Publications Index | Encyclopedia of Trotskyism | Marxists’ Internet Archive
Socialist Review Index (1993–1996) | Socialist Review 168 Contents
From Socialist Review, No. 168, October 1993.
Copyright © Socialist Review.
Copied with thanks from the Socialist Review Archive.
Marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for ETOL.
‘I’ve never knocked on anyone’s door and found them saying “I am not voting for you because of the unions and the block vote”. It isn’t a problem.’ This is how one of a disappearing breed of Labour activists summed up the debate which took centre stage at this year’s Labour conference.
The row over One Member One Vote (OMOV) became the key issue in Brighton this year, supposedly marking the difference between the ‘mods’ and the ‘trads’ in the party. For supporters of OMOV, like Bill Jordan of the AEEU, its defeat at conference could be one of the ‘costliest mistakes in political history,’ while chief among those lined up against the attack on union links were the two big general unions, the GMB and TGWU.
In a Britain where unemployment is in reality over four million, the NHS is being dismantled, the welfare system is under attack and racism is on the increase, this internal wrangling over party structures is an insult to those who traditionally look to Labour to represent them. In reality the row reflects the party’s continued inability to sense – much less give a direction to – the bitterness that exists amongst working people after 14 years of Tory rule.
Having swallowed the arguments about a disappearing working class taking away its traditional constituency, Labour’s attack on union links is a conscious effort to attract new voters from the middle classes which the vast majority of the parliamentary party now believes are the key to it winning a future election.
Labour’s stance was exemplified by shadow health minister David Blunkett with his calls for ‘well managed, well afforded public services’. This falls far short of the firm promises of the well staffed, properly funded health service we need. Labour leaders opposed a motion calling for VAT to be taken off fuel should they be elected. Only eight members of the NEC voted to renationalise the coal industry.
The weakness of the left at the conference was plain to see. In fact one of the most outspoken opponents of OMOV and John Smith’s leadership in general has been Bryan Gould, who campaigned for the leadership of the party last year in support of OMOV.
Tony Benn’s departure from the NEC after 34 years is a further blow to the left, and his replacement by Harriet Harman is another indication of Labour’s rightward romp.
The gap between the Labour leadership and its withering base of party activists was also brought sharply into focus by conference. A survey carried out just before Brighton showed that around 40 percent of Labour Party members were less active in 1992 than they had been in 1990. In 1990, 82 percent had been involved in some form of party activity whereas by 1992 this had fallen to just over 50 percent.
A quarter of Labour members who had left the party over the period blamed the abandonment by the leadership of Labour’s basic principles or ‘it’s moved too far to the right.’ At conference this was reflected around OMOV debates and debates over Labour’s tax plans, with one delegate declaring ‘I would campaign around higher taxes tomorrow ... people would accept them if they knew they were going to pay for better services.’
However, unease about the state of the party and its lack of forthright direction was reflected in the hints of splits and dissatisfaction expressed in John Smith’s leadership. The supposed rift between Smith and his deputy Margaret Beckett is both a sign of her allegiance to her union backers, the TGWU, and an attempt to distance herself from the leader. Shadow chancellor Gordon Brown’s slightly more forthright comments pledging a Labour government to lessen the ‘unacceptable’ gap between rich and poor may also have reflected a grass roots pressure. However, the Financial Times has pointed out that Brown will probably drop such comments after the conference.
The tensions in the party also opened up a gap for the middle ground with the likes of Peter Hain arguing ‘we must not replace the red flag in order to raise the white flag.’ Clearly some in the parliamentary party can see that the inability of the Labour leadership to reflect the levels of anger in society, which has caused the diminishing number of activists at constituency level, can be disastrous. The party can become, as Patrick Seyd of Sheffield University pointed out after his survey of Labour members, ‘a parliamentary head with no roots.’
In large part the party’s fate lies not in internal wranglings over party structures but in the class struggles which are ahead. A resurgence of mass activity, strikes and demonstrations can see people looking to Labour to provide solutions despite its history of failure and betrayal, and its lack of current leadership.
But before then the opportunities are there for socialists outside Labour to pull together and organise those who want to fight back against the attacks now, and provide an alternative to the rotten record of parliamentary reformism.
Socialist Review Index | ETOL Main Page
Last updated: 28 February 2017