The warmongers are in trouble but the anti-war campaigners are stronger than ever. The Stop the War Coalition organized 100,000 people to demonstrate against the government on September 27. In the spring of 2002, between the Afghan and Iraq wars, 20,000 demonstrated despite the skepticism of many on the left who thought the turnout would be miniscule because the Afghan war had ended in a US military victory. The comparison in numbers indicates that the base of the Stop the War Coalition is now five times greater than it was in 2002. The Coalition’s alliance with the co-sponsors of the September 27 demonstrations, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and the Muslim Association of Britain, is stronger than ever. And the level of trade union support is greater than ever before. The Trades Union Congress (TUC) passed a tough anti-war motion in line with Stop the War Coalition policy for the first time this year.

The government has chosen to invite George Bush to Britain for a state visit. The planned presidential photo opportunity became increasingly politically hazardous as the anti-war movement’s alternative itinerary of protests gathered momentum. A Buckingham palace official told The Sunday Telegraph that “the White House made no attempt to hide their disappointment” when the planned parade down the Mall with the Queen was cancelled as a result. Even as Bush arrived in London, 1,200 packed an overspill meeting as a Stop the War Coalition rally had to lose its doors in a 1,500 capacity venue. As I write the anti-war movement’s sequence of historic protests looks set to continue with one of the largest weekday demonstrations in British history, which is set to symbolically topple George Bush’s statue in Trafalgar Square. Nevertheless, the government is trying to regroup in other ways.

If the government is in trouble over the Iraq war, its increasingly open battle with the trade union awkward squad is still in the balance. The Fire Brigades Union (FBU) dispute was largely a government victory. Government supporters were openly gloating over the Mick Rix’s removal as leader of Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen (Aslef). But the loss of the Communication Workers Union (CWU) national ballot for strike action in the post office was comprehensively redeemed by the wildcat strikes that spread throughout the country and caused the Financial Times to bemoan “such impromptu shows of strength” by the rank and file. The lesson that unofficial action could force belligerent management into retreat was quickly learnt by firefighters, who began a work to rule as their employers attempted to turn the screw on a productivity deal.

The only good day for the government on the Iraq issue since Saddam’s statue came down was at the Labour Party conference. Led by Derek Simpson of Amicus, the big four unions refused to prioritize the Iraq motion. Consequently the main issue in domestic and international politics for the last 12 months could not be voted on at the Labour Party conference. Defeat on the issue of foundation hospitals could never have the impact that a defeat over the Iraq war would have had. The whole left, both inside and outside the Labour Party, suffered as a result. Even Gordon Brown’s ‘I want to be leader’ speech was left high and dry. No forces arrived to make Tony Blair look in need of early retirement, and Blair’s own speech recovered the initiative in the conference.

The result was that, although Blair is no nearer winning the argument over the war among the general population, he emerged from the Labour Party conference feeling confident that a majority of constituency delegates supported him and that the big unions were at least loyal enough to step aside on the critical issue.

This whole debacle means that the ‘reclaim the Labour Party’ argument looks very hollow indeed. But there is a real danger here. The longer the government continues to alienate and disappoint its supporters while the ‘reclaim Labour’ awkward squad defend staying in the party, the more they delay the birth of a real alternative to New Labour. And the more they delay the birth of this alternative the more other political forces, like the Liberal Democrats and the British National Party (BNP), will fill the vacuum.

Equally seriously, if some political alternative does not begin to take shape, the compromises that Labour supporters in the unions are making on the industrial front will sap the confidence and combativity of the mass movement. The radicalized mood around the war also expressed itself in the FBU and post office disputes. But if there is not a political leadership whose first loyalty is to promoting rank and file action and not to Labour, there will be further failures and compromises. This will ultimately undermine the mass movement as well. Either the mass movement will pull up the level of industrial struggle or the compromises of the pro-Labour camp will limit the revival in the unions and pull down the general political radicalization.

This is why the question of forming an alternative political leadership based on the mass movement is so critical. The forces brought together by the anti-war movement have the capacity to do this. In the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers (RMT) and the Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS), we already have leaderships who have broken with Labour. There are many Muslims who have been politicized by the war. The victory of Socialist Alliance candidate Michael Lavelette in the Preston council elections shows how willing many of them are to work with the left. Many other important figures on the left, like George Monbiot and Ken Loach, have actively campaigned for such an alternative to be formed. It has been the policy of the Socialist Alliance since its last conference to actively work to promote such a broad platform to challenge New Labour. These forces, as well as George Galloway, the MP witch-hunted out of Labour for his principled anti-war stance, have spearheaded a series of ‘British Politics at the Crossroads’ rallies which have begun to lay the foundations for such a challenge.

Such a coalition could overcome the lack of real weight that has hampered the development of the Socialist Alliance. It could hope to contest the Greater London Authority and European elections next June with some real prospects of success. The meetings already held have shown the potential to create an audience for radical ideas stretching way beyond the current remit of the left. There have been huge meetings in this country around the themes of anti-capitalism and anti-imperialism in recent years. But because of the decline of the Communist Party and the Labour left over the preceding 20 years, the ideas of the workers’ movement and of socialism are not yet so widely accepted. This is an opportunity to make good that deficit.

Most immediately, however, the left needs to make sure that the political spectrum is pulled to the left by the demonstrations against Bush and by the successful launch of a new left platform. If we don't do this, a failure of leadership will allow the initiative to pass back in into the hands of the government. And if this happens, the current and future failures of the Blair government will lead to further demoralization and gains for the right.

For this perspective to work, a clear and consistent orientation by the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) and the Socialist Alliance is needed. It is the supporters of these organizations that have the largest organized political presence outside the Labour Party. We need to be clear amongst ourselves that continuing the broad co-operation with Labour supporters in the Stop the War Coalition and organizing separately to build a challenge to New Labour is both possible and desirable.

And by the same token, selling a paper and maintaining a revolutionary organization like the SWP is not only compatible with building broader movements, it is one precondition of their success. The tactical and strategic arguments that the SWP have advanced within the Stop the War Coalition have drawn on a much wider framework of historical experience and Marxist analysis. They would have never been accepted if others had not also come to similar conclusions, often from quite different perspectives. But they would not have been so influential, nor would the

decisions have been so effectively translated into action, had not an organized body of socialists been willing to advance them and act upon them. In this way, a revolutionary organization willing to work with others in a non-sectarian way can both advance the interests of the whole movement and strengthen that movements core of determined socialist opponents of the whole system.