Britian Under Blair: Labor vs Labor Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit source - "Pam & Saul & Euan" Mailing List Sat, 15 May 1999 18:53:18 +0100 Comrades, Picked this up about Tony Blair and the betrayl of Worketrs in Britain on the Young Communist League: http://www.myspace.co.uk/cp-of-Britain It would seem appropriate at this May EC, which comes one year after the election of the Labour government, that we make an assessment. During this last year we have seen a whole host of protest actions against the government; the pensioners, the students, the disabled, lone parents: all in battles associated with cuts in the welfare state. Unfortunately missing from these protests has been the trade union movement. Nevertheless such was the pressure that there was a rebellion by 47 Labour MPs against the cuts in benefits to lone parents which went far beyond their ranks. The deep dissatisfaction amongst many other Labour MPs was such that it was impossible to take any disciplinary action and their was some backing off by the Labour leadership on cuts both in the budget and in Frank Fields White Paper on reform of the Welfare State. However the threats remain. This rebellion showed the potential for pressure on the Labour government that would not be there under a Tory government The Labour government under Blair has acted quite openly and consciously as the alternative Capitalist government. The recent budget was a business budget with yet another hand out to business via a further cut in corporation tax. Under labour there has been no shift in wealth from the rich and big business to the working class. Indeed not only has Brown stuck to the Tory budget cuts but he has gone further and has reduced government borrowing by #12bn more than the Tory plans. His budget deficit is 0.5% of GDP considerably lower than the Maastricht conditions of 3% ie #30bn could be made available for public spending. (Behind Brown's actions are the perceived need to keep to the Maastricht conditions in the down cycle of the economy as well as in the boom period) In January he paid back #10bn to the bankers which he didn't need to do. All these sums could have been made available to help the pensioners and other groups and provide public investment to create real jobs. By ruling out tax increases he has taken a road which relies solely on interest rates to control the economy which has lead to damaging high interest rates, a too strong pound and to a growing recession in manufacturing. There has been no attempt to redress the loss in the share of the economic cake by the working class which occurred under the Tories. For the period 1979 to 1994 workers are #17.50 a week worse off than they should be. At the same time dividends rose from 1.5% of GDP to 5.4% of GDP. Our public expenditure is one of the lowest in Europe as a % of GDP. Our tax level share of GDP amongst the lowest. Our indirect taxes have one of the highest shares of overall taxation. All this means that there are ample resources to finance and improve the Welfare State. It is interesting to note in the year of the 150th anniversary of the Communist Manifesto that Gordon Brown believes that he has found the solution to "stop-go" economic cycles. An end to boom and slump. Other themes that run through Labour polices are privatisation and the novel idea that workers should subsidise low pay employers (e.g. #70 subsidy for employers to give low pay jobs to the unemployed) and a constant attack on the principles of the Welfare State. The theme of privatisation is tied to ideological prejudice and the requirements of the Maastricht Treaty. There have of course been some positive things done by Labour. The agreement on Ireland , the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, the London Assembly, some extra money for health and education. The increases in child benefit but paid out of scrapping marriage allowance (#600) and divorced couples allowance; working tax credit but all related to low pay jobs; lone parents -still under pressure to work; childcare - but nothing until the year 2000 (except unemployed) These certainly don't balance out the failures on trade union rights, the minimum wage, the neglect of the pensioners, the foreign policy linked to the EU, America, the continuation of imperialist interests and arms sales. Given that the Labour government was returned with a majority that was bigger than any government since 1832, in a situation with a buoyant economy, its performance has been woefully inadequate and a betrayal of those who voted for it. If the Labour government have failed the people then the trade union leaderships have also done so. Clive Jenkins, late of ASTMS once put it "The British Trade Union Movement has faults. One is that it never asks for enough, it almost always settles for far too little." That was in 1966. Little changes except that in this case the unions asked for next to nothing and got worse than nothing. The 50% recognition, the Social Chapter, CGHQ are all rather dubious "gains". What is at the root of this? Misplaced loyalty to Labour which neither helps their members or the Labour Party. Hopelessness and weakness which are represented by the TUC's support for the shibboleth of the EU. There have been some expressions of dissatisfaction by trade union leaders but muted and limited. This dissatisfaction must take more concrete forms. Its time to get tough with Blair. No wonder some groups of militant workers such as ASLEF are looking for alternative leadership. But is it simply that the trade union leaders are reflecting public support for Blair? Why is Blair so popular? (Perhaps he is not so popular after the local election results) Well of course he has the full support of the Capitalist press. Indeed it is rumoured that Rupert Murdoch is actually the Prime Minister! In a recent television programme it was alleged that Blair would not try any policy that did not have the support of the tabloids. So it could be that we have a combination of labour loyalty and right wing support or acquiescence. Again we are at the top of an economic cycle with more work about and more money in many peoples pockets. However that may not last much longer with manufacturing industry going into recession. There is still a honeymoon period with people still hoping that there will be some progress on minimum wage and pensions. But time is running out. Indeed the local elections on May 7th were correctly summed up by a Guardian headline "Labour falters". The Labour vote, on a low poll, dropped from 43.5% to 38%. The Tories vote fell from 33.7% to 32%, certainly not a rout. We may find that support for Labour is not deep rooted. The CPB only managed to field two candidates, Monty Goldman in London and Martin Levy in Newcastle. Cde Goldman polled 190 votes and cde Levy polled 43 votes. These votes were quite respectable and were similar to other left wing groups and indeed in Monty's case higher that some Tory votes in other wards. Although there were no elections this time in Scotland and Wales and in a number of other places, the low number of CPB candidates does represent a lack of confidence which should be addressed. On Ireland we welcome the Northern Ireland peace Agreement. This process can open up the way for growing unity of the Irish working class against the real enemy - Capitalism. This unity is a prerequisite of an eventual move to a united Ireland against a background of growing North-South co-operation and united struggle. There will be a need to maintain labour movement pressure for civil and democratic rights in Northern Ireland, as the essential basis for non-sectarian politics. Richard Maybin Cuba SI - Information and discussion about Cuba. Discussion of the path of Ernesto Che Guevara. ================================================================= NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us 339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org e-mail: nyt@blythe.org ================================================================= nytire-05.16.99-23:05:23-5901