MSF conference in Hove on June 14-17, will be a rather different affair than that planned by the top table.
The centre piece of the conference was to have been to agree the plans they had, they thought, stitched up with the leadership of IPMS towards the supposed launching of a new union.
This dream came to a timely end at IMPS own conference last month which failed to agree these "principles" but instead decided to commission a survey on IMPS's future as an independent union.
While MSF General Secretary Roger Lyons is still arguing that agreement can still be reached, the reality is that the project is dead in the water.
This will be an important boost for the left. The campaign against these proposals has been gathering steam within MSF but has not been easy.
Federal
The first objection to the supposedly new union was that the 'Heads of Agreement" put foward by the two leaderships would lead to no such thing. Rather than a fully integrated new organisation, what was on offer was a federal structure, which would do nothing to strengthen workplace organisation and lead to a major reduction in democratic accountability.
Bill Brett, the General Secretary of IMPS stated at a briefing meeting for his union members that IMPS would not affiliate to CND. Even if the annual conference of the new union had voted to maintain MSF's current affiliation, the proposed IPMS sector would have the right of veto - completely undermining the sovereignty of conference.
The role of regions, crucial in the existing political structure of MSF would be undermined. The execu tive would have had 72 members of whom nine would be from the regions - and three from Ireland.
Unwieldy
The bulk would be from the different "industrial" sectors - so regional input would have been almost non-existent. Such a large executive would have completely unwieldy, and real decisions taken by a smaller sub-committee.
MSF activists have a tough enough time imposing any accountability on the Executive as it is - as the current witch hunt against Joe Bowers, who stood against Lyons in the recent General Secretary election, illustrates all too graphically.
A further concentration of power in the hands of the centre would make battles against such outrages almost unwinnable.
IPMS members have given the lie to the myth put forward by Lyons that his train is unstoppable.
MSF conference needs to ensure that while he is reeling from this blow he is beaten back in other ways - particularly in terms of his determination to put his relationship with the Labour front bench before the interests of his members.
Socialist Outlook TONY Blair's hectic round of European summits has culminated in the Clinton smile-in at Downing Street.
Gushing with praise, every leader from Kohl to Chirac to Clinton has stood in line for the photoopportunity of the month. With President Clinton taking his share of reflected glory, Tony Blair has shown that he is no rising star, he has already arrived in the firmament. Nothing succeeds like success it seems.
But is all the toadying just a desire to associate with success, or is there substance to all the rhetoric about 'new generation politics?' Is Tony Blair the first of a new breed of leaders, steering a new course for a new era in global politics, "celebrating enterprise without excluding the poor", as the soundbite has it?
Dead centre
Or is it just a re-run of the American 'radical centre' which also started energetically but soon slid down the road into the inertia and paralysis of Clinton's current 'dead centre'?
Blair's own theme of the radical centre, which is neither left nor right but 'new', appeals greatly to world leaders at a time when they increasingly confront resistance from the people, especially from the working class and the youth.
The current crisis of the welfare system, growing unemployment and social and environmental degradation have led to a widely held public perception that the fabric of society and the planet itself are under threat.
Blair also enters the stage at a time when there is a realisation among European politicians of a growing disenchantment with the European union, in particular the single currency and its costcutting convergence criteria.
The French elections, even more than the British election before it, was dominated by the single currency. Resistance has been felt directly in mainland Europe, in the mass mobilisations and strikes TONY Blair's hypocrisy directed against the effects of the Maastricht process. This could challenge and even derail the bosses' Europe.
Blair's theme for the Euro summit, after agreeing to sign up to the social chapter (as long as it doesn't imply a raft of new legislation in favour of workers' rights), was the need for a "Peoples' Europe" that would tackle the issue of unemployment and job creation.
It was a warning shot against the danger of politicians losing the support and confidence of the people of Europe for this most central capitalist project. Without a hint of embarrassment he then proceeded to crusade for "labour market flexibility", the effect of which will be to drive down wages and increase unemployment!
A proposed "jobs summit" will employment of single mothers. The media toasted the beautiful people. Nice suits, shame about the policies now be led by Blair and Clinton together.
The pragmatic politics of the "radical centre', which is paraded as neither left nor right, but by definition something of both, is the strategy of the carrot and the stick (like the donkey we are unlikely to get much carrot - unless there is an unexpected new economic boom).
Rich and poor
Blair explained to an approving Clinton that a fair society is one in which the rich and tie poor can benefit: "We can't prosper as a nation unless we prosper together" he said. But then in almost the same breath he insisted that "Progressive parties today are parties of fiscal responsibility and prudence. You do not do anything for anybody by making a wreckage of the Britain is down to that favourite Blair and Brown seem to believe that they can square the circle and avoid the issue of contradictory class interests. They seem to believe that it really is possible to celebrate free enterprise without excluding the poor, and to maintain profits while carrying out some social reforms.
While the Blair team has learnt much from Clinton and his aides, several of whom were sent over to advise on slick political marketing, they failed to learn the most important lessons.
Clinton's refusal to tax the rich and take control of the banks, left the government financially hamstrung when it came to implementing their major health reform, which was a total failure.
The fiasco all but destroyed Hillary Clinton's political credibility. fighting against all forms of social Although the Workfare programme, their second flagship policy, is credited with helping to create 4 million new (mainly low-paid) jobs, this was as much to do with a favourable trade cycle and five years of economic recovery. Speaking at No 10 the President was obliged to admit they had done less well in preserving social cohesion and what he called a 'social safety-net' for families.
Far from it. Before the last US election, Clinton dumped 60 years of Democratic Party adherence to the welfare reforms of the 1930s by signing tough new regulations designed to balance the budget and appease the Republican right.
Welfare cuts
This was always going to happen. In reality the massive cost-saving transformation of welfare provision means cuts; placed in the context of a Workfare scheme which created low paid and part time jobs, resting on the very low national minimum wage, in a flexible, fast moving, deregulated labour market, it means job insecurity and more unemployment.
This is just what US capitalism needs: a socially controlled but flexible, low paid, labour force, which also undermines trade unionism and acts as a downwards pressure on wages in general.
Today many US workers are forced to take two jobs in order to maintain their living standards. Overall the Clinton administration has succeeded in shifting wealth from the poor to the rich to such a degree that today the gulf between them, in a nation which has traditionally seen itself as the land of opportunity, is greater than in any other developed economy.
Here in Britain a tough fiscal policy, which excludes taxing the rich, and aims to meet the Maastricht criteria, will be achieved only at the cost of the welfare state and at the expense of the poorest sections of our society.
Frank Field is charged with reducing costs and terminating the welfare state as we know it. As even one of Blair's main cheerleaders, Will Hutton of the Observer stated, "People here in Britain did not vote for this."
enough under pressure to agree to