Labour Conference 97
Labour Conference - unions sell out before negotiations
EVERYTHING at Labour Party Conference went according to Blair's plan.
Conference delivered a `yes' vote on `Partnership in Power' with its demolition of
Party democracy (with around 30 per cent of votes cast against).
Most contentious issues were kept off the agenda and if they weren't, then the movers
agreed to remit rather than rock the boat. Blair delivered a very eloquent, cleverly
crafted speech which said virtually nothing.
The exception to this smooth running was the National Executive Committee election
results. Not only did Ken Livingstone beat Mandelson by a substantial margin for the
vacancy, but the proportion of the vote obtained by the Socialist Campaign Group of MPs
slate increased from 31 per cent to 39 per cent.
Blair had the trade union leaders to thank for such a `successful' conference. John
Edmonds of the GMB, speaking on Partnership in Power, said he didn't support the proposals
but the GMB would not be voting against them, and went on to say, parodying Blair's speech
to the TUC, "we're watching you Tony".
Concessions
Union leaders did not want to oppose `Partnership in Power' because they calculated it
would endanger any concessions from the government on union rights. However, they then
ensured that the composites on this issue contained nothing to upset Blair - no figure on
the minimum wage, nothing on the anti-union laws.
The TGWU representatives at compositing (Morris among them) even insisted that
resolutions on the Liverpool Dockers - echoing the policy passed at TGWU conference - be
excluded from the composite. The union leaders dropped their demands on the Labour
government even before entering negotiations.
Where resolutions were debated which posed uncomfortable questions for the government -
on student tuition fees, arms sales to Indonesia, Private Finance Initiative (PFI) in the
NHS - union leaders readily agreed to remit them to the NEC.
Even a left union delegation, the RMT, eventually remitted their resolution on PFI on
rail, having been convinced that they should only put it to the vote if they could win.
They reasoned that remitting was better than having it voted down, ignoring the fact
that remission means the NEC bins resolutions it doesn't like. In fact it would have had a
reasonable chance of being passed.
The only close call for Blair was on Trident, where the vote went 53-47 against the
resolution for scrapping it.
Beyond the stage management, the lengthy speeches by ministers, the now routine
intimidation of delegates, what does this years Labour Party conference say about the
state of the movement?
The adoption of Partnership in Power makes it virtually impossible for the labour
movement to hold the government to account - it removes the ability of unions and CLPs to
submit resolutions critical of the actions of the government. It removes the right of
individual members to elect MPs to the NEC, and downgrades the NEC as compared to a new
committee, the Joint Policy Committee with an inbuilt Cabinet majority.
Union leaders were happy to go along with this - and overturn their own conferences'
policy in the process - because it doesn't upset the main `link' they are concerned about.
Their ability to have cosy chats with Labour ministers remains unscathed. They dislike the
ability of their membership to hold them to account just as much as Blair does.
General Secretaries
Some on the Labour Left refuse to recognise this conflict of interest, simply
denouncing `the unions' for their voting records in the Labour Party. This comes mainly
from those around the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy, whose concept of "winning
support in the unions" usually consists of writing to General Secretaries.
They prefer to share platforms with left (or not-so-left) General Secretaries to
linking up with, and being a part of, the oppositions within the unions fighting for a
change of policy and attempting to call those leaders to account.
Some have taken the NEC result as a signal of a resurgence of the Labour Left,
overshadowing the adoption of `Partnership in Power'. This often from those, like Ken
Livingstone himself, who said in advance that "Partnership in Power" would
signal the end of the Labour Party.
The problem with this analysis is twofold. Firstly, it sees those voting for the
Campaign Group slate as a coherent force, whereas many are members who have become
inactive because of despair at the drift of the Party.
Secondly, and more important, it assumes that simply organising to win the Constituency
section of the NEC will change the balance of forces. This strategy is incoherent even in
its own terms - the CLP section of the new NEC will only be about a quarter of a body
being downgraded anyway. Victory in the CLP section of the NEC elections would change
nothing on its own.
In order to achieve such a result in the NEC elections, some are talking of the need
for a very broad alliance indeed. They cite the joint effort with Labour Reform around
"Partnership in Power" and say this needs to be repeated.
No Policies
However, Labour Reform is not - and does not claim to be - an organisation of the Left.
If anything it is a section of the old Labour right. They do not have policy positions
beyond the ones they took on "Partnership in Power", and individuals freely
admit they voted for the scrapping of Clause IV.
In order to enter into a joint election campaign with Labour Reform - which represents
very little on the ground - the Left would have to drop any idea of campaigning on key
policy issues.
The work with Labour Reform around `Partnership in Power' was not without its problems.
Labour Reform were not prepared to oppose the changes, but only to call for deferral
because of lack of time to discuss them. A section of the Left went along with this, not
as a fallback position if outright opposition fell, but as their main argument. Deferral
was, however, never likely to win support in the unions, and opportunities were missed to
argue the case for rejection of the changes, leaving the General Secretaries an easier
task in their arm twisting.
Those who want to challenge Blair's capitalist policies will put questions of NEC
slates in their rightful context - the need to be part of the opposition to those policies
through demonstrations, strikes etc. This strategy can also motivate those who vote for
the Left within the Party to become active again.
Unity needs to be forged in action between Party activists and campaigners outside;
those in single issue campaigns and other political groups.
The Labour left needs to find ways of openly participating in the developing debate
around how to forge an alternative to Blair - an alternative that will be constructed in
practice but must also have an organisational form.
Click here to get
in touch with Socialist Outlook
Home PageSite IndexWhat we fight for Back
Issues The Fourth International About this Site. Links