Miliband’s One Nation Labour
Cannot Settle Scores with “Austerity”

Ed Miliband being confronted at the TUC
Congress on whether he supports or opposes austerity Following his recent speech to the TUC conference, Ed Miliband gave his leader’s speech to the Labour Party conference on Tuesday, September 24. Whether consciously or unconsciously, its assumptions were based on promoting illusions about the character of a class society, of a society with rich and poor, of worker and owner of capital, of the nature of “austerity” and “recovery”, of what the working class must do to lead society out of the crisis and fight for a programme for the alternative. This is a serious problem for the development of the workers’ movement and the requirement to build a Workers’ Opposition to lead the fight for the rights of workers and build a future in defending the rights of all. It is a serious problem in muddying the waters when the diversion is being put up as to whether the issue is to maintain or to break the link of the organised workers with the Labour Party, as it confuses the issue of the necessity of the working class to develop its own programme, based on its own values and its own thinking.

In what was largely a rehash of his conference speech a year earlier, Miliband continued to repeat, over and over, his “One Nation” phrase, this time supplemented by his insistence that “We are Britain” and “Britain can do better than this”.

According to Miliband, “it falls to us, to build One Nation, a country for all, a Britain we rebuild together”.

He was actually clearer last year: “One Nation: a country where everyone has a stake. One Nation: a country where prosperity is fairly shared. One Nation: where we have a shared destiny, a sense of shared endeavour and a common life that we lead together.” He sees this as taking up the mantle of Disraeli (or the 14th Earl of Derby before him, whom Miliband painted as “Red Ed” at the TUC Congress), whose vision Miliband expressed at that time as “a vision of a Britain where patriotism, loyalty, dedication to the common cause courses through the veins of all and nobody feels left out. It was a vision of Britain coming together to overcome the challenges we faced.” It was a bizarre claim then, and it appeared even more bizarre when addressed to delegates (or “audience” as Ed Miliband called them) at the TUC Congress in Bournemouth.

Last time, he asserted that for Labour a One Nation Party meant that “we can’t go back to Old Labour. We must be the party of the private sector just as much as the party of the public sector.”

This time, he called for “a politics that hears your voice – rich and poor alike – accepting their responsibilities to each other”.

What, one might ask, are the responsibilities of the poor to the rich?!

Try as he might, Miliband cannot hide the reality that, just as New Labour was the “party of business”, One Nation Labour is a party that is not willing or capable of settling scores with the neo-liberal assumptions of austerity. Miliband’s “One Nation” is practically identical to Cameron’s “we’re all in it together”.

“Leadership is about risks and difficult decisions,” he tells us. “It is about those lonely moments when you have to peer deep into your soul... guided by the only thing that matters: your sense of what is right.” This is the kind of leadership Britain needs, because “to make Britain better we have got to win a race to the top, not a race to the bottom. A race to the top which means that other countries will buy our goods the companies will come and invest here and that will create the wealth and jobs we need for the future but we are not going to be able to do it easily... It is going to be tough; it is not going to be easy... We are going to have to stick to strict spending limits to get the deficit down. We are not going to be able to spend money we don’t have...”

And to the TUC, he said: “We know life won’t be easy under a Labour government. We’ll have to stick to strict spending limits.”

In other words, austerity. “I know that means you ask: What do we have to say to our members about what would be different under a Labour government than a Tory government? The answer is we’d make different choices in pursuit of a fundamentally different vision of our economy.”

This is Miliband’s One Nation economy – meaning nothing more than “one that works for all working people, not just a few at the top”.

His recent speeches seem full of such trivialities, from which follow baseless claims such as “a Labour government would get our young people working again”. It is a pragmatic idea of an economy that “works for all”, including the idea of “fairness”.

In his TUC speech, Miliband said: “What makes an economy succeed is not just a few people at the top, but the forgotten wealth creators. The people who put in the hours, do the work, do two jobs... They’re the people who make our economy strong. They’re the people we have to support to make a recovery that lasts.”

It is this putting in of extra work, squeezing out more, that makes the economy strong and that a Labour government will encourage. It is what we should all be doing. This is entirely in line with the central themes of “fairness” and “responsibility” that characterise the present Conservative-Liberal programme. An economy that “works for all” is one that gets “the best companies to come here”, one that succeeds in the global race. It is a continuation of the idea that workers and the entire population should be behind the interests of “British business”, as one nation; the illusion is that this can work fairly and responsibly for all.

Miliband wishes to create a kind of party that fits with these aims. It is in this context, and using the pretext of the Falkirk affair, that the debate is generated about the connection with the unions. Whatever the past history of the Labour Party, its present reality is that it has long since consolidated its role as a cartel party – it no longer represents the working class in parliament, but forms part of the state apparatus itself. The plans to change membership rules, including that members of affiliated unions would have to opt in rather than out of membership, are the final stages in severing the connection, taking the ending of Labour as the political wing of the organised working class to its conclusion.

The issue for the working class, regardless, is its independent agenda. The Labour Party is groping its way in the dark towards some redefinition of itself that it hopes will work, but which is based on neo-liberal assumptions and resulting illusions. It is exactly these assumptions and illusions that block the development of the alternative, and with which the working class must settle scores. The confused ramblings of the Labour Party at this time highlight the necessity to develop that independent agenda and build the organised Workers’ Opposition to the austerity agenda and the parties which represent that agenda.

One of the crucial and most passionate debates at the TUC Congress 2013 was on the necessity to oppose the privatisation of Royal Mail. The debate was also linked to the struggle to reverse rail privatisation and the need to take a stand in defence of all public services.

As if it were a calculated insult to the TUC and the workers of Royal Mail, the government made the announcement of the flotation of Royal Mail on the day following the conclusion of the Congress. Business minister Michael Fallon declared that the government would press ahead with the disposal of the majority of Royal Mail despite the fact of the possibility of workers of the Communication Workers Union (CWU) balloting for strike action in mid-October.

On Friday, the government offered shares in Royal Mail for sale, and it was reported that it had received orders for all the shares on offer. If an "over-allotment option", whereby more stock can be sold if there is strong demand, is exercised, the government's stake in the company could fall to as little as 30 percent, news agencies reported. Scandal-hit Goldman Sachs and UBS are running the sale of Royal Mail.

The government’s argument that it needs to privatise Royal Mail in order to “modernise” and “compete in a thriving parcels market” is entirely fraudulent.

There has been a long struggle of the postal workers and their union, backed by public opinion, against the privatisation of what is now Royal Mail. As many commentators have pointed out, the privatisation of the post office was considered a step-too-far by Margaret Thatcher.

Tony Burke, Unite, speaking on
the need to defend public servicesThe mover of the motion at the TUC Congress against privatisation raised the fundamental issue: who benefits? Is delivery of mail to remain a public service or is running the service to pay the rich to become paramount? The government is hoping to make a quick score through the flotation on the stock market. At the same time, the monopolies require the delivery of mail to remain in place without the necessity to pay for its full value. It is the postal workers themselves who are fighting for the public good, for the delivery of post not just to big business but to every resident in town and country to remain.

Of course, the mantra of “competing in the global market” has been gradually imposed since the neo-liberal ideology and practice has been imposed by government and the ruling elite. It is especially since the wrecking activity towards social programmes has intensified that open privatisation and the upholding of monopoly right against the public good have come so much to the fore, as they have with the health service. It was in 2009 that the Royal Mail workers took a stand against the government dictate of New Labour dedicated to part-privatisation and driving down the wages and conditions of the workers. Under New Labour, Royal Mail ceased to have a monopoly in the handling of letters in 2006. Today, the old arrangements have had their day, and the issue has become one of the contest between the Workers’ Opposition and the owners of monopoly capital as to which the new arrangements should be.

The TUC Congress motion against Royal Mail privatisation combats the Coalition government argument that privatisation “is the only method that can secure investment for the service”. This is a start. It also points out, “In the previous year Royal Mail made £411m profit as a public service, and could become self-financing.” The issue is that the added value created by the Royal Mail workers, which the £411m undoubtedly underestimates through illegitimate capital-centred assumptions, must be realised in order to ensure that the postal service serves the public good.

As the motion emphasises, the postal workers have already rejected privatisation in an independent ballot by 96 per cent on a 74 per cent turnout in May this year. This was so, despite the government’s attempts to buy off the workforce with its proposals of a free distribution of shares to staff. The workers are also determined to safeguard their future terms and conditions.

The privatisation of Royal Mail and the speed with which it is being implemented at this time are a concentrated attack not only on the postal workers, but also on the very conception of a public postal service fulfilling the needs of society and the social economy. It is an abrogation of the government’s responsibility and an abuse of its power to push it through against the interests of the workers and against the popular will. WWIE applauds the determination of the postal workers and of the organised working class as a whole to take a stand in defence of Royal Mail and in defence of all public services. It is essential that all should support this stand, and that the workers participate in the mass movement in defence of public right against monopoly right.

For Your Information:

The Commons Library Standard Note on the privatisation says:

“In the Coalition Agreement the Government said it would aim to inject private capital into Royal Mail, and explore the opportunities for employee ownership. It has signalled its firm intention bring private capital into Royal Mail through a sale of shares this financial year (2013/14), with at least 10% of shares reserved for employees. One of the central aims of the recent reforms to postal services has been to create the framework that will enable these changes to happen.

“The Government has already:

• transferred regulation of postal services from Postcomm to Ofcom and created a regulatory framework that gives the obligation to provide a universal postal service to Royal Mail and allows for greater commercial freedom, for example, in the pricing of postage stamps and charges for parcels;

• relieved the Royal Mail Group (and the Post Office) of the burden of the very large deficit in the Royal Mail Pension Plan (RMPP) by transferring the responsibility for funding to the Treasury;

• separated the Post Office network from the Royal Mail while continuing to provide a network subsidy to the Post Office at least until March 2015; and

• pressed Royal Mail to improve its financial performance through continuing its modernisation programme.”

The Standard Note points out that the Postal Services Act 2011 was the main vehicle for implementing the government’s programme for reform of the postal services. The Act gives the government the power to sell shares in Royal Mail without any requirement for it to retain a share in the company. It abolished the criminal offence of conveying certain letters without a licence which had been contained in the Postal Services Act 2000.

The Royal Mail Group is currently a 100% government-owned UK-wide company that was established as a separate “sister” company to Post Office Limited on April 1, 2012, following passage of the 2011 Act. It is responsible for the collection, sorting and delivery of letters and parcels in the UK under a universal service obligation. In addition it has a substantial business operating in Europe and elsewhere.

The CWU in a letter from Billy Hayes and Dave Ward to the minister of state on July 9 put forward the position that “the Royal Mail Group should be a ‘not for dividend company’ with profits reinvested back into services and the workforce. It would operate for public good, balancing its social obligations with commercial opportunities.”

This year's TUC Congress once again debated the defence of occupational pensions, the state pension and state pension age. In the stand for the alternative, the fight is to defend existing defined pensions and for a future with decent pensions for all.

The General Council Report highlighted the Public Services Pensions Act passed in April that put in place legislative framework to further attack public service pensions. This Act not only outlawed final salary pension schemes in public services but, as is already happening in the private sector, it has opened up deregulation of these public sector pensions based on average earnings and Defined Benefits (DB) on retirement and their replacement with “Defined Contribution” (DC) schemes. DC schemes give no guaranteed payments on retirement but depend on the individual's “portfolio” with which you can “buy an annuity”. Such DC schemes are rife with scandalously high private sector management charges, advisory charges and other costs. Furthermore, over the last year the TUC and trade union pension negotiators reported that they have had to fight the introduction of the application of EU insolvency rules to Defined Benefit pension schemes “which would have drastic implications” as DB schemes were declared insolvent. As a result, they reported that the Commissioner Barnier has said he will not include the issue of solvency rules in his plans in the changes of the EU directive although he noted “it will remain and issue in the longer term”. Opposed by the trade unions, the government is also continuing to allow the destruction of private sector DB pension schemes through cash incentives and other means whilst continuing to roll out its auto enrolment of workers in pension schemes across the whole economy.

In January, the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) published the white paper The Single-Tier Pension: a simple foundation for saving (STSP) commencing in 2016. The General Council Report, whilst saying that a single pension for all was preferable in principle to the present fragmented and means-tested state pension, raises major concerns about “its implementation and design” which is to reduce investment in pensions and not increase them. The Report calls for extra investment in the STPSP “so that it is a higher level, in order to achieve a dignified retirement for all”.

In the debate at the TUC, noting “the opposition of the Scottish government to the UK pension policy”, the adopted TUC composite motion on pensions condemned the decision of Westminster which has resulted in an increase in employee contributions, the raising of the normal retirement age to 68 and cuts to pension income by as much as 40%. Congress recognised that “the replacement of DB with DC pension schemes has transferred all of the risk from the employer to the employee”. In this way, Congress recognised that the government is further robbing the pension funds of their surplus to pay the financiers under the guise of paying off the government deficit. In this context, speakers in the debate pointed out that it is fraud that the government claims that “reform” of pensions is necessary because of increased longevity of the population.

Many delegates speaking at Congress reflected the continuing actions and strikes of the workers to defend occupational pensions in the workplace, to fight for a decent state pension and to oppose the raising of the retirement age. In speaking on the pension motions, the NUT delegate described as historic the agreement with the NASUWT to continued actions with other one-day strikes taking place on October 1 and 17 in defence of their pay, pensions and conditions and a further one-day national strike in November. Matt Wrack, general secretary of the Fire Brigades Union, spoke about the defence of their pensions and in particular the pension age and its relationship to the fitness of fire-fighters. He emphasised that in spite of all of the recommendations to retain their retirement age at 55, including the government's own commissioned report, firefighters were being subject to a change in their occupational pension age from 55 to 60 and beyond. As a result, the FBU have balloted for strike action by 78%, and in fact started their actions last week.

This TUC debate highlights the urgent need for these struggles to defend pensions that the workers’ movement is waging to become part of an effective Workers’ Opposition to hold the government to account. The government’s attack on pensions must be defeated. To do this the working class must first eliminate the influence of the consciousness that presents their pensions as a “cost” on the economy. This is the self-serving notion of the ruling elite that presents themselves as the “wealth creators” and the industrial and public service workers as a cost and drain on the economy. The alternative direction for the economy is based on the reality that it is the industrial and public service workers that add value to the economy whilst it is the rich that are the cost and drain on it.

Taking a stand for the alternative means workers’ rights are guaranteed, their livelihoods, including pensions, safeguarded, and responsibility for the public good put as the centrepiece of the social economy. Defined pensions must become a universal social programme similar to universal health care delivered by government. They must be funded in exchange for the value workers bring to the socialised economy and produce during their working lives. On this basis workers must continue their fight to defend existing defined pensions and for a future with decent pensions for all.

The Labour Party conference devoted one of its sessions to discussing what was referred to as Britain’s “Global Role”. It included keynote speeches by Jim Murphy, the shadow defence minister, shadow international development secretary Ivan Lewis, and the shadow foreign secretary, Douglas Alexander.

The three shadow ministers all took their cue from the recent vote in parliament opposing military intervention in Syria. They characterised this as a victory for the Labour Party’s leadership, but at the same time they made it clear that the party was completely opposed to any form of “isolationism”, a term which they used to attack the alleged outlook of their parliamentary rivals. Indeed all three made great efforts to stress that the Labour Party, and a future Labour government, would be even more inclined to interfere on a global basis, both on the grounds of what has previously been referred to as “preventative intervention” and what Douglas Alexander referred to as “progressive internationalism”.

In this regard the shadow defence minister, for example, not only championed the invasion and continuing occupation of Afghanistan, but even the war over the Malvinas. He boasted that Labour was “the Party of the Armed Forces” and that as a government it would enter into new military alliances throughout the world. He made the following unequivocal pledge: “Labour has never turned our back on our international responsibilities and while some may consider us a small island we remain a big country with a global reach – and under Ed Miliband’s leadership we will retain that tradition of knowing that our duty to stand for what we believe in travels well beyond our borders.” The shadow international defence secretary announced that the Labour Party would be at the forefront of championing “radical change” in the world in order to bring about “poverty reduction” and also envisaged “an end to aid dependency with new relationships between nations built on reciprocity and shared values”. According to Ivan Lewis, the Labour Party would safeguard the enslaving “aid” budget, which is also used as a subsidy for the big monopolies and “are in the process of developing a centre-left progressive coalition of politicians who share Ed Miliband's belief that now is the time for radical change in the world, not tinkering at the edges”.

It was left to Douglas Alexander to spell out the nature of the Labour Party’s “progressive internationalism”. Apparently it meant supporting military strikes and regime change in Libya, as well as the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. In short, and as in the past, Labour was prepared to “support the use of force”. A future Labour government would continue to support Britain’s membership of the EU, take the lead in strengthening the warmongering NATO alliance and seek to deepen Britain’s relationship with Asia. The shadow foreign secretary’s speech did everything possible to convince the listener that the Labour Party would continue the Westminster consensus on the use of force to settle international affairs, and that as a future government it would commit itself to strengthening the military and economic alliances with the other big powers. The leading Labour Party spokesmen went out of their way to distance themselves from what they referred to as the “isolationism” of the present Coalition government.

The proposed orientation of a future Labour government is one which bases itself on intervention in the affairs of other countries, albeit allegedly for “humanitarian” purposes, on being the “Party of the armed forces” and using military might to settle international affairs. It is an orientation that must be condemned as only serving the major financial institutions and monopolies, and contributing to international instability and war. In these circumstances, the task of the workers’ movement and all progressive people is to step up the struggle for a government that settles scores with the whole notion of Britain’s “global role” – this is the struggle for an anti-war government.

SAVE OUR NHS. Defend Jobs and Services. No to Austerity. March and Rally - Sunday 29 September 2013 For all details, see:
http://www.tuc.org.uk/industrial/tuc-22405-f0.cfm