Editorial

The British General Election indicated not so much an increase in support for Labour as a collapse of the Tory vote and a collapse of the percentage of the electorate voting. The turnout of 71% was down by 7% compared to the last election in 1992. This was a new post- war low. Labour won 44.4% of the vote while the Conservatives won 31.3%. Labour’s percentage score was not significantly different from its score in the 1959 and 1970 elections when it suffered heavy defeats. The swing to Labour was 10% nationally, but in working class seats, the swing was lower and among the middle classes the swing was 12%. The regional picture showed the same trend. In the neglected regions of Scotland, Wales and the industrial north of England, the swing to Labour was below the national average of 10%. The further south, the greater the swing to Labour reaching as high as 15% in prosperous London and the south east. The Tories won no seats in Scotland and Wales and were wiped out also in many urban areas of northern England. In terms of seats won, Labour’s colossal landslide, was not associated with any surge of voting support. The real reason for Labour’s victory was its adoption of Conservative policies which was aimed at securing disaffected support in the Tory marginal seats. If the swing of ten percent had been distributed uniformly on a national basis, Labour would "only" have produced a 100 seat majority. It was the fact that the greatest swing to Labour (and the Liberals) took place in petit-bourgeois, suburban, traditionally Tory areas (and especially suburban Outer London) which slashed the number of seats won by the Tories. The Liberal Democrats saw their percentage score fall from 18% to 17% yet they doubled the number of seats to around 40. It was reported that there was lot of tactical voting going on in which disaffected Tories voted for the opposition party which was best placed to defeat the Tories—Labour or Liberal. Another big factor motivating Tory disaffection was sleaze—a seemingly never ending series of sex-scandals and instances of financial corruption associated with Tory MPs. In particular the "cash for questions" case did the Tories a lot of damage. This involved a number of Tory MPs who had received money (in brown envelopes) from a millionaire for asking questions on his behalf in Parliament. This prompted a well-known broadcaster to stand in the General Election against the main culprit. He was famous as a war correspondent for his white suit which in the election came to symbolise "clean hands". He won overwhelmingly and his victory on such an issue seemed to highlight the shambolic state of the Conservatives. In other words it was less a victory of Labour and more a self-inflicted defeat on the part of the Conservatives. Tory Crisis

The Conservative Party was plunged into crisis as a number of ex-ministers were unseated, including Michael Portillo who was waiting to step into Major’s shoes after losing the election. The election contest was polarised between the pro-European and anti-European wings of the party. The winner, William Hague, represented a clear win for the anti-European wing and a strengthening of the Thatcherite faction of the party—symbolised by the appointment of Cecil Parkinson to the Chairmanship of the Party. While the most die-hard Thatcherite candidate, John Redwood, was defeated by the less evangelical and more pragmatic Hague, the fact that he was given a place in the Tory Shadow Cabinet is a further indication of the concessions which Thatcher obviously extracted in return for her last minute support for Hague’s campaign. Labour has signalled its intentions in the statements that have been made since the election. The introduction of "hotel charges" for NHS patients in hospital and fees for visits to the local doctor has been floated. Blair has set up a wide-ranging inquiry into the funding of political parties. Justified on the basis of ending sleaze in party politics, it is also charged with looking at union funding of the Labour Party. This could well indicate a move towards state funding of political parties which would enable the Labour Party to end its reliance on the unions—a further step in the "Clintonisation" of the party. Draconian plans have been drawn up to force unemployed youth and long-term unemployed people into low-paid sweat-shop employment on pain of losing all unemployment or social security benefits. Dressed up as "welfare to work", this is designed to further harass youth, and those who will not be used as cheap labour, and to drive down average wages instead of introducing a meaningful minimum wage. Labour’s so-called minimum wage proposal is so low as to be meaningless. In education Labour seeks to out-do the Tories in blaming the problems of the systematically underfunded service on teachers. There are plans to introduce "fast-track" sackings for "incompetent teachers" and "hit squads" to witch-hunt "failing schools" which do not come high enough up the rat-race "league tables" introduced by the Tories. Meanwhile resources for crumbling working class schools are to be further cut.

Proportional Representation

Blair is floating the idea of a referendum in 18 months time on proportional representation for future General Elections. While this is not something which the left should be opposed to, it is important to recognise why Blair is in favour of such a change. As the British ex-USFI journal, Socialist Action, has noted, it is designed to resolve the impasse in the British political party system created by the split over European integration. Blair is making further moves towards the break with the unions and a fusion with the Liberal Democrats (see The Sunday Times 27.7.97) and possibly also with the pro-European wing of the Tory party. A joint cabinet committee of Labour ministers and Liberal Democrat leaders has already been announced, which has provoked a strong response from Tony Benn and even arch-right winger Roy Hattersley (who seems less right wing these days in comparison to Blair!). Proportional representation, which is already being proposed for elections to a new Greater London strategic local authority, and also for the proposed Scottish and Welsh parliaments, would facilitate such a realignment of the party system. The centrepiece of this would be the ditching of the unions, state funding for parties and the completion of the "Clintonisation" of the Labour Party. This would truly transform it from a bourgeois-workers party to being simply a bourgeois party, possibly in the guise of a new "national government" as Benn puts it. It remains to be seen what Benn will actually do about it, however. Blair is trying to dilute the role of the unions but is having to tread carefully. Blair intends to do away with the annual conference replacing it with a "two year policy cycle". But the reaction from the unions has led Blair to make a number of concessions in which the he assures the unions that the new rally-style conference "will not be used to prevent topical issues being debated". And the unions will be given the opportunity to "amend draft policy statements drawn up by the party leadership". Blair is also trying to stop MPs from representing the constituency parties on the NEC. This is a move to get rid of Dennis Skinner, a prominent left MP, from the NEC.

Left of Labour

There were a number of socialist organisations standing against Labour in the election: the Socialist Labour Party, the Socialist Party (formerly "Militant") and in Scotland the Scottish Socialist Alliance (a coalition of organisations which also included the Socialist Party). The strength of the Socialist Party in Scotland (gained during the poll tax struggle) was reflected in the vote of Tommy Sheridan in Glasgow. He polled 11% of the vote and did better than any other left candidate in the election. This was not typical of the Socialist Party elsewhere though. The next highest vote was gained by Dave Nellist, a former Militant MP (elected on the Labour Party platform), who got 6%. The SLP’s best vote was 7% gained by an Asian lawyer, Imran Khan, in the East End of London. Scargill got just over 5% which was enough to save his deposit. Nationally the SLP averaged 1.8% which was marginally higher than the Socialist Party vote (1.22%), the Scottish Socialist Alliance (1.75%) and the Green Party (1.36%) . The fascist British National Party averaged 1.37%. This performance, in a general election, indicates a layer of the working class which has had enough of Blairism. The left organisations like the SLP have faced an uphill struggle in the period leading up to the election. As Labour shows that it is prepared to attack the working class in office, the conditions in which the SLP operates will improve and it will be possible to make inroads into Labour’s support. The nucleus of the alternative framework exists. Blair is already planning to turn the Labour Party National Executive Committee into even more of a toothless talking shop than it already is. He is planning to clamp down on the rights of Constituency Parties to select "left" candidates for Parliament. He is planning to further dilute the influence of the unions in the party and its bodies. And he is planning to turn annual conference into a US Democratic Party-style rally which will not allow serious debate and decision-making. It is time for the left inside and outside the Labour Party and in the trade unions to work together to thwart these moves and to prepare to win the unions to a political programme and organisational framework which corresponds to the interests of the working class—not the bosses. The SLP made the very stupid mistake of failing to establish an electoral agreement with the Scottish Socialist Alliance, the Socialist Party and the Green Party. This was entirely the fault of the SLP leadership who refused to respond to the overtures of these organisations when they proposed such an agreement. This arrogant contempt for other forces to the left of Labour resulted in more than one left candidate standing in some constituencies and a split vote. If the SLP leadership is incapable of uniting in the same party as these other left forces, it might have been expected that they would be at least capable of forming an electoral agreement with them. But no, the SLP decided to cut off it’s nose to spite its face. The Socialist Labour Party can only begin to make inroads into Labour's support by intervening into the crisis of the Labour Party. It is too small at the moment to apply the united front to a party the size of the Labour Party. However, it can apply a scaled-down version of the united front through establishing fractions in the Labour Party. The SLP must help the left in the Labour Party so that when the times comes for a deeper split in the party, good solid connections will have been established with its best elements. While it would be difficult for known members of the SLP to join the Labour Party, it does not require much ingenuity to work out a plan to send in SLP members not yet known by the Labour party witch-hunters. A combination of internal fractional work in the Labour Party and an impressive external record in the class struggle on the part of the SLP will prepare the ground for success in winning a bigger base for itself in the working class. The problem is that Scargill and other leaders will have none of this. They would not even call for a vote for Labour in constituencies where there was a no SLP candidate standing. Scargill attacked the SWP for doing so disingenuously accusing them of "supporting New Labour". Neither would the SLP call for a vote for other left parties standing in the election such as the SSA or the SL. With such a crass record, it would be difficult to imagine the SLP leadership making any moves to apply fraction work in the Labour Party. The Socialist Party has a similar problem. It characterises the Labour Party as a bourgeois party and thus rules out fraction work also. There is a real danger of a repeat of the errors of Third Period Stalinism here. Only this time it is to be hoped that history will repeat itself only as farce and not tragedy. But there are some disturbing signs that this may not be the case.

Europe

The election campaign revealed more clearly the chauvinism of the right and left on the issue of Europe. The Referendum Party, financed by the late, and unlamented, millionaire James Goldsmith, was formed before the election to oppose further moves towards European Integration on a straightforwardly chauvinist basis. Other even crankier right-wing parties stood in the election including the fascist British National Party (BNP). Much of the TV election time was devoted to this chauvinistic drivel. The Referendum Party did not succeed in gaining any seats but did succeed in splitting the Tory vote in seats where pro-Europe Tories were standing, unseating a number of them. The Referendum Party had money coming out of its ears and indicated a very dangerous potential for evolution in a right wing direction. It was the nearest thing in Britain to Le Penn’s National Front or the Fini movement in Italy. Right wing chauvinism, lots of money and a respectable populist electoral front. The BNP was more marginal, but managed to stand enough candidates to get a Dr Goebbels-style TV broadcast. This was very professionally done and populist in style (pictures of a smartly dressed leader, John Tyndal, standing in the sunshine with the white cliffs of Dover in the background). They did well in the inner East End of London getting 7% of the vote in two neighbouring constituencies with a large black population. The re-emergence of the BNP which can get votes like this in a period where Labour will be betraying the working class in power indicates the dangers for a resurgence of fascism in Britain in the next period. While it will be easier for a left alternative to develop with Labour in power, it will also be easier for a far right-wing alternative to develop. It is up to the SLP to make sure that an internationalist working class alternative is on offer. However, Scargill’s position on Europe, which is reflected in SLP publications, is far from being an internationalist view. Scargill consciously and deliberately confuses three questions. Firstly, the class issue. Europe is a bosses’ club aimed at attacking European workers to make European capital more competitive in the world market. This is obviously a valid and important point with which there can be no dispute. Secondly, the lack of democracy in European institutions. This is also valid and indisputable point. Thirdly, Scargill says that the EU infringes "British sovereignty", which is simply dangerous chauvinist drivel. But the latter is linked to the second issue to try to give it a progressive content. At times the SLP position on Europe did not seem a million miles from the Tory right, the Referendum Party or the BNP. It is up to the left to fight Scargill on this issue and defeat him at the up-coming conference. Scargill is an entrenched chauvinist. And this is nothing new. All the way through the pit-closure dispute a few years ago, his main theme was opposition to imports of "Colombian coal" on the basis that it was mined with child labour and in dangerous conditions. The reality, however, was an unambiguously chauvinistic motive: British trade union self-interest at the expense of the Third World. Indian environmentalist and social activist, Vandana Shiva, has written persuasively, in the USFI journal International Viewpoint, on the reactionary nature of socialists in the First World opposing imports of Third World goods into the advanced economies on the basis of child labour and unsafe working conditions etc. If Scargill were arguing temporarily against scab coal breaking a strike, we would agree with him. But he was not. This is a permanent policy. It is certainly true that the British bosses’ are using cheap coal imports to undermine the NUM in Britain. But the solution is not to blame, or boycott, "foreign" imports (the Colombian miners are not "foreign" to the British workers; they are our brothers and sisters), but to direct our efforts at getting rid of the capitalist system, which is indeed "foreign" to the interests of workers in Britain and Colombia. Scargill’s politics are contradictory. At the same time that he worries about the loss of British sovereignty in the EU, campaigns against "foreign" coal imports and fudges the issue of immigration controls, he declares himself against racism, "little Englandism" and welcomes the black and Asian community into the SLP, including its leading bodies. It is up to the internationalist left in the SLP to expose this contradiction and make sure that at the next election we have a consistently internationalist platform to counterpose to the chauvinism of the bosses’ parties. (See: "What Programme for the Socialist Labour Party" p40)