centre.
Of course these divisions within the Labour and trade union establishment do not mean that Edmonds, Morris or Sawyer have swung over to the left. Far from it. Edmonds sees no contradiction between the GMB abandoning the Burnsall strikers and sponsoring Livingstone's conference or Gould's campaign.
The technique of giving limited union backing to selected left initiatives -which have shown little interest in mobilising rank and file workers - is intended to pile pressure on Labour's leaders, and divert pressure from the union bureaucrats who have helped create today's im• passe for trade unionism.
Time and again under Thatcher and Major there have been key moments when the British working class could have been brought into action and onto the streets like the mass strikes and demonstrations in Italy, Spain, Belgium and France.
Wasted chance
The tremendous opportunity opened up by the mass movement in defence of the miners late in 1992 was squandered by the TUC at the point it could have rallied and focused opposition to the ToOn this front, nothing much has changed. There is no sign of disgruntled new realists seeking to enlist the active support of union members for their limited rebellion. Edmonds and Morris in particular know that a mobilisation of the rank and file would make it more difficult for them to stitch up a truly mega merger of two of the country's least democratic, most bureaucratised unions into a huge new body.
Elsewhere, too, union leaders taking stock of the dire results created by new realism are turning not to radical recruitment campaigns or class struggle politics, but bureaucratic redundancies among officials, asset-stripping closures of union offices and substituting tribunals and court cases for nucps disputes and negotiation.
But the questioning by union leaders of Labour's right wing consensus politics, and the public voicing of anger at the party's toothless opposition, opens up a vital space for debate in the unions at a point where more workCIS are considering possibilities of struggle.
Wage claims While Labour's front bench haggles pathetically with the Tories on who would have imposed the higher income tax, the message for union members at shop floor level is that tax hikes this year and next make wage claims far more important than the inflation figures might suggest.
This in turn helps focus attention on the Tory move to impose a two-year pay freeze on five million public sector workers - and creates improved conditions for a fight. Major's government escaped trouble in imposing its 1.5% public sector pay limit last year partly because of historically low inflation.
Now the demand for the TUC to call a Day of Action on April 11 against the pay freeze has already found an echo in some public sector unions, despite the predictable pessimism of some union leaders that it could 'expose our weakness'.
Lobby TUC
The TUC General Council on April 1 which will decide on this Day of Action mergers, should be lobbied to press for strikes on that day.
The possibilities for action to combat and defeat the pay freeze would be also OFFICIAL DISPUTE Civil service unions' November 5 strike showed potential for fighting market testing Synchronising struggles of healthworkers, council workers and others can bust public sector pay freeze the TUC failed to build on backing for miners of public sector workers. OFFICIAL pledging radical policies or any expansion of public spending.
Central to defence of the welfare state is the political fight in the labour movement to reject the suicidal line of economic consensus, and spell out City. a key layer of stewards and branch officers must be mobilised. Strong campaigning against the Tories and employers can be the cornerstone of a revival of union strength - from the shop floor upwards.
And socialists can build strong support if they throw themselves into this activSOCIALIST OUTLOOK No. 56, February 5 1994, Page 8
PICKET INE