LabourNet UK Response To Dudley Labour Councillor
Statement by LabourNet UK
Dated: 6/1/2001

On Thursday 4th January, Steve Cox, a Labour councillor in Dudley sent LabourNet UK an article which questioned the Dudley strikers decision to stand against the Labour Party at the next General Election.
To see Steve's article for background purposes, visit http://www.labournet.net/ukunion/0101/dudleycox.html

To see our report on the Dudley decision itself, visit http://www.labournet.net/ukunion/0101/dudley1.html

We were happy to publish his article, but Steve makes a number of points that we disagree with and we feel the need to respond to them. Below is the collective view of the LabourNet UK team. Each point is taken in turn.

No Consultation?

Steve states: "Nobody outside the SWP has been consulted about the possibility of a challenge to Labour"

The LabourNet report referred to above flatly contradicts this. It was a mass meeting of strikers which took the decision last Friday to challenge Labour. Most of the strikers are not in the SWP, that's for sure. The legitimacy of the candidacy - which Steve is questioning - stands or falls on the fact that the Dudley strikers chose to do this, not whether the local left was part of the decision.

Socialist Alliance

Initially it would seem that Steve's objection is to the involvement of the Socialist Alliance. Yet, to our knowledge no decision has yet been taken to stand on a Socialist Alliance platform.

The people involved in the production of LabourNet UK naturally have differing views on Socialist Alliance and LabourNet is not the voice of any political party. We report this issue not because the Socialist Alliance may figure in the story, but because a group of workers whose strike matters to us has taken a decision to stand a candidate as part of their dispute.

And as it turns out, the Socialist Alliance is really a secondary issue for Steve. As the rest of his article shows, it is any challenge to Labour that he opposes, whether under the Socialist Alliance banner or any other.

Alienating Labour activists

Steve states: "As it is, the main result of standing in Dudley is to alienate many Labour activists from supporting the dispute."

If so, this will be the case whether the Dudley Strikers stand against Labour under their own banner or under the banner of Socialist Alliance.

However, if Steve is right on this point it means many Labour activists are prepared to support an industrial dispute ONLY if it does not come into conflict with the Labour Party. Yet this dispute is openly in conflict with the Labour Government and has been for quite some time. Anyone who supports the dispute ONLY if it does not conflict with Labour simply does not support this dispute.

Making Labour fulfill its obligations

Steve states: "By standing against the Party the right has the perfect excuse not to fulfill 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."

Again, this shows that Steve is opposed to a challenge to Labour under any banner.

But what political obligations does Steve have in mind? To read his article one could be forgiven for thinking that the Labour Party are in the forefront of defending public sector workers and that we must ensure they keep up the fight.

Yet as Steve knows, in reality the opposite is the case. The Labour Government is the enemy here, waging attacks on public sector workers, implementing PFI everywhere they can in the Health Service, and Best Value elsewhere in the public sector. The Labour Goverment is fulfilling its political obligations - to Capital. It is not even a reluctant friend.

Full Pay For Strikers

Steve comes out against the demand that UNISON pay strikers a full wage. He argues that this would only prolong the dispute, and states "we have to ask whose interests it is in to prolong the dispute", while pointing out that UNISON is already paying the strikers £12.50 per day.

Our view is this.

The Dudley strikers are pursuing an issue which affects all NHS workers and users. In that sense, they are directly fighting for everyone. As such, millions of people, and certainly all UNISON members, should get behind them and ensure they win. The demand for full strike pay should be judged solely upon whether it makes such a key victory more or less likely.

Of course, financial support is not sufficient to win a strike, but it is essential. Going on strike is a big risk and a lot of work, whether or not you get full strike pay. The Dudley strikers are low-paid workers, without big personal financial reserves to fall back on. No-one can live on the "£12.50 per day" that Steve refers to - let alone function at the level required for an active strike.

As to whose interest it is in to prolong the dispute, we can only respond that it is in the interest of all the strikers and all their supporters that the dispute goes on until it wins, rather than fizzle out through financial pressure.

It should also be noted that UNISON happily hands out massive donations to the same Labour Party that is engaged in attacks on UNISON members not just in Dudley but right across the country. If there are to be complaints about where UNISON might spend its money, this is where the spotlight should fall - not on demands by strikers for full strike pay so they can continue feeding their families.

Ian Pearson's Lost Seat

Steve argues that the effect of a candidacy may be that Ian Pearson, the local Labour MP, may lose his seat at Westminster "just to return a Tory MP who will no doubt be part of the Neo Liberal consensus."

Ian Pearson may or may not claim to oppose PFI. But as we reported, he told the Express & Star this week that "If UNISON had agreed to suspend further action they would have been given a chance to re-bid to keep the jobs in the NHS" and criticised them for failing to do so.

The strikers' reasons for rejecting that offer were set out in detail in http://www.labournet.net/ukunion/0012/dudley3.html. Ian Pearson is opposed to the strikers, whether or not they stand a candidate.

Moreover, we do not care about Ian Pearson's political career - only about the fate of the strike. As such, the possibility of Ian Pearson losing his seat is an irrelevance to us. The fate of the Labour Party and its representatives simply isn't included on our list of concerns.

Summary

Ultimately, our view is that if the strikers are keen to challenge Labour then they deserve full support whether standing as independents or Socialist Alliance, as long as the election campaign remains part of the dispute and under the strikers' control.

Precisely because PFI is central to Labour's strategy, a strike against PFI becomes a political struggle directly against the Labour Government. Strikes will inevitably pose the question "which side are you on?" This one is no different. The strikers also have every right to put that question to people inside the Labour Party. That some, as Steve rightly suggests, will find the question rather uncomfortable is by the by. If the strikers wish it, it must still be posed and answered.