The incubus of New Labour
Interview with Ken Coates MEP
SO: There's been a lot of confusion over your actions over the past few weeks. Can you explain what has happened, and whether you felt it necessary to pre-empt moves from Millbank?
KC: Well, that's simple. I've been expelled three times - from the European Parliamentary Labour Party, from the Socialist Group of MEPs, and from the Labour Party. There was no hearing, and I was not asked even one question. I was informed after this that there was no right of appeal.
It was only after this that I decided to sit with the GUE (Gauche Unifie Europeenne) bloc as an independent Labour MEP. I chose to sit with the GUE because it consists of socialists, and because I am following the socialist whip in exile, and from where I now sit I can see when the whips put their thumbs up or down.
I have an amicable relationship with the socialist group, the GUE, and the Greens - we have all been working together in the Full Employment Convention. We established an inter-group structure on employment a year earlier, to prepare for the Convention last May. I have no problems relating to any group on the European left.
SO: What do you think lies behind the moves of Blair and the Labour bureaucracy to change the electoral system for Euro-MPs? Were they simply motivated by a wish to get rid of supposed "trouble-makers", or is there more behind it
KC: Oh, there's clearly more behind it. It would be very vain to think that they needed this mighty steam-hammer merely to get rid of a couple of nuts. The fact is, any system of proportional system would purge the European Labour Party - it would halve the numbers, assuming that the voting figures remain more-or-less the same as last time. So there would be 30-odd Labour MEPs, rather than the current 62.
What Blair and the leadership wanted to do was not only to get rid of the critics, but also to make the EPLP obedient. There is some evidence that they are pursuing this goal by changing the calibre of Labour MEPs. They would like a strong business element, and many business people would follow Blair's restrictive view of the social dimension of the EU.
The move towards feminisation of the list also goes with a Blairite shift. Of course, if we had a different Labour Party, then different women would be able to come forward.
At the same time, there is no regional party structure to match the electoral regions coming into existence. Several years ago, I proposed that the Labour establish functional regional parties, as part of the move towards regional government. If my advice had been followed then, the Labour Party would now have a regional structure following the proposed European electoral regions.
The new MEPs will represent regions, and be appointed by the party; they will not be answerable to any constituents. My region will have six members for three million voters, who will simply vote "Labour", "Conservative", "Liberal", or whatever.
SO: What response have you had to your expulsion?
KC: The response has been remarkable. I have had an enthusiastic fan mail, with hundreds of letters of support. Over 400 members of my constituency have replied to the questionnaire I sent out; 87 per cent of them oppose the changes to the electoral system, and 78 per cent are against welfare cuts.
The rest favour reforms to the welfare system, some of which I would support. Reform has got a bad name now, and become synonymous with 'cuts'. I would support reforms to make welfare services more answerable to their users, and more accountable to their workers.
SO: What role have you been able to play as an MEP? If you were to be re-elected as an independent, how would this effect your work?
KC: The issue is not about re-electing me, but opposing the incubus of New Labour. I have worked hard as an MEP; I represent a large coalfield, which has seen mass unemployment, minimal job opportunities and widespread reliance on the welfare system. My book "Community Under Attack" discusses many of these problems, which have kept me very busy.
SO: Will you form a new party, link up with existing formations, or campaign to be re-admitted to the Labour Party?
KC: No, none of these. I have written to all members of the Labour Party NEC pointing out that it is a bit vindictive to expel me from the European Socialist Group, and asking them to confirm that there is no objection to my continued membership of that group as an Independent Labour MEP.
At one time, there were three different Italian Socialist parties in the group. But my continued membership depends on the decision of the Labour Party leadership.
But I am not appealing for reinstatement to the Labour Party, because I have no right of appeal. I expect this right to be reinstated when we get rid of Mr Blair.
Nor do I want to establish a new party. Rather, I favour a network bringing people who have stayed in the Labour Party and want to fight against the cuts, and of those who have left because they oppose the cuts.
In my region, I have had correspondence from dozens of people, many in the Labour Party. I want to try to bring these people together, to see how we can organise. We need a wide network around a few simple demands:
for defence of the welfare state and redistribution of wealth;
for full employment, and against the current state of permanent mass unemployment;
against undemocratic changes to the electoral system and abolition of constituencies. Members must be elected by the electors, not appointed by the party leaders.
SO: We would see the attacks on welfare as linked to the drive towards a European single currency and the attempt to cut government spending across Europe.
KC: It's partly linked to the single currency, but I think you are mistaken to see this as central. The convergence criteria are being fudged. Britain in fact easily meets all of them, and is not participating for other reasons, mainly Rupert Murdoch.
Maastricht is the wrong target. Belgium and Italy will be admitted to the single currency, even though they fail by a long way to meet the criteria. It is true that the bankers are setting the agenda, but that doesn't mean that governments can just do as they want. For instance, there are massive battles going on across Europe over a shorter working week.
This is not to say that we disagree over the effects of Maastricht; much of the discussion on this was fuelled by my report some years ago to the European Parliament on the results of its application.
But what will be a hundred times worse than Maastricht will be Agenda 2000, which governs the expansion of the EU to the east. The GDP of the eastern European states is under half that of western Europe. Most of them are under 35 per cent. This will mean a huge export of unemployment from east to west, undermining all of the welfare provision. It will lead to the wrenching apart of the capacity of these systems.
I am for an expansion of the EU to the east, but this must be properly funded, to protect the social gains of the post-war years.
SO: What about Blair's agenda as President of the EU for Europe-wide legislation enforcing job 'flexibility' - ie weakening of workers' rights and lowering of wages?
KC: We should not presume the battle is over merely because this is what Blair has said. Many European ministers did not agree with the Thatcherite agenda of the Tories, and do not agree with it now that Blair is pushing it.
He wants to prevent a 'social Europe' and to bring about the unravelling of the welfare state., but he will have a hard fight.
Part of the problem of the left in Britain is its failure to understand Christian Democracy. These parties should not be equated to wet Toryism; they are sociologically different. They were part of the resistance to Nazism, they are mass popular parties, some with their own trade unions and cooperatives. They are far removed from Conservatism, leave alone Thatcherism. If we fail to understand this, we will not realise the difficulties in the way of Blair's Thatcherite agenda.
SO: What advice would you give to activists, particularly to those in the Labour Party.
KC: Organise. Fight to defend the welfare state. We must win the battle over disability benefits. The proposed education reforms are unsustainable, we must campaign to restore grants and abolish fees. There must be a major allocation of resources to the health service.
Britain devotes a smaller proportion of its resources to welfare services than any EU state except Greece, Ireland and Portugal.
Activists can and should persuade MPs to vote against these cuts. But MPs will pay as much attention whether or not these activists are members of the Labour Party. People who say "stay and fight" have to explain how we can fight. Otherwise, people will stay and dig their allotments.
Actually, you can oppose from inside or outside, if you work out what you can actually do. It is true that Labour Party members still have a distinctive role in this struggle, ut it is becoming more difficult than ever before. The changes in party structure mean that it will no longer suffice to win an argument and take a motion to conference; instead, it will be sent to a policy forum for a possible decision in three years - by which time we will have lost the welfare state.
There is a mass exodus taking place from the Labour Party - 10 per cent of my CLP have left. And these are not the 'Blair levy', but Old Labour, single mums, people who are losing welfare benefit.
The opposition, after much effort, was proud that it rightly persuaded 47 Labour MPs to vote against the cuts in lone parent benefit. But single mums in my constituency said to me "What? Only 47? Only 10 per cent of them? That's not what we voted Labour for".
So we must network, bringing those in the Labour Party and those outside in order to oppose this agenda. The trade unions too must join this opposition. And no-one should write them off - when they move, they can move surprisingly fast.
SO: We have been working in such a network, with trade unions, campaigns. labour party and other activists, as well as with people in Europe, to build the Euromarch last year, and now towards a demonstration at the June meeting of European heads of government in Cardiff.
KC: Well, I supported the Euromarch from the beginning. I have a good working relationship with Christophe Aguitton. And of course I will support the protests at Cardiff.