"Today they are ringing their bells. Tomorrow they will be
wringing their hands." (Horace Walpole)
By Alan Woods
With the election results counted, analysed and digested, it is
now possible to deliver a final verdict on the British general
election of June 2001.
Labour won the elections with a majority of 167 seats at
Westminster – only slightly down on last time when they won a
landslide majority of 179. This was an historic victory, the first
time Labour has won a second consecutive term, and with a majority
greater than that of Attlee in 1945. The election result was a
body-blow to the Conservative Party. They did not increase their
number of seats, and only won back two safe Tory seats – Romford and
Tatton. They did not even manage to win back such a traditionally
Tory seat as middle class Torbay (popularly known as Tory-bay in the
past) which was won by the Liberals at the last election with a
majority of only twelve votes.
The Tories failed to win a single seat in Wales, and won just one
in Scotland. But although the Tories won one seat from the Scottish
nationalists, this "success" must be taken in context. It is their
only seat in Scotland, which is entirely dominated by the Labour
Party. Their best placed Scottish candidate, Malcolm Rifkind, failed
to win a seat in Edinburgh Pentlands.
However, the nationalist parties in Wales and Scotland did not
succeed in taking advantage of the widespread disenchantment with New
Labour. It is now clear that the votes in the elections to the Welsh
and Scottish assemblies were protest votes at that stage. They
showed a mood of disillusionment with Labour, but when the question
was posed of who governs at Westminster for the next five years, the
workers of Wales and Scotland again voted for Labour. The SNP is the
second party in Scotland, but it failed to make much headway, losing
18.2 per cent of its votes. It even lost one seat – Galloway and
Upper Nithsdale – to the Tories.
Plaid Cymru, the Welsh nationalist party gained no new ground in
Wales, which remains solidly Labour. Plaid’s vote dropped by 8 per
cent, and the Labour Party now has 34 out of 40 MPs in Wales. Labour
not only won the Rhondda, Llanelli and Islwyn, but also won Ynys Mon
(Anglesey) from Plaid Cymru.
But the defeat suffered by the Tories is even worse than that
which Labour suffered in 1983, when it got 28 per cent of the vote.
Tory leader William Hague took the hint and immediately announced his
resignation, opening up a crisis inside the Conservative Party, which
is badly split over Europe and other questions.
Volatile mood
On the face of it, an outstanding triumph for Tony Blair. But
these results tell only half the story. They do not adequately
express the contradictory nature of the mood in British society. The
election campaign itself was dead. The general election turnout was
low – only 58 per cent bothered to vote. By contrast, in the last
general election in 1997, 71.6 per cent voted. This was the lowest
figure for 80 years. Some observers have pointed out that it was the
lowest figure of any democratic election in Britain, since the
"khaki" election of 1918 when the soldiers had not yet been fully
demobilised and women still did not have the vote. In those elections
only 57.6 per cent voted.
This time, Labour was elected by only one in four of potential
voters – the lowest figure on which any government has been elected.
In Scotland the turnout was even lower than in the 1999 Scottish
Assembly elections when it was only 58 per cent. In Glasgow
Shettleston nearly two thirds of the electorate stayed at home as
turnout fell to 39 per cent. The same trend can be seen throughout
the British Isles. The heaviest abstention was in traditional Labour
strongholds in the North. In Liverpool Riverside, only 34.1 per cent
turned up to vote – 18 per cent lower than the already low figure of
1997.
"People around here are disenchanted about promises never
fulfilled," said one former Labour voter. This is a typical response.
The mood of the masses is sceptical. The working class is
disappointed and frustrated with New Labour. This has serious
implications for the next Blair government. It will not be the
same as the last one. The workers have voted, and having voted
will now present the bill. Blair has aroused big expectations,
especially in connection with the health and education. Yet all he
envisages is a massive increase of private sector participation in
the public sector. This is a recipe for disaster, since any private
investment in the public sector will have to be paid back three times
over. That is not what the people voted for on 7 June.
There were massive abstentions among the youth. One third of young
voters between the ages of 18-24 said on the eve of the election that
they did not intend to vote. The Labour leaders are now trying to
claim that the reason for this is that people were convinced that
Labour was going to win anyway, so that there was no need to vote. It
is true that 53 per cent when questioned by the opinion polls gave
this answer. But a far larger number – 71 per cent – said that they
would not vote because "it made no difference who they voted
for". And the evidence points to the fact that these were
concentrated in traditional Labour seats.
This is the real reason for the alleged "voter apathy". After four
years of Blairite policies, there is no enthusiasm for New Labour,
but even less for the Tories. In Labour’s working class heartland,
there is a mood of frustration and disenchantment. The Guardian
(25/5/2001) commented on the situation in Walton, Liverpool: "From
the battered old streets of Walton, where house prices are collapsing
and unemployment is rising once again, Tony Blair’s vision of a
mericrocratic Britain spreading wealth and opportunity from the few
to the many seems a world away."
Despite Labour’s landslide, the underlying mood is extremely
volatile. The Liberal Democrats managed to increase their share of
the vote only by pretending to be to the left of Labour. The mood of
the electorate is a radical one – not at all in tune with the
policies of the Blairites. This was shown by the result in Wyre
Forest, where a local doctor, Richard Taylor, won a seat from Labour
with a massive turnout. He fought on the issue of the closure of
Kidderminster, and got 28,000 votes as against 10,8000 for the Labour
candidate. This is a warning of the depth of feeling on the question
of the National Health and hospital closures, and indicates the kind
of opposition Blair will face if he does not deliver. But the
experience of the first Blair government gives little grounds for
optimism in this respect.
The first Blair government
In May 1997, Labour won a landslide majority after 18 long years
of right wing Tory government. Tony Blair, the new leader of the
Labour Party promised a new and "radical" policy to build a "better
Britain". But once installed in Number Ten Downing Street he followed
a policy tailored exclusively to the interests of Big Business.
One of the first actions he took was to give the Bank of England
control over interest rates, thus handing over effective control of
economic policy to the representatives of the City. Next, he
announced that Labour would restrict its public spending to the cash
limits set by the defeated Tory administration.
The austerity policies of the Blair government led to attacks on
the poorest and most vulnerable groups in British society, such as
single parents. The pensioners were offered an insulting rise of 75
pence. Although they later gave more, the insult is not forgotten.
In stark contrast to this "tough" line with the poor, the
Blairites are openly bragging about their friendship with business.
Chancellor Gordon Brown has boasted that Britain has "the lowest rate
in history of British corporation tax, the lowest of any major
country in Europe and the lowest rate of any major industrialised
country anywhere, including Japan and the United States."
He might have added that Britain also now has some of the longest
hours, lowest pay and worst working conditions of any major
industrialised country. At present, British workers work 25 per cent
longer hours than workers in Europe or the USA. The EU’s 48-hour
directive is habitually ignored in British workplaces, where the
bosses force workers to opt out on pain of losing their job. Polly
Toynbee, writing in The Guardian (23/3/2001) points out: "The OECD –
conservative economists – finds Britain has the least market
regulation, the lowest corporation tax (lower than any time in
history) and the lowest employment costs – not just lower than the
rest of Europe, but when everything is added on (including US
employers’ health insurance) lower than the US too. Social insurance
and labour taxes average 24 per cent in Europe and only 13 per cent
in Britain."
The picture of working conditions in Britain in the 21st century
is a grim one. In the past, working conditions were reasonable for
most people, but now work has become a nightmare. The pressure is
piled on mercilessly, not just in industry, but in offices, schools,
hospitals and doctors’ surgeries. The Public Policy Research Poll
revealed the horrific situation on the shop floor: "The survey,"
states the Financial Times (23/3/2001), "uncovered more serious
violations of rights on entitlement to sick pay and paid holidays.
One worker described having to pay a five pound contribution a week
towards sick pay. A number of part-time workers were unaware of their
entitlement to paid holidays and felt unable to negotiate with their
employers."
While the Blarites show tender care for the employers’ interests,
they show very little for those of the workers. Tessa Jowell, a New
Labour minister, stated: "We have taken very careful steps to ensure
new legislation is practical [practical, that is, from the
bosses’ point of view, not the workers’ – AW] and minimises
unnecessary [!] regulatory burdens on businesses…" This kind of
statement could equally be made by any Tory. It is typical of the
pro-capitalist mentality of the Blairites. Meanwhile,
Britain has become a paradise for sweat shops. The working
conditions in call-centres have been compared to the "dark satanic
mills" of Victorian times. Millions of workers in Britain are
unorganised, and the union leaders have done little to organise them.
And these bad conditions are not unique to the private sector.
In the public sector, there is ever more bureaucracy, remorseless
pressure to meet targets and the introduction of working practices
from the private sector, all of which has undermined morale. It has
caused an increase in stress-related disorders and even actual mental
illness. On the eve of the elections, doctors were threatening to
resign en masse from the National Health Service if something
was not done to lighten the burden. For similar reasons, teachers are
threatening strike action.
The Blair government has done little to remedy all this. The
introduction of the minimum wage was a step forward, but it was set
at such a low rate as to water it down completely. Even a large part
of the notorious Tory anti-trade union legislation – which restricts
trade union rights to a far greater extent than in any other
industrialised nation – has not been rescinded.
Pro-Business policy
While Blair struts around the world stage, parts of Britain are
falling to almost Third-World levels. Public housing, education and
transport are in a lamentable state. A recent article in the German
Stern magazine presented life in Britain as something like a Third
World country. It said that Britain under Tony Blair is in "deep
crisis", blighted by ill health, poor education, and an incompetent
government: "One in five adults in the land of William Shakespeare
and Harry Potter is practically illiterate and barely able to add up
the small change in his pocket."
This is fair comment. Schools in Britain suffer from gross
over-crowding and an acute shortage of teachers. Labour has now
promised 10,000 extra teachers. But head teachers have warned that
40,000 new teachers are needed to solve the schools staffing problems
and threatened to "take unilateral action to cut the workload in any
way that they think fit". (Morning Star, 29/5/2001.)
After the War higher education used to be free in Britain and
students from working class families could get grants. Not any more.
Instead of grants, there are loans. Students who wish to go to
university face the prospect of leaving university with debts of
14,000 pounds.
After decades of neglect, the infrastructure is crumbling. The
much-vaunted National Health Service is now in ruins. Once Britain
led the world in health. Now, according to the World Health
Organisation, 25,000 Britons who died of cancer every year would have
lived if the NHS was at the best European levels. Expenditure on
health in Britain is only one third of US levels, and one half that
of France.
The Observer (27 May) pointed out that investment in the public
sector under New Labour has been even lower than under Thatcher:
"Investment in hospitals, schools and transport infrastructure sunk
to the lowest sustained level since the Second World War during
Labour’s four years in power [….] Overall real investment declined
by 4.4 per cent a year, a larger decline than was registered during
Margaret Thatcher’s premiership."
Yet the answer of Blair and the Labour Right is to privatise and
invite Big Business to invest in public services. Corporate
executives have been appointed to the cabinet and hundreds of
quangos. Most of the assets of the state are gradually being
privatised by means of the private finance initiative. The better
regulation task force, which was to defend workers and consumers from
the erosion of standards by big business lobbying, has been handed to
the head of Northern Foods. Even where privatisation is not yet a
fact, the public sector is forced to imitate the methods of the
private sector. But people can see that the so-called Private Finance
Initiative is nothing but a fraud. There are fewer hospital beds and
worse terms of employment than before.
These policies have been disastrous for Labour. They have led to a
series of devastating defeats in Wales and Scotland and in the
European elections. Above all, they led to an unprecedented routing
of the official Labour candidate in the election for the mayor of
London. For lack of an alternative, and to keep the Tories out, the
working class voted for Labour in the general election. But they did
so with neither enthusiasm nor conviction.
Labour won on 7 June not be because of, but in spite of, Tony
Blair.
Why Labour won
Although many working class people are disappointed with Blair and
his policies, they see no alternative to the Labour Party at the
present time. They did not want a return to Tory rule and therefore
have rallied once more to Labour. Blair and the Labour right wing
will try to present this as a victory for the pro-capitalist policies
of the leadership. It is nothing of the kind. Beneath the surface,
there is a simmering discontent, anger and frustration which will
inevitably surface in the next period and will have far-reaching
effects inside the Labour Party.
The Labour victory was based to a great extent on the world boom
which has kept the British economy afloat over the past four years.
Despite the increased polarisation of wealth and the increase in
stress at work, real wages have continued to rise while inflation
remains low. The effects of the economic slowdown have not yet been
felt by most people, at least in the South of England. As the
Financial Times put it: "With unemployment and mortgage rates at
historical lows and house prices continuing to rise after last year’s
boom, the feelgood factor remains high."
The economic boom (for which the government has – wrongly –
claimed credit) has meant that most workers have a job. Real wages
have increased – though so has inequality between rich and poor.
Above all, the workers do not want to go back to Tory rule. This
explains why, despite everything, they rallied to Labour on 7 June.
However, this ‘boom’ has not improved the lot of many workers in the
industrial areas, where there is a considerable degree of
dissatisfaction, and all the indicators are now pointing in the
direction of a recession in the forthcoming period. Thus, the second
Blair administration will not be like the first one. The mood of the
class is not wholehearted: it is one of grudging support, for lack
of any alternative. There is no enthusiasm for Labour, as there
was in 1951 or even 1966, when Labour was forced to go to the polls
for a second time. This is especially the case in the traditional
working class areas of Britain.
The Leader of New Labour told the people: "I haven’t had enough
time to deliver what I promised. I need another four years to solve
all the problems of 18 years of Conservatism." They voted to give the
Labour government a second chance. But If the Blairite leadership
thinks it can just resume where it left off, it is in for a rude
awakening. They will not wait indefinitely for the big changes they
have been promised.
The discontent with Blair is particularly strong among the
activists in the Party and especially in the unions, which are still
organically linked to the Labour Party. Once the election is out of
the way, the decks will be cleared for action. Already, it is
possible to see the beginnings of a change of mood on the industrial
front, with a spate of unofficial strikes in the post office, and
strikes on the London Underground, the railways etc. This is a sign
of things to come.
The gathering storm
In the past two decades a large part of Britain’s manufacturing
base has been destroyed. The level of investment in industry has
lagged behind that of Germany, France and other countries. Even
formerly backward Italy has overtaken Britain, and Spain is not far
behind. The former workshop of the world has been largely turned into
a parasitic rentier economy based on banking and services, like
France before the Second World War. This has had serious social
consequences.
Already before the election we had seen 6,000 redundancies at
Corus Steel (while the "patriotic" management invested 1.05 billion
pounds on a new steel mill in Australia). The reason they gave was
"we have too much capacity in the UK". This is a blow to South Wales,
an area already castigated by years of closures and unemployment. And
there will be a knock-on effect in Ebbw Vale, Shotton, Bryngwyn and
Teeside. The callous attitude of management threw petrol on the
flames. Corus "made it clear that it would not put up a penny of the
money needed for the retraining." (FT 28/3/2001.) Yet the union
leaders once again played the role of a fire-hose, insisting on the
need for sweetness and light: "Mr. Leakey said the unions were
encouraged by Corus’ response to their proposals. […] They are
listening for the first time and we welcome that. We have started a
genuine debate." (!)
There will be more cases like this in the next period, giving the
lie to the sugary optimism of Blair and Brown on the prospects for
the British economy. The inherent weakness of British capitalism is
shown by the persistently high figures of unemployment. It is true
that unemployment has fallen, but it still remains in the region of
one million. And the official figures understate the true position,
since they exclude up to three million people who are looking for
work but excluded from receiving benefits. Workers who were made
redundant in mining, steel and car manufacturing have either remained
unemployed or been pushed into low paid jobs in the service sector.
The situation in many of the older industrial areas in the North
resembles Dickensian England. And this is the situation in a boom.
What will happen in a slump?
The dialectic of history has taken its revenge on the British
ruling class. For all its absurd delusions of grandeur (faithfully
reflected by Tony Blair), Britain has lost its position in world
affairs. It has been outstripped by Germany, France and even Italy,
and from an industrial point of view, is not far ahead of Spain. The
results of this will be cruelly exposed by a recession, which will
mean a ferocious struggle for every market.
The British capitalists will pay for their failure to invest in
the productive base for decades. The destruction of Britain’s
manufacturing base means that Britain will be hard hit by a world
slump, when there will be intense competition for dwindling markets.
As a low-productivity, low-wage economy on the fringes of Europe, it
will not be able to compete with its key rivals. All history shows
that an economy based on cheap labour cannot compete against an
economy based on modern machinery, high wages and high productivity.
The day of reckoning is not far off. There are already storm clouds
gathering on the horizon. The outlook is looking very bleak as the
world economy begins to slow down. The tame economists try to argue
that Britain will not be affected by the slowdown in the United
States. This argument is completely phoney. Mark Atkinson, writing in
The Guardian (16/3/2001), explained the real position:
"If America goes into recession, Britain is likely to be one of
the main casualties. Apart from the direct trade links, the two
countries invest very heavily in each other and Britain happens to be
home to one of the major global financial sectors. The economy’s
dependence on the City for wealth creation means that Britain will
suffer disproportionately from a bear market in financial assets."
There are already clear signs of the beginning of a downturn.
Manufacturing output in Britain fell in the first quarter of the year
in the aftermath of the last global slowdown. In January we saw the
steepest fall in industrial output for three years. Simon Robinson,
an economist at Garrard, commented: "With demand slowing, things are
likely to get worse before they get any better. This will soon
translate into further job losses." (Financial Times, 13/3/2001.)
Output fell sharply in new economy sectors such as electronics and
in old economy industries. In April it fell by a further 0.2 per
cent. Again, according to the CBI, manufacturing has undergone the
biggest drop in business confidence since January 1999. This will
increase a hundred-fold as the world economy slides into global
recession. This explains the haste with which Blair called the
election. The Labour leaders know which way things are going. Had
they waited another twelve months, the result would have been very
different.
According to the Financial Times, half the British economy is
already in recession. The decline in manufacturing is
accelerating. The onset of a world recession will knock all Brown’s
calculations off course. Everything can unravel very quickly. And
then the knives will be out. A world economic crisis will rapidly
reveal the underlying weakness of British capitalism. It will strip
away the budget surplus as unemployment rises and tax revenues fall.
The bankers, the City of London and big business will demand
austerity measures in their interests. At the same time there will be
growing resistance to such policies from the working class,
reflecting itself in growing opposition particularly within the trade
unions.
Crisis in the Tory Party
For the last 20 years, there has been an offensive of capitalism
under the banner of the Market. This international counter-offensive
of Capital was launched by Margaret Thatcher and then taken up by
Reagan in the USA. The British working class, which led the way in
the strike wave of the 1970s, bore the brunt of the employers’
offensive and paid the heaviest price in terms of the destruction of
workers’ rights, wages and conditions. But this process has its
limits. This was shown by the fall of Thatcher – caused, let us not
forget, by the mass rebellion against the Poll Tax – and the
resounding defeat of the Tories in the 1997 general election. This
already indicated the beginnings of a turn in the tide in Britain.
The Tory Party is now deeply divided and in crisis. "The party,
which used to be known as a great election-winning machine, is in
tatters. Morale and membership are at a record low. The average age
of its members is 62," writes The Economist. Unable to present a
credible alternative to the policies of the Blairites, they tried to
play first the race card ("bogus asylum seekers"), then the question
of the Euro. But all these manoeuvres have failed. But there is a
more serious reason for the crisis of the Conservative Party. The
problem of the Tories is simply stated: Blair has stolen their
clothes. Since he was elected he has consistently done everything
Big Business has asked of him. They therefore have no need of the
Tories at the present time.
As long as Blair is able to control the working class and carry
out a capitalist policy, they will continue to support him. But there
are limits to this. At a certain point, it will not be possible for
Blair and the right wing to keep the rank and file in check. At this
point they will unceremoniously turn against Labour and go back to
supporting the Tories. But for the time being, the ruling class has
decided to back Blair. The Economist, with its customary cynicism,
carried a front page collage of Blair and Thatcher with the slogan
"Vote Conservative". It commented in an editorial (2 June): "Its
[Labour’s] macroeconomic policy, indeed, has been more orthodox than
its Tory predecessors’, with more fiscal discipline and the welcome
granting of independence to the Bank of England. It has stuck to, and
in some ways extended, Tory policies on education. It has dithered
over the National Health Service (NHS), but again has not diverted
far from the path set by John Major’s Tories."
On the Tories, the same article comments sarcastically: "It is
hard to oppose your own ideas, especially if you are hopelessly
divided over Europe."
The conclusion of The Economist is quite blatant in its cynicism:
"Tony Blair is the only credible Tory currently available."
At this stage, then, the ruling class is prepared to back Blair.
But they do not see Labour as their party. Their policy is "use
and discredit". They will press it into doing the dirty work
until it is thoroughly discredited and then swing back to the Tories.
The ploy was clear from the front page of The Sun: "Now
Deliver!" This slogan is double-edged. It is, on the one hand, a
peremptory order from the capitalist class, and at the same time a
sly preparation of the terrain for a future onslaught by The Sun on
the Labour government when it suits the ruling class.
Risk of fascism?
The simmering crisis of the inner city areas, aggravated by race,
can lead to explosions as shown by the riots in Oldham and Leeds. The
frightful decline of British capitalism has led to the growth of an
under class of unemployed and desperate youth. In these elections the
BNP got 16 per cent in one Oldham constituency and 11 per cent in
another. This is the highest vote for a fascist party in any British
election. However, this must be seen in context. Labour won these
seats with a big majority. On the other hand, the fascist parties –
including the BNP – generally got a derisory vote.
There were special reasons for the result in Oldham. The riots in
Oldham – provoked by fascist elements – created an atmosphere of
fear. Since the Labour movement gave no lead, there was a fertile
ground for racist demagogy. The BNP – a tiny far-right sect –
concentrated all its forces on one or two seats nationally, and got a
certain echo in Oldham. But this must not be exaggerated. It was not
repeated on a national scale. In Tower Hamlets, in the poor East End
of London, an area with a big concentration of mainly Bangladeshi
immigrants where the BNP had previously been active, its vote went
down from 10 per cent to 6 per cent.
There is no prospect in the immediate future of a big fascist
movement in Britain. The ruling class does not need the assistance of
the racists at the present time, and regards them as a nuisance
because they can provoke the working class and youth. They will
remain as small but virulent and violent sects. Only in the future,
if the working class suffers a series of fundamental defeats, would
reaction in Britain begin to mobilise seriously. Even then, it would
not take the form of old-style fascism, which is discredited in
Britain, but more likely some kind of bonapartist, racist right wing
movement inside the Tory Party itself, and especially its youth wing.
But long before that threat would be posed, the working class will
have many opportunities to carry through the socialist transformation
of society.
Changing mood
As in mechanics so in society, every action has an equal and
opposite reaction. The unpopularity of Thatcherite policies was shown
in 1997 when the working class, and a big part of the middle class
voted overwhelmingly for a change. But no change has been forthcoming
from Blair’s New Labour. With the exception of a hypocritical
"social" rhetoric, it has been a question of "more of the same".
However, the situation in Britain is changing. After two decades of
mild reaction, the mood is shifting. This is shown by the polls
already referred to which show clearly that the mass of people now
reject privatisation. It is now generally understood that
privatisation is just a licence to plunder the public sector. Only
six per cent of voters (13 per cent of Tory voters) support the
running of public services by private companies.
All the polls show that privatisation is now unpopular in Britain,
with even Tory voters demanding the renationalisation of the railways
by huge majorities. 76 per cent of all voters want renationalisation,
including an incredible 71 per cent of Tory voters. This shows the
deep unpopularity of rail privatisation. No wonder! There are already
indications that Railtrack – the privatised railway company whose
shares have recently plummeted, following a number of costly rail
accidents – will demand at least 6 billion pounds of taxpayers’
money in the next 12 months – more than double the cost of taking
it back into public ownership. Its shares (60 pence) are already
lower than at the time of privatisation.
The decrepit state of public transport and especially the railways
is just another example of the decline of British capitalism. While
privatisation of the railways has led to a further deterioration and
a series of spectacular crashes, the French nationalised railways
have just opened a fast speed route between Calais and Marseilles in
less than four hours – almost twice the speed of any train now
operating in Britain. This little detail sharply underlines the
degree to which Britain has fallen behind the rest of Europe. The
public is scandalised, and demands renationalisation of the railways.
How does Tony Blair react? "We have got to put the investment in
now". The "we" is the British taxpayer, who will foot the bill
for bailing out a company that is universally despised. This is a
recipe for growing discontent.
The opposition to privatisation is not limited to the railways. 60
per cent of all voters are against private pensions. Half of Labour
voters (48 per cent of all voters) say that British Telecom should be
renationalised. Fifty per cent say that workers in the public sector
are underpaid. This shows that there is a sea-change in public
opinion in Britain. The red light is flashing for the Blairites.
Yet the self-styled realists of the Labour leadership, who claim to
be listening to the views of the electorate, remain deaf to all this.
They are determined to maintain their right-wing pro-business line to
the bitter end.
Buoyed up by the prospect of an unexpectedly easy victory, Tony
Blair will be even more arrogant than heretofore. He insists on
pushing through creeping privatisation of the schools and hospitals,
as well as the London Underground and Air Traffic Control. In the
past he has talked of his war against "the forces of conservatism",
by which he means the trade unions. The ruling class will be egging
him on to confront the unions in the public sector and press on with
his "radical" (capitalist) agenda. But the mass of working people
will no longer be so patient and tolerant as they were under the
first Blair administration. They will insist that Labour acts in
their interests. The Blairites will find themselves ground between
two mill stones.
SSP, SA, SLP…
Despite everything, Labour won this election by a sizeable margin.
This is a decisive answer to those on the fringes of the labour
movement who have left the Labour Party and are desperately striving
to build phantom "revolutionary" armies in the clouds. Lenin advised
the British Communists to put up a few candidates to advocate a
Communist programme, and in all other seats give critical support to
the Labour Party. At least if they had stood on a revolutionary
programme, these small groups might argue that their electoral policy
had a pedagogical role. But there was nothing revolutionary about it.
Where they put up candidates, they all stood on a completely
reformist programme. From a Marxist point of view, this has no
sense at all. These groups have neither a revolutionary policy nor
the support of the masses.
A genuinely Marxist tendency must be able to find a road to the
masses. That was always Lenin’s position. The working class in
general learns from experience. The election of the first Blair
government was a necessary part of the learning process whereby the
masses put their leaders to the test. The real attitude of the
workers to Blair was shown in a whole series of partial elections in
Wales, Scotland, London etc., where they registered an unprecedented
protest. All this constitutes an absolutely unavoidable stage in the
development of consciousness. The know-nothing sects interpreted this
as proof that the working class was moving away from Labour. The
present election shows just how little they have understood.
In Scotland the SSP said they would get 100,000 votes. In the
event – standing on a left reformist programme with nationalist
overtones – they got 70,000, which is a respectable result, but not
as much as they had anticipated. This result shows the potential that
exists for a genuine Left opposition in Scotland. But unless it is
oriented towards the Labour and trade union movement, it will be
doomed to be an ephemeral protest. The election results show that
in Scotland also, the working class is looking to the Labour
Party. The supporters of the SSP must draw the necessary
conclusions and carry the fight into the Labour movement.
In England and Wales the SA and SLP made a pathetic showing. Only
in two constituencies did the Socialist Alliance save their deposit –
St. Helens and Coventry NE. In both of these seats, the candidates
were well-known former Labour activists. The Labour leaders had
imposed the ex-Tory Shaun Woodward on the local Labour Party in St.
Helens. The SA was therefore able to collect a certain number of
protest votes. But this is a temporary phenomenon and hardly
represents support for building an alternative formation outside the
Labour Party.
To get things in context, the SA got an average of 1,75 per cent
in the seats where they stood candidates – or 0. 2 per cent for the
whole country. In an incredible attempt to cover up this flop, they
published an article comparing their election result with that of the
"Communist" Party of Great Britain – in 1950! Naturally, the
comparison was a flattering one, since the CPGB at that time got an
even worse result – 1,32 per cent per seat! The title of this article
was A Great Start (!). At least it must be admitted that these
comrades have a sense of humour.
The position of Arthur Scargill’s Socialist Labour Party was no
better. In the working class London constituency of East Ham, where
in 1997 they saved their deposit and got one of their best results
nationally, coming third, they lost heavily, falling into fourth
place. In Hartlepool, where right winger Peter Mandelson, discredited
by scandal, seemed an easy target, Arthur Scargill stood in person,
got less than a thousand votes and lost his deposit. Elsewhere, they
got only a few hundred votes in each constituency.
For those honest socialists who backed this option, with the idea
of creating a left wing alternative outside the Labour Party, these
results should give food for reflection. It is understandable that
many activists are indignant with the policies of the Blairites, but
it is also necessary to understand how the class as a whole moves,
and see that the working class cannot express itself through small
groups. The history of the last hundred years show that, when the
class moves, it will inevitably turn, in the first place to the
traditional mass organisations. The workers will test these
organisations time and time again, and will not easily turn to an
alternative outside them. The recent election yet again serves to
confirm this assertion.
Despite the fact that many Labour Party voters were so
disenchanted, the efforts of groups like the Socialist Alliance and
the Socialist Labour Party of Arthur Scargill to capitalise on the
disillusionment of the workers with New Labour failed to make any
impression. These small groups on the fringes of the Labour movement
imagined that the discontent with Blair would guarantee an increase
in support, But they were mistaken. Disaffected Labour supporters
registered their protest by simply staying at home. In the
next period, they will find more effective ways to protest, but they
will not look to small left groups, but to the mass organisations of
the class: the unions and, at a later stage, the Labour Party.
Those people who continually ask themselves how it is possible
that the British workers continue to vote for Blair reveal a complete
lack of understanding of how the class moves. It is sufficient to
pose the question concretely to get the right answer. Where is the
alternative to Blair? The Tories? Certainly not. The Labour Left? But
they are invisible! The sects who fiddle and fuss on the fringes of
the Labour movement? That is just a joke. In the general election the
working class once again voted Labour, not because they like Blair or
his policy, but simply because there is no alternative to the
Labour Party. Not to see this is to understand nothing about the
real situation in Britain.
From frustration to anger
The cosy relation between Blair and Big Business has led some to
conclude that Labour is now a bourgeois party. That is a complete
misreading of the actual state of affairs. The ruling class does not
trust the Labour Party because of its links to the trade unions and
the working class. Of course, they will back Blair because he is
their man. But they understand very well that the Labour Party is not
Tony Blair.
True, the Times and Financial Times – two traditionally Tory
papers, advocated a vote for Labour. So did The Sun, Murdoch’s
reactionary right wing gutter press rag. This is a pat on the back
for Blair from Big Business, which is evidently well pleased with his
performance – up till now. During the campaign, Blair was confronted
on television by an angry woman distraught by the NHS’s treatment of
her husband. Yet, under the pressure of Big Business, Blair is
determined to push through backdoor privatisation, as he stated in a
BBC interview:
"Anybody who comes to me after the general election from the
traditional old left and says ‘no, you cannot involve the private
sector in these things’, I want to say ‘no, I made it clear during
the election that we wanted a different partnership between the
public and private sector’."
Blair seems to be anxious to enter onto a collision course with
the trade unions. This is no accident. He is being pushed by Big
Business to act. But the working people have other ideas about how a
Labour government should behave. The workers, having taken stock of
the position, voted Labour to keep out the open representatives of
Big Business. But after the election, their attitude to the
government will not be the same as before. For a time after the last
general election, the workers were inclined to give Labour the
benefit of the doubt. But that will no longer be the case under the
next Blair government. The impatience and frustration of the workers
has been expressed in a series of unofficial strikes in the Post
Office (also threatened with creeping privatisation). The depressed
mood of the past is slowly beginning to change to one of anger. The
cosy relation between New Labour and the trade unions will not be
easy to maintain in this environment. The Guardian (24/5/2001)
warned:
"Tony Blair was last night facing the first signs of a
co-ordinated trade union backlash over his plans to expose the public
services, including health and education, to private contractors if
Labour wins the general election.
"It emerged last night that the TUC executive met yesterday to
express alarm at the extent of the prime minister’s commitment to
introduce private sector management and disciplines."
The article went on to say that "many of the unions are privately
concerned that Mr. Blair’s proposals do not differ markedly from
measures by the Conservative government to hand the public sector
over to the private sector."
The trade union leaders who have so far largely succeeded in
keeping the lid on will be under pressure to act. In the recent
period there have not been many strikes, but in many cases there have
been big majorities for strike action where ballots have been held.
Not long ago, the RMT rail workers’ union voted eleven to one in
favour of strike action on the London Underground – the biggest
majority ever for strike action on the Underground. There is a new
mood of militancy among railway workers. A senior ASLEF driver was
quoted in the Evening Standard (22nd March): "When we took strike
action last month we were supported by the RMT, Now it is our turn to
show solidarity with our sister union and we will not cross their
picket line. There are many ASLEF drivers who feel the same way."
When the RMT was prevented by the High Court from taking action,
hundreds of members went on unofficial action. Around 12,000 guards
in 24 rail companies are being balloted by the rail union RMT over
complaints that guards’ vital safety duties are being watered down.
This could lead to industrial action. It is not an isolated case.
There are pay talks taking place involving 800,000 local government
workers. We see here the insolence of the employers: "the lowest pay
rise would still be above the new national minimum wage." The
teachers are on a collision course with the government. And the
ex-Left Blunkett resorted to threats against them! Teachers in a
number of areas of England and Wales have already voted for "no
cover" action and a ballot is being held.
The mood for action is there, but the union leaders have been
holding it back. However, this cannot last forever. The whole thing
is beginning to crack at the edges. This is shown by the results of a
number of union conferences. The union leaders have tried to avoid
strike action, pointing to the danger of legal action under the anti
trade union laws which, disgracefully, remain on the statute books.
But this will not hold back the workers indefinitely. The unofficial
(and illegal) strikes in the Post Office is a warning of things to
come. If the union leaders continue to drag their feet, they will
face outright rebellion in one union conference after another. There
will be a wave of unofficial actions which the leaders will have to
make official in the end.
At a certain stage, the union leaders will be pushed into
semi-opposition, or even open opposition to Blair. The recent events
in Greece, where the right wing union leaders were forced to organise
two general strikes against the government of Simitis, the Greek Tony
Blair, is an indication of where Britain is heading.
The only reason why the class has not moved before now has been
the absence of a point of reference. The Labour Left has been
generally cowed and inactive. But that will change. Under these
circumstances, opposition will mount in the Labour Party, even within
the Parliamentary Labour Party. The right wing will be rapidly
discredited. Crisis will follow crisis. There will be sudden and
unexpected turns in the situation which sooner or later must find
their reflection inside the Labour Party.
Labour and the unions
It is a mistake only to see the surface of events and not to see
the processes that are unfolding underneath. There is a mood of
boiling anger and indignation in the class which sooner or later must
come to the surface. For years the employers have been piling on the
pressure, increasing the workload and whittling away workers’ gains
in hours, pay and conditions. A recent survey by Warwick university
pointed to an increase in depression, strain, stress, loss of sleep
and unhappiness in Britain in the 1990s. "Our evidence suggests that
the job satisfaction premium has collapsed." Professor Andrew Oswald
linked the fall in job satisfaction to stress: "The very heavy
increase in workloads in the public sector has made workers much less
happy." (The Guardian, 22/3/2001.)
Now the limits of this are being reached. As we have seen, the
discontent on the shop floor is shown by the spate of strikes in the
Post Office in the run-up to the general election. Last year strikes
in the Post Office amounted to 62,000 days. The mood of the workforce
has been further hardened by the threats of the postal regulator,
Martin Stanley, to introduce "serious" private postal competition by
the Autumn. This man is attempting to destroy the Post Office’s
monopoly in preparation for privatisation. Already, private companies
like UPS (which has started to donate money to the Labour Party) is
trying to get its nose in the trough. The Post Office has had a
monopoly for 350 years. Now it is to be broken – and by a Labour
government.
The Communication Workers’ Union estimated that up to 50,000
workers had joined the recent stoppages against the imposition of
"flexible" working practices that were sparked off by an unofficial
strike in Watford. These strikes spread when the Post Office
attempted to divert work from Watford to Liverpool – a clear
provocation.
The strike caused a backlog of almost 50 million letters. Derek
Hodgson, the general secretary said: "The industrial relations record
is abysmal, and we cannot go on putting sticking plaster on the
problems – we need a proper cure." (FT, 25/5/2001.)
This movement blew up at a time when the government was striving
to reach a behind-the scenes deal with the TUC to avoid strikes over
privatisation on the London Underground. The union had agreed to
flexible working to deal with the rapid expansion of junk mail, but
London postal workers stated that they were not prepared to accept
the imposition of a move from 5.25 am to 4 am shift patterns which
would entrench part time working.
The mood of the workers was shown by the following comments by a
London striker: "It should have been done long ago. I am not happy
about losing money, but you have to back other people up. We as night
workers are losing more than everyone else." This is a new language
and shows a new and more militant mood among the workers: "We lose
out" and that is a concern, the 43 year old processing worker went
on, "but you have to say that you won’t be pushed around. The way we
work inside there is ridiculous. The changes they have made are no
better than how things were before. They said we would go forwards,
but actually we have gone backwards. It’s a bit like a Dickensian
workhouse." (The Guardian, 24/5/2001, my emphasis.)
Similar comments could be made by many workers in Britain. For
years they have been pushed around by the bosses. But now the point
is being reached where quantity becomes transformed into quality. A
postman, 32 years old, who declined to give his name for fear of
victimisation, was quoted as saying: "This is the straw that broke
the camel’s back. It comes down to one question doesn’t it? How many
times are you going to get kicked by them? It’s not the management
here that’s the problem, it’s the people higher up."
The action of the postal workers was illegal, yet no action has
been taken under the anti-union laws.
Billy Hayes – the left candidate from Liverpool – won a completely
unexpected victory in the election for general secretary in the CWU.
The right wing was confident their candidate, the sitting general
secretary, John Keggie, would win easily, but Billy Hayes won with a
majority of about 4,000 votes. In another surprise victory for the
left, Mark Serwotka won in the leadership elections in the civil
servants’ union, the PCS. This is a clear indication of the
beginnings of a change in the unions.
This shows the beginnings of a process of the transformation of
the trade unions, which will continue at an even faster pace in the
next period. The unions have been restrained during the run-up to the
election, but that will change later on.
Even the Royal College of Nurses has come out against
privatisation. Christine Hancock of the RCN – till now a New Labour
stalwart – told her 330,000 members to use their power to oppose the
drift towards privatisation in the NHS. She is standing down after 12
years – probably sensing that there will be rough times ahead. She
also criticised "third world" conditions in the NHS accident and
emergency departments and proposals to charge elderly people for
personal care such as assistance with eating and bathing.
There is a general ferment in the unions even now. At the
conference of the Fire Brigades Union, against the advice of the
leadership, it was agreed to change the union’s rules to allow
donations to candidates other than Labour who support "the principles
and policies of the union". The FBU resolution was passed by 27,000
votes to 23,000. Andy Gilchrist, FBU general secretary, said that
"FBU members are frustrated with the slow process being made by the
Labour government", as well as the disputes with the
Labour-controlled fire authorities and "the national party stance on
imposing candidates such as Shaun Woodward in St. Helens". (The
Guardian 24/5/2001.)
This shows the growth of indignation and frustration inside the
unions with the policies of New Labour, which is sometimes expressed
in ultra left moves to break with the Labour Party. We have been here
before. In 1969, under the Labour government of Harold Wilson, there
was such anger against the right wing policies, such as the
anti-trade union In Place of Strife document, that miners’ lodges
were threatening to disaffiliate from the Labour Party. At that time,
not only was the Labour Party dominated by the right wing, but the
unions also. We had Lord Carrron of the AEU, Lord Cooper of the GMBU,
Sir Sydney Green of the NUR – to name only a few of the rogues’
gallery. To superficial observers the situation seemed hopeless. All
the sects left the Labour Party at this time: the Healyites, the
Cliff group (later the SWP), etc. Only the Marxist tendency around
Militant remained. Yet within a few years everything changed, and
both the unions and the Labour Party swung to the Left.
Certain groups are attempting to take advantage of this situation
to encourage unions to disaffiliate from the Labour party. This is
completely wrong. By refusing to carry the fight into the Labour
Party, they are merely doing what Tony Blair wants. After all, his
main concern, in line with the demands of his Big Business backers,
has been to break Labour’s links with the unions. That is not our
policy. Socialist Appeal says: unions should not contract out but
contract in. They should flood the Labour Party with their members,
demanding that Labour carry out policies in the interests of the
workers, not the bosses.
Despite all Blair’s efforts the organic link between the Labour
Party and the unions has not been broken. The unions and the rank and
file will demand policies in the interests of working people. On the
basis of events, at a certain stage, a mass Left will emerge within
the Labour and trade union movement. The ideas of the Marxist
tendency in the unions and the Labour Party will gain a growing echo.
Blair is out of touch
The Blairite leaders of the Labour Party are completely out of
touch with reality. Dominated by sycophant and "spin doctors", they
live on another planet. Removed from the pressures of the rank and
file, they are even more open to the pressures of Big Business and
the press. The new cabinet will undoubtedly indicate a further slide
to the right. But by this procedure, there will be the beginnings of
divisions inside the PLP and even inside the Cabinet in the next
period between the new generation of middle class parvenus loyal only
to Blair and the older layer of right wingers who do not want to see
the Labour Party destroyed.
Blair now imagines he can do anything he wants. He thinks he can
lord it over the Labour party and the unions. During the election
campaign he made it clear that he would regard an election victory as
a mandate to press ahead with the "public-private initiative". The
attempt to introduce the methods of the private sector into the
public sector is a finished recipe for conflict. Big Business is
urging Blair to go onto the offensive. His already inflated ego
having been further boosted by the election result, he shows every
indication of being enthusiastic to "get down to business". But the
workers in the public sector are in no mood to accept further
impositions. The stage is therefore set for a collision of major
proportions. Speaking on BBC television on election night, Andrew
Marr predicted that there would be "big battles with the Left and the
trade unions". That is undoubtedly correct.
Papers like the Financial Times are already giving Tony Blair his
marching orders. The cry has gone up "You are in a strong position.
Go onto the offensive. Take on the public sector unions. Clear out
all the Old Labour people and go for the grand slam." However, the
working class people who voted for Labour have an entirely different
mentality: They reasoned approximately thus: "We didn’t get what we
wanted last time. Now we have given you the benefit of the doubt. You
have the majority. Now there is no excuse. We want results! More
houses, hospitals, schools, better conditions, a better life."
Thus, from the outset, Blair will find himself ground between
two millstones.
These contradictions are bound to be reflected inside the Labour
Party. That explains the reforming zeal of the Blairites. The
Millbank Mafia, under the pretext of "reforming" Labour would like to
neuter the Party as quickly as possible to prevent this from
happening. Their intentions were shown in a recent statement by
Margaret MacDonald on "reviving the grass roots" (A most amusing
misnomer!): "The pilots will examine whether local parties can be
reorganised to concentrate on security, a school zebra crossing or
extra investment on a community from a company." (The Guardian,
16/3/2001.)
Ian Macartney, the Cabinet officer who is overseeing the reform
stated: "Except for a minority that want to live on a general
committee, party members are bored to death, and it’s taking up too
much of their time." What is "taking up too much time" is a little
thing called democracy!
But the right wing have miscalculated the mood, not only of the
country, but of the unions and the Labour Party. The Labour activists
will not be content to sit around discussing local zebra crossings
while the government privatises the schools and dismantles the
National Health. There will be a wave of opposition, including
elements who previously supported the right wing. Thus, immediately
after the election, even Michael Jacobs, secretary of the Fabian
Society expressed concern about the introduction of the private
sector into schools and hospitals. These murmurs will grow into a
crescendo in the next period.
The process that will open up was already anticipated in the
Livingstone affair in London. In protest at the high-handed conduct
of the Labour leadership in refusing to accept the democratic
decision of the London Labour Party, there was a revolt of the rank
and file. The whole Party was in a state of ferment. Overnight, not
just the local branches but also the affiliated unions sprang to
life. True, the movement subsided again when Livingstone left the
Party. But it showed the shape of things to come. In the next period,
there will be many other incidents like that which will shake up
every Party branch and union all over Britain.
The Labour victory of 7 June opens a new chapter in the history of
Britain. In the battles that impend, the fresh wind of the class
struggle will begin to blow again, clearing out all the accumulated
cobwebs and rubbish of the last twenty years, and preparing the way
for the root and branch transformation of the organisations of
Labour. It is necessary to organise the fight back against the
policies of Blairism. Labour must break with Big Business! A
socialist programme is the only solution! That is our clarion call.
Armed with the real ideas of socialism – that is, with the programme
of Marxism – we will build a powerful movement and prepare the way
for the socialist transformation of society in Britain and
internationally.
