Labour and the Unions
Daniel Finkelstein has a comment piece in today's Times newspaper - which is essential reading for anyone with even a passing interest in the trade unions.
It's rather too long to reproduce here in full - so go out and buy a copy, or it read online at: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
Here's a edited (shortened) version of what Mr Finkelstein has to say
"Unite workers! You’re in Mr Brown’s pocket"
"The story of how, 30 years ago, Labour first lost power and then its marbles has many such moments of farce.
There was another sense in which those years in the early 1980s were a remarkable period in Labour history. They were the years, almost alone in the entire century, that the unions turned to the left and away from the party leadership. It is hard — but very important — to remember that these years were the exception rather than the rule. For if this is not understood, then the importance of Unite’s involvement in the Labour Party won’t be understood either. We’ll all make a whole load of fuss about Unite, its co-ordination of the BA strike and its funding of the Labour Party, but miss the point entirely.
From the earliest moments of the Labour Party, from its birth, the unions were the obstacle to the Left rather than its vehicle.
The reason that the unions took this position is not because they were particularly moderate or that they put the national interest first. It was rather the opposite. They wanted power to advance the sectional interests of their members even if that clashed with the Left’s idea of the common good. They exercised this power without much reference to their members, who had little idea of what was being said on their behalf.
Labour’s history is littered with tragi-comic misunderstanding. Again and again idealists like Michael Foot turned to the unions expecting co-operation to further the good society. Again and again, they were greeted with hard-nosed intransigence and a demand for a pay rise.
So how does this history explain the relationship between Unite and the Labour Party? (Incidentally, before we go on, isn’t Unite a fabulous name for a merged union that couldn’t even get its two leaders to attend the same launch because they hate each other so much?
Anyway, the history tells us two things. The first is that the money that Unite donates to Labour is only part of the story. Unite is not a donor to the party. It is the party. The vast unions that used to dominate Labour conferences have now merged to establish this super union. From white collar to blue collar to dog collar, Unite represents a bewildering variety of workers. And its sheer size, more than two million members, gives it a big say in how Labour operates.
The way Labour’s constitution has evolved gives Unite power in its policy forum (there are more than three times the number of union representatives elected to the forum than parliamentary reps), power in the selection of candidates, and a large share of the most crucial of all decision making bodies — the electoral college that chooses Labour leaders.
And, as in the past, Unite does all this despite what its members might think. A Populus poll of Unite members last year showed the majority preferring David Cameron to Gordon Brown and opposing Unite donations to Labour.
History also tells us how this influence is being exercised. Not in pursuit of airy-fairy ideals. In pursuit of hard-edged sectional interest and of political dominance. Just as it always has been."
Unite is using its personnel, its money and its local muscle to win seats for its supporters and its officials in Parliament. And it will use those seats and that sway to help shore up Gordon Brown until the moment when the power can be used to help Ed Balls become leader of the Labour Party.
If you follow its campaigns in local selections it often squeezes out hapless Blairites. But just as often it squeezes out leftists too. It favours the more traditional union men it can rely on to toe the line when toeing the line is required. And it is doing this on behalf of the leadership, not as a rebellion against it.
Unite has not taken Gordon Brown prisoner. It is more like the other way round."
So, step forward Danny Finkelstein and take a bow - you've hit the nail right on the head.
Trade unions like Unite are stuffed to the rafters with Labour hacks - who dominate all the senior positions - the views of ordinary unions members are much more diverse - but don't really count.
It's rather too long to reproduce here in full - so go out and buy a copy, or it read online at: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
Here's a edited (shortened) version of what Mr Finkelstein has to say
"Unite workers! You’re in Mr Brown’s pocket"
"The story of how, 30 years ago, Labour first lost power and then its marbles has many such moments of farce.
There was another sense in which those years in the early 1980s were a remarkable period in Labour history. They were the years, almost alone in the entire century, that the unions turned to the left and away from the party leadership. It is hard — but very important — to remember that these years were the exception rather than the rule. For if this is not understood, then the importance of Unite’s involvement in the Labour Party won’t be understood either. We’ll all make a whole load of fuss about Unite, its co-ordination of the BA strike and its funding of the Labour Party, but miss the point entirely.
From the earliest moments of the Labour Party, from its birth, the unions were the obstacle to the Left rather than its vehicle.
The reason that the unions took this position is not because they were particularly moderate or that they put the national interest first. It was rather the opposite. They wanted power to advance the sectional interests of their members even if that clashed with the Left’s idea of the common good. They exercised this power without much reference to their members, who had little idea of what was being said on their behalf.
Labour’s history is littered with tragi-comic misunderstanding. Again and again idealists like Michael Foot turned to the unions expecting co-operation to further the good society. Again and again, they were greeted with hard-nosed intransigence and a demand for a pay rise.
So how does this history explain the relationship between Unite and the Labour Party? (Incidentally, before we go on, isn’t Unite a fabulous name for a merged union that couldn’t even get its two leaders to attend the same launch because they hate each other so much?
Anyway, the history tells us two things. The first is that the money that Unite donates to Labour is only part of the story. Unite is not a donor to the party. It is the party. The vast unions that used to dominate Labour conferences have now merged to establish this super union. From white collar to blue collar to dog collar, Unite represents a bewildering variety of workers. And its sheer size, more than two million members, gives it a big say in how Labour operates.
The way Labour’s constitution has evolved gives Unite power in its policy forum (there are more than three times the number of union representatives elected to the forum than parliamentary reps), power in the selection of candidates, and a large share of the most crucial of all decision making bodies — the electoral college that chooses Labour leaders.
And, as in the past, Unite does all this despite what its members might think. A Populus poll of Unite members last year showed the majority preferring David Cameron to Gordon Brown and opposing Unite donations to Labour.
History also tells us how this influence is being exercised. Not in pursuit of airy-fairy ideals. In pursuit of hard-edged sectional interest and of political dominance. Just as it always has been."
Unite is using its personnel, its money and its local muscle to win seats for its supporters and its officials in Parliament. And it will use those seats and that sway to help shore up Gordon Brown until the moment when the power can be used to help Ed Balls become leader of the Labour Party.
If you follow its campaigns in local selections it often squeezes out hapless Blairites. But just as often it squeezes out leftists too. It favours the more traditional union men it can rely on to toe the line when toeing the line is required. And it is doing this on behalf of the leadership, not as a rebellion against it.
Unite has not taken Gordon Brown prisoner. It is more like the other way round."
So, step forward Danny Finkelstein and take a bow - you've hit the nail right on the head.
Trade unions like Unite are stuffed to the rafters with Labour hacks - who dominate all the senior positions - the views of ordinary unions members are much more diverse - but don't really count.
