2006 Elections, what would be a good result?

Andy Newman

The following discussion only relates to England.



The 2005 general election was a watershed. Tony Blair’s Labour Party won the election despite the Iraq war and a historically low Labour vote; and Respect achieved the election of an MP, coming second in a number of other constituencies. But it was also clear that outside of constituencies with a large Moslem population Respect has a very narrow base of support. The other scattered forces of the left, including those in the Labour Party, made little impact on the election.



Elections matter because they give a flawed snap shot of the impact our politics have on the wider population, and they force us to relate our socialist politics to the electorate, learning from them what the important issues are. When we do it well we can have an impact on the overall political process by forcing the other parties to address issues they would rather ignore.



A year after the General Election we are coming to the local government elections that take place on 4th May, where we can expect an even lower level of voter participation as most people, quite rationally, conclude it will make absolutely no difference to their lives. If we are going to assess what a good result would be we need to consider what the political landscape is, and how we impact upon it.

 

The overall context

The 2006 local government elections are the first national electoral test since Sir Menzies Campbell became leader of the Lib Dems (taking that party marginally to the right), and David Cameron became Tory leader (taking that party marginally to the left). We are used to the three main parties standing on very similar ground: the convergence has now become almost complete – which has led to the BNP becoming the lead press story in an election otherwise devoid of all controversy.



This creates a general crisis of democracy, and a specific crisis of working class politics. It is too early to judge whether Cameron can succeed with his cultural revolution in the Conservative Party, but already it excludes a significant section of British right-wing opinion. It will be dramatic if Cameron accomplishes the compete strategic victory within his own party that Blair achieved over the Labour left.



In the short run, it does seem clear that Cameron has not provided sufficient boost to the Tories for them to rise like Lazarus, and paradoxically in the long run if he manages to exorcise the ghost of Thatcher, he may reduce the fear factor that still motivates disillusioned traditional Labour voters to turn out for New Labour. So whereas an electoral Tory revival might kill off the prospect of a left alternative to New Labour, paradoxically, it might also achieve the opposite.



The Lib Dems played an important role in the aftermath of the Iraq war, because most of the anti-war sentiment could be contained within the parameters of conventional politics. The Lib Dems know they cannot win at a national level, so they position themselves into electoral niches – it is possible that the brief period where they seemed to be to the left of Labour on many issues may be over.



It is also important to note that participation in the electoral process is very limited. In last year’s general election the solidly working class wards of North Swindon where I stood had an average turn out of only 20%, and these were the areas we did most of our campaigning in. Many young people and many working class people simply take no interest in electoral politics. There has been a debate about this in the Scottish Socialist Party, about whether the priority of the SSP should be to campaign amongst those marginalised by the current system, or whether by necessity an electoral party has to prioritise people likely to vote. There is no easy answer to this.


 

The Labour Party.

The big picture is that there are still millions of working class people who vote Labour; but the Labour Party itself has changed.



The degree to which the party has changed is disputed, but it is certainly not a natural home for grass-roots trade union or community activists; the party no longer gives voice to its working class supporters; and within the party there is no significant ideological strand that prioritises the cause of organised labour as distinct from other interest groups, except an historical and financial legacy with the trade unions. What is more, the Blair/Brown victory over constitutional questions within the party means that the triumph of the right in the Labour Party is probably irreversible. Even under Neil Kinnock, the Labour Party had a vigorous internal life, and although much ward level and constituency activity was mind numbingly boring, the national conference gave real expression to debates within the movement, with input from the trade unions and constituency parties, as well as the MPs. This will never be seen again.



It is significant that the government have not implemented even the modest promises of the pre-general election Warwick agreement with the unions. Nevertheless, as long as the party relies upon union funding, and active support from trade union officials during elections, the Labour Party will remain organically connected to the Labour movement. The Unions wish to have influence over government, and will not abandon the Labour Party, as there is no other viable option for them to pursue. New Labour fully accepts neo-liberalism, but they are pragmatic, and largely work around organised resistance, rather than provoke confrontations. So their privatisation of the NHS, and their attacks on education are long drawn out and exhausting battles, not Thatcher style set piece battles. The stop go dance of the public sector pensions crisis shows how New Labour could wear out the resistance, unless the union leaderships lift their game.



The background therefore is that the Labour Party has a broadly progressive electoral constituency, and historical links with the trade union infrastructure, but it is in continued antagonism with both of these elements. Nevertheless, although the Party no longer articulates the aspirations of these support groups, they do provide a constraint upon it, and mediate the transformation of the Labour Party, so that it appears less dramatic than it is.



The processes of change within the Labour party, the tension between New labour’s neo-liberalism and the trade unions, and the increasing age profile of Labour’s electoral support, are causing a protracted period of decomposition of the Labour Party. This is manifesting itself in a small dribble of labour activists still leaving the party, and in the exceptional case of Moslem voters in a few areas they have broken in significant numbers to Respect, or in Oxford to the community activists of the Independent Working Class Association. But mostly it is seen by disengagement and alienation from the political process, as fewer working class people vote, and it is this disengagement that also finds expression in the BNP.



The three challenges for us are to somehow connect with the Labour Party’s electoral base, which is broadly to the left of the Labour Party itself; to create a natural pole of attraction for activists; and to create a credible vehicle to provide political representation for the trade unions. What is more, we have to be able to do this while still maintaining a creative dialogue with activists still in the Labour party. These objectives flow from the composition and traditions of the British labour movement, and the current state of left politics in England. This is the only starting point we can take: any attempt to build a progressive alternative to the Labour party based upon preconceived schema of what type of party it should be will be left flapping in the wind.



But it cannot mean a recreation of Labourism, because to succeed any new political formation must go beyond these three tasks. Unless and until a “tipping point” is reached where an electoral alternative to Labour can credibly win elections, then Labour’s electoral base will stay largely intact, decaying slowly. A successful radical electoral alternative must therefore also seek to engage with those who do not vote, which means convincing them that voting makes a difference. Voting only makes a difference if you actually are different, which means breaking from the neo-liberal consensus. But to succeed, we also need to recognise the degree to which society has changed, and any new organisation must combine with the critiques of globalisation, consumerism and environmental destruction, and distrust of hierarchical structures by many activists. What is more, the continued crisis of participation in the trade unions requires that we win people to the ideology that collective action is a powerful way of changing the world.

 

The crises of progressive politics

The two larger left groups, the Socialist Party (SP) and the Socialist Workers Party (SWP), have both partially grasped that the process of recomposition of the left is going to be a complex one. There is some truth in the argument from the SWP, for example, that a Coalition model avoids some of the drawbacks of prejudging the nature and evolution of a new organisation. However this argument only holds if the coalition is seen as part of a process of change, and development into something better, rather than a static model that ossifies the relationships between the constituent parts. Similarly the Campaign for a New Workers Party shows some encouraging recognition from the SP of the complexity of the task, but perhaps they are a little too wiling to lay their hand on the rudder.



There are no easy answers, because although many socialist activists, and certainly most young activists in the anti-globalisation and environmental movements are distrustful of the “Leninist” model, the SWP and SP cadre are significant assets to progressive politics, and any successful project must include them and respect their right to caucus – but it is also necessary to coax from them an understanding that they have to change, and stop trying to control events and other people by implementing the far seeing wisdom of the leading committees.



Both the SP and SWP played an unfortunate role in the demise of the Socialist Alliance (SA), the failure of which was a blow to reconstituting radical politics in England and Wales because the SA represented the possibility of providing a new home for the former Labour left and other socialists. This never really developed beyond a possibility, for a number of reasons, one of which was the distrust of the left groups by many former members of the Labour left, and also the political difficulty in living up to expectations. Both the SP and the SWP prioritised building their own organisations, and at election times the SA achieved only modest votes, crushed by the first past the post electoral system.



Given the overwhelming defeat of the socialist left within the Labour Party by Blair, and the inability of the left outside the Labour Party to make significant headway, those of us arguing for class based politics have become largely marginalised. What is more, it has been many a long year since experience of trade union struggle would lead any significant number of workers towards socialist politics



This marginalisation of class based politics has in fact reinforced the weakness of the trade unions, where despite reasonable levels of representation in some industries, and in the public sector, active participation is very narrow. Grass roots participation requires ideological commitment, but the mechanisms in the working class that used to promote socialist ideology are atrophied.


 

The Green Alternative

The largest progressive constituency in English politics is the Green Party. However, they are a bit of an enigma. Firstly the Green party has a number of progressive policies, but no strategy for achieving them other than winning a Westminster election. Secondly there is an absence of strategic thinking of how to get out of the minor party ghetto.



The Green Party has built a small but impressive electoral base. This is partly a single issue vote, and partly because the Green Party are seen as different. Certainly in electoral terms there is little evidence of overlap between the 1% to 4% who will vote for the hard left, and the 4% or 8% who will vote for the Greens. (Of course in local elections, isolated better performances can be achieved). Recent research by the Roundtree Foundation shows how fragile the Green's vote could be, whereas 35% of Green voters would consider voting Lib Dem, only 5% of Lib Dem voters would consider voting Green.



The Greens are understandable cautious of developing in any direction that will jeopardise their hard won electoral support. But if they want to achieve their objectives then they must dare to change. Sustainable economics is incompatible with the capitalist profit drive, so in order to be consistent greens, the Green Party must embrace anti-capitalism. Yet they stand on a knife edge. The Greens are given a more left face through the prominence of Caroline Lucas MEP, but were the Greens to become the largest party in Brighton in May, which is possible, it will give more prominence to Keith Taylor, who will present a more cautious face to the Green Party.



The Greens need to develop a strategic orientation that includes relating to the traditional concerns of the labour movement, yet without bending on the issues that the Greens are absolutely correct about – sustainability and opposition to economic growth for its own sake. Unfortunately, the lack of any unity within the socialist left also makes it less likely for the Green Party to be pulled in the direction of the more consistent green politics that would oppose the capitalist profit motive.




 

Who is standing in 2006.

The most striking thing looking at the list of left candidates is that Respect is standing three candidates in every ward in Newham and Tower Hamlets, which makes up more than half the total of candidates they are standing nationally. The Greens are making a strong nationwide challenge, but without specific local knowledge there is no way of telling which Green candidates are left wing. Generally a strong green vote is a good thing, but it is a double edged sword if conservative Green candidates are elected, as for example in Leeds, where they have joined a Tory led coalition.



If we exclude the two East London boroughs then there are more socialist candidates standing for other parties than Respect, including a number of candidates from the Alliance for Green Socialism in Leeds, and the Democratic Labour Party in Walsall. This is a relevant point because the population of Newham and Tower Hamlets is very different from the rest of England.



Respect’s strategy outside East London is to throw all their resources at a limited number of target seats. This is a viable and rational strategy, if not necessarily the only one. In some areas like Manchester this has caused local controversy, as the tactic has been poorly applied. Respect are standing in a ward never contested by the left before and are abandoning the admittedly small base they had established elsewhere in the city. And they are standing against one of the very few Labour Left candidates.



However there are clearly problems with their strategy for East London. By standing a candidate in every ward they are presenting themselves as a fully fledged alternative to Labour, in much the same way that the SWP have other times criticised the SSP for doing. It is hard to believe that in the whole of the two boroughs there are no labour left candidates who Respect should be standing down in favour of. Remember that in 1945 the Communist Party deliberately decided not to contest all the council seats in Stepney, following Phil Piratin’s parliamentary victory, as the CP wanted to maintain a working relationship with the Labour activists.



Possibly the most important single campaign is Paul Sutton’s in Stoke. He is one of the two Sutton brothers who have recently left the Labour Party in a town where the hate filled message of the BNP needs to be countered by a class based message of hope. If he can retain his seat this gives socialists in Stoke a firm mandate to challenge new Labour, and even if he loses a strong vote will provide a basis for continuing the fight.


 

The Council Tax Challenge.

Insufficient consideration has been given by most of the left of the Council tax, which is a class issue, and one that strikes at the heart of New Labourism, and the antagonism between the Labour party and its own electoral base. The exception to this is the Socialist Party, who have a sensible and practical approach, as exemplified by the recent alternative budget proposed by Stoke councillors, Dave and Paul Sutton.



It is the conceit of New Labour that it would be electorally disadvantageous to raise higher taxation on the rich at general elections. In fact there are a number of modest measures that would enable the exchequer to significant increase income with only marginal impact on the general population, for example a wealth tax on those with fortunes over £2 million, or a 50% income tax band for those earning over £60000.

But the failure of New Labour to raise taxation from the rich is instead paid for by a relentless year on year ratcheting up of council tax: a taxation burden that falls hardest on pensioners and those on modest incomes. Paradoxically, the increases in Council Tax are less of an issue for the Tory’s core voters than they are for the Labour Party’s own traditional base of support, and this is costing Labour dearly in local elections.



Margaret Thatcher changed the balance of local authority funding so that the bulk of the money now comes from the central exchequer. New Labour have continued with this arrangement as it limits local autonomy and diminishes the scope for local government to undermine Blair’s policies. So to maintain services in the face of deliberate underfunding from central government, local authorities are forced to make disproportionately large increases in Council Tax. In most cases there is a steady attrition of services at the same time.



Having stood myself several times for the council, my experience is that along with race and immigration, the Council Tax is one of the really big issues with working class voters. Naturally we need to defend services, but socialists cannot defend services by relying upon regressive taxation that falls hardest on the poor. However, a propaganda approach of just arguing for Council tax to be abolished in favour of a local services tax based upon ability to pay is not sufficient. Even the Scottish Socialist Party failed to make parliamentary progress with their local services tax. The English left are in an even weaker position. We have to confront central government over the issue of funding, and be prepared to fight.



Respect’s literature seems very quiet on the issue of Council Tax, yet if they do form a significant opposition group on any council, or even gain control, they will be called upon to create a budget. The only way to avoid attacking their own supporters with Council Tax increases is to have such a confrontation with national government over funding. This will be a very difficult campaign, and individual councillors will face surcharges and disbarment. The government now has the power to take over councils and appoint administrators if they fail to balance the books, so any such fight could swiftly escalate. It is not clear, given Respect’s weak mechanisms of accountability, whether a diverse group of Respect councillors, not all of whom come from a class struggle background, could hold the line.



The Green Party is in an even worse position. Although the party has a progressive policy on taxation, implementation is postponed until a Green Government is formed at Westminster, so in the meantime local council groups must conform to the same logic as the mainstream parties, and have at various times gone into coalition with the Lib Dems and even Tories, such as we see in Leeds at the moment.


 

So what would be a good result?

Generally, in local elections left of labour candidates except where there are special circumstances, get votes of around 2% or 4%. Anything above that is good, and suggests that the campaign has some resonance, anything below that suggests that you are doing something wrong: perhaps your leaflets shouldn’t have mentioned the dictatorship of the proletariat and the Hegelian dialectic after all.



But we also have to judge what the impact of our campaigns is on developing networks of relationships with other activists in the town, the degree to which it is having an impact on the local Labour party. How many activists are involved in the campaign, etc. Crudely these factors will be reflected in the size of the vote as well.



In local elections it doesn’t matter so much that the left are standing under different banners, and we can all play to our own local strengths. I am hoping that when we look at the elections outside East London that we will see an average vote of around 4%, with some isolated results above 10%. That would be progress on the Socialist Alliance. Except in areas where there may be large Moslem populations I am not expecting Respect to do any better than the rest of the left.



So what about Tower Hamlets and Newham? Galloway has set the bar high by suggesting that they will win control of a council, more likely they will end up with small but significant opposition groups on both councils. This will both be a big step forward, and also a very significant challenge. Once they have a few councillors it will no longer be enough to talk about Iraq, they will have to deal with next year’s budget, and can they hold their coalition together to lead a militant mass campaign for better funding, which may include surcharges on councillors?



It is an exciting prospect that a group of Respect councillors in Tower Hamlets could lead a fight over the issue of the Council tax, which is an issue that transcends the exceptional nature of their predominantly Moslem vote. Galloway has said it his ambition to fly the Palestinian flag over the town hall, but remember when John Lawrence was leader of St Pancras council in the 1950s he flew the red flag over the town hall – are Respect ready to take up that example?



However it pans out, if Respect win a significant group on either council this could provides the platform for the left with a practical basis for collaboration in a struggle against the council tax, and local government underfunding. It is through such practical collaboration over specific concrete projects that a new left can be built, and which could pull the Greens behind us.
 

 

 

April 2006

> > home page > >