No2EU: A step towards a workers' political voice

No2EU-Yes to Democracy held its launch seven weeks ago. Initiated by the railway workers' union - the RMT - this hastily constructed electoral alliance succeeded in winning 153,236 votes in the European elections on 4 June; 1% of the total cast. The combined left vote across Britain was 340,805, 2.25%.

Hannah Sell

No2EU-Yes to Democracy brought together the RMT, the Socialist Party, the Communist Party of Britain, the Socialist Alliance, the Alliance for Green Socialism, supporters of the CNWP, some branches of Respect, and others. Amongst its candidates were leaders of the most militant struggles in Britain this year including the convenors of the Enfield and Basildon Visteon plants, members of the Lindsey construction workers' strike committee, and Rob Williams, victimised convenor of the Linamar car components plant.

Many workers reached by No2EU were enthused by it. In the short time of its existence however, especially given the media blackout it suffered, No2EU was only able to make a very limited impact on the political consciousness of the mass of workers. No2EU has had more coverage in the capitalist media since election day than it had in the whole campaign!

Of course, no new left formation will be able to instantly gain the confidence of workers, even once it has gained visibility or 'recognition', workers will still rightly want to test it out in action over a period of time. The RMT is one of the most militant trade unions in Britain. Many of No2EU's candidates, not least the Socialist Party members, have a long and proud record of campaigning in the interests of the working class.

However, the campaign itself was very new. In these circumstances, convincing more than 150,000 people to vote for it indicates the possibilities that exist for the creation of a fighting left alternative. In areas where candidates had an established electoral record No2EU received higher results, polling 4.5% in Coventry, for example.

Given the little time there was to establish No2EU's profile, the name of the campaign was a certain disadvantage with some. It was very attractive to a layer of workers who are angry with the way European law is being used by employers and the government to undermine their pay and conditions - including the Lindsey construction workers who raised £400 to help fund No2EU. However, there were other workers - consciously looking for a left or socialist alternative - who if they had not heard about No2EU did not realise that this was what it represented. Undoubtedly some of these voted for Arthur Scargill's Socialist Labour Party (SLP), which polled slightly more than No2EU.

While still modest, the combined vote for the left was the highest ever on a national basis in a European election, and represents a step towards building independent political representation for the working class in Britain.

Many workers looking for a left alternative to New Labour will be understandably disappointed that there was more than one left list standing. Sometimes such clashes will be unavoidable; unfortunately the SLP were unwilling to come together in a common campaign for the European elections. However, the desire to create the strongest possible electoral voice for the working class is completely correct. No2EU was an electoral bloc that aimed to do just that - bring together different organisations around a common programme in order to maximise its electoral impact. The programme of No2EU was inevitably limited as a result, although not, as some have suggested, nationalist. On the contrary it called for 'international solidarity of working class people'.

At the same time, the different component organisations had complete freedom to produce their own material. The Socialist Party, for example, produced leaflets putting forward our socialist programme and explaining that our candidates, if elected, would only take a workers' wage.

A similar approach is needed in the general election. We want to make sure that - in as many seats as possible - socialist and working-class fighters are on offer as alternative to the establishment parties. The CNWP appeals to all trade unionists and socialists, including the SLP, who want to see such a challenge to work to create an electoral bloc on a bigger scale than No2EU was able to achieve.

Opposing the BNP

One of the main motivations for No2EU was a desire to provide a left alternative to the far-right racist BNP. It is clear that, in some working class communities significant sections of the population were so angry with all of the pro-big business establishment parties that they turned to the BNP, which is falsely posing as a party of the 'white working class'. In Barnsley, for example, traditionally a strong Labour area, the Labour vote collapsed from 45% to 25% and the BNP vote increased from 8% to 17%. In reality, as their opposition to last year's public sector strikes and the historic miners' strike shows, the BNP is anti-trade union and anti-strike, nor does it effectively challenge the domination of Britain by a tiny, massively wealthy, capitalist class.

However, the BNP will not be defeated by just pleading with workers not to vote for it. It is necessary to begin to create a mass party that genuinely stands in the interests of all workers, regardless of nationality. No2EU was a step towards creating such an alternative. In response to the results, Bob Crow, general secretary of the RMT and No 1 on the London list, put the blame for the BNP's gains firmly at the feet of the big "pro-business, pro-EU" parties and went on to point the way forward:

"Along with our colleagues from the SLP and other left groups we won nearly a third of a million votes. From No2EU we won over 150,000 supporters from a standing start in the teeth of a media blackout. That gives us a solid platform to build from. We now need urgent discussions with political parties, campaigns and our colleagues in other unions like the CWU to develop a political and industrial response to this crisis."

The CNWP believes that the next step has to be to build a workers' challenge to the establishment parties in the general election. Yet some have argued that No2EU was wrong to stand in the European elections, particularly in the North West, because, it is suggested, had No2EU voters voted Green, the racist BNP would not have been elected.

The reason that the BNP won two MEPs was the complete collapse of Labour's vote. As a result the BNP took two seats despite having a lower vote in both the North West and Yorkshire than in 2004.

Moreover, it is wrong to suggest that No2EU should have stood aside for the Greens. The Green Party nationally has never been willing to reach electoral agreements with socialist or left candidates, despite attempts by organizations on the left to discuss doing so with them.

If No2EU had simply stood aside it is wrong to image all of its voters would have transferred to the Greens. The majority of those who did vote Green undoubtedly saw them as a left alternative. At local level Green councillors have supported neoliberal anti-working class measures, but on a national basis, unlike in Germany or Ireland where they have entered neoliberal governments, they are as yet untested and are seen by some as 'left'.

However, in the North West, despite New Labour's vote collapsing compared to 2004 by more than 230,000, the Greens were only able to increase their vote by 10,000. In Yorkshire the Greens only increased their vote by 14,000.

Nationally the Green vote increased by more than half a million, but this was disproportionately concentrated in areas with a larger urban middle class. Across Yorkshire, Greens polled 104,000 compared to the BNP's 120,000.

However, the picture is not the same in the working class, deprived South Yorkshire towns where the BNP made the biggest gains. In Barnsley, where the BNP received 17% of the votes the Greens received 6%.

This is a reflection of the fact that the Greens are not seen by most workers as a party that stands in their interests, and are therefore not capable of cutting across the growth of the BNP.

No2EU was only one step towards creating a new mass workers' party that could cut across the BNP, but it was nonetheless important for that.

For the first time since the foundation of the Labour Party, a national trade union took the decision to stand, alongside others, in a national election on a left programme.

It was the duty of socialists to support such an initiative. The RMT has now established the idea that the labour movement can stand its own candidates in elections.

The civil servants' union, PCS, is currently discussing moving in a similar direction. All such steps should be encouraged.

When workers begin to find their own political voice it is the duty of socialists not to stand on the sidelines criticising, but to engage and work to make sure that those first steps can develop into a mass movement.

CWU members need a political voice

The return of Mandelson to the Government and the proposed privatisation of Royal Mail emanating from the Hooper Review should be the final confirmation to the leadership and activists in the CWU that the Unions relationship with Labour is an abusive one.

Judy Griffith, CWU (personal capacity)

For a decade the issue of funding of Labour has been the subject of discussion at the Communication Workers Union (CWU) Annual Conference. Varying degrees of support have been won for breaking the link with the Labour Party culminating in the 2008 conference agreeing to ballot CWU members over support for Labour if the government moves to privatise Royal Mail.

In light of Labours intent to carry privatisation through, conference policy should be implemented immediately with a recommendation by the NEC to vote to withdraw funding.
The issue of “what alternative?” has always been used by the leadership as the cover for remaining affiliated to Labour.
In moving Composite 101 calling for support for the CNWP from The Welsh Valleys and Coventry Branch at the 2008 conference I referred to the number of motions and rule changes appearing on the agenda that were critical of Labour and made the point that this government has acted as viciously towards the trade unions and workers rights as had the Tories.
In the postal dispute Brown made it abundantly clear to the CWU whose side he was on when he told striking postal workers to go back to work.

The Government pushed through ‘market freedom’ for the break up and privatisation of Royal Mail -something even Thatcher was scared to do. This allowed cheap-labour delivery firms to cream off profitable business, leaving Royal Mail with unprofitable parts, leading to the attack on pay and conditions.
From the minute MPs’ voted for that, a battle between the workers and government appointed bosses was inevitable as they sought to close Mail offices and reduce the workforce. The ‘relationship’ with Labour got us nowhere except a life or death battle for our union and jobs.
Now, precisely when the bankers ‘free market’ is most discredited Labour propose to privatise the Royal Mail! They want to leave the taxpayers with the debt and hand the profitable parts to private companies. They want to further hammer our conditions and our union.

Labour has voted for and continue to close Post Offices. Closing 2,600 by April 2008. We have to witness the hypocrisy of Labour MP’s (and now even Tories who closed 3,542 while in office) turning up to ‘protest’ at closures they have voted for! Like Tony Soprano when he covers his backside by attending the funerals of people he’s had bumped off! Saying one thing, but doing another, the government is at the forefront of these attacks on our union and it’s members.
Whilst the issue of Royal Mail Privatisation and Post Office Closures are key issues for the CWU so too are the wider issues of the Anti Union Laws, Privatisation, Cuts In Public Spending , Tuition Fees, Prescription charges, Privatisation of NHS Services and the lack of decent council housing.

In addition, BT which was privatised by the Tories has been left in private hands under Labour to be run by fat cats resulting today in cuts in pensions for BT employees, the proposed loss of 10.000 jobs in the industry and a pay freeze just to add to the misery. Agency workers have been dismissed overnight with a weeks notice, so much for the ‘Power Up For Agency Workers’ campaign. Workers in the outsourced and divested sector face the same attacks in many cases from a weaker position as they struggle to retain union recognition.

The unions’ policy on Public Ownership of the Telecommunications Industry once again has been ignored by the union when considering its political strategy.

Any remaining doubt that the funding of Labour is in any way beneficial to our members in the CWU must now surely be cast aside. While some in the leadership may still believe that there is no alternative, this position is becoming more and more difficult for them to defend.
If individual members and activists in the CWU wish to remain in the Labour Part

y, including the General Secretary who has stated that he “will die in the Labour Party” then that is their prerogative, however it should not be the determining factor in relation to the political strategy of a union that faces thousands of job losses across the Postal, Telecoms and Financial Services Sector.

The leadership of the CWU in referring to the proposed job losses and the financial position of the union have raised merger with other unions as the solution to secure the unions’ financial stability.

The real alternative surely would be to stop financing Labour to the tune of millions of pounds, and to launch a huge political campaign jointly with other unions such as the RMT, PCS, FBU and POA etc to begin to construct a New Workers Party to contest elections. One that could provide an alternative to the current main parties who all ultimately defend capitalism and the private sector which is so spectacularly failing the working people of Britain and the world.

This is the alternative that is required to provide our members and workers generally who have not bothered voting or have turned to the BNP to protest at being ignored by Labour.
Given EU laws are the fig leaf Labour ministers hide behind to justify privatising the Post Office it would clearly have made sense for the CWU to support the RMT-initiated No2EU – Yes to Democracy European elections list with its anti privatisation and pro workers rights stance and mobilise our members behind it. The CWU should be at the forefront of ensuring that a workers’ alternative such as this is offered at a general election when it comes.

Dave Ward the Deputy General Secretary of the union made the point at the National Protest against Royal Mail Privatisation in Wolverhampton on the 14th March when he said that “there is a need for a political alternative to what is currently on offer and it doesn’t necessarily have to be through Labour” this to huge cheers from the crowd.

The issue will be on the agenda again at the 2009 conference, by then however the union should already have carried out the mandate from 2008 conference and have balloted its members. Failure to do this would be extremely damaging for the current leadership of the union as the onslaught of job cuts and privatisation takes its full hold.

Unions no longer have a political voice and face 3 establishment parties who oppose us. Currently the union gives money to the Labour Party, but what for when they vote to attack us? When they keep the most anti union laws in the western world that make it harder for us to fight to defend our conditions?

Trades Unions should work for new party to stand up for working people, a party that would stand up for the millions not the millionaires. The CWU should be playing its’ part in building such an alternative.

For a workers' alternative to the bosses' parties

THE NATIONAL UNION of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers (RMT) has initiated an electoral alliance for the European elections that will be contesting all of the seats in England, Wales and Scotland in the elections on 4 June. This is a temporary platform for the European elections, entitled No2EU-Yes to Democracy, with initial support from the RMT, Socialist Party, Solidarity–Scotland’s Socialist Movement, the Indian Workers’ Association, the Communist Party of Britain (CPB), the Morning Star newspaper, the Socialist Alliance, the Campaign for a New Workers’ Party and others.

The Campaign for a New Workers’ Party’s steering committee urges all CNWP members to support No2EU-Yes to democracy. This is the first time since the formation of the Labour Party that a trade union has taken an electoral initiative on an all-Britain scale. The transformation of the Labour Party from a workers’ party at base – albeit with a capitalist leadership – into an unalloyed party of big business has left the working class without a mass party for well over a decade. The absence of such a party has been a central factor in holding back the confidence of workers to struggle in defence of their pay and conditions. The fact that the RMT has taken this step, however tentative, is therefore enormously positive.

The candidates for No2EU-Yes to Democracy include leaders of the Lindsey oil refinery construction workers who went on strike in January and of the Visteon car components workers currently blockading their factories. Bob Crow, general secretary of the RMT, will be heading the list in London, and a number of RMT regional officers will be standing around the country. Coventry Socialist Party councillor and CNWP chair Dave Nellist heads the list in the West Midlands. In the North West, the regional UNISON NEC representative and CNWP secretary, Roger Bannister, is heading the list. In Scotland, Tommy Sheridan is second on the list. Other candidates include car workers fighting job losses, postal workers resisting privatisation, health workers, teachers, fire-fighters and other public-sector workers. This list offers an alternative to the pro-capitalist parties, and its candidate lists are dominated by some of the most combative sections of the working class in Britain today.

No to the BNP

The campaign is partially motivated by an understanding of the urgent need to provide an alternative to the far-right racist British National Party (BNP). There is a real danger that the BNP could capitalise on the anger with New Labour and succeed in winning one or more MEPs in this election. The BNP will never be cut across by bland campaigns pleading with people not to vote for racists. The implication of such campaigns is that workers should vote for the pro-capitalist parties in order to stop the BNP. Only the development of a genuine working-class alternative, combined with a serious campaign against the BNP, will be able to effectively undermine them. This electoral initiative is taking an important step in that direction by offering a left, anti-EU alternative.

Keep Britain out of the eurozone

The programme of No2EU-Yes to Democracy is limited. Nevertheless, it seeks to oppose the European Union (EU) from a working-class, non-nationalist standpoint. The EU has not been central in most workers’ minds up to the present time. However, recent developments have made it more of an issue, at least amongst those workers who have been directly affected, and perhaps increasingly amongst a wider layer. It was central to the Lindsey construction workers’ strike. It was under the EU Posted Workers Directive and subsequent European Court of Justice (ECJ) rulings that the Italian-registered company, IREM, was able to employ workers not covered by the union-enforced national construction industry agreements.

No2EU’s programme takes up the different aspects of the EU’s neo-liberal laws. These laws arise from the support of this government, and all European governments, for neo-liberal anti-working class policies. EU laws provide them with an additional lever with which to drive through their pro-big business programmes. For example, the EU's public spending criteria gave New Labour an excuse to privatise capital projects like new schools and hospitals, by means of private finance initiatives and the disastrous public-private partnership on London Underground, which increase the costs of public services and subsidise corporate profits. The government’s plan for the part-privatisation of Royal Mail, the first step to its complete sell-off, is linked to the EU’s 2007 Postal Services Directive to introduce a deregulated postal services market.

Step forward

In Britain we do not yet have a new mass left party – or a significant step towards one such as exists in Germany, France and Greece. However, we are faced with an important beginning. We have the leadership of a militant trade union that is prepared to take the responsibility for initiating the development of a political voice for working people – at least in the European elections – that will oppose all the capitalist parties and provide an alternative to the far-right, racist BNP. They will undoubtedly face attack from the capitalist media for daring to stand up. All those who are serious about building a new mass workers’ party should offer every assistance in ensuring the campaign is a success.

What do union members get from Labour link?

A growing number of left activists in the trade unions are frustrated with the continued financial and political links between the unions and the Labour Party. This is hardly surprising given the attacks on working-class people carried out since Blair's New Labour government was elected in 1997.

A UNISON member

Privatisation of the NHS and other public services continues at a frightening pace, funding for local government has been cut, welfare benefits have been slashed and public-sector workers have had their pay held down, all to pay for the growing crisis in the capitalist economy.

In reality, though, the mood of a layer of activists about the Labour link drags behind that of the union rank and file, most of whom no longer see the Labour Party as a political voice for the working class. This can be seen in the good votes gained for candidates in union elections who call for the link to be broken.

But with a few notable exceptions, the union leaderships are reluctant to abandon Labour. Unwilling to face political reality, they exaggerate both the differences between Labour and the Tories and the importance of the 'concessions' they have got from Labour. These concessions are exemplified in the 2004 Warwick Agreement and subsequent agreements. Many clauses in these deals are minimal and some are laughable in the light of events.

The commitment to work in Europe "for the introduction of employment protection for temporary and agency workers" rings hollow when you consider the massive pressure on Labour MEPs from Downing Street to oppose the ending of the UK's opt-out from the European Working Time Directive. This has forced many temporary (and permanent) workers to work in excess of 44 hours a week.

Equally contradictory is the agreement to "engage in effective dialogue over the future of public-sector pensions". In March 2006, local government workers had to resort to a massive strike in defence of the local government pension scheme.

Public-sector union Unison has described the government's agreed protection against a two-tier public sector workforce (due to privatisation) as a lottery, and recently conducted a survey of Unison branches to ascertain just how meaningless it is.

Yet many of the union leaders talk vaguely about the need to "reclaim" Labour, with no plan, nor any programme to set about this. In fact, at Labour's last conference the trade unions actually agreed to reduce their voting influence at the conference!

Many trade union leaders actually prefer the fact that the power of conference has been replaced by the 'behind the scenes' activity of the Policy Forum, where they can hobnob with ministers and party big-wigs.

Lost members

Labour has lost millions of members, most of them drifting away disillusioned. Its constituency parties are largely dead, engaging in little local activity. Any that still have the temerity to move against right-wing MPs face suspension and/or witch-hunts of activists.

For example the Labour Party national executive recently suspended East Lothian constituency Labour Party after it passed a motion of no confidence in its Labour MP, former Unison president Ann Moffat.

The trade union leaders are stuck between the devil and the deep blue sea. They know that New Labour is a lost cause for the working class, but they are frightened of the alternative.

A new democratic party of the left would draw in precisely the left activists that they fear within their own organisations, those socialists who are being witch-hunted in Unison for example.

Knowing how unpopular the link with Labour is, the union leaders often attempt undemocratic, bureaucratic manoeuvres to prevent debate on this issue within their own unions. This is the case in Unison.

The Fire Brigades Union pulled out of financing the Labour Party following the Labour government's attitude to its national strike, the RMT was expelled from Labour for supporting the Scottish Socialist Party, and the PCS has recently set up a political fund on the basis that it will not be used to support Labour.

What is now needed to boost the campaign for a genuine, left political voice outside Labour is for unions such as these to call together trade union and community activists, and others on the left.

They should discuss the current political situation with a view to establishing a broad anti-cuts, pro-public service platform to start to mount electoral challenges to Labour from the left.

Such a move would serve as a pole of attraction to shop stewards and other union activists, renewing the campaigns within the unions to withdraw support from Labour.

The Campaign for a New Workers' Party (CNWP) was launched by socialists, trade unionists, community campaigners and young people who had had enough of the establishment parties and wanted to fight for a working-class political voice.

It is pushing for Labour Party affiliated unions to break the link with the Labour Party and is popularising the idea of a new, independent mass party for working people.

A new mass workers' party would play an important role in linking up many different struggles taking place across the country and giving more working people the confidence to fight back.

Labour's abandoning of the working class

Increasingly, the media and politicians talk about the 'disadvantage suffered by white working-class people', and the need to 'listen to their concerns'. Hazel Blears, the government's Communities Secretary, says New Labour should fight to win back support in white working-class communities that feel abandoned by all mainstream political parties, in order to halt the rise of the far-right, racist British National Party (BNP).

Naomi Byron

But rather than change its policies - like reversing privatisation, ending the housing shortage by a massive expansion in council housing or socialist nationalisation to save jobs - New Labour is cynically playing the race card.

Instead of listening to the real concerns of working people, these big business politicians are going along with the sensationalist and divisive way that the media has begun talking about the "white working-class" as something separate and distinct from working-class people of other races.

A useful report by the Runnymede Trust refutes the false 'racialisation' of these issues and pointed out that from housing to education to health "where the white working-class are losing out, it is to the wealthy rather than to migrants or minority ethnic groups."

Contrary to media headlines that white working-class boys are losing out dramatically to black and minority ethnic groups in the same income bracket when it comes to GCSE results, the biggest gap by far in education results is social class.

Wendy Bottero, one of the report's contributors, points out: "We should look at the impact of the closure of the manufacturing industries which once dominated working-class communities; the neo-liberal deregulation of the labour market which has made their jobs less secure; the sponsoring of middle-class advantage through 'parental choice' of schools and the marketisation of education; the sell-off of council housing which concentrates the most disadvantaged in the remaining estates; and the stalling of incomes and expenditure at the bottom of society while the wealth of the rich rockets."

The current media debate, says the trust report, "exaggerates the differences between ethnic groups and masks what they hold in common. By stressing the whiteness of the white working-class, the class inequality of other ethnic groups also slips from view.

"This sidesteps the real issue of class inequality, focusing on how disadvantaged groups compete for scarce resources, rather than exploring how that scarcity is shaped in the first place. If we really want to understand disadvantage, we need to shift our attention from who fights over the scraps from the table, to think instead about how much the table holds, and who really gets to enjoy the feast."

Working-class people of all races and backgrounds have no organised political voice and are marginalised, frustrated and angry. The real question is what can be done about it. That is why we are fighting for a new workers' party that can act as a channel for working people to take collective action to defend our rights and fight for a better future.

Divisions

Attempts to whip up the racial divide between working-class people are extremely dangerous, and must be fought. The only rights and improvements working-class people have won have been through our own collective struggle. The fight against racism and division is an absolutely essential part of this. The question of racism, particularly racist discrimination in the workplace and attacks against black and Asian people, is still a burning issue and one that needs to be taken up by the whole workers' movement.

Racism is deeply rooted in capitalism because the profit system makes use of 'divide and rule'. The more big business and the media succeed in creating resentment and division along racial lines, the harder it is for working people to fight back and improve our lives.

The more the main parties try to play the race card to prop up their collapsing votes, the easier it is for poisonous groups like the BNP to look respectable, gain support, and divide working people further. Help us in building a genuine alternative for all working people in the form of a new mass workers' party.

The working class needs its own mass party

The following is a report by Dave Carr of the discussion forum on working class political representation hosted by the Campaign for a new Workers' Party recently as part of Socialism 2008.

The closing rally of Socialism 2008, hosted by the Campaign for a New Workers' Party (CNWP), was on the theme of the fight for a working class political voice. Chairing the rally was Save Huddersfield NHS Kirklees councillor Jackie Grunsell.

The first speaker, chair of the CNWP and Socialist Party councillor Dave Nellist, highlighted the damaging legacy of eleven years of New Labour's big business agenda - wars, unemployment, economic insecurity and a massive wealth gap.

Dave attacked the return of sleazy Peter Mandelson as a government business minister. He referred to Mandelson on his appointment as effectively saying: 'I want to start where I left off - with the privatisation of the Post Office'. Dave demanded that the trade unions, who have funded New Labour that in return attacks pay and conditions, end their political affiliation.

Kevin Ovenden, a national leader of Respect, congratulated the Socialism 2008 organisers for their prescience in advertising the event with the subhead 'Marx was right' in advance of the current financial crisis! He spoke about the victims of this capitalist crisis, pointing out the extreme levels of poverty in inner city areas like Tower Hamlets where Respect has elected councillors and the MP George Galloway.

He said that Respect, which emerged from the anti-Iraq war movement, has had a difficult year because of its split with the SWP faction and recognised that Respect is not the 'finished article' in terms of working-class political representation.

Comedian and socialist Mark Steel started by saying that the biggest enemy on the left was cynicism - that the world can't be changed. But, following the election of Barack Obama, everyone believes it can - even reactionaries like George Bush!

Mark went on to criticise what he considered to be the failure of the socialist left - its failure to embrace small campaigning groups and propensity to "squabble".

Unfortunately, Mark Serwotka, general secretary of the PCS civil servants' union was too ill to attend.

Hannah Sell, deputy general secretary of the Socialist Party, said one of the main obstacles to convincing broader layers to subscribe to the idea of building a new party and fighting for socialism is summed up by sympathetic people we meet who say "But can you really change anything?" Of course, the massive events of the last few weeks have radically changed people's political consciousness, namely, the crisis in capitalism and Obama's victory.
Hannah contrasted the government's £500 billion bank bailout with the union pay demands of all public sector workers which amount to only £5 billion - which the government says it cannot afford.

On the question of disagreements on the left, Hannah emphasised that striving for unity is very important but that in the course of this socialists must learn the lessons of previous failures to build new workers' parties to avoid repeating the same mistakes.

On the question of a new workers' party, the left trade union leaders have a vital role to play.
They can begin by calling a conference of trade unionists to discuss the need for workers' political representation.

Hannah concluded by saying: "the wave of capitalist triumphalism of the last 20 years has ended. We're now entering a new period in history where the ideas of Marxism will be embraced by mass movements of the working class."

Videos of this discussion forum are being hosted on the Socialist Party's website and can be viewed here.

Building a new workers' party: Trade unionist initiative needed

A number of left trade union leaders have recognised that the Labour Party in councils and in government is not going to stop trying to push through privatisation, cuts and other attacks on workers' pay and conditions. Some of them have drawn the conclusion that a new workers' party is necessary, but they have not yet taken early steps towards building such a party.

John McInally, vice-president of the Public and Commercial Services union (PCS), argues here - in a personal capacity - the need for the left trade union leaders to organise a conference later this year or early next year to discuss what steps could be taken. John is a member of the Socialist Party.

"The eleven years of Labour have been absolutely fantastic for the super-rich. Having a friendly Labour government has almost been better than a Tory one". If you wanted to sum up the record of the New Labour government then this statement from Philip Beresford, author of The Rich List, needs little elaboration.

In fact there is an arguable case that says New Labour is better for the super-rich than a Tory government. More privatisation has taken place under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown than under Margaret Thatcher and John Major combined.

Inequality is greater now than when New Labour came to power, the wealth of the super-rich has trebled, the multinationals and banks have made profits hand over fist and an unprecedented assault on public services has taken place.

Plus of course there has been the imperialist war in Iraq, which, amongst other things is the costliest and bloodiest privatisation in history.

The "moral compass" Brown claims he is guided by, looks catastrophically askew - there is not just the unforgivable privatisation of education, including the encouragement of creationists to 'educate' our children, but the promotion of the 'me first' unrestrained consumerism of a society falling deeper into crisis.

Corruption and sleaze

New Labour has been a sorry tale of corruption and sleaze. No lie is too big to tell; Brown's assertion that there would be no more 'boom or bust' is one of the worst examples, especially as he was aware that the boom for which he took credit, was based on unsustainable levels of cheap credit and ruthless exploitation of cheap immigrant labour. On the latter point, Brown fuelled racism with his call for 'British jobs for British workers', a slogan of the far-right British National Party.

In pursuing its "war on terror", also a major element in stoking up racism, New Labour has driven through some of the most oppressive legislation ever, that will be ruthlessly used against the labour and trade union movement at some future stage.

The Labour Party was never a socialist party but it was formed by the trade unions and workers saw it as the best vehicle for representing their interests; they saw it as 'theirs'.
Labour governments established the National Health Service and introduced other social advances, albeit in response to pressure as a result of struggle by workers on the industrial and political front. Socialists and Marxists played a crucial role in these struggles, something that has been airbrushed from history in the interests of the ruling class and labour and trade union 'leaders'.

New Labour will not be reclaimed by the working class. Even if the diminishing band of activists who think it can be rescued toiled for decades, they could never achieve their objective, not least because the democratic structures that may at one time have made such an endeavour possible have been completely shattered. There is no credible basis upon which to argue the Labour Party is reclaimable. To do so is a distraction from, and a barrier to, the task of developing an alternative form of political representation. Investing further precious time and energy in pursuing this unobtainable goal is a waste of time and a fetter to building a genuine alternative.

The biggest obstacles to the development of such a political alternative are the leaders of the New Labour-affiliated unions and the Trades Union Congress (TUC), whose behaviour in the face of New Labour has been craven. They argue that we must concentrate on avoiding the re-election of a Tory government, ignoring the fact that New Labour is no longer capable of beating the Tories precisely because it has carried out unpopular 'Tory' policies.

Even during the long eighteen years of the Thatcher/Major regimes, the trade union leaders closest to the Labour 'modernisers' like Neil Kinnock argued we must not take strike action because it would damage the chances of the return of a Labour government.

Disgracefully, they stood to one side during the great miners' strike of 1984/5, collecting money and making fine speeches, but eschewing the type of solidarity industrial action that would have finished off Thatcher. They also tried to disrupt and sabotage the tremendous non-payment battle against the poll tax, arguing that we must 'obey the law' as otherwise no future Labour government could govern with credibility and authority.

The majority of national trade union leaders have accepted the logic of the market and can conceive of no alternative to pro-big business governments. Unfortunately, this is even true of some who were seen as part of the 'awkward squad'

Yet New Labour has given the union leaders virtually nothing in return for their support, for instance Brown has firmly declared there will be no relaxation of the anti-trade union laws. As private sector donors desert Labour and with the party virtually bankrupt financially as well as in every other respect, the unions are expected to foot the bill - currently 92% of funding comes from affiliated unions.

Instead of using this leverage to insist on even the most minimal concessions to help working people, the union leaders incredibly are content to allow the pro-market agenda to continue, hoping desperately that a few scraps might be flung in their direction.

The tremendous industrial potential of the trade union movement has been held in check and concessions left unclaimed by those leaders who argue there is no alternative to Labour.

Action gets results

The recent tanker drivers' strike demonstrated that while the industrial working class has shrunk, its impact and effectiveness can still be enormous. However, in recent times the main arena for struggle has been in the public sector, with left, campaigning leaderships like those in the PCS (Public and Commercial Services union) and RMT (Rail Maritime and Transport union) taking the lead. It is there that workers are learning the fundamental truth that if you do nothing the bosses and government will walk all over you and that campaigning works and action gets results.

The PCS's record under the leadership of general secretary Mark Serwotka, president Janice Godrich, and the Left Unity leadership, with the Socialist Party playing a key role, has demonstrated political and industrial campaigning work based on and underpinned by a willingness to take action when required.

Where action is deliverable, effective and sustainable, it can build workers' confidence and wrest concessions. There is an alternative to bending the knee.

The consistent campaigning record of unions like PCS and RMT throws into sharp relief the failure of the Labour affiliated union leaders who are incapable of even securing the easing of the anti-trade union laws. Even on the question of agency workers and on issues of basic equality, equal pay for example, New Labour has pulled up the drawbridge and told the Labour-affiliated unions: 'you have no alternative, it is us or the Tories'.

There is now a real need to move to begin to build a viable and sustainable alternative to Labour capable of starting the process of offering working people the type of political representation they need and deserve.

As a first step, a conference must be held of all those who support and are committed to building such an alternative. In doing so we cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of the last decade where a series of initiatives have failed; the Scottish Socialist Party, the Socialist Labour Party, the Socialist Alliance and Respect being the most obvious examples.

Any new configuration promising political representation to workers cannot simply be announced as an accomplished fact that demands the immediate allegiance of workers, but instead must be patiently built and tested. To be successful, some very basic, minimal, but critical conditions are needed.

Firstly the trade unions have an important role to play. This does not necessarily mean, at this stage, the complete endorsement or affiliation of any trade union.
What is required is the support and endorsement of genuine left socialist leaders and activists in the trade union movement and their engagement in building such a formation. We should also see this process as being predicated on a commitment to stand trade union based candidates in elections.

Secondly, the task of building such an organisation needs to begin with an alliance agreed around a minimum but extensive programme capable of attracting millions of workers to its banner. In the Socialist Party's opinion this should include a socialist clause. However, this, along with the other demands, would be decided by democratic discussion among the forces involved.

There is no contradiction in the expressions 'minimum' and 'extensive'. Minimum, in the sense that some issues almost pick themselves and around which agreement can be secured. But extensive in the sense that such a programme, if fought for and achieved, would mean tremendous steps forward for working people. The programme must address what needs to be done to defend workers' interests but also define and articulate their hopes and aspirations.

Demands

Such demands would surely include: opposition to cuts, privatisation, war, fascism, racism, nuclear weapons and destruction of the environment; for a living wage for all, a properly funded welfare state with well-paid and trained staff delivering vital services in communities where they live and work; repeal of the anti-trade union laws; and international workers' solidarity.
Thirdly, if the left is serious about building a genuine and sustainable alternative then we must say upfront and without mincing our words that the lessons of history must be learnt; in creating any such alliance there can be no place whatsoever for the destructive rule or ruin tactics that have characterised the dead ends of recent years.

An undemocratic, top-down approach will not work. The young people who are becoming active in struggle in the 21st century, correctly have a horror of bureaucracy.

Their experience of the betrayals of New Labour and the right-wing trade union leaders, combined with the effects of the collapse of the Soviet Union - which capitalism worldwide falsely equated with genuine socialism - mean that democracy is particularly vital to the new generation.

It is crucial that a new formation be open and welcoming to all those who want to work together against the neo-liberal onslaught on the working class. It must be based on a federal structure where groups and individuals have the right to democratically organise and argue for their position. Differences cannot be airbrushed away but neither can they be the most prominent feature that defines a new configuration.

Where one organisation is initially numerically dominant, we need to find ways to make sure that the views of other significant currents and trends are heard and that consensus is sought on key issues.

Trade union involvement would be vital in providing a real sense of 'discipline in action' of the type that should apply in the best examples of industrial action - concentration on priorities, and debate without the type of sectarian demoralisation that sometimes targets even the best left union leaders rather than employers and the political establishment.

This is especially important in setting out clear and disciplined campaigning work.

Union involvement

Who then should be involved in such an initiative? Given acceptance of the points outlined above then there is surely no reason why any organisation should exclude itself. It would be naïve to suggest that all would be plain sailing. But active trade union involvement would greatly increase the chance of developing an effective organisation that is intent on sharply focusing on the programme that workers see as relevant to their day-to-day lives.

What about those left Labour MPs who have tried to keep the socialist flag flying amidst the corruption of New Labour? They also should be involved in building alternative political representation for workers.

Some of these MPs argue that it is best they remain in the Labour Party for the foreseeable future because they at least provide some limited representation for workers and trade unions in parliament and to lose that platform would be a setback. However, by remaining inside Labour they give a degree of credibility and 'left cover' to a party that is antagonistic to the interests of the working class and is, to put it bluntly, an enemy.

Secondly, it is simply wrong to assume, as some do, that if such MPs stood under the banner of a trade union based organisation in the future then they would automatically lose their seats.
On the contrary some of these MPs - who have built up considerable capital with activists and workers by opposing the New Labour project - could very well, standing on a programme such as that outlined above, not only win their seats but be highly effective tribunes for building the alternative to the rotten political establishment New Labour is now a torch-bearer for.

Building an alternative to New Labour is not, and cannot be, a risk free business. But the greater risk by far, is failing to recognise that the main historical and political task currently in front of socialists is to build a political alternative. Hesitation now in firmly espousing that cause can only be a fetter, or at least an impediment, to building an alternative, no matter how unintentionally.
The debate will continue on these and other matters. But it is clearly now time to organise a conference that, while focusing on the industrial issues facing workers and the unions, is also capable of addressing the key task of beginning the process of developing effective political representation. A key aim should be standing candidates as outlined above.

To avoid this issue would be an abdication of responsibility and would disappoint and disorient the more politically conscious workers in the trade unions and working class. To pose the question of what is required, how to develop the struggle politically as well as industrially, but then dodge the only real answer - building a mass political alternative to represent the interests of our class in the way the parties of the political establishment represent the bosses and the millionaires - is no longer an option.

There should be no extended delay in organising such a conference, but it is important to get it right.

That indicates informal discussion between interested groups, but especially left leaders in unions like PCS, RMT and undoubtedly others, to set out the basis of the conference and hopefully have an aim of holding it at the end of this year or early next year.

Socialists should be clear that such an initiative will incur the wrath of New Labour and the leaders of the affiliated unions (especially when they see their own best activists expressing support for such a development) and even in unions like PCS there will be opposition.
But without political representation we cannot effectively defend the interests of union members, let alone those of workers generally, never mind achieve what we deserve and need.

The case for building alternative political representation for working people is unanswerable and the task set out by history can no longer be avoided.