A turning point for the trade unions?

Comments about the impact of the extra-Labour Party left in the May 7 General Election will have to wait even further.

The Labour leadership battle has already moved into one of the

'Dark places' that Labour Party MP Jon Cruddas perceptively judged the party will need to explore.  

Facing the fact that many, perhaps most Scottish members of Britain's largest union Unite voted for the SNP and against Labour, Unite leader, Len McLuskey has said that the union's policy of affiliation to the Labour Party might need to be reviewed, and would be, in any case, up for discussion at the coming annual conference of the union. He added
'The party needed to prove it was the “voice of organised labour” or else the “pressure will grow” for Unite to rethink its affiliation.' - (Politics Home, May 18.)
McLuskey is using his coming union debate in an attempt to exert his own pressure on Labour's leadership candidates towards a more pro union stance - and away from the resurrection of Blairism. In reality it is extremely unlikely that the Unite conference will overturn the union's traditional position on Labour affiliation. Indeed, speaking on BBC Radio Four's World at One (May 18), Mr McCluskey rubbished his own previous threats
'Some of the stuff the media writes is frankly daft. This idea that we're considering disaffiliating from the Labour Party is nonsense, we're not considering that at all.' You can fool some of the people ...

McLuskey knows, and always has known that - with the exception of a Scottish minority - most delegates to the conference who have strong views about affiliation to Labour will share the traditional outlooks of the Labour left and the Morning Star (the paper that reflects the views of Britain's tiny British Communist Party). In that world disaffiliation from Labour would be seen as a mortal sin and characterised as 'dividing the labour movement.'

Nevertheless, Mcluskey's initial comments brought down a storm of criticism from all quarters. It was enough to cause him to retreat immediately (as usual) but the door he opened will not close. And among the angry noise there was a key point made about the future of Labour by Labour peer Margaret Prosser, a former union leader in the Transport and General Workers Union, forerunner of Unite and Labour treasurer, who said it was
'Completely silly' of Mcluskey just to focus on organised labour, as she believed he had done.
'The idea that the whole focus of Labour's proposal or offer ought to be around organised labour is just daft,' she said.
'We have to be able to say that the government, a Labour government is going to be there for all kinds of people.' Although her intention was to shut down the argument about organised working class influence on Labour policy she inadvertently but sharply revealed the impasse that paralyses the modern Labour Party - including every one of its prospective leadership candidates so far. All of them already say that the party was not pro-business enough in the last 4 years, that it should support the EU referendum, continue with austerity, stand for 'aspiration' and recognise that Labour overspent before the last election.

How on earth can the Labour Party be 'reduced' to or even 'mainly be' the voice of the organised working class? That is what Margaret Prosser is asking. The organised workers account for 26% of all workers in Britain. That means that 74% of people who are economically active are not connected with unions. The Labour Party will always lose elections if it only, or even mainly relies on, or just seeks to represent, union members - goes the argument. This was the material essence of the New Labour set of ideas. All the self styled 'middle way' ideology adopted by Blair and co., rested on demographic facts like these. The Western European working class, in this utterly superficial view of reality, was dissolving into what US Presidents have called since the 1940s the American middle class. And the middle class are not collective by instinct. They want themselves and their families to be rich! 

McLuskey offers no answer to any of this. Today he stands by affiliation to Labour not because within the framework of the Labour Party he can answer Margaret Prosser's challenge, or confront politically  Labour's leadership candidates on their lurch rightwards. His only riposte to the new Blairites is that a million plus Scots voted for a different party who stood to the left of Labour! It is not the most obvious step from there to support affiliation to Labour and then promote one of its emergent pro-austerity leaders - whoever they are - as the Unite leadership inevitably will.

Returning to the Blairite thesis, because this sort of thinking was so limited in its scope and, at the same time, totally depended on identification with a notion of successful 'trickle down' capitalism, the ten years of Labour's Blairism pushed the Labour Party into an historic cul de sac that has proved disastrous for Labour in the longer term and which has now come to threaten its very existence. There has been no 'trickle down' since the term was invented in Reagan's US in the 1980s. The crisis of 2008 has simply accelerated further the 25 year gap between rich and and the rest. And while the content of employment has changed, work attracts less and less return whilst the social wage is also being dismantled. Result? Labour's rank failure to stop the rot when in government; and so now we see In Labour's heartlands that abstention has started to shift en mass, to desertion. 

Neither the traditional left of Labour, nor its right wing are able to reverse the 'hollowing out' now going in British Social Democracy. None of this is the same as saying that Britain's political crisis does not embrace ruling class politics. On the contrary. But the decline of British social democracy as has been argued in previous blogs, is currently  the sharpest aspect of great changes unfolding in British politics in general. 

What then should the left unions do now?

Let's start at the beginning. If the 1945 Attlee government was the pinnacle of success of the British Labour Party in the last 115 years, what then was the greatest moment for the British trade unions? Speaking about the role of the whole of the trade union movement it was certainly not 1926 or the Miner's strike of 1985/6. From the point of view of its impact on the whole of society it would be hard to argue against the historic milestone represented by the union's foundation of the Labour Party. When unions founded the Labour Party, calling for working men's representation in Parliament, they amounted to 2 million in 1900, 2 million in 1905 and 4 million by 1914. That is to say 11%, 11% and 20% of the total workforce in Britain in those successive years. (Even in 1945/6 unions only organised 32% of workers.) Today, union activists are used to the terrible comparison made between today's union membership which is only half of what it was at its peak in 1979. (52% of Britain's working population were unionised compared today with only 26% of workers today.) But the 1979 peak of union membership turns out to be the exception to the norm and certainly was not a point where unions led society as a whole.

In countries with a great militant tradition like France, trade union membership has always been (more political) but smaller than in Britain. The leadership for the whole of society that the trade unionists took when they founded the Labour party in Britain was at a relatively weak point, numerically speaking. It is not then the size of the trade union movement that necessarily determines whether or not it can help 'win' most of society to its purpose, it is rather its political culture, determination, policy and its actions.

Trade unions remain the single biggest voluntary organisations in the UK.  Surely the question faced today by unions and their members is first how to defend their independence, from another wave of anti-union, anti-democratic laws, second from political organisation that does not represent them or, for that matter, any of the new working class. Of course unions should disaffiliate from Labour. (They could donate funds to parties for specific purposes should their members want.) And unions could then begin the fight for the new representation of the new working class in Britain, that Parliament has not represented for decades, authoritative working class candidate by working class candidate if necessary.

Trade unions remain defencive organisations, but it is what they defend that catches or misses the moment. Defence of Britain's democracy by rebuilding it, electorally, for ordinary people; defence of the new working class in society by battling for the Living Wage and a maximum wage, defence of the social wage, helping to sponsor a peoples' bank for lone and family workers and for growth, full time children's care for all, and defence of the union from the government's attack on democracy - will make unions heard across a wounded and confused society.

Re centring a new working class; such a union movement would echo their great forbears and begin the political process of once again calling together those who begin to know that we need a new type of society.

The meaning of Britain's political crisis.

The mechanics of Britain's blossoming political crisis are becoming more obvious. Lord Ashcroft, who funds the candidates in Tory marginals, doesn't think the Tories will win the next election. Pundits have decided that the next government will be another coalition. UKIP snaps at the heels of both Labour and the Tories. The Scottish referendum won't lie down and die. With whatever shade of government we get, there is an enormous crisis over Europe built into the first two years of the new Parliament. And we cannot forget the farce of the 700 plus House of Lords that represents nothing but itself and individual member's and parties' corruption. Finally there is the most vital consideration of all, the deep contempt, derision and alienation felt by millions for all MPs and for Parliament itself. 

This is a ruling class political crisis. But its mechanics do not tell anything like the whole story. As it is a ruling class crisis, it effects all of the society that they dominate. All classes, all sectors are touched, even violently perturbed, by its impact. The British economy, dominated by an overblown global-facing finance industry, will feel the tremors undermining Britain's much vaunted political stability. Scottish independence is not now off the agenda for 30 years. It has instead been firmly located on the political agenda for the next 10. As we examine all the main aspects of politics, economics and the wider society then we see that the Britsh ruling classes' political convulsions and decay mark everything and change everything for all classes in society.

The British labour and trade union movement experienced a deep crisis of direction in the late 1970s and 80's. It was an expression, albeit partial, of the political crisis of the working class at that point (which was itself a product of a new period of heightened class struggle after WW2.) In the event the labour movement bureaucracy was able to defeat, just about, the emerging class-struggle based left wing of the movement. And then Thatcher did the rest. Today it is absurd to imagine that Blair and now Miliband's Labour Party would be the fulcrum of such a key battle (although inevitably even the modern Labour Party would feel some impact should such a battle arise.) The Labour Party therefore is also part of this story. But what has brought about the weakness of Britain's main political institutions today? What has caused the British ruling classes' current political crisis? 

The political collapse in Britain is a result of the general crisis of political representation. This may be a common observation in the debate inside those political agencies that purport to argue for a working class position - but it is actually true of the whole of society. As parliament has expanded, as PM's question time has become more raucous, the actual power of Parliament and its leading parties, and their leaders, has diminished, under peacetime conditions, to a greater degree than at any time since the late 17th century. Globalisation, represented in Britain most exquisitely by the satiric title of 'The City of London' but underpinned by the slogan of all the mainstream parties that 'Britain is open for business', has torn away even the shreds of parliamentary power that was left after WW2. Political power, at least that part traditionally based on the popular vote and Parliament, has little current function in Britain. Of course the ruling class rules. Of course its networks and corporate alliances manage most of our world. But not much is left for elected politicians. 

It is true that Labour does not represent working class people. But In the wider scheme of things that is only a part of a greater totality which could be described (in large areas of the so called democratic west) as traditional 'demcratic' politics not representing society as a whole. Western democracy is failing. And so it becomes a show. Its participants become actors. The media platform is where the show is performed. On all decisive matters and now many subordinate issues, there are, in reality, huge arcs of agreement between main parties - if it is only the agreement that nothing can be done. Certainly nothing of the slightest strategic importance is decided, or mostly even debated, in Parliament.

There are partial reactions to this state of affairs all over the place, between and within different classes. UKIP is one. 'Let's do something! Anything to assert ourselves!' they cry. But these convulsive reactions to our dying democracies are, with the rare exception of the new left formations that are emerging directly from anti-austerity class struggle as with Syriza in Greece and Podemos in Spain, full of dangerous baloney. They get nowhere near the main issue. They signal a ferocious step backwards to a place that never was.

When Parliament was reorganised as the instrument for a new ruling class in England at the end of the 17th century, secure in its compromise with the aristocracy and its new constitutional monarchy and its 'freedom' to trade, it was absolutely necessary for its real debates and for the decisions it had to make on the real and decisive issues, to express the united will of the whole new ruling class. The repeal of the Corn Laws; Imperial preference; working class franchise; all these matters were decisive for the whole of society and had to be organised politically through Parliament and by the ruling class. Latterly, the emergence of the working class, the Russian revolution, anti colonial struggles and women's suffrage meant that Parliament had to become the cockpit regulating key class relations in society. As it was in 1945 to 48 when it gave reform 'or they will give us revolution!' (Quinton Hogg 1943.) 

Today these historic functions have almost dwindled to nothing in Parliament. Repressive law is still relentlessly rolled out and that is a product of a desperately weakened organised labour movement. Parliament and its parties nod through wars with the odd honourable exception but never otherwise address the key issues in society. And at the margins, and always repressively, they still 'manage' outbreaks of domestic social and class struggle through their control of the police. Objectively the ruling class no longer needs Parliament (except to allow its more punitive actions some legitimacy) and the working class, in large part, no longer believes that Parliament and the main parties represented there can change anything important. 

Consider the two decisive issues of our time; the West's wars defending its industrial/military dominance in the world and, since 1978, the massive increase in social inequality. Neither of these questions are frontally addressed by Parliament. Neither of them are presented as the key issues of our time by any of the main parties. None of the mainstream parties have any serious difference on these questions with the others. Parliament and its parties are unable to decide on any aspect of ruling class behaviour in these fields (which is directed more from the Pentagon and the board rooms) and Parliament promotes nothing for the advance of the working class either. It seems that a shaky and rapidly eroding status quo is all that is available to the overwhelming majority in our society - at least from today's Parliament and its mainstream parties. This is the crisis of ruling class politics which has such an effect on both of society's major classes. 

We need some representatives who will speak for the working class and a new democracy.

The UK's political system is in big trouble

One theme that has been picked up by this blog (among other sources) is Britain's political crisis. (See 30/5 and 5/6.)

There is a new twist in this story but before looking at this in detail it is worth stepping back for a moment to consider what is at stake. It has been the proud boast of British capital for more than a century that it has established a secure, stable and flexible set of state institutions that have always been the 'envy of the world.' From 'the mother of parliaments' to the incorruptible civil service, British rulers have managed to crow about their historical achievements most credibly in the political sphere. Political stability; no domestic revolutions for centuries; checks and balances; ingenious compromises like the House of Lords; a well worn route for the most trusted candidates to gain access to state and judicial power via specific schools and universities; incorporation of potentially disruptive forces (e.g. women and labour); avoidance of either communism or fascism; this is the package that sells the City of London to Arab Sheiks and Russian billionaires. 

Of course for centuries imperial Britain exported its corruption to its overseas possessions, along with its savage, counter-revolutionary violence and despotism. That allowed the political state 'at home' to retain its liberal fringe and meant that any poison in particular institutions was definitely the product of the odd 'rotten apple' rather than an endemic feature of the whole hypocritical set up.  Britain's imperial enterprise is dying (although its wars, its financial chicanery, its slavish association with the US and its continued possession of most of the world's tax havens, still exports poverty and chaos to parts of the world.) And Britain's political system, embedded in its state machine, is beginning to show signs of wear and tear.

What to do in England, Wales and Northern Ireland after Scotland's referendum? A large part of the 1.6 million Scots voted yes because they despise Westminster politics, politicians and control. This popular mass movement generated (even in the account given by the leaders of the no campaign) a tremendous and unparalleled surge of political interest and participation in Scotland. These two facts, the rebelliousness of a significant and mainly working class section of the Scottish population and the fact that they had access to the means, at least start to carry out their rebellion, have thrown British politics into a new turmoil. Cameron short sightedly wants to make Labour pay for their devolution experiment by slicing away any potential Labour control over the whole of Westminster's business from now on. He also believes that waving the English flag will stem UKIP. 

Cameron's clownish response has the potential to do serious damage to political stability by strengthening Britain's right wing in a contest to promote Englishness and the English. If he gets away with it he will have also contributed to the beginning of the dissolution of the Labour Party as it would no longer offer a route to national, institutional, political influence and thereby begin to dissolve the main raison d'etre for a large part of the labour bureaucracy. Under conditions of the likely continuation of a coalition government after May 2015, AND the EU referendum, the famous and historic British political stability, will begin to look distinctly like a thing of the past. And the City (whose base is paradoxically entirely global despite its highly valued British credentials) would consider its next move.   

Britain has not been in a political crisis like this since the need for the National Government in the 1930s but this time Britain is without the immense resources available to underpin bold political manouvres and shore up the system. 

The contest between Britan's classes has now very prominently spilled into the establishment's political sphere - an arena which despite, or perhaps more accurately, because of the new Labour Party, is virtually unavailable to the modern working class. The Scots have challanged all that.  It is now more critical than ever that there are some voices in this unfolding crisis who, by the elections next May, have the credibility and political reach to represent those who want an end to austerity and a chance for a fresh start. We urgently need new voices to be heard from inside the new mainstream political arena as the ruler's crisis unfolds and, as Scotland shows, that will be based on a mass movement that is capable of creating its own new political reality.