[page 3]
News Review Big Sister still haunts Major. Tory meltdown threatens splits HE WIDELY PREDICTED Tory meltdown in the local elections duly occurred, with the Conservatives nearly completely expelled from power in local government. The repercussions of this, and the disaster of the Perth and Kinross by-election, threaten to tear the party apart; almost daily there are new rebellions, scandals and rows.
The tensions inside the Tory Party now resemble a bar room scene in a Western, where one punch could instantly trigger a brawl. According to the Financial Times (May 6): "On the Conservative backbenches at Westminster faction fighting has become a way of life. The militant mindset is as much in evidence on the right of the Tory Party... as it was on the left of the Labour Party in the early 1980s. It may be too late to apply the rules of 2 • News review rational behaviour to the Conservative Party"
The flag of insurrection has been raised in Scotland. Five senior Scottish Tories from Cathcart have launched a ten-point survival plan which includes repudiating most Tory policies. They call for a cabinet reshuffle, a referendum on the 'constitutional question', and for the Scottish Conservative Party to have a more independent relationship with the English and Welsh Tories, possibly even akin to that enjoyed by the Ulster Unionists.
This is an extremely important development. It shows that the Scottish national question divides establishment For party.
every defence secretary Malcolm Rifkind to say he sees 'nothing wrong in principle with devolution shows how this issue could further divide the Tories' ranks.
Anatole Kaletsky, deputy editor of The Times, believes that after a Tory defeat at the next election, the supporters of treasury secretary Michael Portillo will take over and shift the party to the right. He speculates that this could lead to a split (like the SDP split from Labour in the early 1980s) and the emergence of a 'CDP', a Christian Democratic Party, with Ken Clarke as its leader. Such speculation is no longer wild fantasy.
Tory ideological divisions are reflected in the quandary of the party's MEPs about which European parliamentary group to join. They are currently associate members of the European People's Party group - dominated by the German Christian Democratic Union. Alternatively they could go over to a more Eurosceptical group, involving Jacques Chirac's Gaullists, Berlusconi's Forza Italia group and up to 19 independent anti- Maastricht MEPs. Or they may not all join the same group!
Back at Westminster, the return of the Euro-rebels who had the whip withdrawn was hardly a harmonious reunion. One of their number,
[page 4]
Nicholas Budgen, said he was prepared to go back with some penance, "as a prelude to a period of silence". But he observed that most of his cothinkers "marched back in full uniform, with bayonets at the ready and with a round up the spout". Why are the Tories in such a mess, when the economy appears be enjoying at least slow growth?
Despite the 1992 election victory, the Tories have never recovered from Thatcher's legacy. Her rise to ascendency in the Tory Party was itself a reflection of the long-term crisis of British capitalism and the consequent divisions in the ruling class, which she only temporarily succeeded in papering over. But in doing so she accumulated such presidential-style powers that she threatened to get totally out of control.
her memoirs Consequently, as make clear, as early as April 1990 she was approached by the 'men in grey suits' (in the form of Lord Carrington) to stand down. She refused and therefore had to be removed in a public showdown seven months later. This brought the different tendencies in the Tory Party into the open as never before - where they have remained. On the one hand former Times editor William Rees-Mogg, arguing for Chancellor, Peter Lilley to be advances the US Republican leader Newt Gingrich as the model for the right. A number of Tory MPs are rushing into print with their own rightwing agendas, looking to a Gingrichtype recovery after Tony Blair Britain's Clinton - is elected. Others worry that right-wing populism could pave the way for left-wing populism. The Times has reported on one right-wing document currently doing the rounds among Tory MPs. Its proposals include: cutting income tax to 10% by slashing public spending; ending capital gains taxes; compelling those unemployed for more than six months to take jobs provided by charities at just above benefit level; abolishing the motorway police so more resources can be concentrated on 'fighting crime'; and education to emphasise British culture "with an avowed aim to 'Briticise' immigrant communities".
A populist, nationalist movement could still emerge, based on these ravings, out of the wreckage of the Tories after the general election. However, a radically different realignment among the Tories could also take place. Ex-minister John Patten's book to Come Things applauds "the benefits of regulated capitalism". He also argues that, "if we have electoral reform. it's very hard to imagine a Conservative gorernment for the next 20-30 years" Patten is clearly addressing the situation that may come to exist under Labour, with Tony Blair promising a referendum on electoral reform. Lord Gilmour, once a key Tory thinker, gave a remarkable interview in the New Statesman (May 12) which goes much further. Asking what happened to the 'One-Nation Tory Party', he argues that "in the Conservative Party at present it seems to be largely dormant. But I hope it's going to be resurrected in New Labour... we do need a 'One-Nation Tory Party', and if the Conservative Party isn't going to be it, let's have the Labour Party as it... The idea that the two main parties should be far apart is complete nonsense in my view. And the notion that the Conservative response to Blair should be a move further to the right is quite mad".
53.50 50 Esat £3.50 42 Merchandising fortunes made by clubs. News Review These are the terms of the on-going Tory civil war. An open Tory split has become a real possibility, with a Scottish split highest on the agenda. The most significant and far-reaching moves, however, are likely after an election, with popes and anti-popes competing for the mantle.
A fundamental re-alignment of the party system is no longer a remote possibility; future conditions of severe economic crisis could bring a '193l' in reverse with a section of the Tories coming over to a 'national' government.
An earthquake, that will effect the political landscape of all parties, has begun to rumble.
Mike Waddington Whose game is it anyway?
IHE 1994-95 FOOTBALL season will go down as one punctuated by constant scandals about sleaze and backhanders, 'bungs' to manover-hyped the bizarrely agers, Cantona affair and the infiltration of fascists into football 'firms' - culminating with the Dublin riot, orchestrated by Combat 18 and the BNP.
Coca-Cola Coke FrOL 63.50 BELSCA News review • 3
[page 5]
News
Review
While Tory ministers and moralists of every stripe, most of whom know little or nothing of the game, were quick to sermonise about Eric Cantona, there are two real issues facing the millions of fans. First, the structure of the game and its increasing subordination to the interests of big business at the expense of the fans; and second, racism on the terraces and its use by the fascist hooligans.
The Dublin riot was an organised affair, pre-planned by Combat 18, the National Front and the BNP. yet, while there are dangers in their influence in certain clubs, the vast majority of fans reject them. Leafletters from Youth Against Racism in Europe (YRE) outside the Uruguay international at Wembley, just three weeks after the Dublin match, got an excel lent response. In 1996 fascist groups may try to use the European championships in England to raise their heads again: they will get a hot reception from YRE and other anti-fascists.
But the main story in British football is how it is being transformed, like other major sports, by big business interests. This, like the drama overtaking Rugby League, is intimately connected with the growing multibillion world media empires owned by the likes of Rupert Murdoch. 'Bungs' and sleaze are the inevitable consequence of the millions now slushing around the major clubs, in part from the huge fees paid by the media magnates.
As explained in the Militant Labour pamphlet Reclaim the Game, at the turn of the century soccer was a cheap form of entertainment accessible to the working class, and generally regarded with indifference by the ruling class - unless they thought it was a harmless way for workers to let off steam. Today it is big business, for two groups of people.
First for the clubs, and the rich businessmen behind them. With allseater grounds, admission prices have gone through the roof. Cheapest seats are around £10-15. Thousands of school students, low-paid, pensioners and unemployed have been priced out of football. Large parts of the stadiums - as in cricket - are given over to hospitality boxes for firms and the super-rich. The working class are
• News review
being cleansed from the groun Merchandising is another money sp ner, with club shirts (most have thr different strips) costing up to £40.
With many poorer people unable to afford the live game, TV is the way to see their favourite teams. Except, of course, that to watch the Premier League, you need the Sky sports channel (about £20 a month in addition to what you've paid for your dish, rental for standard channels etc). Murdoch's empire incidentally now controls much of televised cricket: as The Independent's Matthew de Lyle recently pointed out, only Sky viewers have ever had the chance to see Brian Lara, the world's best batsman, on TV. Rugby League and Union are well on the way to similar deals.
So the money pours into Sky and similar channels, and part of that money pours into major clubs - to add to the inflated gate receipts and merchandising sales. Now the game is increasingly dominated by sharks at the expense of the fans. And not unnaturally, the slush funds evade the Inland Revenue.
The key question is whether the fans will fight back, as they did against identity cards. Militant Labour will be keeping you informed.
1s.
inee
John
Swedish Blairism
HE FIRST EIGHT months of the
Swedish Social Democratic gov-
ernment, elected in September
1994, provide a living example of what can be expected from a Blair-led Labour government.
The September elections produced the biggest swing to the left since the 1930s. The vote for the Social Democrats (SAP) rose from 37.7% in 1991 to 45.3% and the Left Party, the former Communist Party, achieved its best result for 40 years. Yet, with the latest round of cuts announced in April, the Social Democrats have now gone further than the previous conservative coalition government in dismantling the Swedish welfare state.
Before the election the Social Democratic leaders made it clear that there was no way back to the SAP's old policy of social reforms and job
security - the 'Swedish model' held up in the past by Labour and Social Democratic leaders internationally as the 'third way' between unrestrained free-market capitalism and Marxism. A detailed package of £5.15bn cuts and tax increases was 'promised', while the prospective finance minister announced the clear intent of a SAP government to put the capitalists' interests first when he dismissed trade unions as "one interest group amongst others" - in a country where nearly 90% of the workforce are unionised!
However, the election result had to be seen against the background of three years of devastating cuts and rising unemployment. During the economic crisis of 1991-93 unemployment rose from 2% to 13%. GDP fell by 5% and industrial output by 13%. This underpinned the revolt against the right.
The Social Democrats' victory did not, however, bring any respite. On taking office they immediately launched a package of cuts and tax increases - the same policy as their conservative forerunners of squeezing the workers and reducing public spending to restore profits and make industry 'competitive'.
This was followed by a campaign by the whole establishment for a Yes vote in the European Union (EU) referendum in November 1994. With the help of the Social Democrats the ruling class was able to secure a narrow victory for entry into the EU. However, the 'No' campaign got its biggest support in traditional Social Democratic strongholds, in the north and in industrial areas such as the middle of Sweden. This was a clear indication of a growing scepticism towards the government, just two months after the election.
The EU referendum together with the January budget and the April cuts package, the fourth round of cuts and tax increases since September, marked a historic turning point for the Swedish labour movement. Child allowances and student grants have been reduced for the first time ever. Sick pay, paternity leave, unemployment benefit and work injuries pay have been cut. Using Thatcher as an example the Social Democrats have
[page 6]
D0I15308
Swedish prime minister Ingvar Carlsson. passed legislation setting annual cash limits for the entire public sector and a new law forbids local councils from borrowing to finance daily running expenses.
The SAP's manifesto 'promised' £5.15bn cuts. In fact, the government has outlined spending cuts of £11.1bn (around 8% of GDP) up to 1998 - "the biggest cleaning-up programme ever mounted in Europe", , according to the Swedish finance minister.
But even this, equivalent to cuts of £48bn in Britain, will not satisfy the 'market. The capitalists want more cuts and, if necessary, a coalition 'strong' government that can implement 'tougher measures'. If a new run against Sweden's currency (the Krona) takes place before Summer and longterm interest rates do not fall, there will certainly be new cuts and new steps towards a coalition, probably with the Centre Party.
This will be another twist in the deepening divide between union activists and the SAP leadership.
On May Day workers in the northern town of Lulea, for example,
refused to march with the Social Democrats, organising instead their own march which was much bigger than the 'official' demonstration.
One Metal Workers' Union leader there commented: "The relation of forces has changed in the party... it is not possible for us to have a decisive influence anymore"
Middle class elements now dominate the SAP on all levels after the abolition of collective affiliation from the unions in 1990. Some union activists are discussing the need for a new party, just eight months into the new government.
The Social Democrats are now down to 34% in the opinion polls as their pro-market policies hit home. Overall, the austerity measures will cause a 5% drop in living standards and cut more than 50,000 jobs in the public sector. The battle lines are being drawn - workers are prepared to defend the welfare state and secure jobs and the rest of the '90s in Sweden will be shaped by this struggle.
Olsson
News Revie
grants fight
HE NATIONAL UNION of
Students (NUS) could be on the
verge of abandoning the fight for
a living grant and adopting support for tuition fees and graduate tax. The Labour-led executive has called a special conference on 30 May to force through the change. The rapidity of the shift away from a policy demanding a free education with a living grant for all students has surprised many student activists.
That any group except for the Tories would have openly supported a graduate tax would have been unthinkable as little as a year ago. Previous debates inside NUS have always revolved around the question of the tactics required to win increased grants for students. The present Labour leaders of NUS were themselves elected on a platform of opposition to tuition fees and graduate tax. One of their leaflets for the 1994 executive elections opposed fees as "no more ihan an educational poll tax which will slam the door of access firmly in our face"
The prospect of NUS abandoning the fight for a free education is in sharp contrast to France, Sweden and other European countries where students have taken to the streets to oppose government attacks. The question has to be asked why British students have not reacted in a similar way as other European students?
One reason has been the absence of sustained moves by the trade unions to confront the Tories, which has had a knock-on affect among students. They have not felt confident of being able to defeat the government over issues such as student poverty and education cuts.
Another reason has been the role of the NUS leadership. The move to the right of the Labour and trade union leaders has been reflected in NUS. Increasingly the Labour leadership of NUS have acted as an obstacle to any movement of students against the Tories.
The most stark example took place in the winter of 1993 when chancellor Kenneth Clarke announced plans to cut student grants by 30% over three
News review •
[page 7]
News Review years. The NUS leadership demned the cuts but refused to organise any national action. When a group of student unions organised an unofficial demonstration in London they were attacked by the NUS leaders. They sent letters to every college warning students not to take part, claiming that the march would end in a riot because one of the organisers had a public order conviction. Such actions have reinforced the lack of confidence among students in their ability to take on the Tories. However locally students have fought against attacks from college management on issues such as course cuts and timetable changes and, in the past year, there have been successful rent strikes at Leeds and Bradford universities. Students have also been part of the general radicalisation of youth, reflected in their involvement in single-issue campaigns road such as protests and the anti-CJA campaign, as well as in membership of groups like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth. If NUS was to give a national lead on the issue of student poverty they could overcome the lack of confidence that does exist and spark a movement against the Tories education policies. But also the prospect of the Tories being removed from office within the next 18 months or so will increase the combativity of students. That is why the present Labour leaders of NUS are now trying to make the union 'safe' for a future incoming Blair government.
An Labour government will face the same dilemma on higher education as the Tories: how to provide the educated workers needed by industry when both big business and the state are unwilling to foot the bill. Labour's solution is the same as the Tories'x make students pay. Their proposals, set out in last year's Commission on Social Justice report, include the replacement of grants with increased loans, tuition fees and graduate tax. The NUS leaders want to try and make sure that students don't oppose these plans.
In doing so, they have adopted the arguments of the Tories and the capitalist press: education must expand but the government cannot possibly afford to pay for all those who want to 6 • News review go to university, so students should pay their share. But if you accept that students should make up the shortfall in university funding then why shouldn't parents do the same for school budgets? Indeed, the Tories are already going down this road with STOP LOANS WE WANT GRANTS ECHE their proposals for vouchers for preschool education.
The ideal of free education has been fought for by the labour movement from when the Chartists first took up the demand in 1851. Its abandonment by the Labour Party leaders and their echos in NUS is a historic sell out - another example of what Tony Blair's open adoption of the capitalist 'market economy' means. Rebecca Gray, Labour Students' national secretary, spoke at the Labour Party's special conference in praise of Tony Blair's 'radicalism'
in dumping Clause Four.
Similarly, NUS president Jim Murphy, has also tried to dress up the sell-out over grants with radical language.
"The education system remains under-populated by those from lower socio-economic backgrounds" (ie the working class) he argued in The Guardian. NUS, therefore, "must have as motivation the creation of an educational world which educates citizens regardless of financial backtheir ground" (18 April). But the experience of Scandinaria and Australia shows that tuition fees and graduate tax will have the opposite effect and exclude working class people from university. NUS used these examples to very oppose student loans in 1988!
The NUS executive's sell-out will be a green light for the forthcoming government review of higher education funding to recommend another attack on student grants. We now have a situation where sooner or later either the Tories or an incoming Labour government will abolish free university education and bring in fees and a graduate tax. But while the leaders of NUS may be prepared to accept this without a fight, it is unlikely that ordinary students will do the same. Martin Milne
[page 8]
Militant Labour launches new