The conference rejected calls from the union's executive to remain inside Labour in order to turn it back to its roots. As one firefighter from the Strathclyde brigade put it: "This Labour party is no longer the friend of the working class. They have new friends in big business yet trade unions continue to give money to them. It is perverse." Another, an ex-Labour Party member from Berkshire, said: "Our members are sick and tired of giving their hard-earned cash to the Labour party. I don't believe we have an ounce of influence when it comes to politics." A delegate from Northern Ireland said what must be on many workers' minds: "I find it impossible to see the difference between Labour politicians and extreme rightwingers. New Labour is not listening and we have been drowned out of the big conversation."
Faced with the facts, the assistant general secretary conceded that strikers were called "criminals, wreckers, fascists and even worse" but argued it was only a matter of time "before Tony Blair walks into the sunset." He argued that "the government is different from the party" yet the party is not taking Blair to task for his actions. Anarchists are not surprised. A hierarchical organisation operating in a centralised state will always empower the leaders at the top, not the membership at the base. That is why we argue that the labour movement should not have links with political parties and instead fight its own battles by its own weapons of direct action and solidarity.
The union's decision is a blow to a Labour leadership that has seen its party membership plummet and, therefore, increasingly depends on union support for resources. And the FBU is not alone. The Communication Workers Union (CWU) has warned it will suspend its £300,000 a year funding if the government does not promise to keep the Royal Mail under public ownership. The CWU's position is naive, given Blair's willingness to violate principles and promises. Which makes the Labour's chairman comment that he was "sorry that the voice of Britain's firefighters will no longer be heard at Labour's annual conference and national policy forum, which will shape Labour's next manifesto" ironic. After all, this (like every other) government has ignored any manifesto promises it wanted. Being able to "shape" a document which will be ignored is hardly a great lose.
This is all good news. It shows that organised labour is waking up to the fact that the leaders of their so-called party are, in fact, been pursuing an agenda against their interests. It is a step forward towards genuinely independent working class trade unionism, one which relies on its own strength and militancy to get results. However, the danger lies in those who wish to repeat the mistakes of the past and tie the unions to a new party which will "represent" the interests of labour (the wet dream of numerous Trotskyist sects). Yet while such a position may benefit a minuscule political grouping by infusing it with workers' hard earned wages, it does not get to the heart of the problem. This is the division of economics and politics which results in the unions being represented by politicians rather than fighting for political issues on the economic and social terrain. In other words, a syndicalist approach to political struggles rather than a social democratic one.
Union independence is the way forward, not a new "workers' party" dedicated to using all the tactics which worked so badly the last time. We should not forget that while the FBU is the first to voluntarily leave the party, the RMT was expelled four months ago for refusing to stop local branches affiliating to other parties. Ironically, the RMT helped form the Labour Party more than a century ago. This suggests that while many union militants see the need to break with Blairism, they have not themselves broken with the ideas and practice which spawned Blair to begin with.
Union independence is the only way forward. That means independence from all political parties and an awareness that real change comes from action outside parliament. It means being aware of the problems of parliamentarianism. It means unions using their own funds for fighting political issues.
Yet turning our money over to union bureaucrats rather than politicians is not much of a step forward. The labour movement itself needs to be transformed so that the workers actually run it. This implies a decentralised, federal structure based on workplace assemblies to decide how our dues are spent and how our organisations fight. The first steps in creating such a movement would be a rank and file movement within the existing unions. Anarchists are in an ideal position to start such a movement. We have an analysis of what is wrong with the unions and how to fix them. But do we have the will and organisation to do it?