In the run-up to Labour Party conference, with the government in office for nearly 18 months, is useful to assess not only what Blair has done in government and the labour movement’s response, but more fundamental issues about Blair’s politics.
It should be understood that the Labour Party has never been a socialist party. Despite being based on the organised working class, Labour’s programme has always sought to offer reforms to the working class within the parameters laid down by capitalism. None of these have challenged capitalism, and many have been double-edged. Labour governments have remained capitalist governments.
The post-war nationalisation of many basic industries was welcomed by the working class. However, the purpose was also to rationalise these industries under public ownership and provide raw materials for private industry.
Other reforms, like the introduction of the welfare state, were not simply gifts by a Labour government. More far-sighted sections of the ruling class wanted to avoid the pre-war situation of abject poverty, work camps and unaffordable medicine. The working class was unwilling to accept the return of pre-war conditions. Concessions were also seen as necessary to head off greater post-war radicalisation.
The NHS was established, free at point of use, funded from taxation. But private practice was not abolished. Nor were the drug companies, which make huge profits out of the NHS, nationalised.
The foreign policy of Labour governments continued to be based on support for British imperialism. The first Labour Foreign Minister made clear that he had no intention of changing colonial policy.
This does not mean that this "New" Labour government is no different. While Labour has previously introduced significant reforms in the interests of the working class, Blair is reluctant to introduce any at all.
Such reforms as the referenda for Scotland and Wales, were commitments that could not be avoided, and he has interpreted them in the most pro-unionist fashion.
On the ‘industrial’ front, Blair has introduced the minimum that he thought he could get away with, without any real pressure from the unions. The commitment to a national minimum wage was fulfilled at an appallingly low level, well below the modest policy of many unions of half male median earnings.
‘Fairness At Work’ is an atrocious document based on the reactionary US model of union recognition, introduced under pressure to fill the vacuum left by the Tories.
Blair rejects any idea that he should act in the interests of the working class. The promotion of business leaders to the Cabinet and Lords, as Blair surrounds himself with such people to the exclusion of the labour movement, underlines the point, as do statements about being ‘business friendly’, ‘fairness without favours’, and so on.
Blair really does see ‘New Labour’ as a new party. He became leader on the back of the moves to the right on policy and democratic counter-reforms carried out by Kinnock and Smith. These in turn were facilitated by the defeats inflicted on the working class by the Thatcher government.
Politically unable and unwilling to provide a strategy to fight off Thatcher’s attacks, the leaders of the unions and the Labour Party could only think in terms of the need to win a general election.
After each defeat the union and Labour leaders moved further to the right. The catchcry of the union leaders became ‘wait for a Labour government’, while they supported consecutive Labour leaders in watering down Labour’s policy.
Has Blair fundamentally broken from the politics of ‘Old Labour’, and if so, what are his politics now? Has he changed the party to match his thinking?
From the start, Labour was an explicitly parliamentary party: the election of MPs was its prime purpose. The impetus for this came from the passing of anti-union laws by parliament at the turn of the century.
Despite the fact that at that stage the party was made up of 100% affiliates (unions and socialist organisations, with no individual membership), the unions were explicit that the party should only deal with the ‘political’ (ie parliamentary) questions, leaving the furthering of the industrial struggle to the unions.
The political programme consisted of reforms within capitalism, just as, for the union leaders, the trade union struggle was for concessions from the bosses without challenging the existing order.
Class collaboration, or ‘partnership’ in Blair jargon, was at the heart of Labour ideology.
The introduction of Clause IV and individual membership to the Labour Party constitution in 1918 were not fundamental changes. Clause IV never informed the programme of any Labour government. Attempts to attract the ‘middle class’ are not new either – this was the intention of the introduction of individual membership.
While policy moved to the left or right at times, the basic political framework in which the Labour Party operated remained the same.
Reformism was underpinned by the strength of British capitalism and its position within the imperialist world. A policy of reformism – as against a policy which welcomes reforms within an overall fight for the abolition of capitalism – can only succeed when capitalism is profitable enough for the ruling class to concede reforms which do not endanger its rule.
Capitalist recessions and crises undercut the basis of reformism and class collaboration. Ramsay Macdonald’s cuts in unemployment benefit in 1929 were a response to the crisis of capitalism in the late 20s and 30s, just as Dennis Healey’s cuts packages were a response to the recession of the 70s.
British capitalism has to be much more competitive now, and is much less able to grant reforms.
The British Labour Party has been a social democratic party throughout its existence, albeit one with different structures from those of many others – primarily the direct union link and input into policy-making.
Many describe Blair as a Tory or a Liberal because of his government’s programme and his attitude to the labour movement. This only really holds sway if we believe there was a ‘golden age’ of socialism in the Labour Party.
Blair’s declaration that the split between Labour and the Liberals at the turn of the century was a ‘mistake’ harks back to the fact that many union leaders had to be forced into the break with the Liberals in the first place.
The most significant factor determing the right wing character of government policies is the low level of class struggle, meaning that there is very little pressure to do differently.
This factor is both the effect and the cause of the right wing politics of the current leadership of the labour movement (the unions and the Labour Party).
Who is to say Blair’s (or Brown’s) policies would not be different if the level of class struggle were not higher?
It is possible that Blair could pull back under the pressure of the class struggle, or that other members of the leadership could force him out (the Tory Party has always managed to replace its leaders at opportune moments without wider democracy).
However, the changes Blair has brought about reduce the internal party pressure the Labour leadership can be subjected to.
Blair is rootless in terms of ideology. The dominant ideology of the British labour movement, though, has been pragmatism, summed up in Harold Wilson’s statement that "socialism is what a Labour government does".
There are limited differences between Blair and his predecessors as a Labour leader.
He admires the US Democratic Party and harbours ambitions to turn the Labour Party into something similar. Yet Labour leaders have identified with the Democrats for a long time. However, Blair may actually go so far as to carry this through.
Blair and his closest allies would clearly like to see the end of the union link, at least in its traditional form. Whether he will be satisfied with the extent to which the unions have (with their own support) already been stripped of much of their power in the party – or whether he will insist on going further, is a moot point.
If the Labour Party’s nature has not fundamentally changed, this does not mean that it is business as usual. The fact that the government’s programme is more right wing than that of most previous Labour governments has led to an increasing level of disenchantment among activists and wider layers of the working class .
This provides socialists with the opportunity to explain the real nature of the Labour Party, and why it cannot move beyond reformism at best.
What conclusions should socialists draw about the Labour Party today? Firstly, and most fundamentally, socialists have always wanted to transcend the Labour Party and establish a mass party which sees the class struggle as the motor force for change rather than elections and parliament.
The difference is that this government is demonstrating the Labour Party’s real nature to more and more people, creating the opportunity to go beyond small left groups to a much wider recomposition of the labour movement.
This does not mean that socialists should abandon work in the Labour Party, either through its structures or the unions.
On the contrary, the current situation demands that socialists are present raising their criticisms and alternatives to the government’s programme.
If that wider recomposition is to take place on the most advantageous ground, socialists have to play a role in leading the opposition to the government, not just in the class struggle and unions, but also within the Party itself.
Blair cannot bear opposition within the party. His supporters are estimated to have spent nearly a quarter of a million pounds financing the ‘Members First’ slate for the national executive elections against the Grassroots Alliance, despite the fact that even if all 6 left wing candidates got elected they would have very little effect on policy.
The left should take heart from the fact that Blair sees them as such a threat, and step up the political and organisational assault.