War and Peace
Has anyone read a sillier opinion piece that this one by Ian Bell which appeared in the Herald newspaper the other day?
In reality, no one is trying to get rid of the trade unions - all that's happening is that union leaders are being told to behave more responsibly and stop pretending that they actually speak for unbelievable numbers of union members - when it comes to party politics.
So 'opting in' to the political levy seems like a remarkably sensible suggestion to me and not just because I've been banging on about it for years - it's simply a very long overdue democratic reform for both Labour and the trade unions.
And Len McCluskey of Unite actually welcomed Ed Miliband's proposals for modernising Labour's relationship with the unions - so if this is a 'war', strange or otherwise, then it's all been terribly peaceful up till now at least.
Maybe the unions will wake up to the fact that it's not actually a strong point having the 'usual suspects' as union leaders - and that a few non-Labour faces at the top of the tree would make the trade unions more effective.
Miliband and Blair unite to attack organised labour
By Ian Bell
The former Prime Minister has taken a break from selling his wisdom to banks and dictators to praise Labour's leader for being "bold and strong", for turning a speech into "a defining moment", and for doing something Mr Blair himself "probably" should have done. By that yardstick Mr Miliband's move counts, apparently, as "real leadership".
When next it attempts private polling, Labour should try turning that lot into a question. Something like "are you more or less likely to trust an idea because Tony Blair recommends it?". It might produce an interesting result. But then, his intervention is fascinating in its own right.
In the weird world of his remaining admirers, it amounts to bringing up the big guns. It is a straightforward attempt by a superannuated leader to interfere, much as the aged Margaret Thatcher used to cast thunderbolts among her Tory successors. If Mr Miliband was attempting to show strength, this is the rebuttal. The Labour right, the Blairites and the Progress mob – funded by Lord Sainsbury's one-man £260,000 political levy – think he can be pushed around.
As usual, John Reid has been blunt about what is really going on. In a BBC interview he declared that this is "at heart an ideological battle, a political battle between those who want to take Labour back to the 1970s and 80s, as Len McCluskey does, where we represented the sectional voice, the weak echo of every industrial demand of the trade unions, and those like Ed Miliband, who want to see us move increasingly towards an open party..."
The selection of a candidate for Falkirk is not, then, the heart of the matter. Instead, controversy over that process has been handy for those who want to neuter the unions and regard organised working people as no more than a "sectional voice". The attack on their representative institutions is meanwhile on page one of the Blairite script. To that way of thinking an assault on the left, even on Unite's scarcely radical Mr McCluskey, is never a bad idea.
It would be useful, then, to know what actually went on in Falkirk. Yesterday, Mr Miliband gave a big speech on the need for reform inspired, supposedly, by outrages committed in the constituency. At the weekend, he wrote: "The events we have seen in Falkirk have betrayed the values of our party. The practices we have seen should be unacceptable in any political party. But they are certainly unacceptable in the Labour party."
So which events and practices has Mr Miliband seen? If they involved Unite paying the first-year Labour membership dues for union members neither the rules nor the law were broken. The practice was introduced – perhaps he forgot to mention it – when Mr Blair was in charge. We hear, however, that some people might have been signed up without their knowledge. That's criminal, amounting to "personation", and merits calling in the police.
But Unite denies doing any such thing. Labour meanwhile finds itself unable to produce the report arising from its own inquiry. Allegations, however serious, are not evidence. But Mr Miliband talks repeatedly of what "we have seen" and launches a drive for reform before a single fact has been settled. One side in this argument has raised plenty of smoke, but has yet to produce proof of a fire. Perhaps they couldn't wait.
Is Mr Miliband his own man? The Tories, predictably, want us to believe he is in Mr McCluskey's pocket. Given recent Shadow Cabinet decisions on public spending cuts – nothing they can't swallow – and the failure to talk about industrial relations law, that doesn't sound plausible. The attempt by Blairites to force the party back to the centre-right while doing corporate interests a favour is another matter. This isn't about party reform. This is the final attempt to remove trade unionism from political life.
If organised labour is to be shunned, who benefits? Employers subsidising low pay with tax credits will be pleased, the young unemployed and those stuck on zero hours contracts less so. The tripartite alliance of Westminster parties will be content with one less voice to disturb their relationships, but working people still hoping for representation will be disappointed. Lord Reid's "open party" is liable to be a private affair. Still, Mr Miliband has his master plan. All that remains is to persuade the unions to vote for political extinction. In the meantime, the leader has near-unanimous support within the bubble by the Thames for his attempt to "mend the link", as he would have it, with organised labour. As plans go, it wouldn't pass for cunning.
First, he wants individual union members to "opt in" to the political levy and affiliate with Labour as a matter of considered choice, rather than, as now, declaring a wish to opt out. As Mr Miliband puts it, he wants people to "deliberately" choose his party. Would that prevent a determined attempt to pack a selection meeting? Would it benefit a party that is £10m in debt and dependent on the £8m in fees it collects from union members?
Mr Miliband neglected to explain that part. The three Westminster parties have been wrangling for years over public funding. The sticking point has been the demand that Labour must first reform its financial relationship with the unions in exactly the manner – a strange coincidence – that Mr Miliband is now proposing. He could lose the payments of Unite members, of course, but gain public money in return. Bluntly, he would impose a levy on all of us, no opt-outs.
But never fear. We could become "registered supporters" of Labour without becoming party members. We could then all vote in "primaries" in Falkirk and elsewhere to pick a candidate. Mr Miliband might even entertain open primaries on the US model, come one, come all. David Cameron toyed with the idea, but dropped it after an experiment in Totnes produced a result that was not to his liking.
Would any of this make for better, cleaner politics? Not if experience in the US is anything to go by. Strangely, their system of primaries seems always to wind up selecting the same few, rich individuals who have the time and money to organise, advertise and influence voters. As to the "machine politics" Mr Miliband claims to detect in Falkirk, it gives every appearance of being alive and well in the US. He doesn't mean to deny unions their political levy, just to end automatic affiliation with his party. He claims to believe that this will encourage ordinary trade unionists to become more engaged with politics and with Labour. The only mystery is whether Mr Miliband is kidding himself or kidding the rest of a deeply disenchanted population.
The Blairites want rid of the unions. Conference voting rights will be next to go, shortly followed by Mr Miliband himself. Then all those proper politicians, sustained by state subsidy, will get back to doing business and picking favoured candidates for safe seats. That old habit was something else Mr Blair forgot to mention.
