Unrepresentative Representatives

George Kerevan writing in The Scotsman 'calls out' the Labour Party over its supine attitude, so far at least, towards home rule and new extensive powers for the Scottish Parliament.

In doing so, George points to a number of issues where Scottish Labour is hopelessly exposed, for example all of its big beasts prefer to spend their time at Westminster rather than at Holyrood which many of them clearly regard as a 'pretendy' parliament.

Which the voters notice, of course.

And the voters also notice that the slavishly pro-Labour stance of the trade unions in Scotland is becoming increasingly ridiculous, with the trade unions stuffed full of Labour Party members in their senior ranks while ordinary union members turned their backs on the  party years ago.

How can trade unions in Scotland be representative of their members if the union hierarchy is all pro-Labour, while the majority of rank and file members support the SNP?         

Now that's a good question and one that neither the Labour Party or the Labour supporting trade unions are willing to face up to, but it goes to the heart of an issue like equal pay.

Because if you ask me, the reason people have had to fight so hard for equal pay in places like Glasgow, North Lanarkshire and South Lanarkshire is that the Labour supporting trade unions were unwilling to stand up to these big Labour-run councils.

Likewise with Labour's MSPs and MPs who have been unwilling to stand up and speak out about the national scandal over equal pay which is a much bigger issue than the number of people or money involved in the 'bedroom tax', for example. 


George Kerevan: Labour has to get behind home rule

Scottish Labour leader Johann Lamont. Picture: Jane Barlow

By GEORGE KEREVAN - The Scotsman

As the SNP tacks left, Scottish Labour faces a deepening existential crisis, as well as a few charisma issues, says George Kerevan

On Monday night I attended my first SNP branch meeting since the referendum. It was held in the local Miners Welfare hall where, once upon a time, I used to attend Labour Party functions when I was a Labour town councillor. We had to move the branch meeting to the Miners Welfare because over 900 new members have signed up locally since last month.

I’ve never seen so many folk at a branch function. I spoke to one chap who had torn up his Labour Party membership card the day after the referendum and immediately applied to join the SNP. He wasn’t alone. I shared a joke with an ex-election agent for the constituency’s sitting Labour MP. We agreed that – even at the height of the opposition to Maggie Thatcher – we’d never had as many folk turn out to a Labour meeting at this same venue.

These scenes are being replicated across Scotland. They could sound the death knell for Scottish Labour unless the party can find a new sense of purpose, never mind revive its demoralised organisation. As one new member said at our SNP branch meeting: “It feels as if we won and Labour lost.”

A blind Labour leadership is stubbornly refusing to accept that it faces an SNP that is moving to the left under pressure from its massive new membership. Scottish politics is now dominated by two social democratic parties. Labour can pretend otherwise, but only if it wants to commit electoral suicide.

Scottish politics could take on a dynamic similar to that of the Irish Republic. There the presence of two big parties of similar ideological hue means elections are decided more by personalities and organisation. In such a universe, the SNP has the advantage of a membership heading towards 100,000 compared to a paper 13,000 for Scottish Labour. The SNP also has the popular and charismatic Nicola Sturgeon, Labour has Johann Lamont.

For those reasons, I doubt if such a political duopoly would be stable in Scotland. For another, the Tories in Scotland now constitute a wild card. If the SNP moves significantly leftwards (to crush Labour), that will open a gap for the Conservatives. To date, they have been kept in their box by Conservative animosity to devolution. If David Cameron outflanks Labour by delivering Scottish home rule, that could change – posing another headache for Ed Miliband (assuming he’s noticed) and Johann Lamont.

Of course, Scottish Labour has the tactical option of moving rightwards and colonising the vote of what we might call the “Blairite aspirational middle class”. This is the option favoured by John McTernan, latterly advisor to Jim Murphy, when he was Scottish secretary of state. I like but he can sometimes seem like a role model for fictional spin doctor Malcolm Tucker, in The Thick of It.

He argues that the significant result on 18 September was not that working-class Glasgow voted by 53 per cent to 47 for independence but that middle-class Edinburgh rejected it by 61 per cent to 39. This, says McTernan, should point Scottish Labour in the direction of replicating the Blairite “New Labour coalition”, appealing to the “new middle classes” (ie white collar professionals) and “Labour’s heartland vote” in the working class.

Even leaving aside what looks like contempt for working-class socialism, this tired old formula won’t work. New Labour was a chimera produced by the dangerous financial boom of the late 1990s and early Noughties. Labour rode the whirlwind by promoting the great fictional expansion, with its bankers’ bonuses and massive debt. Actually, most people’s incomes flat-lined but easy credit gave the illusion of progress. Thus working class and middle class were temporarily united in voting for that economic wizard, Gordon Brown. That is not a set of circumstances Ed Balls or Johann Lamont can ever replicate.

Instead, Labour is promising more austerity if Ed Miliband gets to Number 10. But the Scottish working class have already rejected that, which is the principal reason Glasgow voted Yes. Equally, my hunch is that if the “silent” Edinburgh middle class want to curb welfare spending they will vote Tory, not Scottish Labour.

More austerity will bring a clash with the trade unions. It is an open secret that many senior union officials in Scotland voted Yes. While the big UK unions were platonically opposed to independence, they did not support the No campaign as aggressively as many on the Yes side had feared. It did not take a genius to detect that the Scottish working class was anti-London and anti-austerity. Yet if Scottish Labour loses its union financing, what does it have left?

When in trouble, parties change their leader. There are already calls for Jim Murphy to head for Holyrood. His abrasiveness aside, Mr Murphy exemplifies Scottish Labour’s other big problem: its ostensible talent prefers the bright lights of Westminster to the hard graft of Holyrood. The fact that the Westminster heavies – Darling, Brown and Murphy – parachuted into Scotland for the referendum and then headed back to London has not gone unnoticed in Easterhouse, Drumchapel and Raploch.

In Germany, being the leader of one of the state governments is the usual path to becoming federal chancellor. Memo to Lord Smith, whose devolution commission meets today for the first time: Why not seat the first ministers and senior politicians of each devolved parliament in the House of Lords (and Nations)? That would give all the nations a voice as of right in UK affairs. And it would give Scottish Labour politicians no excuse to leave home.

In the final resort, if Scottish Labour really wants to recover its political soul – not to mention popular support – it will need to embrace home rule. Not to dish the SNP but because it genuinely believes in bringing power to the people. But there are a lot of ex-Labour members in my SNP branch who remain to be convinced.

Unrepresentative Representatives (9 October 2014)

I read this report on the Scottish TUC in The Scotsman the other day and was struck by the fact that it fails to make any mention whatsoever about the fight for equal pay which has been the single biggest industrial relations issue in Scotland's councils over the past 10 years.

Now this is explained, in my view, by the fact that the STUC is a throughly unrepresentative organisation stuffed full, as it is, of card carrying members and supporters of the Scottish Labour Party which is arguably in long-term, if not terminal, decline.

Which is not surprising when you consider that so many of its leading members look the other way whenever equal pay is mentioned because the Labour supporting trade unions and Labour controlled councils have an awful lot to answer for.

Now things may have changed a bit since I was last involved with the STUC, as Unison's Head of Local Government and chief negotiator in Scotland and, before that, as a member and Chair of the STUC's Youth Committee, but essentially the great majority of senior people are members or supporters of the Scottish Labour Party.

Which is very odd because the STUC claims to be a representative organisation and yet is thoroughly unrepresentative when you look at the political affiliation of those who make up its senior ranks. For example, a big majority of individuals who comprise the STUC General Council (which oversees and appoints the paid staff) will be Labour supporters from the influential public sector unions - GMB, Unison and Unite.

Yet these days only a minority of union members support the Labour Party in Scotland, most have switched their political allegiance to the SNP having become thoroughly disillusioned with Labour over the years in issues like equal pay.

So while the 'living wage' and zero hours contracts are important issues for workers in Scotland, I have to say I find it astonishing that the STUC can be silent about an issue that witnessed a major settlement with Labour controlled South Lanarkshire Council earlier this year. 

Now this equal pay settlement was won because of Action 4 Equality Scotland and the legal team who fought the A4ES claims in the Employment Tribunals, and was reported in the media as costing the council over £70 million.

In other words victory was achieved despite rather than because of the trade unions and that's because if you ask me, the Labour supporting unions pulled their punches with the Labour controlled councils in Scotland when the chips were down.  

And until the STUC and its affiliated unions become properly representative of the union members they claim to represent, in every sense, they will remain unable to speak out because of their vested political interests.

Which explains why a number of unions and the STUC remained officially neutral during Scotland's independence referendum; not because of a sudden political enlightenment or Damascene conversion to fair play, but because such naked support for the political establishment would have gone down very badly with ordinary trade union members.    

So I'll throw my hat in the air when the STUC and its member unions begin to appoint people to senior positions who are not card-carrying Labour hacks, but until then they have to be regarded as what they really are - a rigged deck full of unrepresentative representatives.
   

Insight: The STUC’s views on the Smith Commission

The Democracy for Scotland March. Picture: TSPL

IN THE FIRST of a new series exploring what civic Scotland wants from the Smith Commission, Stephen McGinty finds out the views of the STUC

When the Scottish Trades Union Congress marches it carries large colourful embroidered banners. One features a female accordionist, a black trumpeter and a violinist playing at the foot of The Tree of Liberty from whose branches curl the maxims: “Unity is Strength” and “Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité”. A second banner features a red-headed girl cradling a wreath and looking out towards a pale blue horizon pulsing with promise on which the lyrics of Hamish Henderson’s Freedom Come All Ye sail by like a flock of erudite swallows. “O come all ye at hame wi’ freedom, never heed whit the houdies croak for doom.”

Alternative national anthem

At the height of the referendum campaign, Henderson’s song, written in 1960, was suggested as an alternative national anthem for a newly independent Scotland. Unfortunately for the Yes campaign, the majority ignored Henderson’s plea and, to many minds, did indeed heed the croak for doom. On a dreich morning in Glasgow, with those golden days of September long gone, the banners adorn the walls of the STUC’s headquarters and David Moxham, the assistant general secretary, is sipping a coffee and picking new powers for the Scottish Parliament.

It will be, he thinks, a thankless task. “We have just had this massive outpouring of Scottish democracy and involvement and we are very aware of the fact that it is not going to be enough for the Scottish people, for the political parties and the civil society big hitters to come up with a plan which is then imposed upon them. We are very vocal about the importance that the newly engaged democratic Scotland is involved in this process.

“We don’t believe that there is ­anywhere near enough understanding amongst the Scottish public about what ‘the Vow’ means and what it does not mean and we are not optimistic about the parties being able to come up with a package based on their current offer which is going to meet the expectations of the Scottish people.”



The ‘Vow’

The “Vow” of which he speaks, a phrase apparently trade marked by the Daily Record and Gordon Brown, is for an agreement among the pro-union parties to devolve more powers to the Scottish Parliament. In the week prior to referendum day, Brown unveiled a 14-point plan suggesting that these powers include items such as new tax and borrowing powers; devolution of housing benefit and attendance allowance; new power over employment rights; and control of health and safety. Details that may excite the political anorak but will leave the average voter uncomprehending and unimpressed.

Independence was the promise of a brand, spanking new car. The Vow is the same old car with shiny new pistons, gadgets and levers under the hood, which is a tough sell when few people really appreciate what widgets were there in the first place.

The STUC, as the umbrella organisation representing 30 unions and their 640,000 members, roughly 33 per cent of the national work force, split evenly between the public and private sector, has been asked for its recommendations for souping up this motor. But before Moxham rolls out from under the chassis in his overalls and begins rubbing his hands with an oily rag, we talk about the pride which the STUC takes in championing the concept of a Scottish Parliament long before the Labour Party, who in the early seventies said it would prefer Conservative rule from Westminster to a Labour-dominated Scottish Parliament.

Scottish Assembly

The miners’ union, the NUM, had been pushing for a motion of support for a Scottish Parliament since the 1950s, but it was in 1972, following the success of the Upper Clyde Shipbuilders’ work-in, that the STUC held a Scottish Assembly which united employers, trade unionists and politicians alike to debate the condition of the Scottish economy. At the time the general secretary James Jack announced his support for a Scottish Parliament which, he declared “will be a workers’ parliament.”

The organisation campaigned for a Scottish Parliament in 1979 and then kept the flame aglow through its Festival of Scottish Democracy and founding membership of the Scottish Constitutional Convention. Moxham, who was formerly a parliamentary researcher for George Galloway, said the first fifteen years of the Scottish Parliament has brought benefits to the Scottish worker, particularly the government and local authorities promotion of the living wage of £7.65 per hour, compared to the minimum wage of £6.60.

“The Scottish Government are significantly further forward than the Westminster government in promoting the living wage … frankly it is the envy of our brothers and sisters down south,” he says.

He also highlights the Scottish Parliament’s determination to pursue better protection for victims of asbestosis: “People in Scotland are less likely to die with their claim than people down south because of the action of the Scottish Parliament.”

The STUC remained neutral

During the referendum campaign the STUC remained neutral – an apt call as today it believes, as far as it can know, that the membership was split roughly 50/50. But now the job it needs to do is clear – a big push for significant new powers for Holyrood, within the UK. A commission led by Lord Smith of Kelvin is currently looking at getting cross-party agreement on a stronger Holyrood, and the STUC once more aims to be in the thick of the discussion. But what will they be arguing for?

For the STUC, devolution of employment legislation is crucial as this would allow the parliament to tackle the iniquity of zero-hour contracts: “The parliament has done what they can with the existing powers.” The other key point is that jobs are only as good as their security and wages. Moxham, whose favourite novel is The Grapes Of Wrath by John Steinbeck, is keen to stress that the STUC’s ultimate goal is not better terms and conditions for its members but social justice and a fairer society for all. If he had access to one key lever it would be “improving pay at the lower end and securing work. Economists of the left and economists of the right now agree that the biggest problem that the UK is facing is not the number of jobs but the amount of money those jobs are paying. Strong trade unions and strong minimum wages are probably the most direct way to deal with it. Stick more money in people’s pockets and welfare and tax become less critical in tackling inequality.”

I ask him if all of the STUC’s plans could be waved through, like Lenin’s personal train on route to St Petersburg, what would he like to see?

“Well, here are the headlines: The first thing to say is that we identify real potential problems with what some people describe as ‘full fiscal autonomy’. We are not convinced that the UK Government would accept it and we are not entirely convinced that it would be the best option for Scotland either. We have already proposed a tax set up in which a larger proportion – and we are arguing at least two-thirds of all Scottish expenditure should be raised in Scotland.

‘Positive action on social justice in Scotland’

“A significant devolution of welfare, although we find it difficult to imagine how the whole of the welfare system could be devolved, which is why we are interested in looking at block grant mechanisms that can increase the power of the Scottish Government to take positive action on social justice in Scotland short of full devolution. It is worth pointing out that there didn’t seem to be much appetite in Scotland for pensions to be devolved and that’s by far the biggest aspect of the welfare system.”

Powers in the workplace are an obvious priority, he says, but the big levers of the economy may be beyond Holyrood’s reach.

“We are very interested now in the potential for the full devolution of employment rights and health and safety. There may be some powers on economic development and job creation over and above these that we would be in favour of, but they are more limited than people realise. Essentially there are the big job creation powers that we were not even going to get under independence, which is the ability to vary interest rates, to borrow enormous sums of money at times of economic downturn, these were always likely to be limited or completely outwith the control of the Scottish Government even under independence.

“You have then got a range of job creating powers – economic development, skills, education, which were already fully devolved, so the gap between those powers that are up for grabs that could be devolved is actually quite small. We are interested in the idea that there could be the devolution of tax credits for research and development because R&D is very low in Scotland, the system does not seem to work to the benefit of Scotland.”

Moxham says the process must be open to ideas that have not yet been part of the devolution debate.

‘Cautiously investigating’

“We are cautiously investigating – but I need to underline the word ‘cautiously’ – whether the devolution of National Insurance would allow the careful use of that power to promote economic development in Scotland.

“We wouldn’t want a blanket reduction as a means of racing to the bottom, we’d like to see how it could work in conjunction with the better employment protections – how the Scottish government might want to promote a particular aspect of industry.

“The final one we are looking at is equalities legislation – it underpins quite a lot of employment law but is linked to better representation of women in the boardroom and so we are increasingly attracted to the idea of full devolution of equality.” He then stops for breath, smiles and slowly takes another sip of his now cold coffee.

A few hours and one heavy downpour later, and I’m talking to Gozie Joe Adigwe, a senior preventions officer with the National Royal Institute for the Blind and a member of the Community Union for Life. She is attending the STUC’s Black Worker’s Conference at the Westerwood Hotel in Cumbernauld and looking out of the room’s window with its attractive view of the car park. A Yes voter, she describes herself as “disappointed” but insists she’s not as bad as her friends, some of whom remain “hidden under their duvets”. This evening as chair of the BWC she will be putting forward an emergency motion to ensure that they apply pressure to the current process and “to make sure the politicians get the right deal for the right people in Scotland.”

While supportive of greater control over welfare, and employment law, what she ideally wants is unlikely to happen: more money exclusively for Scotland. “The big one for me is purely economic and this would be greater revenues from North Sea oil in order to capture Scotland’s greatest financial asset and make the most of that for the people of Scotland.” A grand idea, but I can’t help but feel it falls into the category of “new car”.

Babcock Marine & Technology

Also in attendance at the Westerwood Hotel is Satnam Ner, 50, a shop steward with Prospect, the engineering union, and a scientist specialising in radiation safety with Babcock Marine & Technology, based at Rosyth. It is little surprise to hear that he and his members are relieved by the No vote, given that independence would have led to the eviction of his company’s principle employer, the Ministry of Defence, and their nuclear submarines.

“Yes, it has been an anxious time over the last few months as this led to huge uncertainty for both workforce and management.”

He explains that as an equality rep, “I would like to see the devolution of the implementation of equality legislation as I think we are a little bit tied by Westminster and want to look at new ways for how we can go forward.” He would also like to see greater assistance for apprentices and to re-ignite Scotland’s skills in manufacturing.

“We need to do more,” he adds.

In the STUC everyone is aware that the public will be watching whatever rolls out the garage come St Andrew’s Day, when the Smith Commission plans are expected to be unveiled. When I ask Moxham for his favourite moment during the referendum campaign his answer is instantaneous.

“It was finding out that all the STUC’s predictions that there was going to be a ‘missing million’ who would not register were completely wrong. We were completely wrong.”

He smiles and adds: “What a great and positive thing.”