related articles

ELECTIONS

Royal socialism - on
the road to nowhere

Across Europe the main parties were rejected by their electorates on June 10. In the United Kingdom political pundits saw the results as odd because people did not vote in the normal way. Did these results herald the beginning of new trends and the emergence of new parties? Can we detect a movement in the tectonic plates of class politics or a sea change in behaviour? What can this election tell us about the stage we are now passing through?

This cannot be answered simply by looking at the voting figures. We have to place this election in the context of a society facing a growing political crisis. The origins of the current crisis can be found in the period of the social monarchy (1945-85). During and after World War II, British capitalism was reorganised both domestically and internationally. It became dependent economically and militarily on US imperialism. At home domestic class relations were restructured around a parliamentary monarchy, state capitalism and the welfare state.
The Elizabethan welfare state set the framework for class relations until the global economic crisis in the mid-1970s. Although the Tories came to power in 1979, it was the defeat of the miners in 1984-85 that opened the door to the dismantling of the post-war settlement. Mass unemployment, privatisation, deregulation and flexible labour markets shifted the balance of power against the working class. Thatcher carried this attack against Liverpool and Lambeth councils, abolishing the Greater London Council. This culminated in the poll tax, which stopped Thatcher in her tracks.

Meanwhile the integration of sections of British capital into the European Union proceeded apace. This created deep divisions in the Tory Party, which finally sank Major's Tory Party. New Labour continued Tory policies, together with its own programme of constitutional change. The Northern Irish peace process, the introduction of the Scottish parliament and Welsh assembly, proportional representation in certain elections, the abolition of hereditary peers, the incorporation of European human rights legislation into British law represent in New Labour ideology the triumph of Blair's commitment to modernise the state. But of course the reality is totally different.

Blair has produced semi-proportional representation, half-baked reform of the House of Lords and an illogical and inconsistent form of federalism. But he has concentrated even more power into a centralised, presidential style of government. Along with the attacks on asylum-seekers and the so-called 'war on terrorism', already limited democratic rights are under threat. Far from these changes resolving matters, they are simply a new stage in the process of political decay. The system of government is breaking down. The gap between the governing class and the people grows ever wider.

The Countryside Alliance was a mass response from the right to the 'crisis of democracy'. Old aristocratic England feels threatened and is determined to defend its 'rights'. The war against Iraq produced mass mobilisations of the left, the working class and the muslim community. It shed new light of the inner workings of the government and the apparatus of the state and marked a new stage in the alienation of the working class from the Labour Party.

When we look at the June 10 election result, all these factors are in play. We can see the growing bankruptcy of the old regime, the break-up of its two-party system, Europe, the national question, the war and the crisis of democracy. We see a snapshot of how far the crisis of democracy has developed and how it is beginning to show itself in the struggle between the political parties. What new forces are coming into play?

The first fact to note about this election is the 40% turnout. The other 60% did not think it was worth voting or that it would change anything. But, of those who did, half did not vote for the two ruling class parties. The Tories and New Labour scored only 27% and 23% respectively. Their leaders are comforting themselves with the thought that, come the general election, people will have no choice but to behave 'normally'. It was the Conservatives' worst election result since 1832. It was Labour's worst result since 1918.

Michael Howard is an able politician when it comes to putting the boot into Blair. He has done much to cheer up the Tories. So he must have been totally pissed off to have been knocked back by UKIP. Even the best leaders can be drowned by the tide of history. It is not just UKIP's vote that has embarrassed them. More seriously it threatens to reopen the Tory civil war over Europe because a section of the Tory Party is closer to UKIP.

Neither is there any good news for Blair. Labour scored 24% in the local elections and 23% in the European poll. Is this just a mid-term blip or part of a deeper breach between Labour and its traditional social base? In the 1980s Britain seemed to be virtually a one-party state. Thatcher's Tories appeared to be electorally unbeatable and yet they were in fact busily digging their own graves. Since 1997 the Labour Party has taken over their mantle. Could it be that Labour faces the same meltdown? The exit of the RMT and the FBU point to something profound. Could history repeat itself, with Iraq doing for Blair what the poll tax did for Thatcher?

What therefore is emerging from the undergrowth? First there is the new right, especially UKIP, the BNP and the English Democrats Party. It is UKIP that made the biggest impact with 2.6 million votes and 12 seats in the European parliament. UKIP took one vote from Labour for every two it took from the Tories. Its main argument is that democracy has been stolen by Brussels with the assistance of a corrupt political class. It wants to restore 'democracy' and self-government to the people of Britain. UKIP therefore addresses the 'crisis of democracy', claiming to have found both the cause and the only solution.

The theme of democracy was taken up by the English Democrats Party, which came from nowhere to win 130,000 votes. The first point in its programme is "to protect the interests of the English nation, our way of life, our ancient law-tradition and custom, our countryside and environment" and the last point is to "owe allegiance to our gracious Queen Elizabeth II and, with the consent of the nation-states of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the overall monarch of the independent nation-states of the United Kingdom of Great Britain".

It is tempting to laugh at the idea of strengthening the "ships of the line" and the "fighter squadrons of the Royal Air Force". And policing policy that sounds like 'bring back Dixon of Dock Green'. Apparently 'third way' fascists are lurking behind this stuff. But the real point is that the new right is trying to tap in powerful instincts of Englishness and democracy. The flag of St George is not simply about football. It is a deeper and wider feeling about a lack of English national identity. We dismiss this at our peril.

Finally in the local elections the BNP gained 14 new seats, bringing its total to 21 councillors. Its biggest gains were in Yorkshire, with four seats in Bradford, three in Calderdale and one in Kirklees. It took second or third place in many wards. In the Euro elections it got 808,200 votes, or 4.9%, but no seats. On the face of it the BNP advance seems to have slowed down. But it too suffered from the UKIP effect, without which it have won a seat in the Greater London Assembly. The BNP did not hit the headlines, but the decay of the old regime means it will continue to make steady progress.

What about the left? The two strongest performers were the Green Party and Sinn Féin. The Greens now have 61 elected representatives - three in the Greater London Assembly, two in the Euro parliament and seven in the Scottish parliament. In Northern Ireland Sinn Féin secured 144,541 votes (26%), enough to elect Bairbre de Brun to the EU parliament. This was a significant step for Sinn Féin, confirming it has now replaced the SDLP as the main nationalist party.
Nevertheless all eyes were focused on the new kids on the block, Respect, the unity coalition. Respect stood on a royal socialist platform. Its politics is nothing new. It is the dog-end of old Labour monarchism. These great new radicals could not bring themselves to oppose the bankrupt constitutional monarchy. The Socialist Workers Party assured us, when it opportunistically voted down democratic demands, this would help its plan to haul in the votes and blow Tony Blair out of the water. The advantage of royal socialism was that at least it would get you elected.

Galloway himself predicted that "on June 10 we will send a massive shockwave through the political system". Respect was expecting to get Galloway and possibly Lindsey German and John Rees elected. Campaigner Peter Tatchell noted that "Respect was trumpeted as the spearhead of the radical left's revival. It was to have mobilised the votes of the millions of people who opposed the Iraq war, and its leaders confidently boasted they would win seats and 'give Blair a bloody nose' on June 10" (The Guardian June 15).

Tatchell's verdict was: "Labour got a deserved drubbing, but Respect got total humiliation." That is a little harsh. The average Respect vote in the European elections was 1.5%, according to the BBC website. The total vote of 252, 216 votes is not bad . The largest Respect Euro vote was 4.8% in London. It is clear that Respect did significantly better in London. Here it won 91,175 votes, a figure which represents 36% of Respect's total national vote. In two parliamentary constituencies in east London it got almost 40% of the list vote. Respect is a party of the London metropolis. In the rest of the country with odd exceptions its votes were poor.

The performance of Respect can be looked at from two angles. In terms of the declared aims and objectives set by its leaders, it was a failure. But for a new organisation it might be claimed the performance is not too bad. A comrade from Exeter has made the following comparison, in terms of percentage, with the votes of the Socialist Labour Party in 1999:

In the Eastern, North East, North West, South East and South West the Respect vote is very similar to the SLP votes. It is slightly higher in most cases, except London, where the high vote in east London is thought to indicate significant muslim support. Outside of London the West Midlands stands out as being a slightly bigger improvement on the SLP vote from 1999 (four times the SLP vote).

Of course we are not comparing like with like. The two million anti-war marchers and the current anger of trade unionists should have provided more fertile ground for Respect. Taking this into account, the Respect vote outside London was derisory.

At the last general election the main organisation of the left in England was the Socialist Alliance. However the SWP-International Socialist Group tried to pull the plug on the SA in March 2004. The SA leadership tried to prevent local alliances standing any candidates. Despite this there were 23 Socialist Alliance (Democracy Platform) candidates standing in local elections in Stockport, Sheffield, Manchester, Liverpool and Walsall.

Our candidates stood on People before profit, which links the aim of a socialist society with a democratic republic, social justice and internationalism. In Walsall there were 10 candidates who got a range of results from 3% to 32%. This included four candidates who scored over 10%. In Sheffield (Burngreave) we got 10.8%, Stockport 9% and Manchester (Chorlton) 3.5%. In three wards in Liverpool we gained 2.5%, 5%, and 5.9%. In addition there were candidates standing as independent socialists, closely associated with the Socialist Alliance (DP). In Birmingham Erdington the comrades picked up 9.2% and in Exeter 2.8% and 2.9%. In Swindon, the SA got 12%.

The Socialist Alliance (DP) candidates did well when you consider the damage that was inflicted on us by the SWP and ISG. The CPGB took the view before the election that everything centred on Respect and the Socialist Alliance was dead. Had this been the case, we would have seen Respect winning seats and the SA candidates typically getting votes of less than one percent. But the facts show this was not the case. It is pleasing to see that in assessing the results the CPGB aggregate voted to rejoin the Socialist Alliance (DP).

The Alliance for Green Socialism, the Socialist Party and the Independent Working Class Association (IWCA) also had credible results. In Scotland the Scottish Socialist Party got 5.2% of the Euro vote. The SP held two seats and lost one in Coventry, with some good results in Bootle and Lincoln. The IWCA won two seats in Oxford and the AGS did well in Leeds, where Garth Frankland got over 1,100 votes in one ward.

All these results make clear that the left is far from united. The new Respect unity coalition has been unable to unite the left or create a nationwide party. As yet socialists remain divided.
I have argued that we should recognise the crisis of democracy and support only republican socialist programmes and candidates. The new right has taken up the question of democracy from a reactionary perspective. But the left is still blind to the danger facing us. Respect's royal socialist programme symbolises the ignorance and failure of the left on the question of democracy. Given the current state of British politics, one thing is certain - Respect cannot succeed with its current programme.

I did not therefore call for a vote for Respect. But in London I voted for George Galloway. First, I do not go along with this Alliance for Workers' Liberty anti-Galloway argument. The most important event recently has been the war in Iraq. Galloway played a leading role in opposing the war and attacking Blair. He got kicked out of the Labour Party for his pains.

Furthermore Galloway made it clear in his book, as reported in the Weekly Worker, that, unlike Respect, he is in favour of a democratic republic. At a public meeting in Luton he was questioned by Revolutionary Democratic Group comrades on this and confirmed his republicanism. He pointed out that the Respect programme was not set in stone and this would have to be reviewed at the next conference.

Anti-war, anti-Labour, pro-republican socialism gets my vote. It remains to be seen whether Galloway will live up to his promises and tackle the SWP. We cannot rely on him any more than we can rely on Ken Livingstone. I voted for Lorna Reid (IWCA) for London mayor - I would not vote for Respect candidates associated with the SWP. The SWP is the main barrier on the left to a democratic republic. On this they are reactionaries. They have damaged Respect by putting the albatross of royal socialism around its neck.

We must get ready to fight royal socialism wherever it raises its ugly head, including of course at the next general election.

Dave Craig
Revolutionary Democratic Group