Dudley Hospitals Strikers Candidature: 'A tactical folly'
Submitted by Councillor Steven Cox (Dudley Labour Councillor)
Dated: 4/1/2001

The decision of Dudley health workers to field a candidate in the general election against Labour MP Ian Pearson has serious repercussions for the left and for the dispute itself. Whilst every socialist would like to give the Blairites a bloody nose for continuing with the Thatcherite free market dogma we should not let our frustrations over ride political analysis. The ultimate question we must ask ourselves is what gains for the working class can be made from this action. At best a decision to oppose Labour MP’s in Dudley is an irrelevant adventure. Only a few years ago the SWP would have, quite correctly said that such a candidate would divert the struggle into electoralism.
The proposal to stand a striker as a Socialist Alliance candidate shows a disregard by the SWP for the local left. Nobody outside the SWP has been consulted about the possibility of a challenge to Labour; there have been no negotiations and no open meetings. If as Mark New the UNISON branch secretary (and SWP member) claims the aim of the candidature is to keep the issue of staff PFI transfer in the public mind why not stand under the banner of ‘Dudley Healthworker’, or ‘NHS concern’ etc. The decision to fix a Socialist Alliance name tag, when no such organisation exists in Dudley only gives rise to suspicions that the Socialist Alliance in this context is a SWP front. If the Socialist Alliance campaign were to be a genuine alternative to Blairisn then it would have to focus on more than one issue. For instance the proposal by Dudley Council to sell off its council house stock.

Furthermore a left candidate in Dudley ignores the weakness of a socialist base in the area. I could personally name most of the socialist activists in Dudley and it seems fanciful to suggest that a campaign however well argued could have anything but a marginal effect. We must remember that the demonstrations in support of the dispute have only attracted hundreds and not thousands. Despite overwhelming public support for the strikers this has not translated into actual mobilised forces.

If the Socialist Alliance was standing in areas where there is a history of campaigning outside the Labour Party such as Coventry or Glasgow or in areas where the left has been purged from the Labour Party i.e. Leeds or Walsall then the case for standing would be far stronger. As it is the main result of standing in Dudley is to alienate many Labour activists from supporting the dispute.

We should remember that the local Labour movement is split on it’s attitude to the dispute between those following a national leadership line that PFI is the only way forward and many like myself who believe it is disgraceful that a Labour government should be privatising the NHS. Both Stourbridge and Halesowen CLP’s passed motions supporting the strikers. Ironically greater pressure could have been put on the Labour Party if the strikers had joined the Labour party en masse. Labour Party branches could have been turned into de facto support groups for the strike. I do not want to let the Labour right wing off the hook on this issue. By standing against the Party the right has the perfect excuse not to fulfil it’s political obligations. They can argue they can’t be associated with people standing against the party and extrapolate from this that no Labour Party member should support the dispute.

I like many on the left am surprised at the level of support the strike has received from UNISON bureaucracy. This is not to say that I agree with all the tactics they have employed but given recent history of trade union attitudes to long running disputes (e.g. the TGWU and the Liverpool Dockers) UNISON’s approach has been remarkably refreshing. This has not stopped the SWP embarking on a policy of rank and file fundamentalism. They wish to drive a wedge between the lay activists at union branch level and the progressive/socialist full time officers in UNISON. The key demand in this strategy is that UNSION pay all strikers full wages whilst on strike. If implemented this would have a number of effects. Firstly it would make the dispute harder to resolve, I for one would rather be a full time picket than go to work everyday, therefore we have to ask in whose interest is it to prolong the dispute. Secondly and more importantly it would completely undermine solidarity action by other workers, where the issue of financial assistance is often the key to raising political questions about class power, and the right of workers to challenge the system. The SWP have never raised this demand before. It seems strange that they did not demand the NUM pay miners full pay during the 1984/85 strike when they received nothing from the union but raise it now when Dudley hospital strikers receive £12.50 per day from UNISON.

In conclusion we must carefully assess the likely impact of standing a candidate in the General election. The best possibility is that combined with a Labour abstention and a swing to the Tories, Ian Pearson would lose with the strikers getting at best 5 % of the vote. Should our energies then be diverted from the dispute just to return a Tory MP who will no doubt be part of the Neo Liberal consensus? Should we alienate Labour Party members who support the strikers in order to make a political gesture? I believe the answer to these questions is no. A challenge to Blair and his allies can be made in a number of ways both inside and outside the Labour Party. However the challenge must result from careful detailed analysis and not from frustration. I would urge my friends at Dudley group of Hospitals to step back from the brink before they get embroiled in this meaningless escapade.