BY IAN GRANT
LONDON - Growing divisions and tensions among the rulers of the United Kingdom have become more apparent in the run- up to the general election, which must be held by May 1997. Since losing a December by-election in Barnsley East, the ruling Conservative Party administration of Prime Minister John Major has lost control of the majority of seats in the House of Commons, and the party is deeply divided. Meanwhile, Labour Party chief Anthony Blair is continuing his drive to distance the party from trade unions, and make it as acceptable as possible to the rulers as an alternative government.

The British capitalist rulers are today faced with a three-pronged challenge. They are pushing to lower the value of labor power, including through inflicting direct cuts in the social wage, with a still undefeated working class. At the same time they seek to use their membership of NATO and special relationship with Washington to offset their economic decline. And they are forced to overhaul the institutions of the state, which were built up in the period of British imperialism's ascendancy but today are racked with crisis generated by Britain's decline: the monarchy, the dis-United Kingdom, the crisis-ridden Conservative Party -none of these are in shape for the choppy waters of the class struggle at the turn of the new century. How far and how fast to move on these questions has sharply divided the Conservative Party, also called the Tories, the chief political party of the imperialist rulers.

The Conservative government began this term of Parliament with an overall majority of 21. This has been eroded by a series of by-election defeats and defections to other parties. It can continue to rule as a minority administration as long as other parties vote for the major parts of its policy, and providing it survives a vote of confidence should one be moved by an opponent party. Major is today dependent on the support of the Unionist members of parliament (MPs), who favor continued British rule over northern Ireland. The prime minister must call an election by May 1997, and currently trails badly in public opinion polls.

Debate on European Monetary Union
Open warfare has broken out among the Tories on policy toward the European Union, which focused on the question of Britain's entry into the proposed European Monetary Union (EMU) in its first phase, scheduled for 1999. Many in the British ruling class oppose the prospect of subordinating the pound to the stronger German D-mark within the new "Euro" currency. Others argue that London cannot afford to be left out of the European bloc as they compete with capitalists in other parts of the world. Major has defended a "wait and see" policy, refusing to commit for or against the EMU, reflecting the prevailing view within the ruling class on this issue that, whatever the final outcome, London must be in on the negotiations.

Major is publicly opposed on this issue by a substantial number of "Euro-sceptic" Tory MPs, however. These elements within the Conservative Party believe an election victory is possible only on the basis of a sharp shift to the right, and a more aggressively nationalistic campaign waged around defense of British sovereignty. Such a campaign would, they argue, allow them to present a clear difference with Labour Party policy.

Labour Party leader Anthony Blair's speech to his Party Conference in October placed Labour firmly within the wait- and-see framework defended by the Tory leadership. "Leading Britain into an age of achievement means Britain leading in Europe," Blair said. He would, however, refuse to scrap Britain's power of veto over proposals made in the governing bodies of the European Union, the European Commission, council of ministers and intergovernmental conferences. Blair also pledged to keep all options open on whether to join the single currency or not, "determined according to our national interest."

Gordon Brown, the Labour Party shadow chancellor, has committed a future Labour Government to hold a referendum on the single currency question before any move to join was made.

Noting that little difference existed between Conservative and Labour policy on European Union, former Conservative Party Chairman Norman Tebbit warned that moves to join a single European currency would lead to a split in the Tories. "All those Conservatives who believe freedom, independence, and democracy matter above all other political programs would leave to join with those ... who shared that view," he said in a speech last November.

In a move which threatens Conservative majorities in several constituencies, rightist billionaire John Goldsmith has announced plans to field candidates in 600 constituencies where MPs fail to call for a referendum on greater European integration. Goldsmith's Referendum Party attracted 4,000 supporters to a conference in October. Alluding to the Referendum Party, Tebbit qualified his remarks. "Such an alliance need not be a single issue party. It could be a potential party of government," he said.

Goldsmith is currently a member of the European parliament (MEP), where he represents a constituency in France and heads up a rightist group of MEPs dubbed "Europe of Nations." A former head of the Institute of Directors, the smaller of the two main bosses' organizations in the United Kingdom, Goldsmith is sharply anti-immigrant. In his book The Trap, Goldsmith appeals to the real fears of middle class and working people - especially unemployment and job security - using populist demagogy for his reactionary appeals. He has adopted the description "rabble army" for the Referendum Party's membership. So far he has limited his election campaigning to the single issue of a referendum on Europe, hoping that in so doing he will make the best progress in winning Eurosceptic Tory MPs. He has also made overtures to the rightist Ulster Unionists, on whose support John Major must rely to keep his government in office. Press reports that Goldsmith and the Unionists had secured an agreement provoked some public debate among Unionist MPs.

Blair promotes `New Labour'
Under the pressure of economic depression, bourgeois politics has been moving steadily to the right. In the Labour Party this course has been forcefully pursued by Blair, who has championed the remodeling of the party's traditional pro-capitalist stance as "New Labour" in order to better convince the British ruling class that it can be a useful tool in government. Blair also hopes to capture the votes of better paid workers and the middle class. At the heart of this effort lie attempts to weaken its links with the trade unions. Blair has reduced Labour Party reliance on union funding to 54 percent, down from 77 percent 10 years ago. He has promised to reduce the trade unions' vote at party conference to 50 percent; it was 70 percent until this year.

In early October the Labour Party held its annual conference under the slogan "New Labour, New Life For Britain." Some 4.1 million trade unionists pay a political levy as part of their union dues and are counted as Labour Party members by this means. They have the right to vote in elections for the party leader. Union officials by dint of this affiliated membership currently carry 50 percent of votes at the Labour Party conference, and control 12 out of 26 National Executive Committee seats. Individual paper membership of the Labour Party has nearly doubled in the period since Blair became leader in 1994.

The unions themselves have seen a steep decline in their membership, organizing around one-third of workers today compared to two-thirds in 1979. Pressure from this declining dues base drives the union tops in turn to look for concessions from a "New Labour" government with which to consolidate their privileged position. In what the media billed as a big upset for Anthony Blair, and a resurgence of "Old Labour," the union delegates at the Trade Union Congress voted to set a figure for a minimum wage. The Labour Party manifesto pledges support for a minimum wage, but puts off policy decisions to a future "low pay commission" comprised of employee and employer representatives. No policy was adopted on a figure at the Labour Party Conference. There is no statutory minimum wage in the United Kingdom today. There used to be Wages Councils that set a statutory minimum in selected industries but these were abolished by the Tory government.

One spin-off from the tensions within the trade union and Labour Party bureaucracies has been the formation of the Socialist Labour Party (SLP). The new formation is headed by National Union of Mineworkers president Arthur Scargill, and aims to draw support from the left wing of the Labour Party and trade union officialdom. The SLP candidate in the Barnsley by-election polled 949 votes, just over 5 percent of those cast. Many workers abstained from the poll.

The principal left-wing grouping inside the Parliamentary Labour Party, known as the Socialist Campaign Group, which includes Tony Benn and a few dozen other members, has been critical of the formation of the SLP. At the same time the Socialist Campaign Group has remained silent in the face of the shift to the right led by Blair, explicitly in the interests of winning the general election.

`No more bosses vs. workers'
Blair's keynote speech to the Labour Party Conference highlighted his intent to defend the changes in industrial law already carried out by the Conservative government. These measures restrict workers' democratic rights in combating the employers' attacks on wages and conditions of work.

"The Labour Party is not the political arm of anybody today other than the British people," Blair said, referring to claims that Labour is in the pocket of the trade unions. "Let us settle these arguments about industrial laws once and for good. There will be no return to the 70's.... Forget the past. No more bosses versus workers. You are on the same side. The same team. Britain united. And we will win."

In a foreword to Labour's industrial strategy document, titled "Vision for Growth," shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry Margaret Becket spells out the Labour Party's approach to the bosses crisis. "Our economy once led the world yet, for some years now we have been falling behind as our economy slips ever further down the prosperity league," she states. "Labour rejects the view that this is something inevitable. We reject the view that our living standards must be driven to the lowest international level if we are to compete globally....

"Labour in government will seek to revitalize Britain's industries... in a spirit of partnership with industry and commerce, by building consensus on industrial policy."

Labour's unity of purpose in pursuing the foreign policy interests of Britain's ruling class has been a consistent aspect of the bi-partisan policy of the British parliament in opposing the unity and independence of Ireland. Britain still rules by force and violence in the northern part of that island. A Labour government sent troops to occupy the north in 1969; more than 19,000 remain today, despite the so-called peace process. The British government still excludes Sinn Fein from all-party talks on the future of the country.

In his Labour Party Conference speech, Blair reassured Britain's rulers that a Labour Government would continue to pursue this policy. The peace process "will be every bit as much of a priority for me as for John Major," Blair said. "We have been responsible in our actions over the peace process from the outset. We will continue to be so now."

Labour pledged support for the British government's moves to place ground forces in Central Africa as part of an international force in November. A small `reconnaissance" unit of 20 soldiers left the United Kingdom November 15 to assess the precise situation on the ground in Zaire.

Michael Portillo, Defense Secretary, told the British parliament November 14, "If people stand in our way then they must be prepared to pay the consequences of their action." Portillo claimed Britain had a moral obligation to act, supposedly to prevent a million refuges from starving. British troops would be given "robust" rules of engagement allowing them to fire on forces threatening them, he said.

As events in Zaire began to blow away the humanitarian smoke screen for military intervention, Claire Short MP, the Labour Party's Overseas Aid Spokesman, stated, "We should not rule out the use of troops to help, especially in the south of the country where the situation is unclear."

UK rulers nervous about Labour gov't
Britain's rulers traditionally prefer that their party, the Tories, form the government. They could live with a Labour administration headed by Anthony Blair, but most remain nervous about this prospect. If Labour won a majority in the parliamentary elections it would form an administration for the first time in 17 years. It would be only the sixth Labour government this century, during which time Labour has been in office for a total of less than 22 years. While the Labour Party program today is the most right wing in its history, a Labour government will carry the expectations of millions of workers. In an effort to dampen these expectations Blair pledges that he will make no promises he cannot keep. However, the bosses are fully aware that a Labour government, tied as it is to the trade union bureaucracy, will come under destabilizing pressures from fights which break out in the ranks.

At the Trades Union Congress in August, the Labour Party officials intervened to demonstrate to the rulers their ability to resist such pressures, and break free of union influence. In addressing the ongoing industrial action of rail and postal workers, they threatened a Labour Government would be prepared to introduce legislation curtailing the right to strike in the public sector.

Both Labour and Conservative Party conferences avoided confronting the question of what they intend to do to drive down public spending on workers' pensions, education, health care, and unemployment benefit - the key issue which the ruling class wants resolved. The major obstacle that the rulers face, whichever party holds office, is the capacity of working people to resist, which is a permanent factor despite the slow pace of actions today. The continuing fight by Liverpool dockers to a company lock-out 14 months ago and a summer of one-day actions to defend pay and conditions by rail and postal workers have indicated to the bosses the challenge they must still confront.

The Economist, a British financial weekly, reviewing the record of 17 years of Conservative Party rule, dwelt on the limitations of inroads made against the social wage. Since the Conservative government came to power in 1979, it pointed out, the cost of welfare has risen by half in real terms, and from 23 percent to 26 percent of GDP, even if on previous governments' records recessions might have driven it much higher. The Tories had to "squeeze hard" in some areas, "But the broad goals of the system and the resulting cost to taxpayers, have changed much less than most of the government's critics allow - and less than some of its critics would have wished."

An editorial in the conservative Daily Telegraph headlined: "But would Blair cut welfare?" poured scorn on the Labour Party leader's September 16 speech to a gathering of City Of London Business people.

"When a Labour leader says: `We want people to consume more. We want high quality public services. We want people to pay lower taxes,' then the more cynical might be forgiven for counting the spoons...." Also noting that "After 17 years of trying to cut back the state they [the Conservative government] have merely succeeded in preventing it from absorbing more of the national output than it did in 1979," the editorial goes on to complain, "To deliver rising living standards, and lower taxation, this bill must be cut, but perhaps a public acknowledgment of this was a bridge too far yesterday, even for a reforming Labour leader."

The Financial Times in an editorial reviewing the party conferences on October 12 commented, "Mr. Major has yet to explain how he can offer lower taxes without cutting into the core of the Welfare State. Mr. Blair insists that a radical improvement in public services would carry only the smallest price tag. In reality, the next Government will be obliged to make much harder choices than either will admit."  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home