Calendar
June 2008
M T W T F S S
« May   Jul »
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30  
Categories
Latest Postings
Links
Archives
Meta
« John McDonnell MP: After Labour’s electoral disaster - we need action on policies. | Transport Meeting at the Convention of The Left »

Working class people deserve a party to speak for them by Nick Wrack

Working class people deserve a party to speak for them
Respect National Secretary Nick Wrack looks at the current political situation and explains the need for an alternative to New Labour.New Labour’s humiliation at the local elections was followed up by a thrashing in the Crewe and Nantwich parliamentary by-election with a 17% swing to the Tories, that would put Cameron and the Tories into power at the next general election.Of course, Gordon Brown must go. But why was he elected leader in the first place? He was the architect of New Labour’s economic policy for ten years; the paymaster for the war on Iraq. One of his first decisions as Prime Minister was to appoint Digby Jones, former leader of the bosses’ CBI, to a ministerial post.

Why did so many Labour MPs nominate him? More pertinently, why did so many trade union leaders back him, when they knew he would continue with attacks on their members?

Changing the leader won’t make a fundamental difference unless there is also a complete change of direction in Labour party policy. And this is not going to happen. The Labour Party leadership is completely wedded to the right-wing, anti-working-class policies of privatisation and cuts. A decision to ditch all that and adopt policies that benefit working-class people is as likely to happen as the Queen becoming a republican.

John McDonnell has launched a campaign for labour party members and trade union branches to adopt a series of left-wing policies, all of which Respect supports. We believe that such policies are essential to advance the interests of trade unionists and working-class communities. But, unfortunately, no matter how much support John wins for them, they’re not going to be adopted by the New Labour leaders.

The fact that John could not muster the support of the 45 MPs needed to challenge for Labour Party leader says it all.

The Labour Party is completely irredeemable as a party to represent working-class interests. Whether it’s the 10p tax rate, the below inflation pay awards, the continued intrusion of the market into the NHS and schools, or the attacks on civil liberties, immigrant communities and young people, New Labour stands against pretty much everything that Labour voters expect. It has placed itself completely at the disposal of big business and the super-rich.

Workers, the poor, the pensioners, the sick and disabled, the immigrant and the youth are all disregarded. That many still vote Labour reflects the deep loyalty of many working-class communities to a party that has let them down repeatedly and a fear that Cameron’s resurgent Tory Party are heading for government in 2010.

But New Labour is squandering this capital with the determination of a drug addict in a crack house. New Labour cannot rely on its traditional vote for ever.

There’s no enthusiasm for Labour. Voters hold their noses while they vote. Others stay at home, casting a plague on all the parties. A few are tempted to vote for the conservatives, forgetting the experience of Thatcher, Heseltine and Tebbit, the miners’ strike and the poll tax. Some, in the most deprived areas, take out their frustration and disillusionment by turning to the racist and fascist BNP.

In the unions, the slow disintegration of Labour’s base continues. The RMT remains expelled from Labour and has considered standing its own candidates. The FBU’s recent conference confirmed its decision to remain disaffiliated.

Discontent with the payment of the political fund to Labour is growing in other unions, with the CWU conference discussing whether to withhold money until they get a commitment from the government that the Post Office is safe from privatisation and that their pensions are safe. Now, even the GMB union, one of Labour’s biggest backers, is also debating disaffiliation over concerns about how its donations are treated.

Many younger voters do not share the traditional allegiance to the Labour Party, nor do the new immigrant workers from Africa and the extended European Union.

More and more of Labour’s own members are calling it a day. Since 1997 over 200,000 have left the Labour Party. Now the party is in financial crisis, owing over £10 million to the banks and various rich creditors. Many members have now decided they aren’t even prepared to raise funds for the party any more, worried that it will be spent on the wrong things. When a 70-year old woman in Hyndburn, Lancashire, with over 50 years’ membership, is no longer prepared to bake cakes for the party, its very existence is called into question.

Young activists in the unions, anti-war, anti-racist and environmental campaigns are not going to replace the long-time devoted Labour stalwarts. Only right-wingers and careerists seem to join these days.

As one activist in the CWU postal workers’ union commented, “I’ve been a Labour Party member for nearly thirty years but when I see former Tories given standing ovations at the annual conference, it makes me sick to my stomach”.

The need for a left-wing alternative to New Labour could not be clearer. It won’t be built overnight. But built it must be. Respect aims to play its part it this process, recruiting new members and standing in elections to present an alternative. But Respect is still small and it cannot at this stage present a national alternative. At the next general election it will contest only a handful or two of seats.

We want to reach out a hand of unity to all on the left who want to establish a broader, unified alternative to New Labour.

There have been several false starts and, no doubt, this colours the thinking of leading figures on the left in the labour movement. The experience of the Socialist Labour Party, the Socialist Alliance, the Scottish Socialist Party and, latterly, the split in Respect would make the most optimistic exponent of left unity reach for the nearest barge pole.

“Once bitten, twice shy” may be the more obvious saying but “try, try again” is a better one. Working-class people deserve a party that speaks for them. And time is ticking. The slow business of creating a party to the left of Labour needs to begin now.

We will continue to seek alliances with all on the left, including those still in the Labour Party, to fight for policies that can benefit working-class people - policies such as free school meals for all children; abolition of prescription charges; free leisure facilities for young people; affordable housing; an end to privatisation and job cuts; and pay awards to keep ahead of inflation.

This entry was posted on 06/06/2008 at 10:54 pm and is filed under Power and politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

7 Responses to “Working class people deserve a party to speak for them by Nick Wrack”

  1. Clive Searle says:
    06/06/2008 at 10:56 pm

    The three recent posts by Nick Wrack, John McDonnell and Mark Hosskisson perhaps mark out the boundaries of left debate post the elections. With Mark an the far left, John on the right ot the left (no offence meant) and Nick somewhere in the middle of the two positions.

    That the Convention will bring all these ideas together is, in itself, a bit of a success. Clarifying our attitudes to each position will certainly be informative and entertaining. If we can come out of the Convention with clarity about where we agree and where we can work together - as well as where we disagree - then it will have been a real success.

  2. Jason says:
    13/06/2008 at 07:47 pm

    Interesting comment, Clive. I agree that it does at least indicate some of the breadth of the support the Convention is garnering.

    I will read Nick and John’s articles thoroughly and come back with some points on the articles.

    Whilst there is some truth to your positioning of the correspondents I think there may well be differences of ideas and tactics, some of which will complement each other, rather than conflict, and do not necessarily in all respects follow a left-right line.

    Anyway I’ll do some reading over the weekend in between cramming for my exam next week and perhaps comment some time mid week.

  3. Francis King says:
    16/06/2008 at 03:35 pm

    “The experience of the Socialist Labour Party, the Socialist Alliance, the Scottish Socialist Party and, latterly, the split in Respect would make the most optimistic exponent of left unity reach for the nearest barge pole”, says Nick Wrack. Very true. I have kept my barge pole handy at all times since the disintegration of my old party, the (original) CPGB, in 1991. But it is worth stepping back and asking: why did all these initiatives end in fiasco? And, just as importantly: why have certain other (much rarer) initiatives succeeded? The failed experiments Nick has listed all have one thing in common - they involved existing party organisations which did not liquidate themselves into the new group, but continued to operate and pursue their own agendas. The problem was exacerbated by the fact that most of these groups were Leninists of one sort or another, and felt obliged to advance their own grouplet’s line, and keep their own members in line, within the broader organisation. The collapse of all these bids for left unity into factional squabbling was entirely predictable and almost certainly inevitable, sooner or later.

    Compare this recent experience with that of the foundation of the CPGB almost 90 years ago. There, all sorts of diverse left-wing forces – former Hyndmanists, DeLeonists, suffragists, syndicalists and so on – dissolved their organisations into this new party. Within a very short period, the previous factional loyalties and rivalries had been overcome, and the body functioned as a coherent political force, for better or for worse.

    For the (relatively) large political space to the left of Labour to be filled by a serious organisation, rather than by a plethora of competing sects, a great deal of political will and courage will be needed. It will require people from all sorts of different traditions – left Labour, orthodox communist, Trotskyist, anarchist, green leftist and so on - to abandon their old factional and organisational baggage and join together, honestly, on a common platform. It will require those existing groups that wish to take part to dissolve their organisations and their newspapers into the new body. And it will require that the diehard factionalists who are not prepared to do this remain outside this new organisation, where they can continue to try to build their own parties. I cannot say that I am optimistic about the prospects for this in the short term. But I am quite certain that another marriage of convenience between Leninist grouplets will end, as ever, in yet another messy and acrimonious divorce.

  4. Free Radical says:
    18/06/2008 at 08:07 pm

    I write as a member of the Labour Party, somewhere on the libertarian left.

    Francis makes a very important point about organisation - one that has exercised my mind for a long time. She is, I believe, right to identify Leninism as an important issue. We should remember perhaps that Lenin’s modus operandi for a Marxist party was created at a particular place and time - the Russian Revolution in the period leading up to 1917. Undeniably Leninism is very effective in maximising the impact of small parties (and the Bolshevik party at that time was not big). But it carries a cost, as outlined well in Isaac Deutscher’s trilogy of the life of Trotsky.

    She suggests that those forming a new left party “will require those existing groups that wish to take part to dissolve their organisations and their newspapers into the new body.” - well, maybe - though one wouldn’t necessarily wish to ban factions. But I do think that an open and honest debate about the relevance of Leninism for today’s left in 21st Century Britain ,with all that Leninism entails - the “vanguard”, the caucusing, the “democratic centralism” the inviolable party line - would perhaps help us move forward. For me, personally, Marx retains some real relevance but Lenin has had his day and holds back the forging of a new coalition of the left - or a new party.

    Personally too, I remain broadly loyal to the Labour Party, with the mass of contradictions that entails (and I know many readers here will think it lunacy) - for the simple reason that, at present, the only practical alternative to a Labour government is a Conservative one - which would be worse. Also, Labour is still the only mass party of working people, and the only party, still, with an organic link to the Trade Unions. However one cannot deny the terrible damage to the movement over the past 10 years (not least the 42 days legislation).

    But, the emergence of a new coalition of the left, with or without the Labour left, would be a step forward. And a new movement that could honestly debate and examine the implications of Leninism might be in a position to begin to rejuvenate life on the left in this country.

  5. Francis King says:
    19/06/2008 at 07:22 am

    I am actually male rather than female, which is probably why I forgot to add “left feminists” to the list of traditions I would hope to see represented in any new left-of-Labour political force. Sorry about that omission.

  6. Free Radical says:
    19/06/2008 at 10:21 am

    My apologies Francis!

  7. John Tummon says:
    18/07/2008 at 10:25 pm

    To some extent, that culture of a divided left survived because so many of us were young and imagined that there was plenty of time and plenty of struggles ahead which would resolve the organisational differences; there seemed to be no particular hurry.

    Then Thatcher happened, then the Berlin Wall, and then the Eastern block collapsed. The left lost its numbers, its ability to intervene, its collective confidence and time and opportunities to deal with sectarianism and division ebbed away.

    I believe Dave Osler got it more or less right 10 years ago, when he said about the attempted recomposition of the Left happening then “We need to stress all that is exciting and vibrant in the ideas of socialism from below and the self-emancipation of the working class. We need to admit openly that Marxism needs to learn from feminism, green politics and even anarchist and libertarian critiques, particularly regarding our forms of organisation”.

    The Left wasn’t up to that challenge then.

    Francis KIng has correctly elaborated this further in pointing out the courage this will take and what needs to be given up. Not banning factions is running away from that challenge. We’ll end up trying to sell our newspapers to one another again, as people who think their traditions represent timeless truths find a new and bigger audience.

    One further thought - in whose interests is it to make us all feel we are not up to it this time either and who will they hope attends the Convention to do their bidding?

Leave a Reply