Does Blair's Legacy Include Destroying The Labour-Union Link?

HenryG Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 11:50:22 AM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

Two articles in the press today report that the Hayden Phillips enquiry into political party funding is reaching dangerous ground for many in the Labour Party.  



First, will Woodward at the Guardian reports that 'Tony Blair is to back a sweeping overhaul of party funding which will curb the influence of the unions over the Labour party, MPs were told last night.'  

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/unions/story/0,,1970176,00.html

Meanwhile at The Times, Philip Webster writes that '...there was unanimous agreement among MPs that limiting the amount a union could give to a figure as low as £50,000, and relying on donations from individual members to raise the sum to present levels, would effectively mean the end of the union link.'

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,17129-2500274,00.html

I have no doubt in my mind that there are those close to Number Ten that would like to see the link with the unions broken.  Alan Johnson for example has repeatedly called for a reduction of influence of unions at party conference. But these proposals go much, much further.  The union's play an integral role in selecting MPs, electing our party leader and deputy as well as contributing to election campaigning.  But apprarently the mood among some on the right of the party is that Labour will not select a Blairite successor (such as David Miliband) until Labour jettison's the unions.

At the meeting last night Professor Keith Ewing reported on the implications for trade unions of accepting caps on donations.  He recently wrote an excellent report for TULO on this, which is available here:

http://www.unionstogether.org.uk/documents/KeithEwingReportforTULO.pdf

In my mind it is clear that we need a cap on election spending, and not donations.  The trade unions are not just donors to the Labour Party - they formed it.  As Ewing's report clearly shows, the Conservatives have consistently tried to undermine our link.  

Members and trade unionists now need to be seriously watchful at attempts to use this current debate on party funding isn't used by ultra-Blairites in the last months of Blair's tenure to cut the link.  Most worryingly of all is the growing belief that the PM may try and push through such proposals with 'the payroll vote' and the support of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats.

If these stories are accurate, the PM risks ripping the party's soul in two.  


tags: , , , , (all tags)

Display: Sort:
Does Blair's Legacy Include Destroying The Labour-Union Link? | 104 comments (104 topical)

Re: (#1)

by JR on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 02:03:21 PM GMT

To be honest, most people outside of the Labour party think that trade unions funding a political party is undemocratic and I tend to agree with them.

These days, many trade unions members aren't members of Labour and don't really care much about Labour so I don't see why they should hold so much power over the party. Just because trade unions were part of the foundations of the party, doesn't mean they have the God given right to continue to hold sway over us.

New Labour focuses just as much on our partnerships with business as with trade unions (as it should be), yet we don't allow businesses to give huge chunks of money to us (neither do the Tories in fact). So why do we still let trade unions fund us even though most of its members may dislike Labour.

I hope the unions' funding is limited in line with any other donation - and maybe we can scrap the one third of the votes they get in elections and ordinary members like me can have a bigger voice.


Re: (#2)

by HenryG on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 02:31:49 PM GMT

Thanks for your post JR. 3 points:

1. "most people outside of the Labour party think that trade unions funding a political party is undemocratic and I tend to agree with them".

Trade unionists decide themselves whether they want to contribute to a political levy.  It's this that is used to fund the party.  That's why it's democratic.  Corporate donors are not decided by shareholders or customers!

2. "yet we don't allow businesses to give huge chunks of money to us"

We have and look where it's got us. Creationists running schools, loans for peerages and an enormous financial defecit.

3. "I hope the unions' funding is limited in line with any other donation - and maybe we can scrap the one third of the votes they get in elections and ordinary members like me can have a bigger voice."

This is the logic of New Labour's project.  I respect your view, but I think and hope many, many other party members, trade unionists and MPs reject it.


[ Parent ]

Re: (#11)

by JR on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 01:11:26 AM GMT

Hi HenryG,

But I simply don't get the point of why trade unions have to give us money when no other major party accepts it. If trade unionists get to vote whether they donate money to the Labour party or not (and I would assume those people are Labour supporters) then why don't they just join the party (if they haven't already) and donate individually.

Probably the fact that the trade unions are linked with the Labour party puts a lot of non-Labour people off joining a trade union, which I find very sad.

Also, it's worth pointing out that whilst individuals who are high-profile businessmen give money to the party (like Bernie Ecclestone), that is not the same thing as businesses themselves giving money to the party. We do not allow businesses themselves (eg. banks, companies, football clubs etc.) from donating, only individuals who may be involved with businesses. Therefore, I do not believe trade unions themselves should be allowed to donate either.

The fact is the trade unions have the power to completely sway votes within the Labour party. For example, if a Blairite stood for the Leadership election next year then he/she may well get the majority from both ordinary members and the MP's bloc, but there is no chance the trade unionists would vote for him / her, thus meaning a person who is realtively on the right of the party doesn't stand a chance and the election is a distorted view of the real picture in the party.

I would prefer to see a situation where the only people who are allowed to vote within, give money to, or hold any power within the Labour party are those who have explicitely and solely joined the Labour party only - and are not indirectly swaying the party simply because there are members of institutions which should be independent from political parties.

But alas, I know the majority of members in this party disagree with me at the moment. I only hope this changes over time.


[ Parent ]

Re: (#22)

by grimupnorth on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 12:33:36 PM GMT


The labour Party was founded BY the trade union movement.If it wasn't for the Labour representation Committee ( the founding body) which  was founded at the turn of the 20th century then we would not be having this converation.
Only trade unionists who want to opt  in  and pay the political levy get a say in Labour leadership. Are  you seriously saying they should   not ??????
You seem to miss the whole point of the labour Party which IS that it was founded to represent the interests of  "Labour" ie  the working-class. Granted, the membership  is  moire eclectic now , in part due to the social change which the LP has thankfully    been instrumental in achieving, but you miss the point which is that if we get rid of the union link then we're just the same as any other political party.We will also be  up the creek financially.


[ Parent ]

Re: (#27)

by JR on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 01:46:45 PM GMT

Ah the last sentence you write is exactly the reason why most in the Labour party want to keep the union link - to keep us afloat financially. This is not good enough.

The fact that non-Labour members can vote in our elections simply because they are union members is completely wrong and yes, I would want to see the link completely broken.

Just because they helped found the Labour party does not give them the right to always be part of us, in the same way we broke off the Militant/communist link in the 1980's. Times change and our link with the unions doesn't exactly give us a positive image with the electorate.

There's no such thing as 'just another party'. Our party should differentiate from others through our policies and our leaders, not some historic link which is unjustifiable and undemocratic. History shouldn't be allowed to hold us back.

I'm a relatively young member of the Labour party and have no sentimental link with trade unions and this is probably why they don't mean as much to me as to others. I know trade unions do good work in employment relations but I firmly don't believe they should have any constitutional link with our party.


[ Parent ]

Re: (#32)

by mwell on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 02:08:12 PM GMT

JR, in case you are unfamiliar with the history, it was actually the trade unions who were instrumental in removing Militant from the party in the 1980s. Just as in the 1930s, it was the unions who opposed communist infiltration.

If you believe that the unions have always represented the left of the party, you are very much mistaken. There have of course been trends and periods when the unions have been to the left and the right, but in general they have represented the middle ground of the labour movement. Without their ballast and ability to connect us to ordinary working men and women, we would be a rootless party susceptible to the whims of our leadership without solid values to guide us - just like the Lib Dems.


[ Parent ]

Re: (#33)

by JR on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 02:19:47 PM GMT

I'm afraid I simply can't believe this. I'm unconvinced by the argument that if the union link is broken, we will suddenly fall apart and collapse and suddenly become valueless and uncaring.

In the 1980's, many trade unionists sympathised with the militants (as well as the likes of Arthur Scargill)- that's why a lot of trade union leaders today (eg. those belonging to the 'awkward squad') openly back communists and socialist worker members and candidates.

I'm fully aware that trade unions weren't always to the left of Labour, but they certainly are today! I'm sure if you did a poll of trade unionists and asked if they support New Labour or wish we went back to the 'good old days' of Old Labour, I wouldn't be too surprised with their response.


[ Parent ]

Re: (#34)

by nickparrott on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 02:43:02 PM GMT

I'm afraid I simply can't believe this.

Well, I'm afraid you're simply ignorant. Would you care to list all of these leaders of affiliated trade unions who openly back communists and socialist workers?


[ Parent ]

Re: (#35)

by smiley on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 02:44:33 PM GMT

JR - you're comments on this thread are getting more and more extreme with each post...

"In the 1980's, many trade unionists sympathised with the militants"

Erm... Militant were expelled by the party conference, dominated by trade unions votes.  Without the unions, Militant would have been much much harder to get rid of.

"a lot of trade union leaders today (eg. those belonging to the 'awkward squad') openly back communists and socialist worker members and candidates"

That's an amazing claim - can you back it up with the name of a single Labour-affiliated Trade Union leader who has openly backed a "communist or socialist worker" candidate in an election?

"trade unions weren't always to the left of Labour, but they certainly are today!"

The fact that you want to break a link that has served the party well for more than 100 years on the basis that for a short period of time some of the trade unions have been the left (rather than to right as has been usual) of the party's leader is testimont to the strength of your argument.  


[ Parent ]

Re: (#40)

by JR on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 04:17:05 PM GMT

I want to abandon the link between Labour and the trade unions because it is undemocratic for the reasons I have spelt out in previous posts. As well you know.

My views are not extreme - they are sensible and moderate. It's just that you can't take it that people disagree with you.


[ Parent ]

Re: (#43)

by mwell on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 04:37:45 PM GMT

But JR, you've not engaged with my point that it was the Unions that were instrumental in expelling Militant, and the Communists in the 1930s - and have been the reliable axis of the labour movement, keeping the party securely moderate over most of the past 100 years.


[ Parent ]

Re: (#45)

by Glass House on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 04:43:47 PM GMT

I dont think JR is saying the we should never have been linked to the Unions. I think he's saying that now is the time to break the link.

I've got some sympathy with him on that point.


[ Parent ]

Re: (#47)

by mwell on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 05:07:51 PM GMT

I would have thought that now that the party has fallen below 200,000 members, that it is precisely the wrong time to cut our links with the mass membership part of our movement. Otherwise, we will become a narrow-minded clique, far more easily taken to the extreme of left or right by a powerful centralised leadership.


[ Parent ]

Re: (#49)

by Glass House on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 05:17:18 PM GMT

The party has become a narrow-mined clique before, even with the Unions link.


[ Parent ]

Re: (#50)

by mwell on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 05:25:59 PM GMT

Do you mind me asking when you are referring to? I would argue that there has always been a wide range of opinion within the party.


[ Parent ]

Re: (#55)

by JR on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 08:29:57 PM GMT

That's exactly what I'm saying. I don't doubt that the trade unions involvement with Labour at the start of the 20th century was a good thing.


[ Parent ]

Re: (#46)

by smiley on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 05:07:33 PM GMT

Can you name any Labour-affiliated Trade Union leaders who have backed Commies or SWPers?


[ Parent ]

Re: (#51)

by grimupnorth on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 06:50:27 PM GMT

Have  you ever  thought of joining the Tories? I'm sure you would find   more chums there.


[ Parent ]

Re: (#54)

by Glass House on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 07:04:27 PM GMT

I image that most right-minded people here are getting a little sick of all you snide little remarks.

This site was set up to allow Labour party members to debate issues that concern them.

If you can't reconcile the facts that people may disagree with you while at the same time are genuine Labour party members concerned with the future of the party and Country, I suggest that you at least try to refrain from repeatedly displaying that fact on this site.


[ Parent ]

Re: (#56)

by JR on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 08:34:59 PM GMT

grimupnorth that's the most pathetic comment on the entire thread.

I could just as childishly say 'why don't you go and join the communist party - you'd find more chums there'.

Glass House is absolutely correct. People who are more to the right of this party get tired of constant jibes from those of the left. Please remember it is because we reformed and decided to go forward with less association with the trade unions (under Tony Blair) that we managed to get back into power again. Otherwise we'd still be stuck with Michael Foot types in charge and would never have been trusted or indeed elected again.


[ Parent ]

Re: (#58)

by Glass House on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 08:49:45 PM GMT

Do you have a blog JR?


[ Parent ]

Re: (#60)

by JR on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 08:54:40 PM GMT

I do but its only got 2 articles on it so far. One of mine about Cameron's back to basics is on the home page.


[ Parent ]

Re: (#62)

by Glass House on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 09:15:39 PM GMT

I meant one outside of LabourHome - a blogspot one or something?


[ Parent ]

Re: (#63)

by JR on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 10:14:25 PM GMT

No sorry, just this one on here.


[ Parent ]

Re: (#3)

by alexhilton on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 04:32:05 PM GMT

Over 2 million people will have the opportunity to take part in choosing our next prime minister, only because we are the Labour Party and we have the union link.

How many people chose John Major?

You tell me which is more democratic.


[ Parent ]

Re: (#7)

by swatantra on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 08:41:15 PM GMT

The only way to settle it is for Brown to call an election within the year, otherwise his legitimacy and authority will be forever questioned, just like Major's throughout his term. I am confident that the elrctorate will endorse Brown if he goes to the country.


[ Parent ]

Re: (#19)

by TrueLabour on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 10:17:39 AM GMT

I agree he needs to call an election early as his honeymoon period maybe shorter than others because he is so well known.

But it does not solve this issue.

First Blair has to go.


[ Parent ]

Re: (#44)

by alexhilton on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 04:42:42 PM GMT

John Major lacked legitimacy because he wasn't very good, not because he didn't come to power at a general election. If you want that kind of system, you have to go for a republic and a directly elected President (which would be fine with me).

Notwithstanding the above, John Major left the election to the very last moment and won a majority against the odds. I suspect there have been a number of people analysing how that happened and whether the same circumstances could apply again.


[ Parent ]

Re: (#14)

by JR on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 01:23:56 AM GMT

To be honest, I would rate the Tories elections as more democratic.

This is the situation as I understand it and by all means correct me if I am wrong. But at the moment, in our elections (eg. for the leadership), trade union members can vote despite the fact that they may not be members of the Labour party, and could even be members of another rival political party. This to me is completely undemocratic and gives a distorted view of the party's real feelings.

If you were a LibDem member who also happened to be a trade union member, wouldn't you surely vote for the weakest candidate in a Labour leadership contest so that the Labour party looked worse? This again, is not democratic.

And given that the trade unions have a third of the vote (just as many as ordinary members) then this creates some pretty big distortions.

Just because our elections involve the most people, it does not make it more democratic - if anything it makes it far harder for those who are more to the right in the party, since trade unionists are more unlikely to vote for them, even though ordinary party members might want to.

The idea that trade unionists like Bob Crow (who backs communists and doesn't give a damn about the Labour party) gets just as much say in the leadership election as actual Labour members do, utterly disgusts me.


[ Parent ]

Re: (#16)

by Andrea on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 06:42:50 AM GMT

"The idea that trade unionists like Bob Crow (who backs communists and doesn't give a damn about the Labour party) gets just as much say in the leadership election as actual Labour members do, utterly disgusts me. "

Crow and RMT are not affiliated to Labour Party anymore. So he doesn't get a vote at all.


[ Parent ]

Re: (#24)

by grimupnorth on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 12:43:24 PM GMT

JR, I suggest  you go and read up on the electoral college.
Unions like the RMT and FBU  CANNOT vote because they are not affiliated  to the Party.There were  far more stitch-ups by the unions (usually the right, actually)in the days before the current system. At the moment the  trade union leadership is to the left of the Govt. So is a  substantial proportion of the PLP  and constituencies. The votes on the leadership will represent all strands  of opinion.I beoueve it's called democracy. Something which Tony B and acolytes have  not been in  favour of for quite a long time.On this  particular issue ofthe union link, Yvette Cooper, Peter Hain and John McDonnell are singing from the same hymn sheet. Which says it all.It's  time  they forced Blair';s exit - he's really gone too far this time.


[ Parent ]

Re: (#29)

by JR on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 01:50:26 PM GMT

Well there's no surprise that those who love the unions tend to hate Blair. I personally think Blair has been a great leader and should be given the respect to choose when he leaves next year. But each to their own.


[ Parent ]

Re: (#28)

by JR on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 01:48:57 PM GMT

I pleased to hear this. But there must be others of a similar strand who are affiliated to Labour.


[ Parent ]

Re: (#85)

by nickparrott on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 10:03:07 AM GMT

I can't think of any unions that are led by the far left and are Labour affiliated, and it looks fairly obvious that you can't either.


[ Parent ]

Re: (#4)

by smiley on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 05:26:10 PM GMT

Any trade unionist that doesnt like Labour can (and does) opt out of paying.  It is very easy to do if they want to.

Business do give huge chunks of money to Labour and the Tories - bernie ecclestone ring any bells?

Trade union money is the cleanest moeny in politics - voted on, accountable, transparent.  It is utterly ridiculous that a review set up to look at the sleazy sale of peerages to rich business ends up as an attack on the unions.


[ Parent ]

Re: (#15)

by JR on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 01:26:47 AM GMT

Bernie Ecclestone isn't a business. He is an individual who happens to be a businessman. Businesses themselves aren't allowed donation privileges and therefore I don't think trade unions should be allowed them either. But I know I'm in a minority here sadly.


[ Parent ]

Re: (#20)

by nickparrott on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 11:06:36 AM GMT

What are you on about? Businesses can make political donations!


[ Parent ]

Re: (#23)

by smiley on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 12:41:19 PM GMT

Nick is right - JR is just factually wrong.  Businesses can and very do much donate money to parties.  


[ Parent ]

Re: (#30)

by JR on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 01:54:34 PM GMT

I said businesses don't have donation privileges, not that they cannot donate at all. Businesses can donate - I was pointing out that the example of Bernie Ecclestone being a business is wrong.

Under the new report, businesses will be capped the same way as individuals. Where as some Labour members are arguing that trade unions should get special privileges and not be capped (thus keeping the constitutional link and large donations). I think this is wrong. Trade unions should be given no special privileges in the party - they should have no constitutional role in our party in the same way that businesses don't.


[ Parent ]

Re: (#36)

by nickparrott on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 02:58:01 PM GMT

JR, you said above "We do not allow businesses themselves (eg. banks, companies, football clubs etc.) from donating [sic] only individuals who may be involved with businesses. Therefore, I do not believe trade unions themselves should be allowed to donate either."

Even allowing for your esoteric syntax, this does seem to me to be a clear cut statement that corporate donations are not permitted, when they are both legal and accepted by the Labour Party.

Under the new report, businesses will be capped the same way as individuals.

All we have so far is press speculation and the report has not been finalised, let alone published. However, it is highly unlikely that business will be treated in exactly the same way as individuals.

No one is arguing that trade unions should get "special privileges" but we certainly are arguing that individuals, business and democratic membership organisations should all be regulated in different ways.

Fundamentally, the reason that the unions have a constitutional role in the party is that they created the party and that the labour movement is one political entity. If you don't like that, you didn't have to join the party!


[ Parent ]

Re: (#41)

by JR on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 04:23:05 PM GMT

I'm sorry but that's the worse comeback argument yet!

"Fundamentally, the reason that the unions have a constitutional role in the party is that they created the party and that the labour movement is one political entity. If you don't like that, you didn't have to join the party!"

So by your logic, only those who stick with the status quo and never challenge authority or want to reform the party are allowed to join?! We changed Clause 4 didn't we? Labour movement as one political entity?! What planet are you living on? The unions hate Blair and can't wait to end New Labour - this 'labour movement' you speak of is divided.

"No one is arguing that trade unions should get "special privileges" but we certainly are arguing that individuals, business and democratic membership organisations should all be regulated in different ways."

Many Labour MP's are asking for special privileges for trade unions - that's why this thread was started in the first place!


[ Parent ]

Re: (#75)

by nickparrott on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 04:47:41 PM GMT

No, I'm more than happy to debate internal reforms and resolve them through our party's democratic processes.

However, I do think it is a little perverse to join a party and then complain about the nature of the party as it is.

Furthermore, we as a party have already decided our position - with unanimous votes of the NEC and Party Conference - on the regulation of party funding. I do seriously object if people who did not raise their voices, let alone win the argument, in that process, try to collude with other parties through the political elite (in the shape of an "independent" review by a career QUANGOcrat) to change the law of the land in order with no mandate whatsoever from the party to do so.

As for the movement being divided, it depends on your definition of divided, but of course there are different political strands of thought and opinion. Most political movements have that, but it doesn't mean they can't be described as one entity.

As an aside, there are plenty of different shades of political opinion within the unions themselves, yet you keep referring to "the unions" as if they were themselves a monolith.

As for the whole "special priveleges" nonsense, I think I've dealt with that elsewhere, but to reiterate, opposing oppressive state intervention to prevent working people coming together to collectively fight for their political interests is hardly demanding "special priveleges".


[ Parent ]

Re: (#81)

by JR on Sun Dec 17, 2006 at 12:04:52 AM GMT

I find it quite perverse that people join a party and then never strive to make it better, reject reform through ignorance and sentimentality rather than any real judgement and still think it's acceptable to maintain an undemocratic practice in the 21st century simply because 'that's the way things have always been so let's not bother changing it.'

'Oppressive state intervention'?! You make it sound as though the Tories are in charge. Let's remember that we are the party which forms the government at the moment and we are the ones who put forward any bill with regards to changing party funding. So unless you think that the Labour party is capable of oppressing against itself, I don't think that argument is correct.


[ Parent ]

Re: (#82)

by doctordunc on Sun Dec 17, 2006 at 12:11:14 AM GMT

Well of course its CAPABLE of it.  But then it's also capable of preventing it, and we're the Labour Party.  The Party isn't just the government.


[ Parent ]

Re: (#86)

by nickparrott on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 10:09:55 AM GMT

I think that some of Hayden Phillips reported early proposals were indeed oppressive state interference, but obviously that doesn't mean the Govt will adopt them. That's kind of the point of having this whole debate now!

As to your other point, that's an obvious straw man. Given your repeated errors of fact throughout this thread, I also think that accusing others of ignorance is a bit rich!


[ Parent ]

Re: (#25)

by grimupnorth on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 12:45:48 PM GMT

A minority of one, perhaps. I really don't think you understand  what the Labour Party is about. Are you actually in a trade union?  


[ Parent ]

Re: (#31)

by JR on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 01:55:52 PM GMT

Please don't try to be patronising and just accept that other people have different views from you. You may not like it but tough, it's democracy.

And no, I'm not a union member - just a Labour member.


[ Parent ]

Re: (#37)

by Juvenal on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 02:58:59 PM GMT

Make that a minority of two.

Trade unions often claim that their funding of the party doesn't buy them influence, and that money isn't at the core of their traditional relationship with Labour.  Yet they fight tooth and nail to protect the financial link.  Discuss.


[ Parent ]

Re: (#38)

by smiley on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 03:09:08 PM GMT

I am not sure it the unions that fight tooth and nail to preserve the financial link, it is more the party's creditors.  Did you not see that the unions stopped the party going bankrupt (again) this week with a £500,000 donation?

Unions do fight tooth and nail to preserve the party as a federal party representative of the labour movement.  All of the union members who pay the levy to the party want that to continue - it is very very easy to opt out of paying the levy to the party afterall.  


[ Parent ]

Re: (#42)

by JR on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 04:26:31 PM GMT

Precisely - the only reason why the union link is good for us is because they bail us out when financial troubles are ahead. But can you not see that this is not right - and is undemocratic?

If the Tories and the LibDems have to cope without this union money - then so should we. If it means we can't spend as much in the future then so be it - but at least we'll have a honourable, democratic funding process.


[ Parent ]

Re: (#48)

by smiley on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 05:16:16 PM GMT

This discussion is getting ridiculous.  Just because I didnt mention all of the many many other reasons why the link is good, does not mean that i was saying that finance is the " only reason" why the link works.

What do you think is undemocratic about the link?  Union members have to vote on whether the union as a whole has a political fund.  Then they have to vote on whether they should use some of that fund to donate money to Labour.  Then every single individual member of the union gets to decide whether any part of their personal subs get contributed to the union.  If you think that the decision on whether unions back the party in undemocratic, then goodness knows what changes you'd like to make to that.

From the party side, there is no serious Labour politician that has ever openly suggested breaking the link before - aside from those Labour politicians that then went on to form the SDP in the 1980s.  The party can democratically change the relationship with the unions through conference.  It has altered it, reformed it, strengthened it, tinkered with it - but never has it even been proposed that it should be broken entirely.  

So that's democracy from the party side and the union side.  What is it that you think is undemocratic again?

Also - are you ready to back up your claim that Labour-affiliated Trade Union leaders have "openly backed" Communists and SWP candidates yet?  Or were you over-reaching when you said that?


[ Parent ]

Re: (#59)

by JR on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 08:50:30 PM GMT

I've already explained clearly near the top of the comments why the link is completely undemocratic. People are arguing that trade unions are given special privileges and not treated in the same way as other individuals and bodies when funding reforms come about. This to me, is deeply unfair and Labour should not get special privileges - it makes us look undemocratic in the eyes of most British people and leaves us vulnerable to attack from the Tories.

The reason why no top Labour politicians suggest breaking the link is because they dare not to. Particularly those who are running for election next year, dare not speak out against the unions since they will have to grovel for votes from them (since they have a third of the votes in the party). I have no doubt that Tony Blair would love to break the link with the unions if he could. The unions still have a hold over this party and its leadership sadly and this is why reform on this issue will be so difficult.

Finally, do you honestly believe that not one trade union member (which is affiliated to Labour) supports either the Socialist Workers or the Communist party? If so, I find that pretty surprising. Many trade union leaders are undoubtedly to the left of the party and despise Blair and New Labour and see the SW or the communists as the new alternative. If that's the way they feel, then they shouldn't be allowed to vote in Labour's elections and therefore the link should be broken. I can't understand why some people can't see the logic in that argument.


[ Parent ]

Re: (#61)

by Andrea on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 09:14:36 PM GMT

"Finally, do you honestly believe that not one trade union member (which is affiliated to Labour) supports either the Socialist Workers or the Communist party?"

Members of affiliated union who don't support Labour can "opt out" of the affiliation.
Then if all of them do it, well, I don't know.

Bur for ex Unison has more than 1,300,000 members overall, but just 570,000 are affiliated to Labour (affiliation numbers according to TULO website*). So just 571,000 will have a vote in the leadership contest

*http://www.unionstogether.org.uk/resources/TULOdirectory06.pdf  (pag 19)


[ Parent ]

Re: (#74)

by nickparrott on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 04:28:04 PM GMT

People are arguing that trade unions are given special privileges and not treated in the same way as other individuals and bodies when funding reforms come about.

Not really. If, say, the Countryside Alliance wanted to start making political donations then I think they should be regulated in the same way as a trade union. I'm arguing that democratic mass membership organisations should be regulated in the same way as individuals and companies, because they're a different kind of entity. I'm arguing against them being unfairly controlled by the state, not for them having "special priveleges".

As it happens, I'm pretty sceptical about how practical is is to regulate donations overall, I'd prefer to regulate spending and appointments to the Lords, for example, which seem to me to be the real problems that Hayden Phillips was originally set to solve.

Finally, do you honestly believe that not one trade union member (which is affiliated to Labour) supports either the Socialist Workers or the Communist party?

You didn't say members though, you were talking about leaders. Of course there will be union memebrs who back other parties but firstly they don't have to pay the political levy and secondly there are Labour Party members who vote for other parties too. You can't stop that happening.

I think that once again you are trying to wriggle out of having said something ignorant in the first place.

Many trade union leaders are undoubtedly to the left of the party and despise Blair and New Labour and see the SW or the communists as the new alternative.

Please name the leaders of affiliated trade unions to whom you refer.

If that's the way they feel, then they shouldn't be allowed to vote in Labour's elections and therefore the link should be broken.

That is a non sequitur.


[ Parent ]

Re: (#67)

by grimupnorth on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 12:59:05 PM GMT

It beggars belief that someone so antipathetic to the union movement  is in the Labour Party. I'm not being snide.I genuinely cannout understand what on earth you  have to  do with  Labour politics - or what motivates you to be in it Even  Mps onthe right  don't take your view. Why would they?


[ Parent ]

Re: (#68)

by Glass House on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 02:49:15 PM GMT

I don't think either JR or myself are antipathetic to the union movement - we simply feel feel that questioning the constitutional link isn't tantamount to heresy.

As I've said a couple of times on this thread, I'm in a Union and Im broadly supportive of them (with caveats)

I think it's a shame that you can not see any reason to motivate someone to be a member of the Labour party other than to support the Unions - the party is not, should not, and never has been, the political wing of the trade union movement.

I joined the Labour party because I have faith that government can be a force to increase the amount of freedom people in society have. That government action vs. liberty is not always a zero sum game. I believe that thinking can be traced back to Tawney in the 1930s and is fundamentally at the core of the Labour party - far more than (in my eyes) peripheral issues such as nationalisation or the union link.


[ Parent ]

Re: (#72)

by nickparrott on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 04:13:33 PM GMT

the party is not, should not, and never has been, the political wing of the trade union movement.

That is, historically at least, a pretty arguable proposition, and not one I suspect that we can settle here. But both the Labour Party and the trade unions have always been considered, if not two wings, then certainly two major elements of the labour movement as a whole.

That's pretty important to our identity as a party - unlike other political parties that were formed by or from factions of existing parties or out of the existing political elites, the Labour Party was formed by ordinary people coming together in a mass movement - and that primarily meant the trade unions, despite the involvement of the Fabians and others.


[ Parent ]

Re: (#76)

by doctordunc on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 05:32:04 PM GMT

"the party is not, should not, and never has been, the political wing of the trade union movement."

No - the relationship is much closer than that!  Or at least it should be.  


[ Parent ]

Re: (#77)

by Glass House on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 05:40:19 PM GMT

Just to confirm, are you saying that the primary purpose of the Labour party is to represent Unions and their members in parliament?


[ Parent ]

Re: (#69)

by JR on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 03:03:47 PM GMT

It beggars belief that you think the most important thing about the Labour party is it's link with trade unions. I find that incredibly sad.


[ Parent ]

Re: (#71)

by nickparrott on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 04:08:07 PM GMT

Erm, well it's not entirely unreasonable to point out the link with the unions is pretty central to the reason the Labour Party exists. The clue's in the name!


[ Parent ]

Re: (#73)

by Glass House on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 04:15:19 PM GMT

Nick - you know that's not what he's saying.

Yes, the unions brought the party into being (100 years ago), but that doesn't mean that, today, the most important thing and defining feature of the party is it's Trade Union links.

It's like saying that, because an individuals parents 'brought them into being', that their most important and defining feature, forever, is that they are the son/daughter of Mr X and Mrs Y.


[ Parent ]

Re: (#52)

by grimupnorth on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 06:53:09 PM GMT

Well, why am I not surprised.


[ Parent ]

Re: (#18)

by Juvenal on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 08:45:24 AM GMT

I'm inclined to agree with JR that the financial link with the unions is an anachronism.  But, having followed the Phillips review, I'm still not sure how best Labour should plug the funding hole that such a break would create.  State funding looks no more popular among the public than the link with the trade unions, and recent attempts to diversify funding sources have been less than impressive.

I've usually got a confirmed opinion on everything, but this one has me stumped.


[ Parent ]

Re: Does Blair's Legacy Include Destroying... (#5)

by nickparrott on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 06:28:34 PM GMT

Interesting post on Jon Cruddas' blog on this:

http://www.joncruddas.org.uk/wordpress/?p=39

This will be a massive issue if the press speculation has any kind of basis in truth.


Re: Does Blair's Legacy Include Destroying... (#6)

by TrueLabour on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 07:08:06 PM GMT

Today's Guardian updated at 6pm
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/unions/story/0,,1971186,00.html
Hélène Mulholland
"The head of the review into party funding was today accused of "outrageous" meddling with internal party affairs by proposing to overhaul Labour's trade union funding.

Sir Jeremy Beecham, the former chair of the party's governing body, the national executive committee, said that Sir Hayden Phillips's proposals would interfere with Labour's constitution and weaken its historic relationship with the union movement."

So what we appear to have is yet another example of a party within a party.   We have the NEC policy put to Hayden and then the Blair/Number 10 policy which wants a £50k limit.

Just what will it take to dismiss Blair as our "Leader"?  Does the NEC have the power/cojones?


[ Parent ]

Re: Does Blair's Legacy Include Destroying... (#8)

by grimupnorth on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 12:35:21 AM GMT

John McDonnell has tabled an EDM on  this and there's an emergency NEC tonight. Pleaselobby your Mps to a) supportthe EDM and b) oppose this  lunacy.


[ Parent ]

Re: Does Blair's Legacy Include Destroying... (#9)

by grimupnorth on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 12:37:33 AM GMT

Forgot to say...EDM 487


[ Parent ]

Re: Does Blair's Legacy Include Destroying... (#10)

by Glass House on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 12:56:54 AM GMT

EDMs are paid for by the taxpayer - we really shouldn't be using them for party issues


[ Parent ]

Re: Does Blair's Legacy Include Destroying... (#12)

by grimupnorth on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 01:14:22 AM GMT

I don't want to pay my taxes to the Tory Party.


[ Parent ]

Re: Does Blair's Legacy Include Destroying... (#13)

by Glass House on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 01:17:37 AM GMT

eh?


[ Parent ]

Re: Does Blair's Legacy Include Destroying... (#17)

by Andrea on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 06:48:27 AM GMT

Glass House. Do you usually read what kind of EDM MPs sometimes table?
You can always find EDMs congratulating football clubs winning a match and some other weird things.
That's a serious issue and I can't see why McDonnell should be criticized if other EDMs are allowed.

Anyway, McDonnell's EDM is here:
http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=32136&SESSION=885


[ Parent ]

Re: Does Blair's Legacy Include Destroying... (#21)

by Glass House on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 11:21:06 AM GMT

I'm not saying EDM silliness is unique to McDonnell, I just think that EDMs about party politics are sailing a bit close to the wind


[ Parent ]

Re: Does Blair's Legacy Include Destroying... (#26)

by grimupnorth on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 12:47:07 PM GMT

e-mailed my MP Chris Mccafferty and she's signed it. Lobby yours now!


[ Parent ]

Re: Does Blair's Legacy Include Destroying... (#70)

by Andrea on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 03:40:58 PM GMT

So far 12 Lab MPs have signed that EDM: McDonnell, David Drew, Corbyn, Katy Clark, Hopkins, Iddon, Glenda Jackson, Mccafferty, Clapham, Dismore, Gibson and David Taylor


[ Parent ]

Does Blair's Legacy Include... (#39)

by Glass House on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 04:02:21 PM GMT

* Puts on helmet and jumps in *

I'm afraid I have to agree with JR and Juvenal - if I could be persuaded that the party would be financially sounds without the Unions, I'd have no problem in severing the link.

The argument that the Trade Unions founded the party as we should therefore stick with them forever seems a little short-sighted to me.

BTW, I am a Trade Union member.


Blair's Legacy (#53)

by Loz on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 06:59:20 PM GMT

Excse me for joining the arguement late, but isn't it true that we will still be able to organise and coordinate donations from union members regardless?

It might be more complex, but the only difference would be that it would be made up of thousands of individual donations rather than one lump sum?

Also, to get around the whole peerages issue, why can't we just have some sort of legal agfreement, or even a gentlemans agreement made public that anyone involved in significant donations will automatically forfeit the right to any sort of nomination?

Surely that would be problem solved?

I can't see parties making up the millions of pounds needed whith such a restrictive cap.

And I really don't favour one god damn penny of mine going into the coffers of the BNP, so how else can we get around this?

I know, why don't we abolish this undemocratic chamber altogether.....


Re: Blair's Legacy (#57)

by JR on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 08:40:06 PM GMT

I wish we would have the guts to abolish the House of Lords. But sadly reform, progress and enhancing democracy doesn't seem to be up in many people's minds.


[ Parent ]

Re: Blair's Legacy (#64)

by Loz on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 11:30:06 PM GMT

At least not in the undemocratic chamber itself and on opposition benches.

I think the public would strongly agree with us on this, and the tories would be massively split, the lib dems....well who cares.

Its a win win political situation surely?


[ Parent ]

Re: Blair's Legacy (#65)

by JR on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 12:28:17 AM GMT

Well you say this, but barely any Labour cabinet members actually wants to see a fully democratic chamber. Jack Straw wants to put through a half-hearted 50% elected chamber which will probably get pushed through at some point. Most of the Cabinet (including Blair and Brown) agree with the this.

The Tories and LibDems have both actually stated that they would like a higher proportion elected.


[ Parent ]

Re: Blair's Legacy (#66)

by Glass House on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 12:33:00 AM GMT

I imagine we'll see Lord reform under Brown. As Loz says, it's a win-win situation. No one disagrees with it and it'll make Brown look reforming and 'radical' enough to get the self-indulgent Lib Dem switchers that deserted us at the last election back.


[ Parent ]

Re: Blair's Legacy (#78)

by doctordunc on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 05:44:16 PM GMT

Rather than preventing people or organisations doing what they like with their money (what about people's wills?  I don't want Tony Blair and Matt Carter's dodgy accounting to determine whether or not I may one day wish to leave my millions to the party ;oD ) surely the logical answer is this: a) to get rid of political patronage (people can't be accused of 'buying' positions if they had to be voted into them) and b) put a strict limit on the amount that can be SPENT in elections; then you don't need to go courting the rich to get hold of the money.

Nothing else actually makes any logical sense.

I think JR, Glass House and Juvenal are deliberately mixing the issues of the rights of democratic organisations to donate money where their members desire with the issue of the democratic rights of members of affiliated bodies in the party.  Both are hugely important issues, and I think the aforementioned bloggers are wrong on both of them, but they are seperate.

It seems a strange concept that involving fewer people and a smaller section of society in our internal affairs should make us more democratic.  Joining a political party is an odd thing to do, as I'm sure we're all aware.  Joining a trade union is a sensible thing to do.  By us being more than a mass membership party, but also a trade union party, we include a good deal of sensible people in our decision-making and not just the loony-tunes like thee and me, who actually join political parties!!!


Re: Blair's Legacy (#79)

by Glass House on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 05:48:47 PM GMT

I'm not mixing them up - I agree that they are seperate issues.

I also agree with your proposal to cap spending and getting rid of political patronage. And I agree that donations should not be capped.


[ Parent ]

Re: Blair's Legacy (#80)

by doctordunc on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 06:11:38 PM GMT

Great.

What did you disagree with then?  That members of democratic affliated organsisations should vote in party elections?


[ Parent ]

Re: Blair's Legacy (#83)

by JR on Sun Dec 17, 2006 at 12:14:56 AM GMT

I'm the opposite. I don't agree with capping spending and I do agree with capping donations.

Capping spending doesn't stop someone giving £1million and hoping for something in return. But this time, instead of spending it all on one general election, the party will have to spread it over two or three general elections. If anything, this has made the situation worse, not better.

The only way you will ever stop the ultra-wealthy from having too much influence in political parties is to limit the amount of money that they give. I would have assumed this is just common sense.


[ Parent ]

Re: Blair's Legacy (#84)

by doctordunc on Sun Dec 17, 2006 at 12:27:50 AM GMT

I confess myself baffled.  Half the time you seem to argue that New Labour could do no wrong (such as earlier when you suggested it couldn't intervene in an oppressive way) - but now you're suggesting it would sell policies for cash, even if it didn't need to.

I realise your concern is the influence of unions - but as I see the unions as an integral part of the party rather than as an outside body, I see it as a seperate issue.


[ Parent ]

Re: Blair's Legacy (#87)

by JR on Thu Dec 21, 2006 at 01:48:02 AM GMT

When did I ever say New Labour could do no wrong? I never suggested that at all. In my opinion all parties are capable of selling policies for cash and this is what needs to be eradicated.

I don't see the unions as an integral part of the party. I see them as a body that used to be an integral part of the party, but since the transformation of the party to New Labour seems out of touch with modern Labour values and still desperately clings onto it's power in the hope that we will revert to the 'bad old days'.


[ Parent ]

Re: Blair's Legacy (#88)

by doctordunc on Thu Dec 21, 2006 at 01:07:27 PM GMT

Well then you and I have a completely different conception of what the Labour Party is all about.  But I'm glad to say that the NEC and the PLP seem to agree with me.


[ Parent ]

Re: Blair's Legacy (#89)

by Glass House on Thu Dec 21, 2006 at 01:21:30 PM GMT

DocDunc - what do you see as being the purpose of the Labour party?


[ Parent ]

Re: Blair's Legacy (#90)

by doctordunc on Thu Dec 21, 2006 at 02:40:34 PM GMT

It's a very good question.  I would say that the purpose of the labour movement (note the distinction) is to further the interests of working people (i.e. ordinary people, the vast majority of people, those who are not part of a powerful elite) in society, and that we do that in a number of ways (and we won't always agree on what those interests are, but in my view they are: decent pay, full trade union rights, proper democratic rights and civil liberties, equality, etc.).  There are different aspects of that mission: a political one, an industrial one, an educational one, etc.  They are all the job of the labour movement, but different parts of the movement are to the fore in the different aspects of our mission: the Party is to the fore when it comes to furthering our class interests politically.  But all the aspects of the movement should (when we are at our best and boldest!) compliment each other.  

I guess from your perspective that sounds old-fashioned, but I actually think it is more vital now than it has ever been before.  There is an increasing gap between rich and poor, far too few of our people are organised (in terms of being union members): the need for a cohesive labour movement has never been stronger.    


[ Parent ]

Re: Blair's Legacy (#91)

by Glass House on Thu Dec 21, 2006 at 05:19:48 PM GMT

Where do you feel the distinction between 'working people' and 'the powerful elite' lie? Is it purely an income/wealth thing or more than that?

What portion of the country to you see as the powerful elite?


[ Parent ]

Re: Blair's Legacy (#92)

by doctordunc on Thu Dec 21, 2006 at 05:45:15 PM GMT

It's more than an income/wealth thing.  I'd be inclined to give an answer about relations to the means of production, etc. but I suspect I've honed my dinosaur credentials on this website quite enough already.

I think that if, in a capitalist society, you have to sell your labour - then you are a working person (even if, right now, you haven't got any buyers, so to speak).  If, instead, your income is as a result of what you have, rather than what you do, or what you do is a result of who you are rather than what you've done/can do - your interests are likely to clash with those of the generality of people.


[ Parent ]

Re: Blair's Legacy (#93)

by JR on Sun Dec 24, 2006 at 08:17:35 PM GMT

I don't believe that the purpose of the Labour party (which I agree, is not necessarily the same as the labour movement) is just to further the interests of working people. Today's Labour party should be aiming to improve the lives of everybody, not just the working classes. How can we ever expect to win future elections if we don't even bother to appeal to the middle classes and business people as well?

Whilst I agree with you doctordunc that this can be achieved through encouraging proper democratic rights, civil liberties, equality and in many ways through better pay (eg. minimum wage), I don't agree with 'full trade union rights'.
I assume by this you mean the reversal of Thatcherite policies on trade unions. This I completely disagree with. The fact is before union rights were changed under Thatcher, the unions were too powerful and held this country to ransom through strikes which hadn't necessarily been voted on in a democratic way. There's no doubt in my mind that this country is a far better place to live since the change in union laws and that's why Blair (or even Brown) would never even dream of repealing these. Because if they did - Labour would be booted out of power without hesitation.


[ Parent ]

Re: Blair's Legacy (#94)

by doctordunc on Wed Dec 27, 2006 at 01:50:43 PM GMT

Well that's a difference between us that is unlikely to be breached: I don't believe that a set of policies can be found that serve both the interests of the ruling class and all the rest of us (unless in a rather metaphysical way, that divesting the ruling class of the demoralising effects of ruling could be seen to be in their own interests...)

As for trade union rights, I find it extraordinary that a Labour Party person could suggest that some of Thatcher's most vicious anti-Labour reforms have made the country a better place.  We have less trade union rights than many countries that we consider to be undemocratic and it's a disgrace.  I'm not suggesting getting rid of ballots - but rights to secondary action is a good example of where our unions are currently hamstrung.  Workers are not allowed to show solidarity with their comrades in struggle, yet there are no laws which prevent solidarity amongst bosses.  You may not think Labour should favour labour, but I can't think you believe there should continue to be a bias in the bosses' favour?


[ Parent ]

Re: Update (#95)

by HenryG on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 10:17:41 AM GMT

UPDATE:

Patrick Wintour in the Guardian today suggests that the unions will be encouraged to accept a voluntary cap on donations to the Labour Party:

"Downing Street sources have suggested a deal may be possible in which unions voluntarily give up being permitted to make large block donations to Labour, in return for the Tories accepting caps on election spending at local level.

Sir Hayden has sent a letter to all the parties saying he wants to focus on a cap on donations, including union donations to Labour, and how a cap on election spending at local constituency level could be imposed."

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/funding/story/0,,1981557,00.html

I think the chances of this being acceptable to the unions and many in the PLP are slight to say the least.  Of course all of this is framed around state funding of political parties - which would be very, very hard to sell to the electorate at the present time.


[ Parent ]

Re: Blair's Legacy (#96)

by JR on Sat Jan 06, 2007 at 03:06:23 PM GMT

Of course the country is better because of the trade union reforms. If it wasn't then Blair would have overturned them. But he didn't and neither will Brown.

I don't agree with secondary action. If union members want to campaign for their own cause then that's fine but they don't need to strike for causes that are of no relevance to them. This, to me, seems like just an excuse to have another 'anti-government' bash.

I find it extraordinary that a Labour Party person could suggest that some of Thatcher's most vicious anti-Labour reforms have made the country a better place
Why? The leading members of our party think this too.

Strikes cause enormous economic damage and in the 1980's were sometimes used purely for political reasons rather than economic ones (eg. Scargill's communist leanings). The fact that you use the word 'comrades' to describe people in union action only compounds this - too many see it as some sort of 'Bolshevik Revolution' against the government.

It's not surprising that the British people have little sympathy for unions' rights after what happened in the 1980's and they certainly don't want to turn the clock back - and neither should anyone in the Labour party.


[ Parent ]

Re: Blair's Legacy (#97)

by doctordunc on Sat Jan 06, 2007 at 03:18:50 PM GMT

And what happened in the 1980s?  The Miners' Strike, I suppose?  It is massively ironic that you suggest that the miners used the strike for political purposes, when most people with any sort of labour sympathy understand that it was Thatcher who provoked the strike for political purposes - and very successfully too.  The assessment of the miners' union was absolutely correct - that's why you don't see many mines any more , and why some of the poorest constituencies in the country are in former mining areas.  The miners were fighting for their livelihoods and the future of their communities, and I personally find it hugely offensive to hear suggestions that such sacrifices were made because of any leader's 'bolshevik' leanings.

The idea that the definition of whether something was good or not is whether Tony Blair supports it is also pretty shocking.  Tony Blair has supported (and indeed engendered) some pretty shockingly bad legislation over the years; neither he, nor his crony next door, are the arbiters of political rectitude.

We are the inheritors of an incredible movement; a movement that has made some phenomenal achievements and progress - that has been fundamental in transforming the lives of millions of people across the world: Tony Blair and Gordon Brown are pygmies in that history; they'll be worth a footnote or two in books that will be written about the labour movement, while the miners' struggle will deserve several chapters.

You can't wish away that history and those achievements because of a centre-right hegemony that has had its day, or because a handful of focus-group robots think it'll win a few votes.


[ Parent ]

Re: Blair's Legacy (#98)

by HenryG on Sat Jan 06, 2007 at 03:56:46 PM GMT

This story is not going away - in today's Daily Mirror:

PM'S UNION CASH CURB
By Oonagh Blackman, Political Editor
TONY Blair wants to cut union power before he quits by curbing its donations to the Labour Party.

The move is part of a No10 plan to shrink union influence and distance Labour from its traditional roots.

Mr Blair has asked one of his senior aides, Ruth Turner, to find ways to reduce union influence at the annual party conference. But any move to weaken the link between Labour and its union paymasters is certain to trigger a major backlash.

But leaked minutes of a meeting of Labour's National Executive condemned Mr Blair's proposals as "political suicide".

They say: "Without the unions there would have been no Labour victory in 1997 and it is sheer arrogance to think that we may never need that solidarity again."

Plans for a major overhaul of the funding of political parties will be unveiled this month.

The report by Sir Hayden Philips was triggered by the cash for honours scandal and will recommend a cap on donations.

Labour MPs want union money to be exempt because Tories will benefit if Labour loses its annual multimillion pound union backing. One backbencher said it would be a "Thatcherite dream come true".

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstories/tm_method=full%26objectid=18404126%26siteid=94762-name_page. html


[ Parent ]

Re: Blair's Legacy (#99)

by JR on Sun Jan 07, 2007 at 12:03:53 AM GMT

Tony Blair is no 'pygmy' as you put it. He's the greatest leader this party has ever had and when the story of Labour (the party) is written, he will have more written about him than anyone else because he's the only one who's made the party successful for a sustainable period.

The fact is the mines in the 1980's were hopelessly inefficient and cost too much to run. It was no surprise that they closed. People who think that it was the government's duty to bankroll them are naive. It's when people start letting sentimentality get in the way of economics that things start going wrong.

I certainly sympathise with many of the miners who had to go through this. I'd expect nothing less of them than to fight for their jobs. The Tory government should have ploughed money back into those communities, but of course that's not in their nature. But I have no sympathy for the leader of the strike. Scargill, in my eyes, is just as bad as Thatcher. He was an inept, power mad communist who ran the strike just like some sort of Bolshevik Revolution. He wanted to bring down the government and in the process brought this country to its knees. If you want to know why the old 'labour movement' has declined then there is nobody better to blame than him.

Although, in my view, the movement hasn't died - it's evolved into something more modern and appropriate for today. Something which 'old Labour' can't stand and refuse to accept. I think that minimum wage laws and anti-discrimination laws etc. do far more good for today's workers than trade unions ever do.


[ Parent ]

Re: Blair's Legacy (#100)

by HenryG on Sun Jan 07, 2007 at 01:02:15 AM GMT

"I think that minimum wage laws and anti-discrimination laws etc. do far more good for today's workers than trade unions ever do."

But it was the trade unions that repeatedly pressed for such policies throughout the 90s!  Just as they pressed for rights for part-time workers and are now calling for stronger rights for agency workers.

On the mining economic we could have a long debate on this, but say what you like about Scargill, he accurately foretold the political motivation in destroying the mining industry right up to the 90s.  

Sentamentality aside, many so-called 'uneconomic pits' far more viable than other mines in Europe at the time.  They employed thousands of men that spent money in their local economies which in turn sustained local enterprises and services.  The huge financial cost of mass unemployment was of course match by huge social problems and a collapse in community wellbeing and spirit.  The human cost is still being felt in areas today.  The Conservative onslaught did not make economic sense, just political sense.


[ Parent ]

Re: Blair's Legacy (#102)

by JR on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 01:04:27 AM GMT

I've already said earlier that the Tory government should have ploughed money back into the communities that were devastated by the job losses.


[ Parent ]

Re: Blair's Legacy (#101)

by doctordunc on Sun Jan 07, 2007 at 03:38:23 PM GMT

A minimum wage and anti-discrimination legislation is, of course, of enormous importance.  But where did such campaigns originate and who drove them forward?  The labour movement, with trade unions at the heart of it.  Where are the campaigns for increasing the minimum wage coming from?  Or extending anti-discrimination legislation?  From the trade union movement.

And the government don't send police into workplaces to check the legislation is being adhered to.  The trade union movement does that.

You talk about sentimentality; I talk about basic human decency.  Don't talk to me about what makes market sense.  Most of the 'economic' decisions taken by governments are about political will and not economic efficiency.  Governments protect industries all the time when it is in their political interests to do so (calling off any investigation into the Saudi arms deal, for instance, in order to protect the weapons industry) and government also choose to destroy industries and communities if it is in their political interests to do so.  It was in the political interests of the Conservative Party under Thatcher to destroy the mining industry and it's communities, as well as to hamstring and handicap the union movement.  And it didn't do that to make Britain better, but in order to more easily trample over workers' rights and destroy the achievements of the labour movement.

We were a weaker opposition because Thatcher's anti-union laws had made us a weaker movement, and the new generation of labour activists need to start learning those lessons fast.


[ Parent ]

Re: Blair's Legacy (#103)

by JR on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 01:14:07 AM GMT

The campaigns may originate from trade unions but it doesn't mean that trade unionists are the only ones who put forward these plans. I'm not a member of a union, yet I still know that a minimum wage and anti-discrimination laws are just common sense. It's politicians at the end of the day which implement these reforms. Isn't it ironic that it's a New Labour government which has implemented these. Why didn't Wilson implement a minimum wage, or Attlee? Even though they were more sympathetic to unions than Blair?

I'm not disagreeing with you about Thatcher. She was an evil woman. It's no surprise that the mines closed - but her government should have not destroyed the communities and should have re-trained the miners like a New Labour government would have.

I also agree that governments protect industries all the time - and this is wrong in all cases. Especially over the Saudi arms deal and also the CAP.

Before the union reform laws, unions were far too powerful and held this country to ransom on regular occasions. It's no surprise that by the time of the miners strike, people were sick of the unions and therefore supported Thatcher in her bid to weaken them. It's political suicide and economically insain to reverse these reforms and the old generation of labour activists need to start learning those lessons fast.


[ Parent ]

Re: Blair's Legacy (#104)

by LeftrightLeftright on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 06:17:44 PM GMT

Great leaders make political reality, rather than just respond to it, even assuming the response is good.

People who think Blair is the greatest leader we've ever had know little of Labour history. He was the greatest leader we've ever had in the period 1994-2007.


[ Parent ]

Does Blair's Legacy Include Destroying The Labour-Union Link? | 104 comments (104 topical)