Can the forward march of Labour be restarted?

.

The situation that the left finds itself in after the defeat of the McDonnell bid for the Labour leadership is a complex one. A bit of a debate has broken out about this around a statement issued by Socialist Resistance (SR) This was published on Liam Mac Uaid’s blog :

The key passage is: “McDonnell’s defeat throws the Labour left into serious crisis. No spin can hide it. The project of reclaiming the Labour or the idea that the Labour Party is a fruitful arena for the left to work in have been dealt a devastating blow.

“All this has implication for Respect, which should be taking the initiative to open or re-open a dialogue with those on the left who are currently not in Respect as to how they see the way forward.

“The Morning Star and the CPB are a case in point. They are likley to find it increasingly difficult to cling to a policy of reclaiming Labour. Apparently a new discussion has already opened up on this internally in the CPB. The Morning Star had already called a conference in June on “Politics After Blair” at which the issue will now be unavoidable.

“But Respect needs to be open and flexible in this situation to any new forces from the Morning Star or the trade union left. It should do whatever is necessary to ensure that new forces have space to make their influence felt. If it can do this it could break it out of its current impasse and open up a new stage of development.
“Respect’s task in this process is to turn the tide of politics back towards the left. Rebuild ideological and practical opposition to the market. Work with the left in the unions to build an independent pluralist left alternative alongside the struggle to regenerate the unions and rebuild trade union strength and organisation.”

To which I posted a comment to the effect that SR are making two mistakes: i) in not understanding that Respect is not a vehicle around which left unity can be built; and less explicably ii) that SR seem to completely fail to understand the political perspective of the CP.

I concluded my initial remarks by saying that currently “the building blocks for any serious alternative to Labour are utterly absent, but where the situation isn't hopeless either.”

Given the undemocratic manoeuvrings in and around Respect, the media galavanting of George Galloway, and the dispersal of the layer of left social democrats who had aggregated around the Socialist Alliance in various parts of the country, then I would characterise Respect thus: “Who is Respect? Galloway or the SWP? Anyone else? Will either of those forces play the productive role you are calling on them to play? If there is no actually existing force within Respect who will steer the organisation to play the role you think it could play, then how could it happen?

“Even were the SWP or Galloway to have a damascene conversion, would anyone on the activist left trust them? No-one is going to join Respect, or particularly want to work with them. The whole project is basically an embarrassment now.

“If we are looking for a left unity project, then we have missed the boat. The wave of left activists who left the labour party after Clause IV and over the Iraq war could have been attracted to an organisation that respected labour movement norms of behaviour. But were never going to be attracted to respect.”

SR are utterly self delusioonal if they believe that the CP or any significant left from the unions would touch Respect with a barge. Even were the Political Committee of the CP so minded, and I have no reason to think they are, then the membership would probably not agree to it.

The failure of McDonnell’s campaign has produced unhelpful knee-jerk reactions from Respect and the Socialist Party that the Labour Left should join them in their equally unsuccessful campaigns outside the Labour party. They remind me of the mayor of Amity, swearing that the water is safe. For example Thornett writes: "It¹s right to say to the Labour left, and those like the CPB (and some of the trade union left) who have clung to a Reclaim Labour policy for so long that after the McDonnell collapse the only rational conclusion in the cold light of day is that the Labour left has no useful future in the Labour party. There is no point in saying anything else."

In fact this approach is completely misguided. Instead of looking at whether we can reconstitute the greatly diminished left around already flawed projects, we need to take stock of the current political situation.

The overwhelming features are i) that the right within the Labour Party are utterly triumphant, and their victory is structurally irreversible. ii) The Labour party has failed to make the same shift to the right with its electoral base – the enduring progressive and social democratic attitudes of labour voters was well described recently on the SWP blog, Lenin’s Tomb ; iii) that the far left have failed to break that progressive base away from electoral loyalty to the Labour party; iv) the unions – on the whole - maintain ideological and political opposition to New Labour values, as can be seen by the way the unions make the running in opposing PFI, Academies and private equity. v) the structural problems of the unravelling British state.

So how can we seek to harness the positive aspects of the current situation to strengthen the left?

Alan Thornett has replied to me and asked whether I think Respect’s genuine electoral successes are the “wrong type of voters”. In a sense they are, but not in the sense he implies. Respect has done well particularly with that minority of voters for whom the war is the overriding political issue, but for the majority of the working class that is not the case, and opposition to the war has been subsumed into the general cynicism about politics.

This is where SR’s misunderstanding of the CP’s position is clear, because the CP are talking some sense over this issue:

As Robert Griffiths, the CP General Secretary: recently wrote : “But what is needed now more than ever is for the trade union movement, once again, to take on its historic responsibility to ensure the existence of a mass party of labour. For all the assistance that socialists and communists can render, the unions alone have the human, financial and organisational resources, as well as the class interest, to take the necessary steps.

“Together with the non-sectarian left, they need to work out a political strategy which takes account of current realities. For example, most major unions remain affiliated to the Labour Party and are unlikely to leave it in the near future.
“The first steps in this direction might be for all the major unions to affiliate and participate fully in the Labour Representation Committee. Deals between union leaders in smoke-free rooms to win resolutions at Labour Party conference are not enough. The active involvement of unions and their members in the LRC would be the clearest declaration of political intent.

“The LRC could itself go the extra mile and allow full membership status to socialist organisations including the Communist Party, respecting their right to participate independently in elections in return for an agreement not to campaign for the dismantling of the Labour Party through further union disaffiliations.
“In their relations with the Labour Party, unions should stop all financial, logistical and political support for MPs who consistently vote against key union policies. “

SR are correct to highlight the Morning Star conference as important, not least because the CP still able to punch above their weight, and alongside John McDonnell, we also have Ken Livingstone and Jon Cruddas attending. At the deputy leadership hustings at GMB congress last week Cruddas came out in favour of starting to renationalise public utilities.

The Labour Left were crushingly defeated in the PLP, but the McDonnell campaign has gathered together a nucleus of activists, who are less isolated and more motivated than they were before the campaign. It is as fruitless for us to argue with then that they should leave the party as for them to argue we should join it – comrades need to come to their own conclusions.

The way forward is for all the left, inside and outside the Labour party, to promote the trade unions in exercising their own political voice. By and large, the unions will not abandon their stake in the labour party until they have exhausted its historical usefulness. But currently they are not making enough demands on the party, and so not testing the usefulness of the link.

The Labour Representation Committee could become a vehicle for the unions to exercise collective political voice and if a substantial section of organised labour is to draw the conclusion that a party of labour needs to be refounded, as they effectively did in 1931, then the LRC could be the body around which that debate tales place.

Of course there are serious obstacles, not least of which is the LRC’s requirement for Labour Party membership, which is a serious obstacle to many grassroots trade unions and community activists. But again the way forward is for local trade union bodies to affiliate and open a dialogue about being able to send delegates who are not individual LP members.

In the meantime, we have largely missed the boat in England of building an electoral alternative to New Labour. There may still be a case of standing against Labour, but this can only be done by building grassroots links first, not by building the roof before the walls like Respect and the CNWP have done.

There is serious work that can be done, but the vehicle for that work is not Respect nor the CNWP, the focus remains where it perhaps always should have been, with organised Labour in the mass organisations of our class.

Pakistan's "No 1 terrorist" protected by Britain?

.
There has been remarkably little coverage in the British press of the fact that Imran Khan the former international cricketer, is using the British courts to try to bring Altaf Hussain, head of the semi-fascist Muttahida Qaumi Movement, to justice for the massacre of 42 democracy protestors in Lahore on May 12th. Khan is using the well known human rights lawyer, also called Imran Khan.

According to Pakistani paper, the
Daily Times:

“Three weeks ago, gunmen opened fire on a rally supporting Chief Justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, triggering bloodshed that left 42 people dead. Khan along with lawyers, human rights activists and opposition parties accuses Hussain of orchestrating the carnage from his residence in London. “The entire incident was planned. No British citizen is allowed to sit in London while directing terrorist operations abroad, so why is there an exception for Altaf Hussain?” said Khan, describing the MQM as “a fascist movement run by criminals”. “

As Imran Khan has pointed out: “The British government is involved in a war against terror but is giving Pakistan’s No 1 terrorist sanctuary”.

For the past 16 years, Hussain has lived in self-imposed exile in the UK initially as an asylum-seeker and currently as a British citizen. He fled to London to escape from criminal prosecution in Pakistan He is now based in an office block on Edgware High Street in north London, from where he rules his party by phone apparently directing his closest lieutenants in long, late-night conversations.

But Hussain does not fit the media profile of a terrorist neatly enough for the British press, or the British government to be interested. His party, the MQM tries to project an image based on secularism, economic development and support for the “war on terror” since entering a coalition government with President Pervez Musharraf in 2002, himself an Ally of Britain and the USA.

In reality the MQM has always been liked to extortion, gun smuggling and international crime networks, it is also an ethno-linguistically defined supremacist party, representing the Urdu speaking community who fled to Pakistan following partition in 1947.

So why is New Labour, usually obsessed with terror, so quiet? Why is the British press so quiet about a murder gang being allegedly orchestrated from Britain against democracy protestors ?

Could it be because Altaf Hussain’s party is included in President Mussaraf’s government?

Deputy leadership candidates interview

Socialist Campaign Group News has conducted an interview with each of the six contenders for the Labour Party deputy leader.

Jon Cruddas comes over as by far the best candidate, not only in terms of policy content but because he answers the questions clearly without any beating round the bush.

Should the government halt further privatisation in the NHS?
Jon Cruddas: Yes. I’ve called for a moratorium on private sector involvement in the NHS. I think we urgently need to take stock of where we are and what is and isn’t working. I also think that the pace and scale of reform has left the NHS and the people who work in it reeling.

In order to tackle the gender pay gap, do you believe the government should legislate for mandatory pay audits?
Jon Cruddas: Yes. I was disappointed that the Prosser Commission didn’t recommend it. There is an enduring 17 per cent gender pay gap.

Should Trident be replaced by a new generation of nuclear weapons?
Jon Cruddas: No. I voted against Trident. Trident and any upgrade are relics of another era. The events of July 7 2005 demonstrate that we face very different security threats.

Is the government pursuing the correct policy in Iraq?
Jon Cruddas: It is withdrawing troops but I think we need to review whether that is being done speedily enough. My view is that they should be drawing in multilateral forces and using diplomacy to try and find a settlement to the whole Middle East problem.

Should the government reject the hostile campaign of the US administration towards the Hugo Chávez government in Venezuela, which has overseen enormous social progress that has been repeatedly endorsed by the Venezuelan electorate?
Jon Cruddas: Chavez heads a democratically elected government which is doing amazing things for the poor. Any interference by the US or any other state should be rejected.

In contrast none of the other candidates gave a clear answer about privatisation of the NHS. Blears and Benn rather mendaciously redefined the issue as if the NHS cannot be privatised if “treatment free at the point of use” is still supported. Peter Hain defended his us of the private sector in Northern Ireland. Alan Johnson said: “Private innovation and competition can be beneficial”

All of the candidates except Jon Cruddas support nuclear weapons. Benn argued: “In the differently dangerous world we now live in, I don't think we should give up our deterrent.”, and he cheekily said that Trident replacement was necessary because it was a manifesto commitment.

On the question of Chavez, Hilary Benn thinks the real issue is falling into the trap of anti-Americanism; and Hazel Blears lectured the Socialist Campaign Group over the need to stay on the “centre ground” of British politics. Alan Johnson clearly believes that Britain’s relationship with the USA is too important to jeopardise: “Britain's relationship with the US will be led by Gordon Brown, but I will support him in any way I can. Whilst Gordon is wanting to maintain a strong relationship with the US, I firmly believe that he will not shy away from any issue, such as this, in private.”

All the candidates expressed support for extending council housing, but Alan Johnson worryingly said: “Borrowing against an authority's rental income could be a source of funding. ” I have a suspicion that the Brownite right are contemplating allowing local authorities to set up ALMOs themselves that can borrow money at commercial rates – so they will be publicly owned commercial companies.

CWU snubs Johnson

.

I know some of you are getting fed up with the Labour Deputy Leadership election, but it is a significant defeat for the leadership of the postal workers union that their support for the right winger, Alan Johnson, has been overturned by rank and file delegates at conference today. This underlines how the Deputy Leadership contest has allowed some debate in the unions about their future relationship with the Brown government. From what I gather support for continuing the link with the Labour Party is very weak within the CWU, and if there is a large scale strike this year - as seems likely - then pressure may grow to follow the FBU's example and disaffiliate.

This report is from the Morning Star:

CWU delegates in Bournemouth overwhelmingly voted to reconsider the union's decision to support Labour deputy leadership candidate Alan Johnson on Monday.

An emergency motion pointed out that Mr Johnson had failed to support the Trade Union Freedom Bill and the union's campaign against post office closures and had publicly supported Royal Mail's unpopular plans for employee share ownership.

Conference agreed to censure the NEC and instruct it to reconsider its decision to support Mr Johnston in line with the decisions taken at last year's conference and inform the membership of the decision prior to the ballot commencing on June 6th.

South London delegate Bob Cullen pointed out that deputy general secretary Dave Ward had said that he would rather "support a lamppost" than Mr Johnson, who was once the leader of the CWU.

"Let's support the lamppost," he urged delegates.

"If he can privatise what was his own industry, what would he do to others? He has no time for us working people. He should not be considered."

London Divisional representative delegate Martin Walsh branded Mr Johnson "the weakest" of all the candidates.

"He does not support the policies of this union, yet we still support him. That is wrong," he said.

"He walked away from this union, we did not drive him away."

London delegate Phil Walker added that Mr Johnson offered "little or nothing" to the union in his leadership manifesto.

"We have to look at the most acceptable candidate. Let's have another look at them," he said.

"Policy issues should be key to our judgment. Let us get what change we can out of this deputy leadership contest."
London Parcels delegate Paul O'Donnell said that Mr Johnson's nomination sent out the wrong message.


"It's like having a fry up for the bailiffs before they repossess your cooker," he said.

Kent Invicata delegate Sean Tait added: "We can't send divided messages to our own membership. We should make sure the people we support, support us."

Before the voting, CWU general secretary Billy Hayes urged delegates to reject the motion, insisting: "What you're saying is that the NEC is not entitled to an opinion. We are deciding the next Deputy Prime Minster."

The NEC will meet on Tuesday to decide who they will now support.

UPDATE: There is a good online report also in Socialist Worker . They make the point that: "It should be noted that not all the executive had supported Johnson at the executive meeting in question, with three supporting Jon Cruddas."

It is also worth saying that The Morning Star are wrong that Bob Cullen is from South London, he is from Oxford.

Where Next for McDonnell supporters?

A good outcome from the McDonnell leadership campaign is that it has put a lot of the Labour Party left into active contact with each other, and I recommend the new collective blog, Labour Left Forum , that has got off to a good start. In particular I found the post Which Way Forward for the Left quite realistic and sensible.

But how it strikes me as an outsider is that the Labour Left seems to organise around Labour Left Briefing, and through the Labour Representation Committee (LRC) and the McDonnell campaign, which are structures that are actually OUTWITH and independent from the Labour Party, but as a peculiarity they require LP membership to participate in them.

To really operate as a Labour Party left they have to organise WITHIN the Labour Party structures, seeking to control wards and CLPs, getting union branches to send left delegates to the CLP, get on the council, forming a left caucus of councillors in town halls, having a left block on the NEC (which means breaking from the Brownites in the Grassroots Alliance). Have a clear left slate for the National Policy Forum elections, with alternative policies that they want to pursue. Forcing their issues onto the conference floor.

I think the argument about whether socialists should or should not be in the Labour Party is a futile one: comrades are going to come to their own conclusions one way another based upon their own experience. However much hot air and ink is expended on the issue, we are not going to convince each other. The approach of the Socialist party and Respect to say McDonnell’s defeat shows you are wasting your time come and join us, is unhelpful in the extreme, But similarly the approach from some of the Labour left, that all of those who have decided not to be in the party are incorrigible sectarians and ultra-lefts is equally unhelpful.

If the Labour Left is going to build on the McDonnell campaign they need to build practical activity. They must work to develop specific left policies and campaigns, sometimes in cooperation with the socialist left outside the Labour party: then these can be promoted through the movement, the unions and the single issue campaigns.

But they also need to promote them through the Party. Only if they can demonstrate success in winning commitment to left policies from the Labour Party, and then implementing left policies in local councils under left control, can they demonstrate that work in the Labour Party is effective. I see that John McDonnell is writing a position paper to discuss where next for his supporters, I will be interested to see what practical strategic steps this spells out.

To be frank comrades, the rhetoric of “its hard but we just have to keep beavering away till it gets better” is wearing thin.

THE NHS – SAFE IN OUR HANDS

Margaret Thatcher:
"The NHS is safe in our hands. The elderly are safe in our hands. The sick are safe in our hands. The surgeons are safe in our hands. The nurses are safe in our hands. The doctors are safe in our hands. The dentists are safe in our hands.

David Cameron:
"it's not just a question of saying the NHS is safe in my hands. My family is so often in the hands of the NHS - so I want them to be safe there."

New Labour. UNISON, labour link news - june 2007
"THE NHS – SAFE IN OUR HANDS"

Thanks to John Nicholson, for bringing this to my attention

Deputy leadership hustings

.
Last Saturday six of us from Swindon joined the Stop the War Coalition protest outside the Labour Party deputy leadership hustings in Bristol. We were expecting Gordon Brown to be there, but I don’t think he turned up. It is always nice for me to go to Bristol and meet up with comrades who I worked with in the past.

There were about 40 people present outside, and unfortunately the policing was unnecessarily heavy (Peter Hain is Northern Ireland secretary). Although, I estimate only half were members of the SWP, the fact that there were too many Socialist Worker placards and paper sellers gave the impression that it was a SWP protest, which is a bit of a counter productive image to project if trying to have a relationship with the Labour Party, and more than one non-SWP member expressed discomfort about it to me.

The logic of standing against Labour in elections has also seemingly undermined the strategic understanding that SWP comrades had about the Labour Party. As one Asian labour councillor drove past he was castigated in hostile terms for the fact that he had stood on an anti-war ticket to get elected, but was not active in the anti-war movement. This seems exactly the wrong tack to take: he should be encouraged for standing as an anti-war candidate, which is in itself a form of participation in the peace movement, even if he doesn’t go on demonstrations.

According to the report in the Morning Star 250 trade unionists attended the hustings. This seems unlikely to me, I had a chat with one of the stewards from Amicus and had a look at his list, and from that I estimate attendance nearer the 100 mark.

The most unequivocally right-wing candidates, Alan Johnson and Hazel Blears, are both stressing their links with the trade unions, but not calling for any change in policy. Bizarrely, the Shop workers union, USDAW is backing Hazel Blears, seemingly simply on the basis that she is an USDAW member. But USADW also claims that: “Gordon Brown’s … brilliant management of the economy and undoubted leadership skills [show he] is the right choice to build on Labour's achievements since 1997 continuing to build a prosperous Britain and secure a fourth term Labour Government”. Britain’s fifth biggest union, with 360000 members, USDAW is clearly sending a message by backing Blears that there needs be no change of direction. Privatisation and PFI, growing inequality, no repeal of Tory anti trade-union laws, deregulation, attacks on civil liberties, wars of aggression, a housing crisis, and Labour’s vote falling to its lowest ever level are all signs of success for USDAW.

The other deputy leadership candidates are all to one degree or another wooing the activist vote. Hilary Benn has called for new legislation to bridge the pay gap, and improve flexible working rights, and has on that basis been backed by the tiny ceramics union, Unity, which has only 9000 members mainly in Stoke on Trent.

Peter Hain is being backed by ASLEF, BFAWU and UCATT. Hain himself is playing a funny game, both backing and opposing privatisation of the NHS for example. “As a very general principle I believe public services should be publicly provided unless there is a very good reason why not. For instance in Northern Ireland I used the private sector to clear a massive waiting list backlog, and that was absolutely the right thing to do”

Dagenham MP Jon Cruddas is backed by UNITE, the newly amalgamated T&G; and Amicus. Unite joint general secretary, Derek Simpson said: "Jon Cruddas' stated policies mirror our members' desire for better job security, decent pensions, affordable housing and public services provided by the public sector. Jon is unlike any other candidate standing for the deputy leadership - he alone is calling for a change of direction in order to reconnect with the Labour party's core supporters."

There has been some criticism of UNITE for backing Gordon Brown, and interestingly I seems to have been a decision of only the GEC of the T&G; and not Amicus who agreed to do so: “The Unite amicus section's political committee agreed .. that they would back Mr Cruddas, while the Unite T&G; section's decision to nominate Cruddas and Brown was taken by its General Executive Council.”

Too much can be read into union leaderships supporting Brown, as I wrote back in February : “The union leaders want influence, and also want a change of direction. They will reason that backing Brown keeps them close to him, and they could maximise pressure on the new PM by backing a deputy leader closer to the unions’ agenda. As has been shown at the last two party conferences, the union leaders are very disciplined (or spineless, depending on your perspective) at sticking to their own agenda, and not supporting left initiatives over Iraq, etc. Cruddas himself has a good prospect of being not the “left candidate” but the “unions’ candidate”, in the same way that Callaghan was for leader. I think those union leaders wanting to pull Labour towards their own agenda may back Brown and Cruddas.”

Cruddas: We have to return to class politics

.
Thursday's Morning Star carries the following very interesting interview with Dagenham MP JON CRUDDAS, who is the only Labour deputy leadership contender who isn't in the Cabinet. As I have argued on this blog, trade union backing has turned Jon into a strong candidate. His campiagn is significant as being the vehicle by which the trade unions can express their disatisfaction with the government's current course

Morning Star editor, John Haylett Writes:

ALONE among the Labour deputy leadership hopefuls, Dagenham and Redbridge MP Jon Cruddas does not want the job to come gift-wrapped with the deputy prime minister label.

"I don't see the job as a stepping stone to the baubles, country houses and so on," he makes clear.

In his opinion, there are too many people in positions of influence in the Labour Party whose vision is of a "virtual party, a message delivery system," which concentrates, US-style, on a tiny proportion of swing voters and key constituencies located in the mythical country of Middle England.

"They regard the ideas of a political party and membership mobilisation as old-fashioned, believing that the future should be decided like a market strategy."

Cruddas is also the only contender who has not sat in the heart of the Cabinet loyally parroting the new Labour neoliberal and pro-imperialist line, although, for a current outsider, he began as an insider, working in 10 Downing Street during the first Blair government.

"I recall sitting in Downing Street in 1998-9 when BMW pulled the plug on Rover and one of the advisers said that this was marvellous news - 'a great opportunity to move from the old industrial economy to the new knowledge economy,' based on new technology."

Such people, who had the Prime Minister's ear, saw the new Labour government as ushering in a new epoch, which would remove the Labour Party from the working class, creating a new economy and new support base for the government.

Cruddas points out that only about one in five jobs is in the knowledge sector, with 80 per cent still taking a traditional form, although, increasingly, based on low skills, low wages and done by women.

"To move forward, the first step is to look at the economy as it is, not at some kind of dream world," he says.

"They have this idea that the government should remove itself from the economy and we have to confront that debate and return to class politics," Cruddas declares.

Deindustrialisation has certainly hit his own constituency, with car assembly at Ford Dagenham ending in 2000 and causing a huge effect on attitudes and voting patterns.

"There has been a big decline in support for Labour and the largest drop has been in social groups D/E, whose attitudes are coloured by insecurity in work, a shortage of council housing and problems in accessing public services," he explains.

"Those who backed new Labour and still do are social groups A/B, many of whom are the new knowledge economy professionals."

Since Labour won the 1997 election, it has shed 4.5 million voters, the vast bulk of whom fall into four main groups.

• The manual working class, which has seen well-paid jobs exported to low-wage economies

• Public-service workers, who resent private-sector penetration and government "reforms"

• Black and ethnic minorities, who have reacted against the Iraq war and ministerial racist scapegoating

• Urban intellectuals who have switched, largely to the Liberal Democrats, over the war.

A recent YouGov poll revealed that 15 million people self-identified as Labour voters, but one-third of them said that they would not vote Labour under present circumstances.

"The important point is that these voters are not switching to the Tories, which means that it is possible to rebuild the Labour Party as a modern, pluralist, federalist democracy," Cruddas insists.

However, he is aware that, in a number of areas, including his own, disillusioned working-class voters are switching to the racist British National Party.

"About 10,000 people voted BNP in my area. That doesn't mean that there are 10,000 nazis. These are insecure and vulnerable people, for whom, as far as they are concerned, the Labour Party has failed them," he states.

Unlike neighbouring MP Margaret Hodge, whose response to this phenomenon was to wallow in the gutter with the BNP by proposing discrimination in housing against recent migrants, Cruddas has worked the streets with a broad coalition of anti-racist groups.

In response to the lies peddled by the BNP, he has delivered the excellent factual newspapers prepared by Searchlight, the anti-fascist organisation, door-to-door.

It is an uphill job, especially since, while the BNP concentrates its headline propaganda against Muslim religious symbols, there is a material basis for the refusal to vote Labour any longer.

"They won't vote Tory on class grounds, but they see the main parties as interchangeable," says Cruddas.

"We need to talk to people, change the debate and see how to re-enfranchise working people."

The scale of the problem becomes apparent when he reports on some of the problems coming into his regular constituency surgery and affecting the living standards of his constituents - a Lithuanian construction gang being fed stale bread and cold beans and paid £15 a day and a roofer whose rate for the job has fallen by £2.50 an hour in six months.

And there's even one man who has put a cooker in the shed at the bottom of his garden and rents it out to hot-bedding migrants working in the shadow economy.

"So, you have a combination of exploitation, abuse and criminality," Cruddas comments.

He is passionate about employment rights, not only for indigenous people but also for the large number of undocumented workers whose ruthless exploitation also drives down the living standards and expectations of everyone else.

He recalls with anger that, on the same Friday morning that 125 Labour MPs backed a Trade Union Freedom Bill initiated by, among others Cruddas and John McDonnell MP, former leftwinger and trade union official turned new Labour minister Jim Fitzpatrick filibustered to talk out a Bill on agency workers' rights.

The Dagenham MP believes that it is necessary to tighten regulation of employment agencies and to insist on the kind of public procurement clauses on fair pay and non-discrimination that Ken Livingstone introduced in the Greater London Council days, before the Tory government outlawed them.

Cruddas was among those who addressed the May Day amnesty protest in Trafalgar Square, calling for regularisation of undocumented workers.

"This is a huge problem. There are a third of a million people in London alone with no legal status. If we are not prepared to acknowledge their existence, they will be open to the worst abuses," he says.

So, what are the policies on which Cruddas will campaign for the deputy leadership and pursue his campaign to rebuild the Labour Party as a "modern, pluralist, federalist democracy?"

Apart from workplace rights, he insists on the need for an upsurge in council house building and notes ruefully that, at recent hustings, Cabinet members who have said nothing on the subject in years have jumped on the council housing bandwagon.

"We've passed motions on this at party conference for four years and had the door slammed firmly in our faces, but there are now 100,000 more on the council house waiting list in London since 2003 and a total of 1.6 million people on waiting lists."

Private construction companies constantly bank land, while complaining about "red tape" restrictions on where they may build, but they stick rigidly to building 170,000 units a year, guaranteeing a real-terms annual price rise.

"We used to build 200,000 council homes a year," says Cruddas, pointing out that the government's compliance with "the EU golden rule" of a borrowing limit of 3 per cent of GDP lies behind its determination not to increase the public-sector borrowing requirement.

In his view, this is "unsustainable. It has to change. It is an exercise in political will."

On public services, he wants a moratorium on the involvement of the private sector, saying that the necessary first step is to stop rigging markets in favour of the privateers.

"In the NHS, there is low morale and public support is in decline as a result of the internal market. Paper work, which used to take up 4 per cent of costs, is now 11 per cent and privately provided operations cost 11 per cent more than NHS operations."

His opposition to Trident is based on it being a "relic from a previous era, the cold war," which was useless to defend people on public transport targeted by terrorists on July 7 2005.

Cruddas voted for the invasion of Iraq, explaining: "I saw the case for removing a tyrant who was a threat because of his possession of weapons of mass destruction and who had already used them against his own people.

"I now state unequivocally that I was wrong, not only over the original premise but also on account of the consequences since," he admits.

"If the Democrats in the US can begin to debate a framework for withdrawal, why can't Labour in this country?"

So, if he stands on a left alternative to new Labour neoliberal orthodoxy, why didn't he sign up to John McDonnell's leadership campaign, which shared many of his policy priorities?

"I held out until a late stage, until it was clear that he wasn't going to get enough votes, since even Campaign Group members were signing up for Gordon Brown.

"There was a strong argument for a contest, but it wasn't going to happen."

Those who back Cruddas believe that he would have isolated himself by supporting a doomed McDonnell challenge and that the policy priorities that he champions would have been "drowned out" and discounted.

Whatever, the labour movement and, especially, the left have a choice - back a candidate who speaks out on many of the issues laid out by McDonnell or take part in a beauty contest of new Labour Cabinet members.

When you look at it like that, ruffled feathers and hurt feelings aside, it seems an easy decision to make.

Smoking ban hits the most vulnerable

.
Last night I was talking to the manager of a sheltered housing project which homes vulnerable young people, often with mental health issues, many of whom have difficulty socialising after experiencing abuse, and in some cases are asylum seekers.

New Labour’s ill conceived smoking ban is shortly going to have a serious negative impact on these vulnerable young people. (Thanks to one of the comments to this post, I have checked the legislatioon, and residential care homes where nursing or personal care is provided are exempt, but sheltered accomodation is covered by the act.)

Let’s be clear. I have no problem with a restriction of smoking in public places to provide non-smokers with the opportunity to live without being exposed to smoke. The problem is that New Labour have removed all choice, and not allowed premises that provide a choice for smokers. The cheerleaders for this ban seek to impose their own lifestyle choices onto others by law.

Residential housing projects have been categorised as public places under the act, and must enforce it or face a £2500 fine and a criminal record for staff members. The stupidity of the law has already led to a one year delay in its implementation into mental hospitals, but sheltered housing projects have to implement it from 1st July 2007.

Currently these homes have a smoking ban in the bedrooms, and provide two lounges: one for smokers, and one for non smokers. This is now illegal.

Bear in mind that these premises are home for their residents. Not only are they entitled to smoke if the wish in their own home but in fact most do smoke. Smoking rates are highest in the most socially marginalised parts of society, and to be honest the potential health risks of smoking are often the least of their problems.

Under the new law, the smoking lounges must be shut, and the bedrooms must now be used for smoking. So all that has happened under New Labour’s brilliant law, cheered on by so many on the left, is that the smoke has moved from one part of the building to another.

But this is not a change with neutral impact. There is now an increased fire risk, as it is much more likely that there will be a blaze from someone falling asleep in bed with a cigarette. What is more, the smoking lounges created a degree of socialisation for vulnerable and excluded people, who will now be sitting alone in their tiny bedrooms. It gets worse, the bedrooms are small, and my friend advises me that because soft furnishings absorb the smoke and stink, the rooms will gradually have the soft furniture, carpets and curtains removed, to be replaced with hard chairs, laminate floors and Venetian blinds. This is the austere environment that the New labour zealots wish to push vulnerable people, because the Islington dinner party set don’t approve of smoking, and wish to criminalise and exclude anyone who doesn’t agree with their choices.

The anti-smoking zealots said they supported a total ban on (specious) health and safety grounds, ignoring all evidence about the efficacy of extraction systems in removing any risk from second hand smoke. But for the most vulnerable in care homes, the smoking lounges had extraction systems, but the bedrooms will not. So for the most vulnerable and at risk the situation is worse.

The class bias of the legislation is also clear froom the fact that smoking is banned in the expensive nurseries where middle class parents can afford to send their children, but not in the homes of child minders where working class children go. An egalitarian approach would have insisted instead on air extraction systems for child minders' homes, and subsidised their installation and running costs. Parental choice is an inadeqaute solution, partly because the choices people can make depend on their income, and partly becasue parents who smoke are less likely to object to a child minder who smokes.

How any socialist can support this vindictive, class-biased legislation is beyond me.

Of course common sense could have prevailed and sheltered housing could have been excluded from the legistlation, but then so could private clubs. Instead a blanket ban is being imposed as a knee jerk, socially repressive measure.

Whatever happened to the awkward squad?

What staggering hypocrisy. Woodley and Simpson have managed to get both wings of 'Unite' to support Gordon Brown, having opposed support for John McDonnel, in the Labour leadership contest. For Amicus it is "a pleasure" to announce its political committee's decision to support Brown, and their choice for Deputy, of John Cruddas.

The TGWU section of 'Unite' it is "proud" to have nominated Brown ( a deision taken by the General Executive Committee) and says it will give him "our full support as Prime Minister in working to tackle social inequality" and, of course, fighting for that all important fourth general election victory!

One again this stalwarts of what was once described as "the awkward squad" are facing both ways at once. Why? Is it lack of courage? Is it stupidity? Simpson says they are supporting Cruddas because he is calling for a change of direction". The joint press release says that Unite wants to see "a move ttowards an agenda which suoorts working people" yet supports a man who wants to press on with public sector "reforms" and the essentials of New Labour's neo-liberal programme.

It says it want to see "a halt to private sector involvement in public services" and NHS cuts, so the blindingly obvious thing to do was support the author of the government's privatisation programme!

It is difficult to see this as anything other than opportunism on the part of Woodley and Simpson. Perhaps they think by supporting Brown they can gain some influence over him. But to union members who are facing the consequences of the government's programme it will look like Turkeys voting for Christmas. In taking such a position they have once again placed the interests of the link with Labour above the interests of their members, and they have let off the hook all those union sponsored MPs who lined up to support Brown.

Interviewed on Radio 4 on their support for Brown, Woodley managed to avoid answering the question about the lack of evidence of any change of direction by him. The Trade Union leaders are going to plead with 'Gordon', of course, more in hope than expectation. The consequence of that will be that he treats them with the contempt that they deserve.

Ken Livingston backs Cruddas

.
Ken Livingstone has declared his support for Jon Cruddas to be Deputy Leader of the Labour party, praising the Dagenham MP's position against "Britain being saddled with the immense cost of developing a new generation of nuclear weapons".The London mayor also commended his stance on domestic issues including combating poverty, fighting racism, expressing support for better public transport and trade union links.

"I am delighted to give him my full support," Livingstone said. "He will be a fresh voice helping to renew Labour at this important time."

"Jon Cruddas has impressed me with his thoughtfulness and tenacity and I very much hope that Labour members will back him to become the next deputy leader of the party," he added.

Unite, the 'superunion' created by the merger of the T&G; and Amicus, is the largest Labour Party affiliate with 1.39 millions members who will have a vote in the contest. It has announced it believes Jon Cruddas to be the best deputy leader candidate of the six, and will urge members to vote for him.

Joint general secretary Derek Simpson said: "Jon Cruddas' stated policies mirror our members' desire for better job security, decent pensions, affordable housing and public services provided by the public sector.

"Jon is unlike any other candidate standing for the deputy leadership - he alone is calling for a change of direction in order to reconnect with the Labour Party's core supporters."

Unite said it wanted a government agenda focused on supporting working people, a halt to private sector involvement in public services, an end to NHS cuts and improved rights for agency workers.

And it said it wanted to work towards 'Warwick 2', a successor to the 2004 deal between the government and the unions over labour policy and trade union law. (Although the fact that the original Warwick agreement has still not been implemented by the government may be of more relevance!)

Meanwhile it seems that the GMB and UNISON may well back Peter Hain. This is the feeling I am getting talking to officers of the GMB, and is due to the ill-advised remarks attributed to Jon Cruddas about reducing the union block vote at conference from 50% to 33%. I say attributed to Jon Cuddas, becasue I have not been able to find any original article or source where Jon Cruddas actually says this

Tories versus New Labour: the ideological differences

John Hutton was putting forward his proposals for welfare reform yesterday at the CBI Public Forum. CBI boss Richard Lambert who only recently was arguing that private equity is jolly fine idea:

"Private equity offers a new and compelling business model for the 21st century, free from some of the burdensome restraints of publicly-owned companies. It generates real benefits for the UK in terms of jobs, leaner and more efficient businesses, and wealth creation.”

Well, he should tell that to workers at AA, for instance......

But back to Hutton's proposals which are wedded in this idea of “rights and responsibilities”. This should be known as “guff speak” because it is meaningless spin. By creating incentives for companies getting claimants back into work, this will expose the increasing emphasis on how marketable we are for employment.

Even though Hutton warns companies from cherry picking the easier claimants it will be inevitable that they will indulge in “park and cream”, which means they will “park” people they consider hard to get into work while “creaming” off the profits of those will they consider easy to get into a job. Hardly treating people equally or responding to the needs of the claimants, is it? It will be also a complicated process as well.

But now we have Gordon Brown as LP leader who will push through reforms of the public services with further marketisation and privatisation, is he any better or worse than David Cameron? I would argue there is a distinct ideological difference between New Labour and the Tories. New Labour thinks that the working class can be integrated into corporate capitalist projects by using the state. The buzz phrase is the "enabling state". i.e. proposals about citizenship, for example.

Tories see the state retreating to a role of safeguarding property rights especially against the working class and those oppressed and marginalised by corporate capitalism (a kind of night- watchman state). Otherwise they view state activity and public spending as a fetter on capital accumulation. Low taxes and provision of the cheap and exploited labour and defending the rights of the bourgeoisie as a class.

The two ideologies can merge into one and distinction can be blurred but there is a significant difference. The Tories will accelerate and turbo charge their attacks for one thing. They don't have the contradictions and the pressure New Labour do and again the Tories have the interests of their own class to think about and supporting the poor isn't one of its goals.

I am not saying that New Labour are any better but they are an enemy with a fundamentally different approach than the Tories.

A crushing defeat.

The next Prime Minister’s campaign manager, Jack Straw has said: "We are delighted that the party is uniting behind Gordon and giving him such overwhelming support."

Overwhelming indeed, with 308 MPs nominating him, and the speaker and deputy speaker of the house probably would have done, parliamentary convention prevented them.

MPs nominating Brown included fairly frequent left rebels like Bob Marshall-Andrews, and centre left rebel Kate Hoey nominated no-one.

Any sensible electoral strategy against Brown would have sought to split the centre away from the hard Brownite/Blairite right. But instead the hard left ran a campaign aimed only at their existing core constituency – an approach that was always unlikely to get sufficient MPs nominations.

In truth of course, there were few other options, as since the death of Robin Cook there was no credible electoral candidate for the centre left. Further evidence of the way the right in the party has structurally and irreversibly underpinned its dominance.

There was some truth in Michael Meacher’s rationale for putting himself forward on the basis that McDonnell could never get sufficient MP nominations, but he was in no better position. Indeed his policy platform was almost indistinguishable from McDonnell’s, and there are other issues that undermine his credibility with some activists.

Could the defeat for the hard left have been any more overwhelming? They have failed to achieve a contest, with a crushing majority of MPs rejecting them, and the right attracting the votes of even the soft left. This is an utter rejection of the Labour Left, even more remarkable after ten years of PFI, privatisation, inadequate pensions, imperial war, growing inequality and a terrible housing crisis.

McDonnell failed to achieve the support of any major union, and on the NEC, when a motion was moved to reduce the required number of nominations only two members voted for it. Even two of the left’s own members on the NEC voted against it. Indeed the apparently high votes of the left for the Grassroots Alliance for the NEC are shown to be illusory, because Anne Black who appears in their list is actually a right wing Brownite!

The Labour left need to seriously consider what their strategy is now. Strangley the last issue of labour Left Briefing before the leadership election was declared had no discussion of what they should do after the McDonnell campaign.

Part of the difficultly is that within the Labour Party the ideological victory of the right is almost total, that there is no alternative to neo-liberalism, privatisation and deregulation. What is more the constitutional changes in the party and reduced powers for local government make it very hard for the left to influence policy or debate or build a base.

The aspects of hope is that the Labour Party may have irrevocably been won for the right, but the political views of its electoral base have not followed and are now to the left of it. And the unions articulate political opposition to PFI, private equity and inequality.

We need to turn the tide of politics and rebuild ideological and practical opposition to the market. It is therefore vital that we work with our strengths and encourage the unions in finding their political voice.

John McDonnell: Another world is possible

As it looks more and more likely that McDonnell won’t get the nominations to get on the ballot form due to a gutless tightly whipped PLP who won’t think for themselves, and also the high threshold makes it increasingly unobtainable.

A coronation ensues for one Gordon Brown therefore democracy has been bumped off by mass toadying by the PLP.

But hey, as they say, it aint over till it’s over.

Looking at Gordon Brown’s website. His priorities include:

Britain number one for education
An NHS that earns the trust of patients and staff
More affordable housing
Every child the best start in life
Stronger, safer, more cohesive communities
Tackling climate change
Better work-life balance
The challenge of terrorism and security

That makes eight priorities: are there priorities between the priorities. More to the point how is Brown going to achieve these goals and what do they represent? What is meant by “every child having the best start in life”? As poverty increases among working age people Brown will have workfare and lifelong debt waiting for these children. That’s assuming they do not get asbo’ed and sent to prison.

What of the future? Part of the problem is the Left is so fragmented. In the LP, we need a Campaign group that works together much more cohesively and orientates towards the activist base in the unions as well, with a counter whip if necessary. We also need people to emerge from their democratic centralist shells and to push forward struggles in as united a way as possible, whether the struggles are inside either wing of the labour movement or outside in campaigning organisations. We also need a clear ideological account of what the Left is and how to fight neo-liberalism.

Finally John McDonnell has proved himself as a leader of the Left who can open up political room for the Left to put forward its ideas. There is an opportunity still to build on what has been achieved.

GMB & UNISON act together on leadership

Representatives of the political committees of UNISON and the GMB met in London today to consider the leadership and deputy leadership of the Labour Party.

Following the meeting Dave Prentis, General Secretary of UNISON, and Paul Kenny, General Secretary of the GMB, issued the following joint statement:

“The two unions, who between us represent almost 35% of the trade union vote in the electoral college, have agreed to co-ordinate the activities of both our unions around the election.

Both unions will also make nominations/ recommendations to our Labour Party affiliated members who will have a vote in this election.

Both unions will now draw up a list of issues that we will use to assess candidates covering privatisation, equal pay, employment rights, the NHS, public service workers pay and pensions.

Both unions will push for a new direction to enable the Labour Party to reconnect with the electorate to ensure that it can win a fourth successive general election victory.”

Meet the new Thatcher?

.
According to Gordon Brown, the big problem with Thatcher is she didn’t go far enough in promoting private home ownership.

Gordon Brown speaking on Sunday AM: “A home-owning, asset-owning, wealth-owning democracy is what would be in the interests of our country because everybody would have a stake in the country. The problem is that even with the great ambitions of the 1950s or the 1980s, they did not succeed in widening the scope for home ownership to large numbers of people who want it”

So according to Brown, Thatcher failed becasue her great ambition of promoting home ownership during the 1980s, (acheived by banning councils from building new council houses, and forcing them to sell off their existing stock at a loss under "right to buy" legislation) was not ambitious enough.

How out of touch this is with the reality of the housing crisis for working people. House prices are so high that people simply cannot afford to buy, and many who do own their own houses struggle with huge debt. The answer is not promoting more home ownership, but a massive expansion of council housing, at affordable rents. It seems despite rumours circulating that Gordon Brown would increase council housing, in fact his priority is promoting even higher levels of private house ownership, and even more debt, with associated problems of stress and worry: expansion of social housing is mentioned only as an afterthought.

Assett owning is also code for share ownership. A clear sign that New Labour under Brown will be more of the same: PFI, privatisation, the rich getting richer and worship of the idea that greed is good.

John McDonnell statement & interviews

.


I publish above a brief clip of John McDonnell speaking to camera about why he is standing. If you double click on it and enter YouTube you can find a number of policy statements by John as well.

In a comment to the Michael Meacher interview below, a John McDonnell supporter challenged my claim that I couldn't find a John McDonnell interview on YouTube. So I am obliged to Owen Jones from John McDonnell’s campaign for sending a link to a longer interview from John. Watch it here

And here is the interview with John McDonnell on Thursday from the BBC:

Michael Meacher interviewed

.


Another interesting interview, this time with centre-left leadership candidate, Michael Meacher.

Meacher actually comes over pretty well. He puts growing inequality as his highest priority, saying that he never expected there would be growing poverty alongide growing super wealth under a Labour government.

He also stresses the importance of the environment, and his opposition to PFI and privatisation, and the need for democratic renewal. He positions himself as representing the traditional Labour mainstream, rather than being the candidate of the left. In historical terms of course this is true.

He also addresses the issue of whether he is splitting the left constituency, and Meacher claims he is standing becasue he has a better chance of getting the necessary 44 nominations. In some ways he does have a point that McDonnell (as a hard left candidate) may not be best placed to attract votes from the centre of the party. Whether Meacher is better placed is another question.

Actually he does make a very interesting point about why a contest for leader is important in order to make Gordon Brown accountable, answering questions about why he is suitable, and what policies he will be following.

By the way, I notice that Lindis Percy, the brilliant peace campaigner, is supporting Michael.

Jon Cruddas interviewed

.


Interesting interview with Jon Cruddas from Labour Home.

In particular he addresses the importance of the Deputy leader contest, not as a side show, but as an important arena for discussing ideas and policies.

Jon explains the importance of supporting the Agency workers bill, an important issue for the trade unions, and also the need for addressing the failure of the market in housing, including council housing.

He is quizzed about his past as a Blairite, and is not entirely convincing by saying that he hasn't changed his views, and the party has changed so his previously stance on the right has now become the left. This doesn't entirely ring true given he has moved to now oppose the Iraq war, his developed critique of New Labour as an electoral machine that inhibits progressive change, and his demands for a change of direction.

In policy terms Jon Cruddas does not represent a complete break with the failed policies of Blairism, for example he supports ID cards. However, he has led the opposition to University Top Up fees. He does dance around some issues, for example saying he isn't necessarily opposed to Academies, but saying he opposed one in his own constituency and believes there should be a level playing field, so that when local authorities refuse Academies they are not taken off of the capital building programme. (In effect this would kill the Academy priogramme stone dead, as local authorities only take them becasue they are not given choice).

It is important not to build Cruddas into something he is not. He is not a class struggle socialist - however he is arguing for a break with the policy agenda of New Labour, and for aligning policy towards delivering benefits for working people.

These are messages that the trade union movement should support, as part of articulating the political demands of organised labour. The main ideological oppostion to New labour is now coming from the trade unions, over PFI, over rights for agency workers, over Academies, over private equity.

In order to renew the political movement of the working class after the defeat of Blairism we need to take every opportunity to encourage the unions to develop their own political voice. Supportin JOn Cruddas is a good signal that under Gordon Brown, we want to see some changes.

FBU votes not to reaffiliate to Labour

.
The Morning Star today reports that Firefighters union, The FBU, has voted overwhelmingly to remain disaffiliated from the Labour Party but pledged to return to the issue at next year's conference after "the widest possible debate and discussion."

FBU general secretary Matt Wrack said at their annual conference that it would be "premature to reaffiliate now. Rather, we ask for a period of discussion in which all sides can put their view. "Through engaging in such discussions, our membership will be more prepared to make an informed decision," he said. Mr Wrack claimed that disaffiliation has not "excluded us from the corridors of power and has not been as cataclysmic as some expected. We are still engaged in the political arena.

"Our relationship with FBU parliamentary chair John McDonnell operates on a number of levels and he has done outstanding work for this union. Our activists avidly read his parliamentary reports, especially on the trade union freedom Bill.

"And disaffiliation has not stopped us being involved in the campaign for a progressive Labour Party leader - the executive council has voted unanimously to support the McDonnell campaign," he reported.

Strathclyde delegate Jimmy Scott said that "our rulebook states that our ultimate goal is to bring about the socialist system of society. How are we furthering that goal by being affiliated to a party which has demonised refugees who are fleeing from countries that Britain has bombed?

"If we are to bring Labour back from the brink, we need to stand up and declare proudly and unashamedly that we are socialists," Mr Scott said.