeals for
the heir apparent to be handed his crown peacefully. They want Brown to be
annointed with no discussion and no opposition. Not only are we expected to
accept a single candidate, but also apparently we should wait until they are
good and ready to reorganise themselves at the top with no reference to the
rank and file. Blair has said he will go before the next election (ie sometime
in the next four years) and that should be good enough, “just rejoice at that”
as Thatcher once said.
Where has all the vocal opposition of the
backbenches following the election gone? There should be a challenge mounted to
Blair immediately, he has already bought his retirement mansion and he should
be forced to move in right away. All the bluster about getting rid of Blair
following the last election has, it seems, been silenced by the desire not to
undermine career prospects on the eve of a new Brown era.
Brown, meanwhile has booked the removal van
for his move into Number Ten. He promises a twelve month tour of every region
to “listen, hear and learn” then, presumably, as his attitude to party
conference decisions demonstrates, ignore every single word and continue with a
big business agenda.
Brown hurriedly made it clear that he
intends to completely ignore the conference vote – by 60 to 40 percent –
demanding that secondary strike action be legalised again in the wake of the
magnificent struggle of the Gate Gourmet workers. There was not a word of
opposition to Blair’s latest plans to privatise the NHS and to force those on
disability benefits into work. He has even started to sound like Blair, the
absence of verbs from both their speeches metaphors for inaction.
If Brown’s speech contained no reference to
any difference with his boss, then Blair’s speech the following day was
noteworthy for the lack of any mention of standing down. Despite the fact that,
as we have long pointed out, Labour won in 1997 regardless of Blair, and won
again in 2001 in spite of him, in 2005 the government won barely 35 percent of
the vote precisely because of Blair and his capitalist policy at home and
abroad.
Blair entered the conference hall to the
sound of 1970s punk band Sham 69’s The Kids Are United. Their
contemporaries, The Clash’s Should I Stay
or Should I Go Now? would have been more appropriate. 55 percent in the
latest ICM poll want him to go now or go soon.
For years we have heard about the feud
between Brown and Blair. The fundamental difference beneath these arguments can
be summed up as who gets the top job. Many rushed to support Brown simply
because he is not Blair. Now he has made it clear that he wants to be Blair the
second. Just to swap one for the other now would be no advance.
Those on the fringes of the movement busily
creating new mass parties of two and three will see this as a confirmation that
Labour is now just another bourgeois party. They are as blind to the real
situation as those who dupe themselves that Brown is to the left of Blair. They
confuse the leadership and the government with the rank and file and the links
with the trade unions. Labour remains the mass party of the British working
class in spite of the current bourgeois leadership and capitalist policy.
Whether Brown likes it or not New Labour is
dead. It cannot be renewed. Its time has passed. It lives on only in the cabal
around the prime minister’s office. Blair still seems keen on beating his idol
Thatcher’s eleven years in Number Ten taking him on until 2008. Brown wants
nothing more than to swap his own clique for Blair’s when the time for his
succession comes. Ultimately the decision rests with neither of them.
Events at home and abroad can scupper their
best laid plans. The economy is already faltering under the weight of debt. Iraq
continues to bleed.
There must be a real challenge to the
Blair/Brown big business agenda at every level of the labour movement. We
cannot wait two, three, or four more years. Those union leaders who have been
backing Brown must wake up to reality. The alarm must be sounded by the ranks.
If the trade unions united their resources behind a real left candidate they
could have a big influence. No support should be given to any candidate who
does not support withdrawing troops from Iraq, who
does not oppose privatisation, support renationalising the railways, and
abolishing the anti-union laws. This is a minimum requirement.
A left candidate like John McDonnell, for
example, even if he did not win a leadership election could open the door to
real debate about the need for socialist policies throughout the movement.
The process of questioning in society, of
changes in the unions, which has already begun, will not go away. The task of
socialists and trade unionists must not be to rally around any candidate who
might win, regardless of their policy, but instead to organise the discontent,
the searching, the mounting militancy in British society into a real force for
change. Change inside the labour movement, and change inside the Labour Party,
as steps toward the change that really matters – the radical socialist
transformation of society.
