Issues Raised at the
CWU Conference
Two serious issues have been raised at the
Communications Workers’ Union conference.
One concerns the link between the trade unions and
the Labour Party and the political levy which goes to fund that Party. The
second was the concern about the direction of the Post Office and the issue of
whether an agenda of privatisation would be implemented.
At the CWU annual conference, the delegates overwhelmingly
turned down a proposed increase in the political levy from 10p to 12p a week,
or from 45p to 55p a month, as recommended by the NEC. The increase would have
given the Labour Party an extra £200,000 a year. But speakers from the
1,400 delegates who attended the conference supported arguments that, for
example, to accept the rise would be to endorse the government’s policies
in only increasing the pension by 75p a week, in introducing university tuition
fees, and its refusal to repeal anti-trade-union laws. It was argued that a
serious look should be given to the Labour Party’s next election manifesto
before committing more money to the Party.
Such a stand indicates that serious consideration is being
given by the workers to the role of the Labour Party. It is necessary that the
workers consider this matter more deeply. For example, could it not be said
that it is the link of the organised trade unions with the Labour Party that is
contributing to the marginalisation of the workers from the political affairs
of society, from setting their own agenda and taking the lead in finding the
way out of the crisis of capitalist society? One hundred years ago, when the
Labour Representation Committee was formed, which gave rise to the Labour Party
in 1906, there was both a need for the rights and interests of the workers and
their trade unions to be represented within parliament and also a demand that
the workers should have their own independent party, independent that is of
property, commercial and banking interests that were coalescing and being
concentrated in the financial oligarchy. A whole century has passed, and
today’s society is one which is geared in every conceivable way to serving
the interests of that very financial oligarchy, the rich. It is from the rich
that the demand has its origin that the workers support their programme of
competing in the global marketplace. What role is the Labour Party playing in
these circumstances? Far from it being the case that it is representing the
interests of the workers and organisations which fight for their interests, far
from it being the case that it is independent of the interests of the rich, it
has become irreversibly transformed into a Party which has jettisoned any
vestige of socialism and social ownership of the means of production. It is
acting as the salesperson of the demands and interests of the monopolies,
summed up in the call that competition in the global economy is everything, and
has formulated its Third Way doctrine as the preferred programme of the rich at
this time. It has consolidated the party system of government and is further
reforming it so that the people are depoliticised and kept away from making the
decisions which affect their lives.
When the objective need in society is to lift it out of the
crisis, change the direction of the economy and solve its problems in favour of
the people, it is once more a crying need that the workers take up their
leading role. As a component part of this, it is once more a demand of the
times that the workers have their own independent mass party. At the CWU
conference, Stephen Byers, Trade and Industry Secretary, spoke of the national
interest and policies which serve it. But what is this "national
interest" he is speaking of? Is there such a thing which can be
identified? Competing in the global market is not a policy for the national
interest, in the sense of a programme to lift society out of the crisis. It is
a programme for paying the rich and serving their interests, and covering this
over with a veneer of "opportunity for all". National interest could
be said to exist if and when the working class itself asserted itself as the
leading class of the nation, and put the assets of the country under its
control so that the people’s claims can be met.
This leads on to the second serious issue that was raised
by the CWU conference. The delegates voted to break the link with the Labour
Party, that is, to withdraw support from Labour, "financial and
moral", if the government ever privatised the Post Office, in full or in
part. Derek Hodgson, the union’s general secretary, had held up the piece
of paper containing the government pledge on public ownership of the Post
Office, which some delegates likened to Neville Chamberlain’s infamous
action after appeasing Hitler at Munich and promising "peace in our
time". Then the Trade and Industry Secretary himself came before
conference to pledge that Britain’s Post Office "will remain 100 per
cent publicly owned". Leaving aside whether this pledge also is worth the
paper it is printed on, the question arises as to whether this aim is the real
issue, whether it gets to the heart of what the CWU delegates and society as a
whole is demanding of the Post Office.
The clear sentiment of the workers and other democratic
forces in society in insisting to the government that public ownership should
be safeguarded is that the Post Office should be a service meeting the needs of
society rather than being a vehicle for the amassing of private wealth. But the
restructuring of the Post Office through the Postal Services Bill at present
going through parliament, together with the directives of the European Union on
deregulation of national postal services, openly have the aim of opening up
postal services to the dictates of the global market, to the aim of the
monopolies to compete in the making of maximum capitalist profits. The fact
that it is the government which has the ownership of the Post Office when it
becomes a plc, rather than private shareholders, will not alter the aim of the
restructured Post Office. The government is actually bringing the structure of
the Post Office into line with its aim, which will be consolidated as that of
being competitive, of making profits. While other postal monopolies will
compete for the British market, the Post Office, as it is already doing, will
also compete abroad for markets. Profits will be appropriated by the rich in
either case. Funds will be channelled through government and will find their
way directly into the pockets of the financial oligarchy.
It is therefore important to understand that this
"Third Way" solution of neither privatisation nor nationalisation,
but "public ownership" as a public limited company, is entirely in
line with the government’s programme of running public services so that
the rich benefit, of public-private partnership, of PFI, of private concerns
directly running social programmes, as in health and education. This goes hand
in hand with cutting back government funding for these services.
This situation underlines the urgency and correctness of
the call, the independent programme of the working class, to Stop Paying the
Rich – Increase Investments in Social Programmes!
