Latest post on Left Futures

Yes, Labour’s selection process has been abused, but not by the unions

Falkirk CrisisGetting those who pay into unions’ political funds engaged in the life of the Labour party, is worth pursuing.

Today Ed Miliband will spell out his proposals to mend, but not end, the historic relationship between trade unions and the Labour party.

Clearly, whatever he proposes will need to be considered seriously. Change is needed, and for reasons that go far deeper than the Falkirk storm in a teacup.

That storm, however remote from the concerns of the great majority of people, has at least had the merit of highlighting much of what is wrong with contemporary politics. If Miliband’s speech addresses those issues, and not just the self-serving, anti-union Tory agenda, then it could indeed be a turning point.

The underlying politics include the need to broaden radically the range of people serving in parliament, and to re-engage with the growing proportion of the electorate now alienated from the democratic process.

Today, young people are being coerced into work-for-nothing schemes, poorer families are losing their homes and the unemployed – who have paid their taxes and national insurance – are to be denied benefits. I don’t want politics just to be done for them, but by them too. Politics is not a priesthood for the metropolitan elite: it should be about people connected with their communities, who have lived with the consequences of political decisions.

So, if Miliband calls for a review of Labour selection procedures, I will be delighted. Unite has nothing to hide. I do not believe that my union broke the rules (let alone the law) in Falkirk – but if anyone has signed others up to the party without their knowledge, that must, of course, be unequivocally condemned.

The scandal about Labour party selections goes far deeper. The present uproar arises solely because Unite has started to have some success in pushing back against what the right wing has been doing unchallenged for years. It is time the spotlight was turned on the activities of Progress, largely funded by Lord Sainsbury, which has been sparing no expense to get its candidates adopted.

The Sainsbury “block vote” has been used to create a parliamentary Labour party that does not look like, or think like, the broader party.

Unite has been doing far less, far later than the well-funded standard-bearers of the New Labour status quo. And we have been doing it democratically and openly, with our members participating and our funding accounted for. A universally applied spending cap that levels this playing field could be a step forward.

Of course, funding does not exhaust the ways in which the right wing has manipulated selection procedures. Every manoeuvre has been deployed, often with the assistance of Labour headquarters, to parachute favoured candidates into safe seats, with the constituency party bypassed. Until our Blairite critics face up to the serial abuses of party democracy associated with the New Labour years, they cannot be taken seriously as reformers. They simply want to carry on using parliamentary seats as patronage tools as before.

These abuses by the right wing were made easier by the collapse in party membership. This was not inevitable. The thinning-out of Labour’s ranks was partly the consequence of a single policy decision – the Iraq war – which drove thousands out of the party, and partly the result of unaccountable domination by a parliamentary elite, which makes membership participation seem like a waste of time.

Reversing that, and in particular getting those who pay into unions’ political funds engaged in the life of the Labour party, is worth pursuing. Let’s learn lessons from the failed schemes of the past, and find proposals that engage ordinary people and have transparent integrity.

Switching to an “opt-in” for the political levy wouldn’t work – it would require Labour to unite with the Tories to change the law, would debilitate unions’ ability to speak for our members and would further undermine unions’ status as voluntary, and self-governing, organisations.

If Miliband wants to find ways to get more individual trade unionists active in the party, exercising their own judgment on policy and people, I would join with him. Done right, this could be a 21st-century way of ensuring working-class influence in the party, just as traditional affiliation has been hitherto.

Unions have always had a significant influence in the Labour party. However, over most of the past 100 years they have used that influence to broadly support the elected parliamentary leadership, on the understanding that it was MPs’ role to lead the political fight and that any frustrations were outweighed by shared aspirations.

New Labour broke that unwritten contract, by abandoning much of the common ground for a love-in with big business and the City, and by leaving intact the Tory laws that make British trade unions the most legally restricted in the democratic world.

I believe that Miliband is rebuilding that stock of shared values. A row over selections is not going to undo that. Only a return to New Labour could split the movement apart.

2 Comments

  1. justin thyme says:

    Too late, mate!
    The Labour Party in this country has no interest at all in its history, the population of disabled, unemployed, poor or poorly paid people. The Labour Party stands toe-2-toe with the elites and the right-wing mercenaries in banking and finance.

  2. Robert says:

    Well I think it could and will back fire, given a choice to pay the levy I think many people who now pay the levy because they cannot be bothered to change it to a charity, will say no.

    In my old factory out of 450 workers not to many were actually Labour party members or had even been to a meeting of care much about Labour, many more were Tories liberals and non political, if these people say no thanks since we are given the choice, it going to affect Labour membership numbers I’m an associate member through being a levy payer that will end.

    I think Unions will then be pressurized to give bigger donations to cover the losses and this will again lead to call of leaving the labour party.

    It simple Labour has to break away, it has to stand on it own two feet no donation from Unions above a set donation of all people, say £10,000 any donation to any party cannot exceed £10,000, and any Union donation cannot exceed £10,000 if members wish to pay to Labour then go join it.

    Labour has decided this is the route it wishes to take, I suspect they will say after the next election of course, so unions can fund this one, if Labour gets back in I suspect to see state funding on the menu

© 2024 Left Futures | Powered by WordPress | theme originated from PrimePress by Ravi Varma