TUC Demonstration, London, 18th October

Now, as you will know, I am on the pessimism-without-hopelessness wing of the British Left. I think a lot of stuff, not least the Left itself, is rubbish, and things are not going to get a whole lot better until we realise this. This said, yesterday's TUC 'Britain Needs a Payrise' march was really quite good.

I measure the size of political demonstrations, thus: I start at the front of the march, peel off to a cafe en route, and count the number of courses I can eat whilst the march files past. I then rejoin the back. This was at least a two course and coffee affair, but I got distracted when a friend turned up, so it could well have been considerably bigger. Those preferring the more orthodox method of counting demonstrators to assess size place the numbers around the 90,000 mark.

This was pretty impressive, especially on a day when the weather was far from wonderful, and had been forecast to be worse. There was a really good feel about the demo - and an incredibly diverse bunch of marchers. The big unions were out in force, but so were smaller, and significant groups - fast food workers, the brilliant Focus E15 Mothers, peace and environmental groups, and many, many, others. Against those who question the point of A-to-B marches: one of the great things about big demonstrations around trade union issues is that they bring different groups of workers into contact, giving everyone present a sense that they are not alone, offering inspiration and providing an opportunity for conversations. They also say something pretty powerful to those who watch them pass.

Given that pessimism I was talking about, there has to be a 'but' doesn't there? Here it comes. But whilst A-to-B marches are worthwhile, they are not enough. It was brilliant that we were demonstrating the weekend after 400,000 healthcare workers had taken strike action. Wouldn't it have been better if we were doing so additionally the weekend after local government workers had also been on strike? The timidity of the Unison bureaucracy in calling off that strike in favour of 'consultation' on a sub-inflation pay proposal, is shameful. If we want the pay increases advocated by union leaderships yesterday, industrial action will be needed. There is simply no point in standing on a podium uttering fine words about pay, unless those words are followed up by sustained action.

Whilst we're on the subject of action, union bosses are supposed to be in the business of political, as well as industrial action. Here again, the leaders of the UK's big unions struck exactly the right chord yesterday. As reported by the Mirror, Unite's Len McCluskey said,

The Tory mission is to destroy the welfare state, characterising anyone on benefit as a scrounger. This country needs more than a pay rise. We need a government that fights against cuts. We say to the corporate giants who say we can’t afford it: Pay your taxes.

Bang on the the money, Len. Meanwhile Unison's Dave Prentis told the crowd,

We are here to say enough is enough. We shall no longer sit back and allow pay to decline

Exactly right.

Unison and Unite, along with other unions represented at the demo in large numbers (such as the CWU) are affiliated to the Labour Party. Given the, admirable, opposition the leaderships of these unions have expressed to austerity and low pay, you'd assume that they'd use this affiliation to push Labour towards anti-austerity, pro-worker policies, wouldn't you? Yet here's a curious fact for you to mull over. With the sole exception of BECTU, the representatives of all affiliated unions at July's national policy forum voted against a future Labour government rejecting Tory spending plans. That is to say, they voted in favour of continued austerity.

Britain certainly does need a payrise. Or rather, the British working class, or even better, the working class, need a payrise. (Some bits of Britain seem quite adequately paid already). We won't get it unless we fight for it, and increase pressure on those who are supposed to represent us.

More of the same

Ed Balls

And so, Labour's National Policy Forum votes in favour of a future Labour government sticking to Tory austerity spending limits, promising instead of increased spending a lukewarm brew of structural reform and 'redistribution of power and opportunity'. The thought that power and opportunity tend to follow money seems not to have occurred. The constraints this self-limitation will put on policy wiggle room might, of course, mean that 'future Labour government' has for the time being the ring of 'future World Cup winning England team'. There has to be a risk that, posed with a choice between two versions of the Tory party, the electorate (a good proportion of whom, it has to be said, actually accept the 'need for austerity' line) will plump for the original and the best.

Now of course this is terrible. Of course it is indicative of the triumph of austerity ideology. Of course it is similarly indicative of the weakness of the Left, a sign of how much work we have to do. And yet there is worse; it looks like a good number of trade union reps, sitting on the NPF for unions with clear anti-austerity policy, voted in favour of accepting Tory spending limits. If you need evidence of the depressing hold that the Labour leadership continues to have on the politics of trade unions, look no further.

See also Left Futures here.

A Unite delegate relaxes shortly after the NPF's vote on Christmas