Ed's Betrayal ?

The Guardian columnist Andrew Rawnsey writes of the relationship between Ed Miliband and the trade unions "They ought to have realised then that Ed Miliband would bite the hands of those who had elected him...The blogosphere crackles with accusations of betrayal...Ed Miliband and future Labour leaders will continue to astonish the unions with their ingratitude.". How often have disillusioned Labour Party supporters and voters cried “betrayal!”?

However, SOYMB does no share the writers analysis that it was simply due to "Red Ed" endeavouring to escape the right-wing image of being in the pockets of the trade unions who helped to get him elected to the leader of the party and are the main financial backers of the party.

To-day scarcely a soul would refuse to admit that the Labour Party is anything other than a political party of capitalism and like any other party of capitalism, it has made promises to better the lot of the workers, establish comfort and equality, do away with crime, and bring peace and security to the population. Like any other party of capitalism, it fails to deliver. When the Labour Party have been in power, they have been obliged to continue to treat the working class badly. It’s a simple matter of understanding economic systems. Since its birth the Labour Party has been committed to running capitalism, and it has continued to do so. The Labour Party, claiming to be the party of union representation in parliament, has never been able to reconcile the war between capital and labour. When they have been in power, they, as the supposed party of the working class, are in a contradictory situation. They are attempting to take the reins of the very system that is in direct conflict with the purpose of trade unions, which is the opposition of the encroachments of capital. This leads to a circular political free-for-all. Instead of the Labour Party gradually changing capitalism, the opposite happened. Capitalism changed the Labour Party into an ordinary alternative party taking its turn to manage the affairs of British capitalism. Nobody joins the Labour Party with the aim of furthering the cause of socialism (however understood, or misunderstood). We might not be much nearer our goal of socialism, but the Labour Party has now abandoned that goal. Labourism is a dead end.

As for those old Labourites who blame all on the mistakes of the past and present on certain leaders, this simply adds to our arguments against leadership. In any case, the leader as a individual is irrelevant. Kicking one leader out of office and replacing them with another won’t change the system, and it’s the system that all attention should be focused on if we desire a radical change in the way we live. We in the Socialist Party point out that our original criticism of Labour when it was created has now been confirmed beyond doubt. What was needed was a workers party that would have as its only aim the replacement of capitalism, its class ownership and its production for profit by socialism. In short, a socialist party not a “Labour” party. It is for this reason that we have always opposed the Labour Party and oppose unions having any links with it. There can be absolutely no doubt who was right and who was wrong. The Labour Party still exists but it is no longer a trade union party as it was perhaps when it was first set up. The lesson is plain. In the struggle of the working class against the employers, it is not in the workers' interest that their unions should affiliate to or support the Labour Party.

Trade union leaders and activists have been rather slow to realise this. They entertain the illusion that, if only they exerted enough pressure on Labour, from inside and from outside, it could still become the political arm of the trade union movement. It seems that it is only now that it is at last dawning on some of them that Labour is not only not a party seeking to further the aims of socialism but that it is not even a party pursuing the same aims as the unions in protecting the immediate interests of workers against employers. It is bizarre that trade unionists particularly in the public sector unions should hand over their dues money to their, effective, political employers. Feeding the hand that beat them. If we had our way, there would be no fear of Labour Party leaders being accused of being in the pocket of the unions. In 2004 we applauded the decision of the Fire Brigades' Union to disaffilate.

The Labour Party has failed, so let’s start a new one. That’s what some trade unionists and left-wingers are saying. That would be to repeat the mistake. Be re-assured the Socialist Party unlike some on the Left has no programme to seek to replace the Labour Party. Political parties and trade unions only harm each other by shackling themselves to one another. Trade unions need freedom to manoeuvre and represent the interests of the membership. In order to be effective, trade unions have to seek to organise all workers irrespective of the fact that they are divided in their political views. Tying the unions to one or other of the parties of capitalism promotes division not unity. Workers join trade unions in recognition of their common interest against the employers. They need to learn that no matter which political party is in power its weight will be thrown in support of the employers against them in their struggles.

If the mistakes are not to be repeated the last thing that is needed today is a non-socialist, trade-union based “Labour” party. We’ve already been there, and it doesn’t work. Ed Miliband is on record as promising to try to “... make capitalism work for the people.” He won’t – because that’s not possible. There is no such thing as a good capitalism. We have heard all these promises all before from aspiring Labour leaders. The Labour Party has always claimed to try to make capitalism work for the people but, every time that it has been in office, it has failed miserably. They fail because they can’t act in any other way.