Welsh Labour Takes the Fight to the Tories

By Nick Davies 

Welsh Labour Conference is a strange beast. Despite the  matey atmosphere and the relative lack of political distance between the AMs and members, it’s still a controlled environment. Substantive policy issues  are shunted off to the Welsh Policy Forum, and if it’s an election year, which is usual, conference  generally consists of a sequence  of  prepared  speeches by MPs, AMs or candidates.  For more reflective political discussion, conference-goers need to make their way to the Welsh Labour Grassroots fringe meeting. This year’s conference was a little different, however.

Ed Miliband’s speech praised Labour’s record in Wales, while gliding over the fact that on education policy, Tristram Hunt is nearer  to Michael Gove than to his Welsh counterpart Huw Lewis. The one significant announcement was that a Labour government would introduce legislation so that, like in Scotland, power would be assumed to lie with the Welsh administration unless reserved to Westminster, as opposed to the present arrangement in which powers have to be specifically conferred on Wales. Behind this arcane-sounding formulation is an important principle: it would strengthen the ability of the Welsh government to act in defence of the people of Wales without interference from Westminster, such as the Attorney-General’s attempt to use the courts to prevent the Welsh government retaining the Agricultural Wages Board. 

The real red meat came  later. For months now there has been an increasingly bitter and hateful attack on the  record of the Welsh government by the Tories in London and their media allies. The motivation is to distract attention from their own  project of effectively privatising the NHS in England and to attack what they see as the threat of a good example: the Bevanite NHS Wales, community comprehensive schools and  government  help  for students with higher education. It’s difficult to say there’s no alternative to Con-Dem policies when they are at the other end of the M4. Grant Shapps has admitted that the Tories are using Wales as part of their general election strategy; presumably, attacking one of the devolved legislatures in the United Kingdom is part of their plan to win back UKIP voters!

First Minister Carwyn Jones went  to war on the Tories’ ‘War on Wales’,  setting the record straight on the Welsh government’s performance on health, education and job creation. Health  Minister Mark Drakeford followed with a warning to Cameron that he had picked an argument ‘on the wrong topic, in the wrong place and with the wrong people’. This belligerence from the Welsh government is welcome and it contrasts notably with the attitude of  Welsh MPs.

The phrase ‘fork in the road’ came up repeatedly. The next general election will, or should, be about what  kind of society we live in.  Wales cannot afford another year of the Tories, let alone another five after that. That prospect is disturbingly likely if Labour fails to prevent a clear alternative to the Tories. It is up to Welsh Labour, in combatting Tory smears and lies, to present that alternative.

This article appears in the current issue of Labour Briefing magazine.

NHS Wales: the threat of a good example

By Darren Williams

It is clear that Welsh public services – and especially the NHS – will be a key battleground in the next UK general election, as Westminster Tory politicians invoke the supposed shortcomings of the Welsh model in an attempt to justify their own ‘reforms’.

While English health care is increasingly fractured, marketised and handed over to the private sector, devolution has allowed Wales to restore the NHS to its original Bevanite vision, albeit in an updated form. Even before the UK coalition took office, Welsh Labour was following a very different approach from Westminster – abolishing the internal market introduced by the Major government, rejecting PFI, foundation hospital and independent sector treatment centres and scrapping prescription charges.

The Tories are therefore desperate to be able to rubbish Wales’ service delivery. Writing in The Spectator, Bristol Tory MP Charlotte Leslie described Wales as ‘a Labourite utopia of state supremacy with none of the so-called evils of alternative providers getting in the way of the tight grip of the state’. And the Tory chairman Grant Shapps told the Western Mail that service failures in Wales would be help up to warn people elsewhere the UK what would happen if Ed Miliband were to enter Downing Street.
Jeremy Hunt recently told Parliament that there had been a 10% increase in Welsh patients attending English A&E departments since 2010, suggesting that Welsh service failures were putting greater pressure on the NHS in England. The Welsh Health Minister, Mark Drakeford, pointed out on the Today programme, however, that attendances at A&E had increased by 11% across the country over the same period and it would be nonsensical to attribute increases in Newcastle or Nottingham to Welsh patients. Moreover there had been a 10% increase by English patients at Welsh A&E units, reflecting simply the ‘long and porous border’ between the two countries.

The Tories have also made much of an email sent last December by the English Chief Medical Officer, Sir Bruce Keogh, to the deputy chief medical officer in Wales, saying that he had given data that suggested there may be grounds for concern about mortality rates at certain Welsh hospitals. The email had been obtained by Charlotte Leslie and formed the basis of hostile coverage in the Telegraph, Mail and Express. In the face of such a concerted campaign – ‘a cynical, deliberate’ attempt ‘to drag the reputation of the Welsh NHS through the mud for nakedly political purposes’ in Mark Drakeford’s words – the Welsh minister has patiently attempted to point out that Keogh’s email did not give his personal view as to the seriousness or otherwise of Welsh mortality rates, and that the UK Statistics Authority has advised that the available data do not provide for safe comparisons between the countries of the UK.
The Tories’ relentless attack has also drowned out the many facts that show the Welsh NHS in a more favourable light. For example, waiting times for cancer patients are much shorter in Wales than in England, the experience of cancer patients is better, delayed transfers of care are at a ten-year low and Wales’ cardiac survival times top the  European league.

The Welsh NHS is, of course, far from perfect, as Drakeford is quick to acknowledge – and it faces growing challenges as a result of the UK government cuts. But, even in such difficult times, Wales continues to lead the way with legislation introducing a life-saving system of presumed consent for organ donation; obliging restaurants and takeaways to display prominently their food hygiene ratings; and seeking to recover treatment costs from companies that have exposed their workers to asbestos (the latter is being considered by the Supreme Court after being challenged by the insurance industry).

Unfortunately, Labour in Westminster is sometimes slow to defend Wales’ record, and the Cynon Valley MP Ann Clwyd, has, in effect, a become a mouthpiece for Tory attacks, after her concerns over her dying husband’s treatment in a Cardiff hospital led to her appointment by Cameron to advise on the handling of complaints.

Whatever its faults, the NHS in Wales represents the demonstrably fair and viable alternative to the privatised Tory model and, as such, it should be defended by socialists.

This article first appeared in Labour Briefing magazine.

What happened to the Clear Green Water?

By Nick Davies

Throughout the history of devolved Welsh government, a distinctive theme of Welsh Labour and, therefore, of Welsh government policy has been a commitment to sustainability. This commitment was pursued most energetically by the former minister Jane Davidson under whom, between 2007 and 2011, sustainability had its own cabinet portfolio.

Since then as the gap between rhetoric and reality has grown ever wider, there appears to be a real risk of that commitment being misunderstood as simply ‘the environment’ – something to be bolted on, rather than baked in.  Without a real understanding of what it is, sustainability looks in danger, in the present grim period, of  being  repeatedly trumped  by a  perceived need to create jobs at any cost and therefore effectively abandoned as an effective driver of policy.

The Government of Wales Act 2006 imposed on Welsh government ministers a duty to make a scheme setting out how they proposed to promote sustainable development. ‘One Wales, One Planet’ was the result. This had as its aim a sustainable Wales using only its fair share of the earth’s resources; sustainable development was the overarching strategic aim, cutting across all policies, programmes and ministerial portfolios. Sustainable development was to be the central organising principle of the Welsh government and of the public sector throughout Wales.

At the start of the 4th Assembly, speaking on the Welsh Government’s flagship Sustainable Development Bill which sought to put the scheme into effect. Carwyn Jones pronounced that sustainability was at the heart of the Welsh government’s agenda for Wales and of his government’s legislative programme. In 2013, he announced that an independent body would be created to provide guidance, expertise and advice to ensure that sustainable development would become, as intended, the central organising principle.

Since 1999 has been possible to criticise the gap between aspiration and achievement, the lack of mainstreaming, the apparent reluctance (or inability, given the weak and unstable devolution settlement) of the Welsh Government to intervene effectively, in defence of its own professed political principles as against Westminster or local authorities – issues such as Ffos y Ffran, the open-cast mine near Merthyr Tydfil, spring readily to mind. However, what was present was a greater understanding, certainly than in Westminster, of what sustainability means and a commitment to genuinely sustainable policies, a commitment which won high praise in environmental and ecological circles well used to governments falling short of promises and expectations.

However, according to the previously well-disposed Jonathan Porritt, writing in The Guardian: ‘despite the laudable aims behind Wales’s sustainability bill there is now a serious risk that it could be watered down by nervous civil servants and lawyers who are under pressure from backward looking elements in government, industry and the public sector’. While still happy to contrast favourably Wales’ record with that of Westminster (he cites the coalition government’s abolition of the Sustainable Development Commission) he strikes a note of caution, stating that carbon emissions are still too high, progress on renewal energy held up by a ‘slow planning system’ and progress at government level being ‘patchy’; in particular, sustainable ideas need to be taken more seriously in relation to economic development. Most fundamentally, according to Porritt, under the proposals for the bill, then out for consultation, the duty to be imposed on ministers was not sufficiently onerous and the meaning of sustainability was not sufficiently defined.

Anne Meikle of WWF Cymru  has also highlighted  the gulf developing  between the Welsh government’s own narrative and what the proposed legislation actually says, pointing out that the white paper requires only that ‘consideration (my emphasis) of the effect on  the social, economic and environmental well-being of Wales will be a fundamental requirement of the duty so that decisions are informed by the likely effects on each and the integration between them’  Presumably, having ‘considered’ something, the duty is then done.

In a retrograde step, the 2013 reshuffle saw the end of the Sustainability portfolio, John Griffiths moving to Culture and Sport, taking part of his responsibilities with him. (Alun Davies has the ‘other half’ of the Sustainability portfolio, ‘Natural Resources and Food’). An illustration of how this has involved a loss of focus on sustainability was that department’s ‘adoption’ of the Active Travel Bill. This bill’s purpose is to require local authorities to promote walking and cycling at the expense of the car, in other words to promote sustainable travel.   Therefore the focus of the bill was is on utility journeys, not with sport and recreation. To conflate the two appears to miss the point of the legislation

Welsh housing minister Carl Sargeant’s announcement of a watering down of plans for better insulated, more fuel efficient homes amounts to a climbdown in the face of pressure from the building industry, as WWF Cymru have pointed out. It means higher energy bills, where there are already unacceptable levels of fuel poverty, and a delay in dealing with Wales’ carbon emissions.  In 2012 the Welsh government claimed that in keeping with its commitment to sustainability, from 2013 it would use its new powers over building regulations to achieve an improvement in energy efficiency of 55% over 2006 levels and 40% over 2010 levels. When building firms complained about the cost of building homes in Wales, the government’s initial response was that it was an opportunity for them to gain a competitive advantage in new home-building techniques. However, the climbdown was not long in coming. The new regulations will result in a reduction of only 8% from 2010 levels, and then with a commitment to do so only from 2021. Irony of ironies, the Westminster government is committed to matching Welsh standards by 2014 and building zero carbon homes by 2016!  Cameron’s claims that his would be the ‘greenest government ever’ are treated with deserved ridicule, yet Westminster appears to be ahead, at least in this respect, of the ‘sustainable’ Welsh government.

As planning minister, Carl Sargeant also oversaw, in October 2013, the granting of planning permission to a ‘factory’ dairy farm in mid-Wales, in the face of contrary advice from a range of environmental and animal welfare organisations. Notwithstanding the effect on the environment, animal welfare and tourism and the presence of a school next door, the minister decided that these considerations were outweighed by the benefit of a mere ten new jobs.

Finally, there is the running sore of the M4 relief road in which the Welsh government is exposing itself to potential legal action by running a ‘consultation’, which appears to be confined to different versions of the same thing, namely a relief road running across the Gwent levels, a Site of Special Scientific Interest, excluding a possible South East Wales metro system, or a less environmentally destructive (and cheaper) road project involving the former Llanwern steelworks.

Surely if the Welsh government were to sign up to the cargo-cult of motorway building, at the expense of, a Site of Special Scientific Interest; sustainable, integrated public transport; or even a cheaper road option, it will be dragging Wales back into the dark days of 1970/80s UK transport policies and effectively forfeiting any right to have its sustainability claims taken seriously.

It is not difficult to see what is going on here. The Welsh economy is receiving such a battering as a result of the financial crisis and the Westminster government’s determination to make  anyone but the bankers  pay for it,  that ministers have adopted a default position of ‘if there’s jobs promised, do it’. Once on this slippery slope,  Carwyn Jones, albeit ‘on the hoof’ and without speaking for the Welsh government or Welsh Labour, ‘volunteered’ Wales to host the UK’s nuclear–armed submarine fleet at Milford Haven in the event of Scottish independence, presumably on the basis of  it creating ‘jobs’. Why anyone would decide to move themselves or their families to somewhere which was likely to be the epicentre of a nuclear holocaust appears not to have been fully investigated.

Despite the commitment, sustainability is not, on this evidence, what informs decision-making nor does it appear to inform any wider economic strategy.

It is up to socialists and environmentalists in Wales to demand that the Welsh government sticks to its own avowed principles so that economic renewal in Wales is not based on the outdated and discredited false dichotomy of ‘jobs v. the environment’ (sic), is based on the development of renewal energy and sustainable transport and does not harm the interests of future generations.

Tony Benn: the best leader Labour never had?

By Nick Davies

Almost exactly thirty years ago I was at Lambeth Town Hall, Brixton, where Tony Benn held a packed house of trade unionists, socialists and members of the local black community in the palm of his hand as he explained at length, fluently, and with passion that the miners’ strike was not just about the coal industry, it was about class, power and the use of the state apparatus against the labour movement. Benn made many such speeches at that time, but on this occasion in particular he and his audience understood each other; in the 1980s the people of Brixton were no strangers to the use and abuse of power by the state apparatus.  Although, despite the allegations of his more puerile critics, Benn was never a Marxist, his analysis of the use of the state against the miners owed much to the ‘armed bodies of men’ of Marx and Engels. How many of today’s Labour MPs would even know what Benn was talking about, let alone be able to make that speech?

Such a speech did not come from nowhere, but from the arc of Benn’s political career. Originally a man of the Labour establishment, an articulate and telegenic representative of Wilsonian technocracy, he was radicalised by office and the realisation that when he had his hands of the levers of power, those levers were not connected to anything. Once convinced of the need to democratise society at large, it was logical to start with his own movement. Thus was born the current which,  for the sake of political shorthand, bore Benn’s name, but was, in truth, a movement of grassroots activists, politicians, trade unionists and academics reacting against the drift, demoralization and move to the right of the Wilson and Callaghan administrations of 1974 to 1979.

This movement’s purpose was two-fold. It sought to develop a policy agenda for Labour, the Alternative Economic Strategy, to counter the abandonment by Labour of post-war Keynesianism and the move, spearheaded by Thatcher and Reagan, towards an aggressive free market fundamentalism based on cuts in public expenditure, privatisation and attacks on the labour movement, together with a renewal of the Cold War. (Personally, I did not, and still don’t agree with aspects of this programme – such as import controls and outright withdrawal from the then EEC – but nevertheless, it laid down an opposing line of march to the new orthodoxy).   The other aim of ‘Bennism’ was the democratisation of the Labour Party: the right of members to reselect or deselect their MP, to determine policy and to elect the leader.  The movement’s high point was in 1981, the year I joined the Labour Party, when it galvanized the Labour rank-and-file behind Benn’s almost successful campaign for the deputy leadership.

It was the growing influence of this movement that precipitated, in 1981, the split from Labour to form the Social-Democratic Party. But for this split, the Tories would probably have lost the 1983 election, but then, the SDP splitters’ whole purpose was to respond to the needs of capital, as opposed to those of the labour movement.  The Labour Party had also to be brought into line; that was the job of Kinnock, who had abstained in the deputy leadership election, went onto betray the striking miners and paved the way for New Labour. Although New Labour subverted party democracy in practice, the formal effective abolition of Labour’s collective, collegiate democracy had to wait until 2014. With the resulting donation to the party of original SDP splitter David Owen there is a sense of the wheel having turned full circle.

But back to that night in Brixton. What impressed me the most was Benn’s clarity: one of the greatest literary or oratorical gifts is to be able to explain complex ideas simply, and Benn had this talent in abundance. It was his clarity that shone through the obfuscating smoke of ‘consumer choice’ and ‘modernisation’ which has polluted political discourse since the 1980s. He spoke the truth about class, power and inequality: how mining communities were pauperised and criminalised, how Iraq was invaded and its resources looted on the basis of a lie, how our public services were stolen from us and sold on the cheap to the Tories’ friends, for them to sell back to us at a profit and how we have to work harder, for less, with fewer rights and end up deeper in debt.

The official reaction to Benn’s death was significant. Praise for his kindness, courtesy and eloquence was automatically qualified by an assertion of the UK’s official ideology: that despite Benn’s sincerity, be was utterly wrong, and aren’t we all fortunate that he did not succeed, otherwise we’d all be living in a European version of North Korea. It’s redolent of the media treatment of the death of Thatcher: a celebration of our escape from the ‘bad old days’ of the 1970s.  But there’s almost an air of desperation in the way this line is constantly peddled: as if it betrays a creeping  realisation that, for most people, the free-market god has failed and that after all, Benn had something to say about the banks, the City, globalisation and the dangerous unaccountability of EU technocrats

Among many of Benn’s supporters there’s also a misplaced air of finality, as if an era has passed. Benn, according to this version, is ‘irreplaceable’. On a personal level, of course, he is, but then so is everyone. Politically, however, such an assertion is an admission of defeat. When our movement is as weak as it is, individuals such as Tony Benn and Bob Crow appear to carry the hopes and expectations of millions on their shoulders, when they, as all of us, should be just links in a chain.

The most significant tribute to Bob Crow was from Ken Livingstone when he said that RMT members were the only working class people in London with decent wages; a situation that should be the norm was now the exception. It reminded people of what they have lost.  And just as we need many Bob Crows – so that the cleaners and call centre workers who work in the 21st century’s sweat shops can have security and dignity at work and a living wage – so we need to find many Tony Benns who can speak with clarity and passion about inequality and power and the need to build a better world.

News & Action No 19

Dear Comrade

In this bulletin:

1.  WLG news: next meeting; Llansamlet victory; steering committee; forthcoming events

2.  Welsh Labour consultations: physical punishment of children; and Severn Barrage

3.  Commentary: Cardiff reshuffle; Crimogenic capitalism; State surveillance; porky pies 

4.  Discussion: Challenging Capitalism in the UK & Wales

WLG news

The next meeting of Welsh Labour Grassroots (WLG) will take place next Saturday, 27th July, at 11.00 am in the Belle Vue Pavilion/Conservatory, Waterloo Road, Newport NP20 4EZ. The agenda will include a discussion, led by Cllr. Bob Clay, of the controversy arising from the Falkirk selection and the resulting proposals to change Labour’s relationship with the trade unions. 

Llansamlet by-election

Hearty congratulations are due to Bob Clay on his magnificent victory in the Llansamlet council local by-election in Swansea on 4th July. Bob won almost 75% of the vote, a hugely impressive result that reflects the hard work that had been put in. The Llansamlet ward has a history of far-right activity, so the National Front’s last place in the poll represents an important message that they are not wanted. Congratulations to all those campaigned to elect Bob and, like UAF, to stop the fascists.

Steering Committee

The WLG Steering Committee met in Swansea on 10th July. The main discussion was on WLG’s future and how we can change the way we operate to maximise our influence on political developments while also lightening the load borne by our officers. There will be a further meeting soon, after which some proposals will be brought to our AGM. The meeting also confirmed the arrangements for our remaining meetings this year. After the Newport meeting on Saturday, these will be as follows:

·        Saturday, 7th September, Swansea – main discussion on council budgets

·        Saturday, 19th October, Cardiff – AGM and conference – main theme: environmental crisis (plus joint session with SEA)

·        Saturday, 7th December, Swansea – main discussion on Europe

Other forthcoming events, in which WLG members may be interested:

·        Newport, Monday 22nd July: ‘Dont Let Racists Divide Us’ rally called by UAF in response to desecration of Muslim graves at Newport cemetery. 7.00 pm in the Castle Room, Newport Centre. Speakers include: Mubarak Ali (Islamic Society for Wales); Marianne Owens (PCS NEC); June Ralph (Newport Trades Council).

·        Cardiff, Monday 22nd July: People’s Assembly Cardiff group meeting, 7.30 pm at Unite offices, 1 Cathedral Road.

·        Thursday, 25th July 2013: Cardiff Against the Bedroom Tax council lobby and picnic/BBQ 3.30 pm outside City Hall. More details on Facebook.

·        Cardiff, Thursday, 8th August: Glamorgan Archives local history lecture: Nina Jenkins on ‘The British in India: A Guide for Beginners’. Free entry but email: glamro@cardiff.gov.uk to book a place.

·        Cardiff, Thursday, 15th August: Glamorgan Archives local history lecture: Ceri Thompson on ‘Collecting People’s History at Big Pit’. 2.00 pm at Glamorgan Archives, Clos Parc Morgannwg, Leckwith, Cardiff CF11 8AW. Free entry but email: glamro@cardiff.gov.uk to book a place.

Welsh Labour consultations

As you’ll probably be aware, Welsh Labour is currently conducting policy consultations on two priority issues: the possibility of a change in the law to outlaw physical punishment of children; and the proposed Severn Barrage. Please find attached a presentation on the former by one of our comrades, Cllr, Jonathan Evans, who has been working with the ‘Children Are Unbeatable’ campaign. The Barrage has, of course, been strongly promoted by Peter Hain, supported by the Wales TUC and Unite, but there are strong left/green arguments against it, on environmental, economic and practical grounds, most of which have been helpfully summarised by Friends of the Earth Cymru.

Commentary - Len Arthur

Welsh Government changes

Leighton Andrews’ resignation as Welsh Education minister on 25th June resulted in a reshuffle of Labour’s cabinet. The Tory cuts put the Welsh Government and local councils in the difficult position of having to make policy choices between offering no more than a ‘dented shield’ or sustaining the ‘clear red water’. The latter would involve mobilising to support bold policy moves to create of shining example of what UK socialists could achieve. The renewed Tackling Poverty Action Plan, announced recently by the Welsh Government, reflects this dilemma, admitting that it is not possible to overcome the damage of Tory cuts but attempting to concentrate action on those most affected. This is laudable as far as it goes. A key message in the press release gives the impression that 5000 jobs were being created for those families with no one in work. In reality it only amounts to intensive counselling and training opportunities whereas, as we have argued before, the Welsh Government ought to have a more radical investment and job creation policy that would be a direct challenge to the austerity policies of the UK Tory government.

Crimogenic capitalism

In the UK, the austerity screw was tightened on the working class through the spending review and the Labour leadership announced at the National Policy Forum on 22/23 June that it intends to keep these policies going during the early years of a Labour government. Peter Rowlands’ latest WLG discussion post covers the serious political challenges this poses for us as socialists in the Labour party, while the preceding post discusses these challenges in relation to the People’s Assembly.

The latest edition of Private Eye reveals that Apple Corp earned net income of $30bn between 2009 and 2012 but paid no corporation tax – just another frightening example of how far these international corporations are out of control. Private Eye also reveals that Cameron’s G8 rhetoric on tackling international tax avoidance is just hot air, as the Tories themselves have introduced rules making it easier for companies to shift earnings across borders to avoid tax.

Tory state surveillance, racism and persecution

Now, of course you may wish to challenge the above – but watch out if you do, as your every move and written word will be recorded via the US National Security Agency’s Prism surveillance. Although, William Hague says (paraphrasing Pinochet and other dictators), you have nothing to worry about if you stay within the law. Not true, of course: as the Lawrence family have discovered, dirt will be dug at public expense if you challenge those who keep the world safe for their corporations to rip us off. Little by little, the Tory government is institutionalising the harassment of any group it decides to demonise.

In South Wales recently, there appears to have been increased activity by the UK Border Agency raiding people based upon ‘reports’ with very little justification. For those who experience this, it must feel like persecution with no redress. The criminalisation of khat provides the Tories with further cover for institutionalised harassment, a continuation of the questionable state activities that also includes the persecution of tabloid bogeyman, Abu Qatada, as exposed recently by Victoria Brittain. It may not be fascism but it certainly is starting to feel like it.

Economic porky pies

Despite the OTT reactions by the financial press to every twitch of life in the capitalist economy, the entrenched structural causes of the current crisis are still with us. Michael Roberts, in a recent survey of the realities of global growth, reveals indicators showing that all is still not well and that the purging of less profitable value still has trillions to go. So, it is hardly surprising that neo-liberal governments around the world remain intent on ensuring the working class pays for the crisis. Resistance is taking place around the world in a variety of forms, in places such as in Brazil, Turkey and Egypt, and it is not always easy to identify the political trajectories involved. We are not immune from these contradictions in the UK – witness the rise of UKIP.

Lenin talked about ‘inflammable material in world politics’ and there is much around; the really hard job for us, as socialists, is to try to ensure that the spark of political pressure is well lit, so that we can turn up the heat on those who benefit from the neo-liberal policies that sustain a very shaky capitalist system. We need constantly to seek to mobilise a fightback, with clear demands and action, leading towards a direct challenge to the power of capital.

Discussion: People's Assembly - where to now? Len Arthur

Discussion: People’s Assembly – where to now? – Len Arthur

 

The People’s Assembly on 22 June was a success. Around 4,500 attended and it was an exhilarating breath of fresh air to hear speakers say what was needed to be said, with such telling turns of phrase. If leaders of the Labour Party spoke and said the same things, I would not be worried about taking the fight to the Tories or the outcome of the next general election.

 

All the main speeches are on the People’s Assembly website. I’ve heard many TUC general secretaries speak, usually with the intention of dampening down expectations but with Francis O’Grady stating that we are in a situation of class war and undertaking to back workers when they take strike action, she came across as the best so far. Len McCluskey gave clear support to coordinated industrial action across unions. Mark Serwotka spelt out the alternative social and economic programme that Ed Miliband should be announcing, instead of the disastrous ‘Tory-lite’ stuff we’ve been hearing of late.

 

Before the meeting, there was considerable scepticism about its relevance but also some serious analysis such as from James Meadway writing for the New Left Project. Since the meeting, most of the left have recognised its success, Socialist Worker and the Independent Socialist Network both catching the mood, the latter post drawing some political conclusions about Left Unity that are relevant for us in the Labour party. Scepticism remains on parts of the left, however – for example, on the Left Futures and Socialist Unity websites. Commenting on the latter piece, Mark Steel brings his humour to bear, capturing the spirit of the day.

 

‘Four thousand people packed a hall with a commitment to build a movement against the cuts, the most substantial gathering on this issue since the last election. I encountered dozens of people throughout the day, some in political parties, many of them not, some of them invigorated politically for the first time, many re-invigorated having been part of other movements before.

‘I met dozens of people throughout the day who felt exhilarated by the experience, and have received hundreds of messages since from people displaying an infectious enthusiasm, thrilled that at last there appears to be a genuine national movement against the cuts.

‘So the contribution to this sense of optimism [Mark is ironically commenting on a Socialist Unity position piece that appears on this website] is one that delivers the inspirational message “I fear that like all grand projects of the left, it will dissipate before it meets its potential.”

‘That’s how to build a mass campaign. We address thousands of freshly optimistic people eager to resist the cuts, by telling them that although we didn’t manage to get to much of their meeting, it’s obvious it won’t work. I salute your powers of motivation, Phil BC, you’re like Martin Luther King and Spartacus rolled into one.
This is what the left needs more of, as we’ve got far too many people organising campaigns against the cuts. Only once they all realise that everything we do is doomed will be able to build an effective movement.

‘In the meantime, whoever you are, you’ll carry on with whatever it is you’re organising instead, which appears to be going extremely well, as I doubt anyone has ever heard of it, proving you haven’t made the mistake of getting people to believe they can do anything worthwhile at all.”’

 

Where does it go from here?

 

At the end of the 22 June meeting, the draft statement was adopted. It covers a lot of ground. Some of the key points include UK wide action and the building of local groups. Key actions include a UK wide ‘national day of civil disobedience and direct action against austerity’ on 5 November and a national demonstration next spring. Supporting the NHS features in the mobilisation for a demonstration at the Conservative Party conference on 29 September and local demonstrations on 5 July.

 

Local groups are being established. In Wales, an email list and Facebook page have been set up and local meetings held in Cardiff, West Wales and in Wrexham. We have already held a People’s Assembly / Left Unity meeting in Pontypridd and are planning for another soon. From my experience so far, the People’s Assembly meetings have been a success in terms of bringing together old and new activists and are helping to inspire the development of campaigns against austerity in areas where currently little is happening.

 

Politically, for the coming months, the key phrase in the statement may very well be the one below, which captures succinctly the tension within the UK left:

 

“We have a plain and simple goal: to make government abandon its austerity programme. If it will not it must be replaced with one that will.”

 

Making the government abandon its austerity programme will require a level of coordinated and united action much greater than we have been able to mobilise so far. The strength of the People’s Assembly is that it aims to organise across the UK to say we will not pay for the bankers’ crisis, working toward uniting the trade unions, fightback campaigns, the political left and new activists to bring direct action to bear on the government. As one speaker suggested, ‘we should aim to make Britain ungovernable’. Tony Benn proposed that we should surround ‘the building down the road [Parliament]’ and stay until the Tories left office. This is a big ask: a political leadership prepared to take up this challenge will be required.

 

Which leads to the second sentence: replacing the current government with one that will not follow austerity policies. At the 22 June conference Owen Jones summed up the purpose of the Assembly as putting the hope back into politics. We are at that stage where the confidence to fight back is as much one of knowing we are justified in resisting and challenging the government as taking action: the stick now needs to be bent toward political leadership.

 

But where is that political leadership? As Peter Rowlands argued in his recent post on this blog, the Labour leadership has abandoned resisting and offering an alternative to the politics of austerity. Jon Lansman makes a similar point on Left Futures, indicating how this Labour leadership position is undermining the confidence of the Party’s active membership. As both indicate, this will not only lead to tensions within the Labour party but will add to the arguments that a left alternative to Labour needs to be considered.

 

Unlike Peter, I don’t have the expectation or even hope that the Labour leadership will change its course before the next election. It is also possible to read the trade union speeches at the conference as saying that those leaders do not believe this is going to happen either. It could be that the Labour leadership is even prepared to abandon the trade union connection. (My my, I wrote the last sentence before all hell broke loose on the issue! I’ll still stick by my analysis but here is some debate: Ed Miliband; Owen Jones; Labour List.)

 

Socialists in the Labour party now face a real crunch point: if not Labour, then what? Do the People’s Assembly and Left Unity offer the prospect of developing that alternative? This debate has been opened up and will rapidly gather pace. We are in a historical period very different from the 1980s: capitalism was then ‘on the up’ and its contradictions had not been exposed by a massive global financial crisis. Even to talk about the system we live under as ‘capitalism’ was difficult. Now a socialist alternative can be meaningfully spelt out, not only by pointing out how capitalism, as a system, has caused this crisis but by arguing directly for radical policies to replace it. Nationalising the banks, for example, has in part happened. An extension of that policy would enable us to have the ability to direct investment towards need by taking it out of the control of ‘casino capitalism’.

 

Whether we as Labour party members like it or not, we will be increasingly challenged to decide whether we are socialists or Tory-lite ‘One Nation Labour’.

Discussion: Labour and the spending review - Peter Rowlands

Discussion:  Labour and the spending review - Peter Rowlands  

Labour’s acceptance of Tory spending plans for 2015 – 16 is a watershed moment. I believe it to be fundamentally wrong and a move that is likely to lower Labour’s vote in 2015 and possibly cost it a majority or keep the current coalition in place.

Why did the Labour leadership decide on this stance? Presumably because they decided that those that still see the deficit as primarily Labour’s fault will have their views confirmed by any spending commitments by Labour beyond those of the coalition, so that in order to win over at least some of these people we have to accept a huge cuts programme, at least in total terms, and be rather ambiguous about additions to capital spending.

What this means is that Labour has a position that is now far more severe than that of  Darling , which was to make cuts of about one half of the Tory programme. It is also completely contradictory in that the core of the Balls critique of Tory policy is of a cuts programme that disproportionately lowers tax receipts in such a way that the deficit can only be paid off over a very long period of time and at enormous cost. Having conclusively won the argument we are now saying that we will continue with precisely the policies that we claim are wrecking the economy!

Large numbers of Labour voters will be mystified at this.  Many will find that they now have no incentive to vote at all, while some will switch to voting for the Greens, Respect, TUSC or the new ‘Left Unity’ party that is scheduled to be launched later this year and has been provided with a potent recruitment vehicle by Labour’s change of direction. The total vote for these other parties is unlikely to be huge but in many constituencies it could rob Labour of victory and thus maintain the present coalition in power, doing on the left what the Tories fear from UKIP on the right.

Labour’s strategy, as in 2010, is based on a fundamental misreading of what is needed. In 2010, and apparently now, Labour was pitching to the middle ground, ‘Middle Britain’, those won over by New Labour in the late 1990s. This strategy was in one sense very successful, as Labour’s middle class voters largely stuck with it in 2010 (Social class groups A, B and C1). Unfortunately Labour’s working class voters didn’t  (Social class groups C2, D and E), defecting to the Tories or just not voting in substantial numbers, and causing the worst result, and only marginally better, at 29%, since the 1983 election.

Since then Labour’s fortunes have improved considerably, mainly due to a transfer of support from Lib-Dem voters opposed to Lib-Dem participation in the coalition. These voters have been shown to be more left wing than previous Labour voters, not surprisingly as these were the people who transferred to the Lib-Dems after the Iraq War when on this and other matters they were to the left of Labour.

This ‘progressive majority’ is threatened by Labour’s embrace of austerity.  Those previously Labour working class voters who didn’t vote or voted Tory will have no incentive to come back to Labour. Fewer will vote Tory, but many will still abstain or go to UKIP or the new left party. The ‘left’ Lib-Dems will likewise have no reason to stick with Labour; some will even revert to the Lib-Dems as their position is no worse than Labour’s, while the more left wing will vote for one of the left parties or the Greens. (*)

The net effect therefore of Labour’s change of course is that while it may retain some ‘Middle Britain’ votes that might otherwise have gone to the Tories or Lib-Dems it stands to lose far more from those groups who would have supported even an ‘austerity lite’ position but not one which is indistinguishable from that of the coalition. Votes will be lost to abstention, to UKIP, to the Greens, to the new left party, to Respect, to TUSC, even to the BNP/NF, and would be likely to cost Labour a majority at the  election.

Yes, it is true that more voters still blame Labour than the Tories for the deficit (about 36% to 26%), but that has improved since 2011, and crucially is likely to apply much less to the two groups pinpointed above. A growth strategy which would appeal to these two groups is essential, and Labour must revise its current position and adopt such a strategy before it is too late.

Polling figures are hardly a ringing endorsement of the coalition and their economic policies. 60% think the economy is being badly managed, 57% that the cuts are being administered unfairly, and only 27% support the Tories on the economy as against 25% Labour. However 59% see the cuts as necessary, a figure that would undoubtedly be lower if Labour had consistently advocated a growth strategy.

The new line also reflects the internal struggle within the party , and must register a decisive advance for the ‘Blairite right’, which the recent interventions by Blair, Mandelson and co. no doubt assisted. This will further alienate left wing activists and many affiliated unions who are among the strongest supporters of a growth strategy.

Let us hope that common sense prevails, and that Labour reconsiders its position and adopts a  growth strategy that clearly distinguishes us from the other main parties. This is the route that is most likely to secure a Labour majority at the next election.

 

(*) See Fabian Review articles by Andrew Harrop:

May 2012   ‘2015 victory in Labour’s grasp as Ed unites the left’

Feb 2013      ‘Stay at home voters are the key to Labour victory’.

All figures quoted are based on YouGov polls.