by Peter Taaffe,
September 2000

Statement on the Fuel Crisis

The dramatic events surrounding the fuel blockades/pickets and the subsequent fuel crisis is a decisive turning point for the Blair government and has changed the political situation in Britain. The Socialist has carried excellent material on the situation as it unfolded. The paper next week and Socialism Today in its next issue will carry material which will attempt to give a rounded-out analysis and the general lessons which flow from this dispute. However, we consider that the events are of such importance that it is necessary to urgently communicate to the leading comrades, and through them to the NC and membership as a whole, our summing-up of the dispute so far. This is particularly necessary in view of the colossal campaign of misinformation by the traditional bourgeois outlets of the media, TV commentaries, the press, radio, the Blair government. The impression given is that the dispute was merely a "middle-class tax payers" revolt".

This has been added to by the quite disgraceful role of the trade union leadership and particularly by the General Council of the TUC, epitomised by John Monks and Bill Morris of the TGWU, who have savaged the fuel protesters. They acted in this dispute as a wing of the bourgeois state.

The only delegates at the TUC conference who voted against the General Council"s statement were the comrades of the Socialist Party and the SSP(?) one or two others who were delegates to the conference from different unions.

The dramatic "seven days in September" underline a number of vital points which we have consistently made in the party. First of all, so explosive is the underlying situation that events can quite speedily and dramatically pose a serious challenge to the government and this can come from the most unexpected quarters. The movements in Britain were triggered by the example of the successes of the French fisherman, farmers and lorry drivers. But few expected the British to follow the French example. The leader of the French fishermen scornfully commented, in relation to the hostility of British tourists in Calais: "The British are cowards, they"ve forgotten how to strike." We commented at the time that while most people would wryly smile, nod and agree, it was an inaccurate statement of the mood that was developing in Britain. The wave of small but important industrial battles was an indication of the mood.

The Blair government and the bourgeoisie as a whole, did not see what was coming. This was partly because of the continuation of the boom in Britain - "everything is for the best" - and the overweening arrogance of the government, particularly of Blair and Brown. "They know best" was the impression given and any opposition to them was minimal and would be just swept aside.

There were pointers to the movement, which developed in September, in the "Dump the Pump" campaign which was largely middle-class led. Passive protest was their method in the months leading up to these events. The largely upper-middle-class figureheads who led this were at pains to establish that they did not wish to "transgress the law". However, the cost of fuel in Britain, which is the highest in western Europe largely because of the tax element, has had a devastating effect on the position of the hauliers, particularly of the one-man, small business lorry owners. It has also had an effect on the average motorist and particularly those who are heavily dependent on cars in the rural areas where public transport is virtually non-existent.

The sense of indignation has been added to by the fact that the recent rise in the price of oil has meant an estimated additional £4.25 billion income to the government which Brown indicated would be used in pre-election bribes rather than in reducing the price of petrol at the pump. The high price of petrol has been trumpeted by the government and by the ecological spokespeople, like Friends of the Earth, as a necessary measure to prevent air pollution. The obvious point that we have made is that such actions should not be taken in isolation. Big sections of the population depend upon the car, when there is no cheap available public transport. It is, in other words, a blunt instrument which cannot by itself have the desired effect of saving the environment and preventing car use, without providing cheap alternatives.

The immediate effect of the rise in the price of oil is to worsen the living standards of those who depend on driving for a living, but also indirectly on the living standards of the majority of the population where increased transport prices feed through to increased food prices and other necessary goods.

The government, allied to the TUC leaders, and most commentators have derided the fuel protesters as a ragbag bunch of largely middle class rightwingers. Something similar happened in France where the leaders of the CGT and CFDT condemned some of the lorry drivers and small farmers as "Poujadists".

It is true that the movement had a large element of middle-class protesters in its ranks. But this was by no means the whole picture because the protesters were a mixed layer with a very mixed consciousness. In truth there was a strong "plebian" element, small businesspeople, linked up to lorry drivers, employed by the oil companies, with a trade union consciousness. Moreover, if the leadership of the labour movement would have intervened to have given support to the protests, but channelled it in a positive working-class socialist direction, many of these protesters could have been won to the labour movement. After all, the US labour movement, with the Trotskyists playing a key role, did fuse different groups of drivers together into the powerful Teamsters Union.

Unbelievably, John Monks, the general secretary of the TUC, compared the lorry drivers to the right-wing truckers who helped to prepare the downfall of the Allende government in Chile in the early 1970s. Such an analogy is entirely false. The Blair government poses no danger to the bourgeoisie. It is a bourgeois government. The truckers in Chile were financed by Chilean big business and US imperialism.

In Britain we saw a largely spontaneous revolt of a section of small businesspeople, with the overwhelming support of the mass of the population. It was entirely false to consider the movement in France as "Poujadist" - a despairing movement of a middle class in the process of disintegration. The Poujadists in France represented the small farmers and small businessmen who in despair were protesting about being forced out of business because of the development of French monopoly capitalism at that stage.

This movement has, it is true, a mixed consciousness. Comrades who have been on the protests in Essex, Wales and Scotland have all reported that there is a variety of opinions. There is a strong nationalist element with hostility to the French drivers in particular who are seen as "taking our jobs". This could easily be countered given the European-wide movements of the lorry drivers which have seriously affected Belgium, Spain, the Netherlands, etc. There are traditional Tory voters or small businesspeople and those leaning towards the Tory. At the same time, participating were traditional "Labour supporters" who say they will never vote for Blair again and, at the same time, there are lorry drivers who are quite clearly members of the Transport and General Workers Union.

Moreover, as the TV and press have reported, lorry drivers were overwhelmingly sympathetic to the protests. The Guardian reported that drivers had been under no compulsion to break through the picket lines from the oil companies. This has led many commentators, led by the Blair government, to denounce the oil companies for being in league with the protesters. Undoubtedly, there was an element of collusion by the oil companies, despite their denials to the contrary, in the sense that a decrease in the price of oil would undoubtedly boost sales and thereby their profits.

There was not so much collusion but rather the interests of the oil companies and the protesters intersected at a certain point. They both wanted a reduction of fuel prices. The oil companies" profits have, in any case, increased massively in the last year through the increase in the price of oil. The Mirror (15 September) claims they have doubled in a year. They have claimed that they only make 1p a gallon/litre profit on petrol at the pumps in Britain (three-quarters of their profits come from oil production) and that increased sales through price reductions would not benefit them. But this was answered by the oil companies themselves, some of which increased prices even before all the protests had been called off. Moreover, they increased prices just before the dispute began. However, if there is collusion, as New Labour has argued, why don"t they propose nationalisation of the oil companies as a solution? The furthest they are prepared to go is to hint that they will introduce a windfall tax against the oil companies" profits.

But it would be entirely false to think that this was the main element in the refusal of drivers to cross picket lines. It was because of sympathy with the protesters.

Blair tried to argue in his press conference, on Wednesday 13 September, that it was because of "widespread intimidation" that drivers were refusing to take the oil out of the refineries. And what was the evidence for this? He stated: 'Intimidation of drivers with Dutch/Shell reporting that one of its tankers had a brick thrown through its windscreen at the giant Stanlow oil complex in Chesire.' (Our emphasis) Blair"s statement cut no ice and, in fact, enraged the demonstrators and millions who observed these comments on their TV screens. Moreover, the attempt of Alan Milburn, the health secretary, to lay responsibility for the crisis situation in the health service at the feet of the protesters was completely contradicted on Channel Four news. A reporter, soon after Milburn made his claims, stated hospital staff at St Thomas" Hospital in London had not experienced a serious deterioration but had been instructed to play up the degree of "crisis" arising from the fuel shortages. Undoubtedly, shortages there were, but on nowhere near the scale the government attempted to depict.

The key to the hysterical reaction of government spokespersons lay in the statement of Blair on Tuesday (12th) when he fumed that it was "affront" that a handful of protesters could determine how much fuel could be released from the refineries. Thereby was revealed the impotence and rage of the government, "the Executive Committee of the ruling class", and the capitalist state that a section of "the people" had assumed its god-given powers to determine what moved and what didn"t.

Moreover, once the bourgeoisie, its appendages in the media and, unfortunately, the summits of the TUC, realised the widespread implications of the strike and what it meant for their rule, they acted with one voice to demand that it be called off. The Mirror within 24 hours went from a front page headline describing Blair, Prescott and Brown as "empty" to the very next day shrieking hysterically, "Enough is Enough". It then carried scare stories about the implications of the lack of fuel for the hospitals, schools, food, etc. One journalist for the Mirror, Brian Read, dipped his pen in mad-dog saliva to compare what was happening with the fuel protesters with our struggle in Liverpool in the 1980s: 'Not since Militant ran Liverpool in the Eighties and turned a grassroots hatred of Thatcherism into a mandate for bringing the city to its knees, has so much political wool been pulled over people"s eyes.'

But he was answered in the same issue of the Mirror by Tony Parsons, who has not been overly critical of Blair in the past: 'Blair"s boys didn"t see this event coming and now we see them in their true light. They look so horribly out of depth in the current crisis. Not so much New Labour as Neutered Labour… They had it coming to them. For too long, just like the Tories before them, Labour have acted as though they have a god-given right to power.'

He also went on to add: 'They talk about the money that is being pumped into schools and hospitals. Where?… They take our money and then waste in on their stupid Dome and Gordon"s war chest.' But the diatribes of the tabloids were imitated by the unanimous condemnation of the so-called "quality press" and even the "serious" allegedly "in-depth" programmes on the TV. Trotsky once remarked that the Times (when it was a serious journal of capitalism and not the Murdoch-ised rag of today) could tell the truth nine times out of ten the better to lie on that one occasion when it mattered for the ruling class. Something similar has been seen in this dispute with the protesters presented as an unruly violent mob, which completely contradicts the scenes we have seen on television, the evidence of our own comrades and the statements of the protesters themselves. This dispute also demonstrated the vulnerability of capitalism precisely through the introduction of the new technology which allegedly would cushion capitalism from such violent eruptions from below. The "just-in-time" methods of production and of distribution of essentials such as food and fuel, has enhanced the vulnerability of capitalism in the modern era to serious disruptions through strikes by a handful of workers.

But, at the same time, this new technology has been deployed by the protesters to further their actions. In the process it has also completely shattered the arguments put forward by those who believed that these new technological developments have cancelled out the need for collective action. The latest recruits to these ideas are our ex-Liverpool members who declared on the eve of the strike that "individual liberation", rather than collective action, will be the theme of this era.

New technology, the internet, e-mails, the mobile phone, etc, have been used very effectively to coordinate protests throughout the country. New Labour luminaries, infatuated by the magical qualities of new technological devices, and stunned by the speed and effectiveness of the protests, have naturally gone too far in emphasising its importance in this dispute. One minister confided to Andrew Marr, a BBC political correspondent, that he believed the 'miners would have won if they had mobile phones'. The miners lost not because of the absence of new technology but because they were let down by the right-wing trade union leaders who refused to mobilise effective strike action in their support.

One of the ironies of this dispute is that in order to break the miners, Thatcher switched from reliance on coal for fuel and turned to oil and gas, etc. Thatcher"s heir, Blair, has seen this blow up in his face as the protesters and lorry drivers, some of whom probably drove through miners" picket lines, adopt the miners" methods of almost two decades ago!

It would be wrong, as the government and the press have assumed, that this protest was in any way "organised". There were, undoubtedly, some involvement of some Tory middle-class figures, such as large or middle-sized farmers in the South-West of England, but in the main they were one-man firms and their families which, in turn, attracted ordinary workers to the picket lines in support, particularly when they became indignant at the character of the press denigration of the protesters. Moreover, every broadcast on the television on the crisis, every article dealing with the real opinions of ordinary people and the opinion polls, indicated widespread support for the direct action, the largest support for such protests since the anti-poll tax movement in the late 1980s and early 1990s. This movement was the biggest and most important since the protest of the miners in 1992.

Support in the polls did not reach the levels of the 90% support enjoyed by the protesters in France, but it has nevertheless run consistently between 60-70% while the dispute was on. Moreover, the most striking thing about the interviews conducted with even those queuing for an hour or one-and-a-half hours for fuel was that they did not blame the protesters but attacked the government itself.

The dispute was undoubtedly a catalyst, not just for opposition to the price of fuel but for all the grievances which have built up under the Blair government in the course of the last three to four years. So panic stricken was the government that they were poised to use the army as the pleading and threats of Blair did not cut any ice with the protesters. He promised first of all that the dispute would be over in 24 hours and the oil would be back on stream. But when this did not work it was time to bring in the top trade union leaders, such as Monks and particularly Bill Morris, the leader of the TGWU. They acted directly as an arm of the capitalist state in persuading the lorry drivers employed by the oil companies to cross the picket lines. The TGWU was responsible for persuading drives in Grangemouth to begin work again. Even this may not have worked if the protesters would have decided to continue with the struggle.

However, they decided to call off the protests because of the fear that a continuation of the dispute could lead to the possible loss of support in the teeth of a massive hostile media campaign, which this would have meant. At the same time, it is quite clear that Blair, Brown and Prescott, hinted that concessions would be made. As the dispute was trailing off, The Independent declared: 'Mr Blair and John Prescott have tried to send a signal that, while there could be no surrender to the fuel protesters, the government will do something about fuel duty in the next budget. Yesterday Mr Prescott admitted that there was "some substance" in the claims that the government could afford a cut in fuel duties. Mr Brown adopted a more conciliatory tone yesterday, promising to "look and listen" before drawing up his next budget next March.' (14 September)

Of course, Brown had to add that: 'He would not make decisions based on barricades and blockades or the short-term volatility of the oil price.' This is merely a fig leaf to cover what will be in the coming months a probable retreat by the government on this issue. Blair undoubtedly calculated, at one stage, that he could act like Thatcher in the miners" strike by playing the "tough cop" which would redound to his benefit in Middle England in the run-up to the election. However, not included in his calculations was the fact that it was precisely sections of the middle class who were in the vanguard of this movement which, in turn, aroused the latent support of the mass of the population, including the overwhelming majority of the working class. "Middle England", the so-called "Sierra man" or "Mondeo man", was behind the protesters and still are. This is not the situation of 1984-85 when Thatcher succeeded in defeating the miners. It is more akin to 1981 when Thatcher was compelled to retreat and give concessions to the miners. Only after she had prepared for the confrontation and built up coal stocks for three years was the government prepared for a confrontation. Even then she would not have succeeded if the rest of the working class had come to the aid of the miners. In this crisis, Blair was completely unprepared. Even the use of the army - a very risky enterprise - with just 80 tankers, would have been completely ineffective. Twelve thousand tankers are used to distribute oil through Britain. The army is "helping out" in the aftermath of the dispute, but supplies will not be back to normal for weeks.

Because of this, the government, despite the bluster of Brown, will be compelled to make concessions. Otherwise the protesters will be back and this time "more organised", while the government, short of draconian, dictatorial powers, will not be. The hysteria in government circles is shown by the ravings of Paul Routledge of The Mirror, who has suggested 'making the blockade of oil refineries and distribution depots a criminal offence punishable by fines and imprisonment'. Shades of the Daily Mail, rather than the Mirror of the past! Therefore, Blair"& Co the time to make up the ground which has been lost in this dispute.

But France is a warning of the extreme volatility which now exists and the potential loss which has been suffered by the government in this dispute. Jospin, who attempted a similarly tough line in France, but capitulated to the combined movement of lorry drivers, farmers and fishermen, has lost 20 points in opinion polls with speculation now rife as to whether he personally or even his government will remain in power. This dispute has underlined the point that we have made consistently in the past that Blair could end up as hated and despised as Thatcher herself. The overwhelming comment made by workers generally, never mind the protesters, is about the "arrogance" of the government and particularly of Blair himself. The dispute and protests have also served to underline that this government and New Labour, which prided itself, through "focus groups" and selective opinion polls, that it was the most "in touch" government and party in history, has shown just how removed it is from the mood of discontent that has developed in Britain in the past period.

The effect this will have on short-term perspectives in the run-up to the general election it is not possible to say immediately. On the one side, the government has suffered a significant weakening in its support. But, on the other hand, the strength of the Blair government remains in the weakness of the opposition, particularly of Hague"s Tories. They are not credible in opposing the government when they were the ones who introduced the fuel escalator when they were in power.

If the Tories had maintained a "moderate" middle-of-the-road position, it is possible that they would now be inheriting the mood of dissatisfaction which exists in Middle England against the Blair government. But Hague, under the pressure of the right, has moved the Tory Party to a right-wing "extremist" position. We see this in relation to asylum seekers. We also witnessed the statements of Liam Fox, Tory spokesman on health, who has condemned "foreigner doctors" for having an inadequate "English", which is a veiled pitch for the racist vote.

On the other hand, Portillo has had to retreat from the Tory policy of "tax cuts and no cuts in public expenditure". He has, in effect, proposed, without spelling it out, even greater slashing attacks on public expenditure than we have seen under Labour. Indeed, one estimate puts the amount that would be required to be cut from public expenditure to meet the tax promises of the Tories at £15 billion.

On the other hand, the Liberals have been at one with the government in denouncing (although sotto voce) the protesters. Yet this will probably not have been noticed by the mass of the population in the maelstrom of events. It is possible that the Liberals could be the recipients of the growing hostility to New Labour. There is clearly an unwillingness to turn back towards the Tories. They are guilty men and women who are viewed almost as war criminals. They have not yet rehabilitated themselves for the damage inflicted under the 18 years of Thatcher and Major. It is possible, therefore, that the Liberals could grow, could benefit from differential voting without increasing its percentage share of the vote but increasing the number of seats that they win.

In the volatile situation which has resulted from these events it is not clear how the electoral pattern is likely to develop. However, one thing is certain. The outcome of this dispute is not similar to Thatcher"s victory over the miners. The calling-off of the dispute, possibly temporarily, was on the basis of promised or perceived promises to reconsider the price of fuel in November and the March budget, as we have stated above. It will not be seen by the mass of the population as a "defeat" which could be used to bolster the macho image of Blair and his government.

On the contrary, what the demonstrations have shown is that only through action is it possible to move the government and, standing behind them, the employers. The trade union leaders are as equally unprepared for the mood which has developed in Britain. Again, it is ironic that the trade union leaders were excoriated and attacked by the Blairites in the past. Now they have ridden to their rescue in this dispute, as well as in the struggles over the London mayor and the Welsh Labour Party leadership contest. Rather than "breaking the link", speculate the right-wing union leaders, the Blair government will be compelled to lean on them. However, they reckon without the ranks of the union, which this dispute demonstrates are on a collision course not just with the government but with the very right-wing leaders who are propping it up. Their role was summed up by the Financial Times. Commenting on the TUC conference and the performance of the leading right-wing figures, it stated: 'John Monks, the TUC general secretary, delivered a key-note address that (with a slight change of emphasis) could have been applauded on many points by an audience of businessmen. He warned against inter-union rivalry; described the need for economic growth, investment, training and productivity improvements; and praised the development of partnership agreements between unions and companies. By contrast, the class war battle cries of Arthur Scargill, the miners" leader, were brushed aside.' (14 September)

They are reinforced in this position by the knowledge that last year British workers were 30 times less likely to go on strike than they were on average during the 1980s. What they and the bourgeoisie have not recognised is that in this period, the last stages of a growth cycle, there is a tendency for workers, particularly in light of the huge boost in income to the employers, to demand "their share". The impossible living conditions of many workers - for instance, those in London and the South-East with a massive increase in house prices, transport costs, etc - inevitably mean a demand for increases in wages. Seeing the unpopularity of the government and the difficulties it found itself in in this dispute, other groups will be looking for action to improve their situation. Teachers in London, for instance, could move into action to improve their shamefully low pay. (Teachers who teach A-levels were met by pupils who had just left school and who, in some instances, were getting £2,000 to £3,000 a year more than them.)

Other groups of workers could be encouraged by the outcome of these protests and move into action in the next period. Therefore, rather than the tranquil, peaceful scenario envisaged by Blair and Brown in the run-up to the election, a period of upheaval and industrial movements could unfold in Britain in a winter, if not of discontent, then certainly of "unrest", as one of the commentator put it. We have to be prepared for this situation and to act accordingly. Our comrades in some areas (although not in all areas) intervened very effectively at the pickets. They were met there initially with a certain suspicion because of the mixed consciousness. But once it became clear where we stood - opposed to New Labour; in favour of a new mass workers" party - then we got a very sympathetic hearing. The last issue of the paper was enthusiastically welcomed on the picket lines. This goes together with the general stepping up and a quickening of the political tempo in Britain with the beginnings of industrial movements in which we have intervened in all parts of the country. We will produce a fuller statement on the overall situation in Britain in the run-up to our conference. But it is urgent that all comrades, all branches, the leadership above all in each area, discusses the implications of the tumultuous seven days in September and draw all the necessary political and organisational conclusions from this for our work.

Not least is to be prepared for further convulsions, particularly in the event of a serious economic recession or slump. Hamish McRae, economic correspondent of The Independent, ruefully comments in the light of the fuel protests that, 'the good times have in general helped the government"s popularity ratings'. But then goes on to add: 'If people can suddenly get grumpy after years of boom, how might they react in a recession, or even in a period of slow growth.' Precisely!

These tumultuous seven days in September are a harbinger of the coming upheavals in Britain and internationally on the basis of events. Marxism is the science of perspectives and can trace out the broad developments, but never anticipate every possible turn of events. The main thing we can conclude is that the situation is so fragile, so explosive, that any number of events could trigger an upheaval which could take a "spontaneous" character to begin with but which would quickly raise the possibility of organisation, of programme, of ideology, etc, and therefore lay the basis for the intervention of our party. These events show that we have to be prepared and seize the opportunities politically and organisationally, particularly to spread the influence and the membership of our party.

Peter Taaffe, 15 September 2000

 
[ Top ]

 
Hauptseite CWI

Neues aus dem CWI

verfügbare
Artikel,
nach Themen

verfügbare
Artikel,
chronologisch