Socialism In A Time of Confusion
Resolutions by Saturday 22 April
Emergency resolutions by Friday 19 May
Nominations for NEC etc by Friday 19 May
Amendments to resolutions by Friday 19 May
Amendments to NEC statement by Friday 19 May
Amendments to constitution by Friday19 May
Register (and join) by Weds 31 May
Conference is on Saturday 3 June 2023 online via Zoom. There is a nominal charge of £1.00 and you must register in advance.
The Labour Representation Committee was originally formed in 1900 to secure representation in parliament for organised labour. The task for today’s LRC, founded in 2004 is to continue the fight for a socialist future.
The following document, to be presented to our conference in June 2023, spells out how we see the current situation.
There is much that we could address but we highlight just three key issues
1. From summer 2022 we have seen the development of a wave of strike action that has involved more workers than for many decades in Britain. While pay is central to most of these disputes – with the cost of living crisis an immediate trigger – so too are working conditions and job security. In the current political climate, involvement in and support for these disputes, along with support for other political mobilisations. is central to building the LRC, the labour left as a whole and the left more generally, Focusing only on the internal situation within the party will not change the balance of forces in itself, let alone recruit new comrades to our ranks.
In the face of this wave of strikes for pay deals that - at least - match inflation and in defence of working conditions, the government’s priority is to defeat the strikes even where (e.g. with nurses) the strikes have overwhelming public support and the government knows better pay is essential to recruiting much needed staff. This is so even, as in the case of the railways, where it would have cost less to settle the strikes than it has cost in lost revenue. The government would sooner defeat the strikes than concede that workers can win change by their own hands or even that workers are entitled to decent pay and conditions. There has been a greater willingness to reach a settlement by some private companies than public or publicly-funded services. This is an indication of how profitable private companies have become, as against the austerity imposed on public services, but also highlights the determination of government to face down strikes for ideological reasons with no relation to costs or to meeting longer term needs.
2. The escalation by the government of their attacks on migrants is a clear attempt to shore up the support for racism that they believe won them `red wall’ seats and the Brexit referendum and to divert attention from the cost of living crisis and the collapse of public services. Starmer and his front bench offer no principled resistance to this. It is incumbent on the left to both counter the racist arguments and mobilise against the growth of fascism encouraged by the government’s rhetoric.
Beyond the racism in measures such as the “Illegal Migrants Bill” is the broader attack on human rights, the increased thresholds for striking and minimum service requirements in the event of successful ballots in favour of industrial action. To this can be added yet another budget for the rich and direct punishment for the poorest, especially for disabled people. Again Starmer’s Labour offers little hope of holding back the tide with the constant rhetoric of “hard working families” its support for privatisation and emphasising that they are a party of business that will clearly, eg, not stand up for people in receipt of benefits. The international situation with rising tide of right wing governments is also a crucial issue for us as socialist internationalists – India, Poland, Hungary, Israel and Italy are just some examples to join the UK.
3. The election of a Labour government with Starmer at the helm at the next general election looks almost certain. The election must take place at the latest by 24 January 2025. Our determined opposition to every aspect of Starmer’s leadership does not mean that we do not campaign for such a government. To do otherwise would be to criminally downplay the massive crimes of the Tories and/or to mistakenly go down the road of misconceived short cuts to creating political alternatives to the political instrument created by the labour movement.
Starmer clearly believes he can recreate New Labour in entirely different economic and political conditions to those which saw Blair’s election. These conditions gave Blair the space for some progressive policies, but at the same time assisted in laying the basis for much of today’s `polycrisis’. The situation is objectively much more constrained for Starmer – not that he shows any inclination to implement even mildly radical policies. Above all, along with his front bench, he is intent on assuring the ruling class that, in contrast to the Corbyn years, Labour is `business-friendly’. This means that, beyond a very few tweaks, the policy differs little from that of the Tories. His vacuous `mission statement’ purposefully avoided any policy commitments.
This refusal to put distance between Labour and the Tories was evident during the pandemic when criticism was limited to `too little, too late’ rather than fundamental issues. This has been followed by a failure to counterpose nationalisation on rail, post, water etc but also to explicitly rule out nationalisation of energy. Streeting refuses to commit to ending private sector involvement in the NHS, rather often saying he supports its greater involvement.
4. We have seen the outrageous ban on MPs joining picket lines and a failure to even speak out in defence of workers’ living standards, to oppose the grotesque profits of particularly the fossil fuel giants morphing into posing Labour as the natural party of business.
5. This is also the wider context in which we have to examine the witch-hunt – alongside the wider attack on party democracy and the concomitant attempt to drive out the left through demoralisation. This is not at all to say that the instrumentalisation of antisemitism and the targeting of the ‘wrong sort of Jews’ is in any way a secondary issue. But we, alongside our comrades in Jewish Voice for Labour, have always seen this as part of a wider attack on the Palestine solidarity movement and the Palestinian movement itself, which sections of the Labour right who had never shown any interest in the issue have latched onto for opportunist reasons. It was used as a weapon in the wider determination to defeat the left in the face of the overwhelming support for Corbyn in the Party and significant support for the ideas amongst the wider electorate. And these forces actually downplay instances of antisemitism – particularly physical attacks on visibly Jewish people (mainly Haredi) and on synagogues and Jewish cemeteries when they do occur.
6. As the Forde Inquiry reported, the ultra focus on antisemitism has created a hierarchy of oppression, with well evidenced racism towards Black and Brown members and those from Gipsy, Roma and Traveller communities considered at best of secondary importance, along with Islamaphobia.
7. The decimation of party democracy that has accompanied the witch-hunt goes beyond the instrumentalisation of antisemitism to outlawing forces way beyond the committed left to anyone in any way critical of Starmer’s pro-business anti-working class agenda. The witch-hunt, the undermining of local party democracy alongside a deeply rightwing agenda has led to a sizeable exodus of members – particularly among younger activists, some of whom were undoubtedly naïve about what Corbynism represented and could achieve.
8. We celebrate the politicisation the eruption of strikes since June represents in workplaces, with picket lines and mass demonstrations. We are completely committed to building the widest possible solidarity with this mobilisation across the labour movement. We particularly note the move to synchronised action on February 1 and on March 15 as positive developments which need to be broadened and deepened – as are the growth of strike solidarity committees.
9. Many of the workers taking strike action are taking up issues beyond the immediate cost of living crisis and the threat this, combined with pay restraint and escalating profits, poses for their standard of living. Even before the huge hikes in prices, many workers had seen a significant drop in real pay over the last decade and more. Further the impact of casualisation, pushing up of both productivity and bureaucratisation, underfunding and privatisation have deeply impacted job satisfaction in the way symbolised so tragically by nurses (and others) leaving to earn more in supermarkets – not to mention the numbers of those in work themselves using food banks. The naked greed and callousness of capitalism is being laid bare and understood more widely. As well as low pay, pressures from high levels of demand, staff shortages, tight budgets and, often unrealistic and sometimes meaningless targets, create unmanageable pressures on almost all public sector workers, leading to high levels of sickness and leaving for other roles.
10. At the same time it is important not to overstate the positives. On February 1, one million workers had a ballot mandate for strike and only 50 per cent were called out. The RMT did not call out all their members – only the drivers who are a minority of their members. The (Royal Mail) postal workers dispute, facing the biggest attack on terms and conditions of any, has seen the leadership faltering at every stage. Imposition of new conditions and disciplinary attacks on members and workplace representatives have barely been challenged, and Ward is hampered by his `acceptance of the financial difficulties of the company’ rather than challenging them. Unless there are some surprises in store, the 19 days of strike action may well result in virtual acceptance of Royal Mail’s demands. The FBU – with probably the most left wing leadership of all and a huge mandate, both in internal elections and the strike ballot - has unanimously recommended, and won, acceptance of a below inflation pay offer without taking strike action. Other unions have accepted calling off strikes in exchange for a commitment from employers or government to talks and sometimes the offer of an unconsolidated one-off payment conditional on calling off the strikes.
11. The potential – subject to acceptance by the membership – settlement of most of the disputes in the NHS can, at best, be seen as a small victory for the workers, but far short of what could be won with greater determination from their union leaderships. While clearly far better than would have been won without action, such a settlement falls well short of both keeping up with inflation and restoring pay to earlier levels. The risk now is that, having bought off the most popular sections of the workforce – albeit against its earlier wish - the government will sit out other disputes, hoping to see them beg for even worse offers.
12. One of the many issues exposed by the disputes is the fraud of `independent’ pay review bodies. Appointed by the government with no representation from unions or workers, they are bound by what the Treasury says is affordable in the first place. Unions which have withdrawn support from these bodies during the strikes must make that permanent and demand collective bargaining.
13. In most of the unions the level of workplace organisation remains decimated by the long years of defeat with only the NEU really breaking from that with the work they did during the pandemic, and to some extent postal workers through a tradition of unofficial action. But even there the union leaderships have too much control over the pace and direction of the disputes. Nationally both Unison and the RCN leaderships have even been hostile to other unions, let alone broader political forces, even participating in pickets. The coming period – particularly if marked by defeats in those places where there has been action – is likely to see the growth of left oppositional movements in the unions, many of which have withered over the years of minimal industrial action. The LRC welcomes such growth and seeks to build links with such lefts in unions. our approach is that such left groups should be pluralist and democratic and seek to build workplace organisation and not be restricted to electioneering. Beyond these principles we do not take a position on tactical debates amongst lefts in particular unions or more generally.
14. Though February 1 was nominally around the ‘minimum service bill’ and strong speeches have been made by trade union leaders about how reactionary and two-faced the Tory proposals are, there is no real substance to the campaign other than mutterings about legal action – let alone a mood to expose the existing reactionary legislation. The LRC should continue to support Free Our Unions – but in order for it to have any real cutting edge we need to significantly build its support base inside the unions.
15. We welcomed the launch of Enough is Enough as a potential vehicle which could take up a broader range of issues than those over which strikes were being called. However the organisation seems stillborn in the hands of the bureaucracy so that issues such as the growth in food banks and the response of the right to food campaign, the demonisation and practical attacks on claimants – particularly older and disabled people – and even the crises of the NHS education, transport and housing for working class communities have not really been addressed. At the same time where strike solidarity committees have been created, they have, by and large failed to take on this broader agenda – a massive lost opportunity. We need to build local democratic bodies which link the different aspects of the struggle.
16. At this stage it is not possible to predict the outcome of the wave of strikes. Clearly the government is hoping to sit them out, defeating them by a combination of strikers’ weariness, financial difficulties, anti-strike measures and the odd sop. Where the government has failed is in turning `public opinion’ against the strikers, even with the aid of much of the mass media. But whatever the outcome of particular disputes, or even the majority of the wave, the strategic questions outlined here need to be explored across the movement.
17. Although the hype around Corbyn and the EHRC is precisely that – ie Starmer only repeated what he said months ago about the MP for Islington North and did not put any procedures in place - there will be a watershed around this issue before the General Election. We should take Starmer’s threats against the whole left and the principles on which we stand very seriously. He has warned: “The changes we have made aren’t just fiddling around the edges or temporary fixes. They are permanent, fundamental, irrevocable... If you don’t like it, nobody is forcing you to stay."
18. One of the key reasons the LRC continues to have a central orientation to the Labour Party, despite the crimes of the Starmer leadership, is the relationship between the party and significant trade unions. The balance sheet we draw of those trade unions which have disaffiliated or been thrown out from the left – RMT, in one period FBU and now Bakers - is that they have not opened any alternative political space. In this context we continue to fight for affiliation in non-affiliated unions and oppose disaffiliation in others.
19. Affiliation means unions are entitled to representation at every level of the Labour Party, not just on the NEC and Party conference. That defence of union involvement is why we tried to intervene when Corbyn was leader in defence of the link and in defence of General Committees i.e. the right of union branches to representation through delegates, rather than their dilution through All Member Meetings.
20. The relationship between the Labour Party and the trade unions is evolving and could face huge tensions after the next General Election. The probability is of a Labour government on a collision course with those trade unions which press their demands. We will encourage unions to fight for their policies regardless of any opposition by Starmer and his allies. Left unions must break with the practice of horse-trading with right wing unions in order to get seats on Party bodies, politics should be decisive. Unlike previous Labour governments under Blair, a Starmer-led Labour government, totally committed to the interests of capital, will have little room for manoeuvre. This period could well redefine the relationship between the party and the unions. In advance of that Labour government, now is not the time either for socialists to leave the party nor for trade unions to disaffiliate.
21. There are still a few left MPs who could give a lead. Most have complied with Starmer’s efforts to neuter them, whether over signing Stop the War statements, his support for Israel, or support for Corbyn. A refusal to challenge this ultimatum could mean the parliamentary left would be finished for the next generation.
22. It is not the time for the left in the Labour Party - MPs, members and trade unionists - to keep our heads down. This would simply allow Starmer to proceed with his aim of gutting the party of any democracy or alternative policies.
23. If it is right to be critical of the Labour left under Corbyn’s leadership for its strategic naivety as we are, the same criticisms can be made many times over of many of those who argue for a new party of the left today. Little unites them other than a tendency to propagandism.
24. It is likely, if not inevitable, that the left will be permanently locked out of any real power in the Labour Party. We must become a visible focus of opposition, linked to the emerging forces of resistance out of which the seeds of a new movement - even, possibly, if we are forced down that road, a new working class party - can be built, based on existing Labour Party and trade union members as well as the broader movements on climate change, equalities, and anti-racism and for disabled people’s rights; we have much to learn from movements such as DPAC. This cannot be merely an amalgam of existing small left grouplets. That is a road to nowhere.
25. It would be an enormous error to allow detestation of the Starmer leadership to lead to downplaying the crimes of the Tories. It is clear that the Tory party itself remains deeply divided since Johnson stood down and that Sunak is unlikely to be able to turn this around unless completely unexpected political factors emerge. At the same time it is key to note that there is a resurgence of political forces to the right of the Tory party itself. The attack on the asylum seekers’ hostel in Knowsley, the murder of Brianna Ghey, the defence by sections of the media of vile misogynists such as Andrew Tate, the failure to recognise institutional racism and misogyny in the police and the growth of disability hate crime are part of the same growth of the far right. And while these political forces understand that questions of oppression are key issues for parts of the left, examples such as Forde and the Kennedy report into the TSSA show that parts of the labour movement have a lot to answer for too.
26. Our support for Labour at the General Election will not be primarily because it is `better’ than the Tories (though on a few issues it is) but because of its links to the trade union movement and the fact that millions of working class voters will vote Labour to get rid of the hated Tories. Our approach is to support that desire, but at the same time call for action to force Starmer to carry out both his few `better’ policies and others which he has resisted (such as most nationalisations). We argue not only for the adoption of such policies through internal struggle in the movement, but also for action (strike, campaigns etc) to pressure for such change.
27. The climate crisis and the wider environmental crisis remain fundamental challenges for the LRC and the left. There is no socialism on a dead planet. The climate movement in Britain mounted important mobilisations in the run up to COP 26 in Glasgow in December 2020 with significant participation from many trade unions. However since then the movement in Britain has become much more fragmented and localised. Some environmental groups, notably XR trade unionists, have attempted to show the real links between the cost of living crisis and the environmental crisis but unfortunately the low political culture and fragmentation of the left makes this difficult to get a real echo beyond the organised left. At the same time while it is profoundly wrong on both nationalisation and nuclear power, Starmer’s own Green New Deal is actually more radical on decarbonisation of the grid by 2030 than Corbyn’s was. Saying this is not to be soft on Starmer but to recognise that on this question even he has been impacted by the movement.
28. We welcome the statement from many unions, initiated by the FBU, opposing the government’s scapegoating of migrants. The LRC encourages the unions to ensure this message gets through to their members, and to develop a similar approach to other issues which are not seen as `traditional’ trade union issues.
29. The LRC has tried to build a profile for itself on the question of housing, including by highlighting the work of the Labour Campaign For Council Housing. We should also support moves to coordinate links between broader housing campaigns and should push for using the word “homes” rather than housing, which has become a commodity in today’s Britain. We need to develop a similar approach to other organisations on health (SHA, KONP), education (SEA?), transport, environment, racism, (LBS. GBL?), women. (LWL) disabled people etc and to do so explicitly as the LRC rather than just as individuals interested in a particular campaign or issues. We need to see this as a central part of the way we will need to switch our centre of gravity in the new political situation.
30. A similar thing is true on international solidarity though there the volatile political situation means that it is not possible to predict all the issues that we may need to relate to. We can certainly say that Palestine and Ireland will be constants and for the time being Iran should be added to that list. Kurdistan is something else we should work on. We have some serious differences on the question of Ukraine and we should consider whether a year on from the Russian invasion we should rediscuss this or whether that would be divisive and counterproductive.
31. We continue to be intransigently opposed to chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, and call for Britain to withdraw from NATO and for the Alliance to be scrapped.
32. Brexit is another divisive issue on the labour left – we should assess whether we could usefully explore the issue constructively or whether we should leave it alone, given that the decision is not going to be reversed. However, what seems to be a given is that the British economy has suffered under the Brexit negotiated by Johnson. We also need to be alert to the fact that Sunak’s renegotiation of the Northern Ireland Protocol – whatever we think of its shortcomings – may go some way to restore the Tory Party’s standing.
33. We have tried to campaign around the issue of local government funding but have been rather left on our own. We need to explore whether there are allies we can work with – especially in the context of a likely Labour government. Local government has been a bastion of the Right in the Labour Party since the defeat of the resistance to rate-capping in the 80s. What left there is, while rejecting the managerialism of the right, tends to support `Community Wealth Building, a form of the `dented shield’ rather than have any concept of encouraging any kind of movement demanding a return of government funding. There also seems to be little appetite among the local government unions for a fight beyond – legitimate – pay rises.
34. The witch hunt has also seen attacks on those beleaguered left wing local councillors; as for many seeking to be PPCs, many councillors and would-be councillors have been excluded, or threatened with exclusion from selection lists; examples include a disabled councillor for not leafleting enough, councillors being threatened with expulsion from the Party for entering an agreement with the Greens, leaving them in a minority and with new enemies and not canvassing sufficiently for the centrally imposed Starmerite PPC.
35. We have not discussed the question of devolution or indeed the Scottish and Welsh parliaments. Again we should explore this. Starmer’s approach to devolving power to English regions, superficially radical, is in fact anything but since it involves a commitment to directly elected (and therefore barely accountable) mayors and no commitment to providing funds for those layers of government. Unfunded devolved local government is no better than unfunded undevolved local government. Whether Starmer will be willing to see through abolition of the House of Lords, which the left must encourage, remains to be seen. His abject support for the monarchy puts that in doubt.
36. The time since the last LRC conference has not been an easy one. On the one hand we have been battered by the Starmer offensive against the whole of the Labour left which has meant both the contraction of our wider audience and some serious disagreements amongst comrades who were central to the organisation. Resignations from the steering committee have left us weakened politically and it has taken time to work out how to respond organisationally. On the other hand we have begun to turn outwards more in the last few months through the organisation of a series of online meetings and building for this conference.
37. We also note that despite a number of key strategic differences between parts of the Labour left outlined above it is positive that united slates have been agreed for the forthcoming elections for both the party as a whole and the National Labour Women’s Committee and that comrades from the LRC have played a constructive role in these developments.
38. During this period the lack of human resources have led us to end the publication of Labour Briefing which for years had been an important aspect of the LRC’s profile. Redline TV was launched as a 21st century attempt to fill a similar role but again resource problems have meant there has been a need to limit its scope for the time being at least, there were also tensions between the structures of the LRC and those of Redline which have been largely resolved and this project needs to be seen as an important political part of our work as the LRC The resource implications of this need further discussion.
a) Is there anything you would like to change about the political analysis and approach outlined in this document?
b) The LRC has limited resources and needs to prioritise. What do you think are the top 3 issues on which we should focus?
c) Which organisations do you consider we should be working with more and are there any we should put less emphasis on.
d) What ideas do you have for the best ways for LRC to foster respectful, open, honest debate about the key issues and the way forward with a Starmer- led Labour government outlined in this document?
The Labour Representation Committee notes that;
Following pressure from disabled party members and their organisations. Labour Party Conference 2021 passed an amendment to the rules which comprised a new chapter, National Disabled Members Organisation (now Chapter 13 in the current rule book), This includes a commitment to promoting “equality and human rights for disabled people” and support for “the principles behind the Social Model of Disability”.
The social model was developed by Disabled activist and academic Mike Oliver in 1983 based on ideas discussed amongst disabled activists over the previous decade. It draws a distinction between impairment and disability: people are not disabled by their impairments but by the oppression of the capitalist system which devalues them and presents both physical and attitudinal barriers to inclusion.
The words we use are important. "People with disabilities" is medical model and "disabled people" is social model.
The slogan of the Disabled Peoples Movement is ‘Nothing about us without us’. We counterpose that to a model that says we are a group that needs charity. We say ‘piss on pity’
Unfortunately comparatively few people are aware of the social model and many still see disability as something to be dealt with by means of medical intervention or charitable donations. (1)
We need to develop education across the labour movement to enable a wider understanding of issues affecting disabled people. The level of awareness even amongst those wanting to be allies is often very poor so it is important to share resources develped by disabled peoples organisations (2) (3) (4)
We campaign under the slogan of the Disabled Peoples Movement ‘Nothing about us without us’. Allies are valuable providing they are willing to listen to disabled people and work to support them: but problems often arise when decisions are made without working with disabled people. For example when a zoom Labour Party event for disabled members assumed all deaf people used sign language and failed to provide captions..
At Conference 2021 a number of issues were raised at meetings of Disability Labour (the socialist group affiliated to the party) including (5):
· many instances of lack of accessibility at Conference. These included Ellen Morrison, disabled members NEC rep, unable to access NEC meeting room;
· omission of disability as an equalities issue by almost all floor and platform speakers;
· physical and attitudinal barriers at meetings, including hostility and harassment;
· exclusion of those with learning impairments;
· ableist language.
Since 2021 matters have worsened:
· discussions promised by Keir Starmer and David Evans have not taken place;
· continual demonisation of those living on benefits, and repeated use of the phrase “the party of hard working people”. This latter continued even after it was pointed out by Ellen Morrison that it could be offensive to those who cannot work or cannot find work;
· Labour it would continue in government with the DWP’s policy of forcing disabled people back to work, a policy resulting the deaths of thousands of disabled people;
· Starmer seems determined to disregard advice from relevant shadow ministers and the NEC rep for disabled members;
· Despite the fact that Covid is still with us, that 60% of deaths from Covid are of disabled people and that long Covid is a serious threat, the national party is moving back to holding face to face only meetings. Hybrid meetings are not supported by the party, despite the fact that they would allow those at risk from Covid to attend meetings safely – as well as being more accessible for many carers, shift workers and others.
· Despite the fact that around a fifth of the population identify as disabled, there are very few PLP members, PPCs and councillors who describe themselves as disabled
· Social care policies which do not include coproduction involving those needing support: instead only tokenistic consultation.
· The outrageous decision to suspend implementation of the proposals in the democracy review of structures for disabled members until after the next election.
The Labour Party is failing to support disabled members and is creating a hostile environment.
Disability Labour’s recent AGM passed a motion on ableism which we fully support. (6).
We further need to develop campaigning that goes beyond simply adherence to the Equality Act. Such campaigning needs to be politically based focusing on the damage done to disabled people (and others) by the capitalist system including by neoliberalism
Links:
(1) https://www.inclusionlondon.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/FactSheets_TheSocialModel.pdf
(2) Disability Labour has also put together a number of useful activist guides on issues such as disability friendly campaigning, zoom meetings, and so on. In addition DL is prepared to set up training, for example for Regional officers https://disabilitylabour.org.uk/
(3) The EHRC provides a useful guide on The Equality Act in relation to political parties which may be useful https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/publication-download/equality-act-2010-guide-political-parties
(4) There is detailed information in the legal guide to the Equality Act and disabled people produced by Disability Equality Act Labour, involving experienced disability activists working alongside a specialist lawyerhttps://drive.google.com/file/d/1JUTERVAeGgVExY4Y6MTanwuy-WJ51wbU/view?usp=drivesdk
(5) https://disabilitylabour.org.uk/blogposts/press-release/
Motions
Palestine
We note:
· The new Israeli government is the most reactionary yet, containing self-avowed fascists;
· That government is escalating attacks on Palestinians, attempting to demolish aspects of the democracy enjoyed by Israeli Jews and impose stark religious laws across society;
· The justified reluctance of Israeli Arabs to join the mass protests against the Netanyahu government, when they are only about defending democracy for Jews;
We support
those attempting to raise the issues of the oppression of the Palestinians and the apartheid nature of Israel within those protests;
· the resistance of the Palestinians to attacks on their towns, refugee camps and the Al Aqsa mosque;
· the campaign for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions and the campaign against the British government’s intention to bring in a law banning local authorities taking decisions on procurement and investment and we also note the likelihood that this method will be used to suppress other campaigns, eg against fossil fuels;
We continue to support
the Palestine Solidarity Campaign and also support the work of Palestine Action
· We reject the false accusation that criticism of Israel, up to and including rejection of Zionism, equate to antisemitism.
· We fight for an Israel/Palestine in which all who live there have equal rights.
· We welcome the fact that much of the above is common ground across many trade unions (and the TUC).
We, therefore, call on our unions to be much more active around these issues, educating members on the issues, demanding that employers pull out of involvement in Israel, refuse contracts with companies active in Israel and divest pension funds from such companies.
The LRC commits to campaigning for justice for Palestinians and opposition to the weaponisation of antisemitism against those who share this aim and that this will remain one of the key priorities for our international work.
Submitted by LRC NEC
Union struggles
We recognise the importance of the strike wave of 2022-23 and encourage further action to defend jobs, conditions, living standards and beyond. This resurgence of trade union activity after decades of low levels of strikes is welcome.
But workplace and left organisation has been lost, allowing union leaderships to treat members as stage armies. The enthusiasm for “Enough is Enough” showed the potential to go further, but the opportunity was squandered through bureaucratic control.
The Minimum Services law and allowing employers to use agency workers as scabs have been added to the repressive armoury of anti-union laws.
· We encourage coordination and escalation of strikes.
· We reject `partnership’ between unions and employers, and pay review bodies.
· We work to build local committees of trade unions, trades councils and user organisations – particularly Disabled, Women’s, Black and LGBT+ groups, linking campaigning on the cost of living crisis, climate, etc.
· It is urgent to rebuild workplace strength and create or strengthen democratic left caucuses capable of holding the full-time apparatus to account,
· Working with Free Our Unions and others, we urge unions to build a serious national campaign against the anti-union laws and defy them when they are used.
· We continue to call on the LP to support industrial action, for LP members (including public representatives) to join pickets and demonstrations, and demand that Labour oppose and repeal all anti-union laws.
· We urge trade unions, whether affiliated or not, to make these demands of the Labour Party.
Submitted by LRC NEC
Social Care and Suport
The current system of social care and support is deeply flawed:
- some areas run for profit,
- cost of care for those who need it “too expensive”,
- poorly paid and supported care workers,
- exploitation of unpaid carers,
- care users having little say in the care they are allowed.
- the Health and Social Care Act placing care under NHS.
End Social Care Disgrace (formerly NaCSILS) campaigns against this and for a system free at the point of use, run not for profit, funded by taxation, staffed by a suitably rewarded and trained workforce, giving practical support and reimbursement to unpaid carers, supporting independent living where this is the preferred choice.
Whilst we support these demands we also agree to develop a campaign which goes beyond damage limitation and works for socialist transformative change including:
- Access to free care and support as an entitlement;
- Enabling people to live as equals in inclusive communities;
- Countering the oppression of older and disabled people;
- Commitment to working intersectionally;
- Counteracting ableist and ageist stereotyping of people as “lacking”;
- Giving those needing care choice, control and independence in decisions affecting them and a right to support to live independently;
- Coproduction in which those affected share decision making equally;
- Recognition of the right to appropriate housing, transport and education;
- A dedicated care system brought into public ownership.
In order to take this forward we agree to affiliate to Act4Inclusion
Submitted by Leeds LRC
NB see proposed amendment later on this page
Ukraine
This conference:
Condemns the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the claim that Ukraine is not a country, calls for Russian withdrawal from Ukrainian territory.
We support the right of Ukrainians to defend their country against invasion and to procure weapons from wherever possible with no strings attached;
While we reject the idea that the Russian invasion was in any way justified by NATO `expansion’ we note that one consequence of the Russian invasion is several more countries joining NATO for `protection’ against Russia.
We continue to oppose NATO as an imperialist military alliance, warn Ukrainians against reliance on it, support the call from Britain to withdraw from NATO, and for its disbandment.
Support for Ukrainian resistance does not mean support for Zelensky. In particular we oppose his introduction of anti-union laws.
We encourage dialogue with socialists and trade unions in Ukraine, and all possible support for anti-war Russians.
The LRC will affiliate to the Ukraine Solidarity Campaign and argue for this policy within it.
Proposed
Terry Conway, Pete Firmin, Patrick Hall, Austin Harney, Ian Malcolm Walker,, Colin O’Driscoll, Susan Pashkoff, Jenny Semambino, Martin Wicks, Sandra Wyman
Amendment to motion on Social care and support
An amendment to this motion is being proposed by the LRC NEC. It is not possible to show the amendment on the website as set out for technical reasons -it will be sent out in the conference pack - but this is how the motion would read if agreed by conference
Social Care and support
The current system of social care and support is deeply flawed:
- majority of service provision known as ‘Social Care’ is outsourced and run for profit,
- cost incurred by those who need it is regarded as “too expensive”
- poorly paid and supported care and support workers,
- exploitation of unpaid carers, family and friends,
- users having little control over the service they receive,
- the Health and Social Care Act further integrating ‘Social Care’ into the NHS thus medicalising the provision, scaling back services, and increasing the likelihood of privatisation.
Many campaign bodies oppose the current system as it is and argue for a system free at the point of use, run not for profit, funded by taxation, staffed by a suitably rewarded and trained workforce, giving practical support and reimbursement to unpaid carers, supporting independent living where this is the preferred choice.
Whilst we support these demands we also believe the system has never been fit-for purpose; therefore we agree to develop a campaign which goes beyond damage limitation and works for socialist transformative change including:
- Access to free care and support as an entitlement;
- Enabling people to live as equals in inclusive communities;
- Countering the oppression of older and disabled people;
- Commitment to working intersectionally;
- Counteracting ableist/disablist and ageist stereotyping of people as “lacking”;
- Giving those needing care choice, control and independence in decisions affecting them and a right to support to live independently;
- Coproduction in which those affected share decision making equally;
- Recognition of the right to appropriate housing, transport and education;
- A publicly owned national system which is democratically run and capable of delivering sustainable co-produced designed and managed local community based services
In order to take this work further we agree to affiliate to and actively support Act4Inclusion, a campaign body, who adopt an eco-social approach towards these issues.
NEC nominations
Chair Terry Conway nominated by Patrick Hall and Pete Firmin
Admin Secretary Pete Firmin nominated by Patrick Hall and Terry Conway
Women’s officer Sandra Wyman nominated by Leeds LRC
Disabled members officer Barbara Roberts nominated by Sandra Wyman and Terry Conway
Membership Secretary Patrick Hall nominated by Leeds LRC
Northern Organiser John McGrory nominated by Leeds LRC
Trade Union organiser John McGrory nominated by Patrick Hall and Pete Firmin
Ordinary members
Ian Malcom Walker nominated by Terry Conway and Pete Firmin
Martin Wicks nominated by Terry Conway and Pete Firmin