Labour failing to be an opposition

The election of Ed Miliband over his arch-Blairite brother David was greeted with some enthusiasm amongst the Left in the Party. Like all reformists, what programme he had was deliberately vague; it contained progressive-sounding statements, such as, “The Labour party is most effective when we understand that we are a movement dedicated to transforming our country. We should be proud of our values of equality, opportunity and responsibility and we should fight for them.”[1] Despite this lack of substance, ‘Red Ed’ (as the right-wing press dubbed him) seemed to represent some sort of break with New Labour and its embrace of the capitalist, post-Thatcher consensus. Indeed, one of his first significant acts as Labour leader was to speak at the huge TUC demonstration on March 26^th, where over half a million workers and their families marched against the Tories and their programme of cuts.[2]

As we explained at the time, “[Ed Miliband’s] only chance was to clearly distance himself from New Labour and Blairism. This very much appealed to the trade union base of the party, where three of the biggest unions (Unite, Unison and GMB) came out in his support. Their support won the election for him. Out of the third of the votes in the electoral college held by the trade unions, 19.6% voted Ed, as against 13.4% for his brother.”[3]

However, we warned that, “Ed was under pressure by his right-wing supporters to reassure Middle England.” He quickly found himself completely isolated within the Parliamentary Labour Party, coming under attack from the likes of Alastair Darling for refusing to explicitly support a programme of cuts.[4] And he quickly capitulated. He offered nothing but outright condemnation to the public-sector workers striking on June 30^th, telling them that “these strikes are wrong at a time when negotiations are going on.”[5] To the millions of workers who took action on November 30^th, he this time stopped short of proffering outright condemnation, instead giving a passable impression of a rabbit caught in the headlights in a futile attempt to avoid offending the Labour right wing or the ordinary workers.[6]

Labour has utterly failed to function as an opposition to the Tories and their vicious programme of cuts. By refusing to support workers as they enter into struggle, they have offered workers nothing but the blandest parliamentary manoeuvres. And now, Ed Miliband’s latest intervention suggests he has completely abandoned any pretence of challenging the Tory cuts consensus:

“[W]hen it comes to the next Labour government, if I was saying to you: 'I can absolutely promise to restore this cut or that cut', you would say: 'Well, where is the money going to come for that?'

"This is absolutely responsible opposition. … And it is absolutely the right thing for us to be doing at this stage of the parliament. We are absolutely determined that Labour shows we would be fiscally credible in government.”[7]

Talk of ‘responsible opposition’ and ‘fiscal credibility’ shows his total acceptance that there is no alternative to capitalism, and that the working class must make ‘sacrifices’ to ensure the capitalist system continues.

McCluskey goes on the offensive

Ed Miliband’s abandonment of even the weak rhetoric that won him support has put pressure on the ‘left’ leadership of the trade unions, who at present are closer to the coal-face. Len McCluskey won the Unite leadership election promising to “Resource, with other union affiliates, a meaningful strategy to restore Labour as a progressive and democratic Party of working people which stands up for the interests of Unite members.”[8] Now, with the man he supported for Labour Leadership capitulating to the right wing, McCluskey has been pushed to articulate what many in the Labour Movement are feeling.

McCluskey sums up the situation succinctly when he points out that, “Unions in the public sector are bound to unite to oppose the real pay cuts for public-sector workers over the next year. When we do so, it seems we will now be fighting the Labour frontbench as well as the government.”[9]

Workers have no choice but to fight a programme of cuts that will turn the clock back 50 years or more and most are bitterly disappointed that the Labour leadership is more concerned with showing the capitalist class how ‘responsible’ they are instead of putting up a fight.

Instead, “The political elite that was united in promoting the City-first deregulation policies that led to the crash is now united in asserting that ordinary people must pick up the tab for it. It leaves the country with something like a "national government" consensus where, as in 1931, the leaders of the three main parties agree on a common agenda of austerity to get capitalism – be it "good" or "bad" – back on its feet.” The role of the Labour Party should be to offer political leadership to the working class in the struggle, not to collude with the capitalists in attacking the workers!

“Where does this leave the half a million people who joined the TUC's march for an alternative last year, and the half of the country at least who are against the cuts? Disenfranchised.”

This approach will further alienate Labour’s working-class supporters, McCluskey continues. “And that way lies the destruction of the Labour party as constituted, as well as certain general election defeat in my view.” He finishes his piece by placing a demand on the Party, saying, “It is time for those who want a real alternative centred on investment, job creation and public intervention to end the slump – and a Labour party that will articulate that to get organised in parliament and outside.”

Reclaiming the Labour Party

The significance of McCluskey’s intervention should not be underestimated. The New Labour project, which sought to remove all traces of socialism from Labour and turn it into another capitalist party[10], only had the success it did because of support from the right-wing trade-union leaders. Tony Blair’s political programme was heavily reliant on his allies at the top of the big trade unions, such as the notorious Ken Jackson, whose proposals included replacing the TUC’s annual conference by a joint meeting with the bosses’ CBI![11]

So it is refreshing to see trade union leaders standing up to the Labour right-wing. However, as the millions of workers who have already gone on strike against the Tory government know, words are not enough – action is required!

Since the ruling class abandoned the Labour Party leaders and re-instated their ‘first XI’, funding from wealthy donors to the Labour Party has collapsed and the Party is now reliant on the trade unions for 90% of its funding.[12] Unite alone funded the campaigns of 148 Labour candidates in the last election[13]. At last year’s Labour Party conference, union leaders including McCluskey began to make noises about putting pressure on these sponsored MPs to support trade union policies:

“A substantial number know absolutely nothing about trade unions and their values. We want to re-examine that."

“We are going to set out with our sister unions in Unison and the GMB because we want people speaking or at least understanding our values.”[14]

We welcome this sentiment, but what is needed is for McCluskey and the union leadership to articulate how they intend to achieve any of this. What will such a ‘re‑examination’ lead to? As Marxists, we have always rejected ultra-left calls for unions to disaffiliate from the Labour Party and strip the working class of political representation altogether, but nor will a few threats force the Labour right-wing to change course. As McCluskey himself says, what is needed is a strategy to drive these right-wing carpetbaggers out of the party, and to replace them with a fighting leadership.

If McCluskey and the union leadership are serious about reclaiming the Labour Party, they must demand that all union-sponsored MPs publically support workers in struggle. If they refuse, the Union should instead support the selection campaigns of candidates who will stand up for working people. Affiliated unions such as Unite have the right to send delegates to Constituency Labour Party meetings, but rarely are these delegations filled. The Union must intervene at all levels of the Party, taking socialist policies to CLPs, and fighting for them.

Then there is the question of the Party leadership. Last time, Unite refused to support John McDonnell, the one candidate who actually stood on the socialist platform that McCluskey and the other union leaders are supposed to support. If the Union had demanded its sponsored MPs nominate McDonnell, he would have got on the ballot paper and millions of ordinary workers in the Party and affiliated unions would have been given a real democratic choice. Ed Milliband is a weak leader, who as McCluskey points out satisfies neither the workers nor the right-wing. If he is deposed, Unite must openly back a socialist candidate such as McDonnell, who will fight to make Labour stand with the victims of this Tory government.

History teaches us that union leaders like McCluskey tend to move to the left only as a result of pressure from the rank-and-file. During McCluskey’s own election campaign, it was partly the candidature of rank-and-file candidate Jerry Hicks that pushed McCluskey to take the left-wing stance he did.[15] The ongoing electricians’ dispute is another example of the role played by rank-and-file organisation in forcing the union officials to take action.[16] Faced with savage cuts to pay and conditions which initially went unopposed by the Union officials, electricians around the country organised rank-and-file protests outside major construction sites. Eventually, the Union was forced to back the campaign, Len McCluskey himself has now met members of the rank-and-file committee and promised financial support to the campaign.[17]