Socialist Outlook : SO/05 - Spring 2005

New Labour, Neo-liberalism and the General Election

Mary Read

Widespread disillusion with the Blair Government, not least because of the war in Iraq, is not benefiting the Tories, while the Liberal Democrats, whose perceived anti-war stance will no doubt win them a number of seats, are not seen as a governmental possibility either. There is a democratic deficit in Britain that will lead to a low turnout at the General Election. Many in Britain, especially the young, find they have no-one to vote for. Here Mary Read analyses the political situation in Britain and the need for a broad left party to fill the gap in political representation.

The catastrophic events following the earthquake in the Indian Ocean may have temporarily pushed other news out of the headlines, but the continuing war in Iraq, with increasing daily violence and death as the US and British forces get sucked into a situation that is difficult to retrieve, is still the frame of politics today. We are faced with the combined offensive of the military wing of globalisation, specifically the war in Iraq and more generally the ‘war on terror’ and neo-liberal reforms, privatising and cutting the welfare state in Britain and Europe.

Growing resistance to the economic effects of neo-liberalism, especially in the Netherlands, Italy, Germany and France has not been repeated in Britain. Here the tensions have surfaced primarily in the massive anti-war demonstrations but have not led to a more general industrial and social upsurge. Despite the recent action by the PCS defending jobs in the civil service, the number of days lost in strikes remains at an all time low and left labour MPs and the leadership of the trade union movement remain essentially quiescent. However the attacks on public sector pension rights, for workers in education, the NHS and local government look likely to produce strike action as they have in Europe over the last few years.

Blair is no longer trusted, not only because of the lies and cover-ups over the war, but also because of the drive to privatise all aspects of the welfare state. New Labour’s attacks on the most vulnerable in society – asylum seekers, economic migrants and, since 9/11, Muslims and other ethnic minority groups, has had some success in dividing the working class, evidenced by the electoral success of the BNP in some areas. The United Kingdom Independence Party who did relatively well in the Euro Elections in June 2004, seem to be collapsing in internecine strife.

‘Labour’s Contract for a Third Term’

The big idea for the Labour’ third term is to unite Bush’s ‘war on terror’ and further repression at home with the threat of further ‘modernising reforms’. Or in Alan Milburn’s words, ‘if you play by the rules, you get a chance to progress’ (Guardian, 15.01.05). Increased use of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders and the introduction of ID cards will be combined with the war on the social state: a programme of ‘modernisation’ meaning further privatisations and attacks on social provision including pensions in the public sector. Despite growing signs of budget deficits leading to cuts in beds and staff in Foundation Hospitals, New Labour continues with its privatisation of the NHS. And the media hyped enmity between Blair and Chancellor Brown exaggerates the political differences between the two.

Nor do the cabinet changes resulting from the resignation of Blunkett mean there will be any let up on the oppressive anti-terror legislation, the war against the right to political asylum and the ‘modernisation’ of education including tuition fees and the disastrous break-up of the secondary school system. Under New Labour’s next government you will have increased ‘choice’ of secondary schools for your children including those city academies run by the Vardy Foundation, that, ‘accord equal importance to both creationism and theories of evolution.’ (Guardian, 15.01.05)

Meanwhile it seems probable that the executive arm of the state will continue to ignore and therefore weaken the judicial arm, as in the judgement that the peoples of Diego Garcia had a right to return to their island and in the 8-1 vote refuting the legality of the detention of foreign nationals at Belmarsh and elsewhere.

A Democratic Deficit

What is clear is the common phenomenon across Europe of the crisis of representation. To the question ‘who speaks for the working class?’ the answer is: ‘no-one’. And this democratic deficit will inevitably lead to mass abstentions in the election. As social democracy across Europe and at home adopts a ‘social-liberal’ programme of managing the neo-liberal offensive with a friendly face, a space is opening up which demands to be filled.

In British politics, the Tories are too discredited and divided to capitalise on Labour’s unpopularity. The Liberal Democrat’s stance on the war (oppose it until it happens, then support it) will undoubtedly attract votes from those disillusioned with the Blair Government, but politically unable to vote Tory. The Labour left has also proved impotent to grow out of the widespread hatred of the government, unable to seriously threaten the Blair party machine developed over the last decade and with a leadership, in the union bureaucracy and at parliament unwilling to organise itself. Blair’s policy of ‘triangulation’ has snookered the Left. He expects to win a big majority (100 +) in May so he’s laying out an explicitly Blairite programme to lock them in even further after that. Nobody, not even the greatest fetishists of ‘Labour is the party of the working class’ entryists, can doubt this any more. How many more Tories defecting will it take to make them see that New Labour is a comfortable home for what we used to call “One Nation” Tories?

The result is working class disillusion leading to mass electoral abstention. The radio programme Women’s Hour reports that only 5% of 18-25 young women are certain to vote. [1] There is an increasing break between the working class and the Labour Party, leading to electoral volatility, likely victories for the Liberal-Democrats and the highest votes ever for the left (and right) micro-parties, including Respect, the Green Party and on the right the BNP.

Whilst neither the anti-war movement in Britain nor the global justice movement more generally across Europe have been able to halt the overall neo-liberal offensive, those pockets of resistance that do exist have led to some differentiation in the mass workers’ organisations. Whilst the majority of the trade union leaderships have, in practice, adapted to the social liberal framework, some union leaders have broken with this, to at least present the appearance of opposition. A few have gone a step further - the break by the RMT and FBU from Labour being examples which present some opportunities.

The political situation is crying out for a broad left party that can potentially fill the space to the left of Labour. There is widespread anger and disillusion with mainstream politics. The building of an alternative, such as Respect and the Scottish Socialist Party, will have to be combined with a united front approach across the whole working class movement in the defensive struggle against neo-liberalism. For it is no longer possible to build a serious broad socialist current within the Labour Party.

Respect

The recent Respect Conference agreed a strong body of policies. Taken along with the existing London and European manifestos and the founding statement, Respect is a broad, objectively socialist party in formation. It has good positions on asylum, always an acid test; on the war in Iraq, of course; on human rights and civil liberties, as well as opposing the neo-liberal attacks on the welfare state. But the manifesto itself will be important. Respect needs a series of basic transitional demands, rooted in the actual experiences of the working class and adequate to the needs of the moment. The likely strikes in defence of public sector pension rights, the catalyst for widespread action across Europe, will provide the basis for solidarity action and support leading up to the likely May election.

The conference also decided to stand in only a small number of constituencies at the election. While agreed by a large majority, the truth is this decision will make it difficult for Respect groups in constituencies where there is no candidate, to take advantage of the raised level of political debate during the election. The financial and organisational preparedness of Respect rules out a national campaign even at the level achieved by the Socialist Alliance at the last general election. However, for us at least, Respect has to be more than just a fight to get one or two people elected to parliament, possible as that might be. Along with the centralisation of an election campaign around a handful of seats and candidates, Respect has also to develop a national campaign which gives all members a role to play, in their own areas as well as by travelling to target constituencies.

How can you encourage people to join and become active around a political party that is standing in only about thirty parliamentary seats? The usual complaint the ‘you don’t stand a chance’ is difficult to counter when you are contesting so few. One way will be the agreed proposal for a national newspaper. With an organisation of 3,000 plus, a regular newspaper should be feasible and will make it easier to build a national organisation.

A national newspaper immediately leads to further developments – the need to develop a national structure of sales and distribution; the need for a broad and democratic editorial policy; the need to develop Respect’s programmatic ideas (to have something to say); the need to be able to respond collectively to current events. This will force the current system of organisation to develop into something more akin to a political party.

For the largest current in Respect, the Socialist Workers Party (SWP), it is an electoral coalition, with a limited life between elections. Just as they treated the Socialist Alliance as a ‘united front of a special kind’, they treat Respect as one of a number of coalitions/united fronts, such as the Stop the War Coalition, or Unite against Fascism, where they play a central role but seek to build their own organisation at the same time. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with this, and any other left group that was as big as the SWP would probably do the same. But there is a contradiction for them with Respect. It is not a united front campaign on a single issue like the anti-war campaign. It has positions on a number of issues, it has a national and local membership and structures, it has a constitution, it is standing candidates for Parliament. This makes it suspiciously like a party. And it seems that the SWP’s ambiguity on what exactly it is has a negative effect not only on Respect itself, but also on the ability of the membership of the SWP to organise effectively on the ground – both in Respect and as the SWP.

If Respect candidates do get elected to Parliament, this ambiguity will come to a head. How is Respect to maintain control over its Parliamentary representatives, on how they vote, on what they say, if it denies it is a party? Already George Galloway’s public pronouncements on for example the Scottish Socialist Party, have led to embarrassing retractions and denials. These ambiguities will no doubt continue.

For the election we call on a vote for Respect where possible, a vote for other socialist candidates where it’s not, and for Labour MP’s who oppose the war and privatisation. But whatever happens to the Respect vote in May, we have to be explicit in our call for the formation of a new party of the Left and seeking to win Labour MP’s to it. Opposition to the war and imperialism is only the first step in building such a party: the core of its appeal will be defence of workers economic interests and the social gains of the post war settlement. For the likely election victory of another New Labour government, with Milburne promising ‘a modern route to social justice’ the need for an alternative party which proposes a socialist solution to the horrors of capitalism will be needed more than ever.

Mary Read

NOTES

[1] BBC Radio 4 - Women’s Hour 05.01.05.

back to top