The Need to Advance towards the Goals of the Trade Union Movement

Workers' Daily Internet Edition: Article Index :

The Need to Advance towards the Goals of the Trade Union Movement

Tony Blair’s visit to the TUC, taking place on Tuesday, September 12, was full of the resonance of Tuesday, September 11, 2001. At that time, delegates were preparing to demonstrate their opposition to the Labour government’s programme of privatisation of public services. Because of the events of 9/11, Tony Blair at that time cancelled his address, speaking instead of the “new evil” of “mass terrorism”, and the TUC, after paying tribute to the victims of the attacks on the twin towers and to the emergency services, suspended its proceedings.

            Five years later, the Prime Minister returned to his theme. This time the opposition was broader, and Tony Blair noticeably ill at ease. He was heckled, “Troops Out” placards displayed, and the RMT delegation, among others, staged a demonstration and left the hall. In the question and answer session which followed Blair’s speech, all the questions were antagonistic and received applause, whereas all the answers were non-answers, evading the questions, and were met with stony silence.

            For all the just sentiment of the delegates to reject the anti-worker, anti-social offensive concentrated in the person of Tony Blair, the opposition to the Prime Minister seemed to lack force and depth. That was even more true of the Congress proceedings as a whole.

            One problem is that the old methods and ways of proceeding stand in the way of serious discussion and even of elaborating serious stands, and the delegates, though representing the broad section of the workers’ movement, have difficulty in coming to terms with how to deal with the new reality when the TUC leadership seems so imbued with the values which are comfortable with the aim of “making Britain competitive” and cannot see beyond its slogan of “Britain at work”.

            This myopic stand of the TUC that seeped through all the proceedings of the Congress has not come to terms with the government’s stance in favour of armed intervention and disregard for the sovereignty of nations, but poses the issue as one of “global solidarity”. It has not come to terms with the crisis of representative democracy in general and of working class representation in particular and is happy to rely on “campaigning and communicating” to attempt justice and fairness, while completely marginalising the workers from setting the agenda in society or even controlling their own future at any level. It has not come to terms with the fact that the monopolies are exercising their dictate over every aspect of society’s organisation, and that the workers have to be organised to resist this serious onslaught on the public good, preferring instead to speak of “organising and rights at work” in a fashion which suggests that there are some anomalies which can be straightened out with the application of common sense.

            That there is utter disillusion with Tony Blair there can be no doubt, and there was quite a lot of talk of the need for “renewal” of the Labour Party. But what emerged into the light of day at the Congress was that no-one is drawing attention to the need to put the initiative into the workers’ hands, and that neither Tony Blair nor those who speak of renovating the Party have any answer to the concerns of the working people but to assert that the Labour Party is the lesser of two evils. The “elephant in the living room”, furthermore, is studiously defined without the least reference to Britain’s imperialist interventions globally, the state-organised terror and racism at home, the crisis of the social system with its attendant crisis of values.

            The lack of force, therefore, is a reflection of the need for both the TUC and the trade unions themselves, rather than heed the siren call to “renew” the Labour Party, to renew their own organisations as is required in the present anti-social, anti-worker and pro-war offensive so as to achieve the active participation of their members and consolidate themselves as collectives which fulfil the aim of organising to defend the interests of labour. The trade union movement cannot allow that the initiative should be handed over to the Labour Party or anyone else in the fight to defend their interests. Neither can it allow that the workers should follow the chauvinist lead of the Labour Party in its attitude to democracy, legality, racism, war and sovereignty, which promotes that the state is neutral in its attitude to the working class and the oppressed peoples.

            The sentiment of the workers’ movement, as reflected in the delegates to Congress, is to rise to the occasion, it is to fight against the blocks, legal and political, to the collectives of the workers getting organised to defend both the interests of their own collectives, the interests of the working class as a whole, the interests of their fellow human beings, including immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers, and the interests of the working class and people of all lands who have been made the target of imperialism and neo-liberal globalisation. The speakers who brought out this sentiment received the loudest cheers and applause, while to go against it was to receive catcalls and opposition. But to discuss among the delegates is to realise that it is difficult for many to put their finger on what is lacking.

            What is required in the situation the workers now find themselves in is in fact to discuss the developments in terms of the economy and of the restructuring of the state itself so as to draw the appropriate conclusions. It is to sort out a strategy which defends the interests of labour, the local communities and Britain as a whole, together with its peoples’ national rights, and contributes to the same internationally at this time when grave dangers threaten the whole of humankind. Within this situation, the time is ripe to settle scores with the old conscience which is moulded by the Labour Party, and for the workers to act to become political in their own right and to sort out leaders from their own ranks who represent the wisdom of the class and who look to the emancipation of their own class as being linked to the emancipation of humanity as a whole.

            In this respect, the proceedings of the TUC, and in particular the contempt for Tony Blair and what he represents, demonstrate the crying need for the workers to fight for an anti-war government and to adopt a pro-social programme which puts the claims of the people on the economy in the first place. The renewal which is urgently required is that of the political institutions and system so as to establish arrangements which provide the rights of all with a guarantee, putting the defence of collective rights in the first place. The values which the trade union movement has for long upheld and fought many battles of principle for are encapsulated in the slogan “An Injury to One Is An Injury to All!” This is the conclusion that the 2006 TUC Congress irresistibly points towards.