Warwick II: "Bastards! Bastards! Bastards!"

ReneLavanchy Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 08:21:18 PM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

The words of a union insider to me this week, reacting to Tory suggestions that next week's National Policy Forum will involve a 'dodgy deal' as part of the second Warwick Agreement. I report for Tribune magazine, and on my blog I've posted some thoughts on the atmosphere I've encountered this week. Comments welcome.





tags: , , , , (all tags)

Display: Sort:
Warwick II: "Bastards! Bastards! Bastards!" | 9 comments (9 topical)

Re: Warwick II (#1)

by otware on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:28:53 AM GMT

The Tories are simply trying to score a cheap point and bash the Labour movement at the same time. Obviously they want to harm the Labour Party, and it's well known that smashing the unions is the long-term aim of the Conservative Party. Take anything they say about 'dodgy deals' with a pinch of salt.

There's nothing dodgy about union influence in policy making. Money has to come from somewhere - an I'd rather the unions were 'buying their influence' than rich businessmen. At least unions are accountable to their members. And anyway the union-party link has always existed, in fact it's the reason that party exists in the first place. The Tories need to learn this, because it's very important. 


Re: Warwick II (#2)

by jkitleft on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:32:31 AM GMT

It's the long term efforts of the Tories to grind into the dirt all of Labour's achievements. The NHS being just one example. They now want to get rid of SureStart. If we have any sense, we will make SureStart universal, because if the middle-classes get involved with SureStart, it can't be scrapped.


[ Parent ]

Re: Warwick II (#3)

by GuardianReader on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 02:59:05 PM GMT

There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding here about the nature of the Union-Labour link.

Unions don't "buy" influence, they are federal members of the Labour Party, so just as my £36 a year membership fee doesn't "buy" me influence, neither does union affiliation. Much of the money handed from the unions to the party are the flat rate membership fees paid for each union member in the union political fund.

Moreover, when unions do donate money it is not to get particular policies adopted. If that were the case, then the whole of the first Warwick Agreement would have been delivered, and we would have more trade union rights than we do.

What's more, the unions would be in a position to withold money if the party didn't adopt certain policies.

The National Policy Forum "list" is just the amendments that the unions have submitted. They will either be accepted, amended or voted on, and if the vote goes against them, they will fall. The constituency and regional members of the NPF have also submitted a list of 1,300 amendments - is this 1,300 "demands" from the constituencies?

And please remember, the unions are not individuals with particular interests they want to protect like Ashcroft. They are democratic organisations that have voted on the political positions that they take. They also have to vote every ten years to give their own money to political causes; and they represent millions of ordinary workers who just want to get a fairer deal out of life.

Some leaders are born women
[ Parent ]

Re: Warwick II (#4)

by Tankist on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 04:23:44 PM GMT

The story on the front page of today's Guardian suggests unions want the next manifesto to be a longer suicide note than 1983's manifesto.

 

The unions never understood New Labour and now they are out to destroy it.


Re: Warwick II (#5)

by e10rifles on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 04:49:44 PM GMT

Let's hope they succeed. As a proud Labour member, I'll be first in the queue to urinate on the grave.



[ Parent ]

Re: Warwick II (#6)

by jkitleft on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 07:45:10 PM GMT

Oh, please.

Free school meals and phasing out prescription charges?
Bringing cleaning back in-house? This is hardly promising to nationalise the biggest 25 companies.


[ Parent ]

Re: Warwick II (#7)

by sgthowie on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 08:29:37 PM GMT

I hope they get alot of what is in The Guardian through.  As usual we have a schizophrenic government though.  The unions will secure some radical policies next week which any Labour member would be proud.

In the same week, New Labour's ultra-Blairite Purnall is planning to out Tory the Tories by forcing the long term unemployed to work for dole.  How original and imaginative of them???  Nicking something the Tories came out with six months ago. 

Forget the fact that the real benefit receipients are the ultra rich and large corporations who avoid tax to the tune of 75 billion a year which is huge in comparison with benefit fraud.. 

Despite that can we not have something a little less tired and predictable from New Labour?  Suicide of the whole project at least would be an interesting one.


[ Parent ]

Re: Warwick II (#8)

by ReneLavanchy on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 10:48:19 PM GMT


Okay, let's see:

Guardian reader: "The National Policy Forum "list" is just the amendments that the unions have submitted. They will either be accepted, amended or voted on, and if the vote goes against them, they will fall. The constituency and regional members of the NPF have also submitted a list of 1,300 amendments - is this 1,300 "demands" from the constituencies?"

Not quite, as I say in my blog post. Union leaders are meeting Gordon Brown at No 10 . NPF members and CLPs don't have that luxury.

Tankist: "The story on the front page of today's Guardian suggests unions want the next manifesto to be a longer suicide note than 1983's manifesto.


The unions never understood New Labour and now they are out to destroy it."

No, the story on the front page of today's Guardian suggests that the Guardian have the full list (a weighty document) and have sought to make a big story out of it. Union bosses are hoping that the policies taken as a whole - not just secondary/supportive picketing but more apprenticeships, higher NI contributions for the rich and defence of Royal Mail and the NHS - have broad electoral appeal. The Guardian themselves noted this in their front page story of 30 June.

My main point is Labour is scared of being portrayed as in hock to the unions, a fear which Tankist's point seems to confirm. Hence that title.
</div>


[ Parent ]

Re: Warwick II (#9)

by jkitleft on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 10:31:31 AM GMT

I think also, there's a suspicion that the unions are worrying too much about general political issues, and not focusing enough on pay and conditions for their workers.

They need to offer a more aspirational tone. Women want employers to recognise that they need to balance family life and work. The unions shouldn't support universal childcare for the sake of it, they should support it if that's what is best for their workers. Unions shouldn't be against contracting out workers because it is like privatisation. They should oppose it because the workers get lower pay.

Telco, an East London union applies pressure, and shames employers through publicity about low pay. This should be how the unions rebuild themselves.

Of course the nurses might care more about prescription charges, but the concern is that we are just promoting whatever political views are donors support. The unions need to win back trust, and fight solely for their workers.


[ Parent ]

Warwick II: "Bastards! Bastards! Bastards!" | 9 comments (9 topical)