You are here: Home » Comment »

Stand firm, Ed

April 10, 2012 11:28 am

Author:

Rob Marchant

Tags:

Share this Article

Let’s get a couple of things straight first. This is not a post somehow arguing to somehow “break the link” between Labour and its affiliated unions (a thing, by the way, which no sane activist would want – the party would self-evidently collapse without it). So, whoa there, those standing ready to defend it.

It is entirely right and proper that unions should defend their members’ interests, even where this means unpopular industrial action. In particular, it’s obvious they should be fighting tooth and nail the reductions in employment rights currently coming out of the government. It’s their job, after all.

My point, as always, is that unions represent their members, and the Labour Party represents its members. The interests of the two groups overlap some or even most of the time, on which occasions it is sensible for them to work together. On others they do not and, where that is the case, it is not necessary or constructive for either group to spend their emotions guilt-tripping the other into supporting it. Furthermore, it is particularly unhelpful to transform every discussion about our relationship with unions into “you’re either for us or against us”. The frustrating thing is that it is sometimes precisely our fine traditions of loyalty and solidarity that lead us to this daft emotional standoff. We need to accept that we are linked, but different.

And so we come to a little story noted at both Labour Uncut and Left Futures, that Unite is considering a resolution to cut to its funding for Labour by 10%, unless it chooses policies more in keeping with those of the union. Now, while it’s not exactly news for unions to be rattling the party’s cage in time-honoured fashion, there are two important questions this time which should give us pause, before we dismiss this as unimportant.

The first is: why now? Surely if our union leaders had put up with sixteen years of New Labour (or, as they might well have seen it, hard labour) without explicitly holding a gun to the party’s head, it seems strange that they should do so now, given that the party has already taken a visible turn to the left.

And the answer is simple: because they can. This generation of leaders, at least of the affiliated unions, have not yet suffered the infestation of a critical mass of far left activists. But they are a bit more left and a bit more grumpy; they sense uncertainty in setting party direction and, of course, they have the party over a barrel financially. If you don’t believe this is the case, check out the Electoral Commission’s website, which show around 90% of funding coming from unions. It never used to.

If Unite, Britain’s largest union, should pass this motion, the party would be hit, if relatively lightly. But, of course, it would be unlikely to be the only union with such a motion, should it pass. It would be one of many, some of whom might go further than 10%. In short, what union bosses sense is weakness. This is their moment, and it may not come again.

The second question is: is this any way to run a railroad? It’d be interesting to see whether there has ever been such an open attempt to link cash and policies in British political history. Imagine if, for example, Michael Ashcroft had said publicly to the Tories: I will give you X million pounds, in return for policy position Y. We ‘d have thought there was something fairly unethical about that, wouldn’t we? Well, welcome to realpolitik, because that’s the door that’s just been opened.

Irrespective of your view about the left-right politics involved, you’ve got to ask yourself: if Ed Miliband concedes to this kind of transaction, what opinion is the public likely to have of him? And I’m not saying this is an easy choice: it isn’t. Saying no to Unite may well mean sacking staff or cutting campaigns on an already reduced-size operation. But saying yes, in the longer term, could not only cause untold political damage in terms of credibility and diverting the policy agenda, but might eventually lead to an even worse financial situation. Give in once, and the price may be higher next time.

Ed, I know I’m just a blogger, and we might not see eye-to-eye on a lot of things, but you showed with News International that you can have a bit of steel when you need to. And this is starting to shape up as being one of those times: giving in to Unite now would open the floodgates to any union leader with a hobby-horse. I know that with the locals, Scotland, London and fighting the Tories this may seem a rather trivial party matter, but it needs your attention. I suspect you know this, and that may be why Tom Watson made a pre-emptive mea culpa on behalf of the party last weekend.

It may of course fall, but if that Unite resolution is passed in two months’ time, you will be faced with a battle that you must win, for everyone’s sake.

Please, stand firm, Ed.

Rob Marchant is an activist and former Labour Party manager who blogs at The Centre Left

http://twitter.com/bencobley Ben Cobley

Good article. Can’t disagree with hardly any of it. Labour and the unions are related but fundamentally different institutions. The unions are there to represent their members; a political party is there, I would add, not just to represent its own members or even its own supporters but to represent the country as a whole through a set of values and policy positions. Hence we represent bankers as much as we represent teachers and nurses – we do not necessarily represent their views or their interests though.
- http://twitter.com/rob_marchant Rob Marchant
  
  Thanks Ben. Indeed. It’s a big Venn diagram, with some issues in the intersect, and some outside.
- Brumanuensis
  
  I have to disagree Ben. Political parties are by their nature factional; they exist to represent a particular segment of the community. As one commenter on this website observed ‘even broad churches have walls’. We can’t really hope to represent many groups, at least as their preferred choice.
  
  The state, on the other, does have a duty to be reasonably fair-minded towards its citizens, through the civil service, the courts, other public services, etc. But the state is ideally politically neutral – if not always in practice. Political parties have to choose who they want to represent as a matter of course.
  - http://twitter.com/bencobley Ben Cobley
    
    Hi Brumaneunsis, I don’t think you understand the distinction I make between representing people and representing their views or what they regard as their interests. The former means you allow yourself to talk to everyone and maybe help some of them change their minds about the latter. In electoral terms, I would regard it as a no-brainer. Throwing away potential votes by adopting an antagonistic narrative is surely no way to go…
  - http://twitter.com/bencobley Ben Cobley
    
    Hi Brumaneunsis, I don’t think you understand the distinction I make between representing people and representing their views or what they regard as their interests. The former means you allow yourself to talk to everyone and maybe help some of them change their minds about the latter. In electoral terms, I would regard it as a no-brainer. Throwing away potential votes by adopting an antagonistic narrative is surely no way to go…
    - Brumanuensis
      
      Hi Ben, if that was your point then I’m more sympathetic. Obviously an MP has a duty to represent his constituents regardless of their political affiliation and this percolates up through the government. I was under the impression that you were suggesting that we attempt to envelop everyone under our policy narrative.
      
      That said, antagonism is often an invaluable political tactic. There are times when you do need to create an enemy for political purposes. The Tories have perfected this into an art form and whilst it may not be pleasant, it is effective. Obviously witch-hunts are undesirable, but if you’re going to set yourself against certain vested interests, you will need to define what those interests are, preferably under your own terms (see ‘Overton Window’).
      - http://twitter.com/bencobley Ben Cobley
        
        Yeah I agree with all of that. Attacking the Tories is fun as well as righteous, and it should be encouraged. Even so, I think we should always draw the ultimate distinction between judging the person and judging their actions and what they say. So you don’t attack people for any view about who they (in your view) “are” but for what they do. You do not attack someone for being rich but do attack them for evading taxation. It comes back to that identity issue we have discussed before – in my view we shouldn’t think we can ultimately define and judge anyone. But then, especially in politics, when they do bad things you pile in and attack them on that basis.
        
        Another example of that principle working in practice is Ed M in his Budget speech. Simply having a go at the Cabinet for being a bunch of millionaires doesn’t really hit home, but highlighting how they will benefit from their own tax cut is mightily effective.
      - Brumanuensis
        
        All completely true. Well said.
      - http://twitter.com/rob_marchant Rob Marchant
        
        Ben, quite right. Indeed, it would be nice if some on this thread could find their way to use arguments rather than ad hominems. It would certainly make for a more interesting debate.
      - AlanGiles
        
        Mr Marchant, I like you about as much as you like me, but it has to be said you enjoy dishing out waspish little put-downs to those who disagree with you, but you are no good at taking them.
        
        If you cannot bear being contradicted or disagreed with, could I respectfully suggest you stop writing your little pieces for LL?
        
        I am sure they would not be very much missed, and it would save you the embarrassment of having to be corrected on matters of the party’s history (the fact Harold Wilson won as many elections as Blair – in fact he went to the country twice in the same year).
        
        Have you ever considered the fact that people sometimes respond to you harshly because that is the way you treat them – indeed you seem to have the arrogance, contempt and disdain of Mr Pooter.
        
        Sad that Tony’s toadies (oh dear ad hominem!) are so anxious to protect the Dear Leader that they cannot be bothered to have pride in the party prior to 1994, or perhaps are evn unaware of it.
        
        One other point: Harold’s press secretary was Joe Haines. A man who never cooked up a dodgy dossier or, when his career in politics was over took to the stage for a tatty one-man show.
      - http://twitter.com/bencobley Ben Cobley
        
        Alan, that’s completely unfair. Like you, I disagree with Rob about many things, but I’ve never seen him throw around anything approaching personal abuse as you and some of your friends on here seem to spend all your days doing. I admire that he answers yours and others’ insults with tolerance and reasoned argument, however frustrating it may be for him. While the likes of you show all the signs of wishing to shut down debate with the excuse that your interlocutors are somehow beyond the pale for reasons you regard as self-evident, Rob genuinely engages with other people in dialogue and conversation. As such he shows he knows how to do politics as opposed to preaching at people like some modern-day proto-socialist God. That aspect of respect for other people whether you agree with them or not is surely a crucial element of any civilised society, wouldn’t you agree?
      - AlanGiles
        
        No Ben. His replies are condescending in the extreme – he’s fine with people that agree with him, but it’s contempt and derision if you don’t. If you don’t happen to share his right-wing views he certainly isn’t “tolerant” – dismissive at best.
        
        To think that when I gave money to the party I might actually have been helping to pay his wages!.
      - http://twitter.com/bencobley Ben Cobley
        
        I’ve disagreed with Rob plenty yet never found him condescending. However I never respond to disagreement by throwing personal insults at him. I think that is probably the difference here.
      - AlanGiles
        
        On one occassion a few weeks ago he described one of my posts as “absolute bonkers”. This was merely because I took an opposite view to him on one of his pet bete noirs.
        
        If you don’t think that condescending that is your view. I thought it actually more than condescending on that occassion – I though it pig ignorant – though that is being unfair to pigs. He seems to still think he is important, poor chap/
      - http://twitter.com/bencobley Ben Cobley
        
        Yup.
- Trudge74 as alexwilliamz
  
  We don’t can’t represent the country as a whole in the way you seem to suggest. We represent or t least should represent key ideas and visions of what the country should be and how it runs. Key to the labour ideal surely is that what is in the interest of ‘labour’ ie those who rely predominantly upon the value from their own work, is in the interest of the country. On an even more philosophical level our conception of the ‘good’ is fundamentally grounded in social justice and the need of society to look after all and just to favour those who are doing well. In this way we are hand in glove with the purposes of unions even if like Labour they can become drawn into serving vested interests. My hope would be that bankers and n fact all people irrespective of wealth or job would share our vision as the kind of society they would want to be part of.
  - http://twitter.com/bencobley Ben Cobley
    
    I’m not sure exactly on what basis you are disagreeing there Trudge/Alex – it actually seems that we are pretty much in agreement (especially from your last sentence).
    
    I think the confusion may come because my idea of “representation” seems to be pretty different to that of many other people. On the most simplistic level I think if you are standing for political office you are offering yourself to represent everyone in your constituency or country. You have your policies and values that will shape how different individuals or ‘groups’ will be affected if you are in office. By implementing them you are in a substantial sense “representing” all people. You are their government, and it would be strange for you to be hostile to some people on the basis of who you perceive them to be rather than actions.
    
    Just because some may ‘gain’ and some may ‘lose’, I don’t think that necessarily means you are representing the gainers more than the losers. That only holds if you see acquisition of money as the ultimate end of life, and the distribution of money as the ultimate role of government. As an example many rich people (Warren Buffett springs to mind) do want to pay more tax, so drawing boundaries on who you represent on the basis of who benefits or loses out financially from your policies doesn’t always make sense. People are much more interesting than that and often defy the definitions we put on them.
    
    Just as this argument works for a government, so it works for a political party seeking government.
    - Alexwilliamz
      
      I don;t think it was a disagreement but more trying to clarify what I think we should be representing. I think you are stretching the word from ‘reflecting’ to a more complex idea that may sit with a kind of ‘ambassadorial role’. Sure as an elected representative you could be said to represent all the citizens of your constituency, and by this I woudl suggest you would be making decisions that you though were in the interests of all. However if you start putting them into different categories especially economic ones you can no longer represent their interests and therefore them. So we both agree in principle but I do not think you can use representation in the same context when you start talking about representing bankers.
      
      In a pluralistic society you simply cannot represent the interests of all the people, but you are in a metaphysical sense representing them within the political system. Labour represents certain ideas and as a consequence will/should champion the interests of certain groups or more accurately rebalance and fight against inherent exploitation. As a constituency MP you are also called to represent individuals or groups in their engagement or problems with the institutions of government which is another issue altogther. Perhaps it is just a conflation of these two forms of ‘representation’ that have casued the difference/disagreement.
      - http://twitter.com/bencobley Ben Cobley
        
        Some interesting points. Fundamentally I think our differences here actually come down to interest group politics, which I accept as a reality but do not like being institutionalised as far into Labour Party politics as they are – to the point of sclerosis I would suggest.
        
        Politics shouldn’t be seen as a zero-sum game. Inequality for example is a bad thing for society as a whole, not just for those at the bottom of the pile (and it is not good for those at the top either – do another few fast cars make someone happier?).
        
        Representation comes back not to a view of the defined “interests” of separate people fighting against each other for control of resources but of government defining a greater good for all (which will mean redistribution of resources, but not seen as ‘punishment’ and ‘reward’). Hence the government is and the political party is making a claim to represent everyone, in a real substantive sense, not just in a kind of woolly “ambassadorial” role.
      - Alexwilliamz
        
        I think I agree with that, but the truth is there are many who automatically form interest groups and so by the policies you choose and the values you hold will be contrary to others, whether as we may think through self interest or by an alternative view of what is just. The root you are going down is something like the General Will of Rousseau and I’m not comfortable with that at all. Better to acknowledge that you cannot represent everyone, while attempting to do what you think is for the good of all which will not be in the interests of some.
      - http://twitter.com/bencobley Ben Cobley
        
        You say you think you agree, then you say you are not comfortable at all – which is it, if either?
        
        By the way I’m not thinking of Rousseau at all – my inspiration when it comes to democracy is Tocqueville, who was a lot more pragmatic and grounded and very much aware of the benefits and dangers of interest group politics.
      - Alexwilliamz
        
        As I said I agree with what you are saying but was uncomfortable with this line:
        
        “Hence the government is and the political party is making a claim to represent everyone, in a real substantive sense, not just in a kind of woolly “ambassadorial” role.”
        
        I don’t think this is a credible claim and can ultimately lead to dangerous delusions amongst those doing the governing. I know you do not mean it in that way, but I just think that any government which believes it represents the best interests of everyone can end up a long way from where it intended to be. Far better to acknowledge that they cannot and do not represent everyone leading to maybe a situation of compromise, negotiation or even opposition to those who do not and will not agree. I am pretty sure you do not mean that sentence in that way, but I am not sure how you envisage a government claiming it represents everyone, without making some kind of ‘in your interests even if you don;t realise it’, paternalistic claims.
      - http://twitter.com/bencobley Ben Cobley
        
        Yeah, good, challenging points; you could have me bang to rights there! Fundamentally, I do believe that a government is fooling itself if it thinks it can and will act solely as a sort of arbiter between competing interests, only keeping those in mind and not going beyond that constricted account of itself. Also I believe strongly it should not do so – to not have an idea of the good life and the good society is unacceptable, not least when you are running an education system (if you are…). I think where I may be able to drag myself out from under your trap though is going back to the fundamentals of democracy and democratic equality – everyone is equal and free to express their views, and can vote for or against the way you have been or want to be representing them. That’s where the principal feedback mechanism should be working in my view – in a bottom up way through local communities and democratic parties rather than through centralised interest groups that have in many cases gone beyond the bounds of their original purposes and become ends in themselves (i.e. the unions privileging union power over member involvement and representation).
      - Alexwilliamz
        
        Absolutely agree if we could get the structure right in terms of giving people the ability to directly feedback without interest groups using such structures to engage in blocking tactics. I am strongly in favour of Unions in principle, but they have become too detached from the interests of their members and this is partly the fault of apathy of the membership, but also the actual success of the union in creating a working place in which many of the issues in the past have receded. I think the work down in mediation and in representing (when done in the right way!) plus some of the work around safety are all things which should receive more prominance. They are worst when they become political stepping stones for overly powerful leadership.
http://twitter.com/Sammykaine Samuel Kaine Wheeler

It would appear Unite is merely flagging that it will pay less for something they think is less useful to them, presumably to spend the money on other things. I would have thought an entrepeneur like Mr Marchand would be all in favour of such market-based choices.
- http://twitter.com/rob_marchant Rob Marchant
  
  Unite are free to do with their money as they please. What I’m suggesting is not good for either party is to end up in an explicit money-for-policy deal. You can imagine how much more unacceptable that might be if Labour were in government.
  - AlanGiles
    
    You don’t think it just conceivable that many donors to the Conservative Party expect value for money, and if they felt they were not be listened to they might take their money elsewhere.
    
    Remember Stuart Wheeler?
    - http://twitter.com/rob_marchant Rob Marchant
      
      So, two wrongs make a right then, eh, Alan?
      - AlanGiles
        
        I am just being pragmatic Rob. I thought you Blairites approved of pragmatism.
        
        Personally, I wouldn’t give money to any organisation which despised me or used terms like ” rattling the party’s cage “, which is rather offensive, which is why, sadly, I stopped giving money to the party when a few years ago it was plain the “ultras” were to the fore.
      - http://twitter.com/rob_marchant Rob Marchant
        
        Oh, spare us the faux-outrage.
      - Dave Postles
        
        Oh, spare us the faux-outrage about the alleged faux-outrage. On second thoughts, it does become you.
      - AlanGiles
        
        I have to keep reminding You Mr Marchant you are a “FORMER party manager” and I don’t take instruction from you, as to how I conduct my conversation. As far as I am concerned you are a nobody or as you yourself said “just a blogger”
  - http://twitter.com/Sammykaine Samuel Kaine Wheeler
    
    You’re a consultant Mr Marchant. If one of your biggest clients said they were concerned with your current business model, and were going to discontinue their payment for your services, surely you would ask them what you could do to keep their business?
    
    If they told you, and you thought the ideas were good, you would adopt them. If they were not, and you thought those ideas would damage your brand and organisation, you would search for other sources of income.
    
    Hence, the question is not some macho-measuring affair of whether it’s bad publicity for the party to agree with Len McCluskey. The only question is whether the policies suggested by Unite are good ones. If they are we should adopt them. To refuse to do so because of what the anti-Labour press might say is madness.
    - http://twitter.com/rob_marchant Rob Marchant
      
      I don’t think you’ve really thought this through, Samuel. This government and the last two have all had major scandals to do with alleged cash for influence, which is roundly condemned not just by the press, but the public and many bodies on public standards.
      
      Can you please explain why this would be any different?
      - http://twitter.com/Sammykaine Samuel Kaine Wheeler
        
        First, because there is a world of difference between an organisation which is already giving you money saying that it will give you slightly less if your policy review turns out to not be in line with its priorities, and a random businessman paying you to get a passport/tax break/government contract.
        
        Second, because the alternative is to never do anything the unions might like for fear of being seen as ‘selling’ policies. I remember seeing headlines about “the brothers are back” when Tony Blair was still in office. It’s a stick the party will be beaten with regardless of reality. You can’t appease the Daily Mail.
      - http://twitter.com/rob_marchant Rob Marchant
        
        Samuel, nice try to say this is business as usual, but this is clearly different.
        
        I have never, in all my years in the party, seen such an explicit linkage between funding and policy positions. And it is not pandering to the Daily Mail to say so.
        
        And on your first point, I’m afraid the Electoral Commission doesn’t seem to see it the same way as you do.
AlanGiles

“given that the party has already taken a visible turn to the left.”

Has it? Has it really?. You could have fooled me. Admittedly if it tried to go any further to the right than it did under the Dear Leader it would have fallen off the edge.
- http://twitter.com/rob_marchant Rob Marchant
  
  Well, I think pretty much everyone would agree with that apart from yourself, Alan. But fair enough, you’re entitled to your opinion.
  - http://twitter.com/Sammykaine Samuel Kaine Wheeler
    
    I believe Alan’s quibble would be that the Party was going right until Ed. Hence a left turn from right means you’re just going straight on, not that you’ve started going left again.
    - AlanGiles
      
      Exactly Samuel.
    - Hugh
      
      So the party was going right for, what, the last 17 years and now the party’s gone to the left, and that’s not a change in direction?
      
      Or are you saying that the party was moving further and further to the right (Brown pushing it more to the right than Blair, really?), and Ed’s stopped that drift by being neutral – basically doing nothing and having no real policies, left or right.
      
      I’ve some sympathy with the second interpretation.
      - AlanGiles
        
        Blair drove Labour so far to the right that any relaxation of some of the more “extreme” policies might appear – especially to Labour’s opponents – as a move (I have even seen the word “lurch” used) to the left.
        
        More wars than any peacetime prime minister, increasing use of CCTV surveillience (sometimes for the most paltry purposes), right-wing old buffers like Straw and Reid at the Home Office – well I won’t weary you with more examples – and in the case of Brown by allowing Purnell to implement Freud in full at the time Freud was switching to the Tories – can hardly be regarded as left-wing policy.
        
        My regret is that Ed Miliband isn’t bolder in making the party a genuine alternative to the coalition, but I can understand why he is so timorous – he knows that Mr Marchant and others would raise heaven and earth to stop him, because they want the party to stay on the right so that David Miliband or another Blair clone can take over.
    - http://twitter.com/rob_marchant Rob Marchant
      
      @Samuel: On the left-right thing: so, let me get this right. You want to go back to before the party took what you see as a “turn to the right”. So, to Kinnock, I guess, who never won an election.
      
      Rather than Blair, who won three?
      
      What you are saying is, essentially, that there is a big untapped constituency of voters crying out for Kinnockite policies. As you may have seen on the TV this weekend, even when the Tories are unpopular and the economy declining, the answer is a firm “no”.
      - http://twitter.com/Sammykaine Samuel Kaine Wheeler
        
        I hope you’re carbon offsetting all those straw men you just burnt.
      - http://twitter.com/rob_marchant Rob Marchant
        
        Now that is rather witty. Bravo.
      - AlanGiles
        
        Mr Marchant, if Blair is to be excused every lie, every piece of greed, every wrong decision because he won three elections, perhaps we should also forgive all the wrongdoing of the likes of Putin and Robert Mugabe?
        
        After all they have won three elections (or more)
        
        And BTW I know how you hate pre Blair Labour, but Harold Wilson won three elections too: October 1964, March 1966 and February (and October) 1974) I am proud to say I voted for him each time. Let’s say Feb 74 is a moot point – wasn’t an outright win, but he became PM twice in that year, so I think it fair to say he won FOUR elections.
      - http://twitter.com/gonzozzz dave stone
        
        And Harold took an independent position on the Vietnam war while maintaining a close relationship with the USA. Would that all PMs were as skillful and wise.
      - Brumanuensis
        
        I agree wholeheartedly. It is a disgrace that our Party has so neglected our most successful leader for so long.
        
        The reality is, we’re talking about a man who managed to articulate, for the first time after a long era of opposition, a clear vision for the country’s future, based on a mondernising ethos that explicitly rejected out-dated approaches to politics and the economy. His time in office saw, among other things, the extension of gay rights and greater equality for women, as well as the cultivation of a more liberal climate in public affairs and culture. On the economy, although many structural issues went unaddressed, it was time broad prosperity for most Britains, with transfers to the poorest increasing and reducing poverty among many vulnerable groups. Certain sectors and residual under-performance were adddressed too, although manufacturing did continue to decline somewhat.
        
        It is also true that Labour, under his leadership, struggled on Europe and immigration. His support of the US government in its tragic and deadly foreign adventure in Asia was unwise and a reputation for cliquishness and being somewhat devious, undermined his public image.
        
        But he was a gifted orator, with a genuine popular touch, who understood the desire for a more meritocratic society and above all, won four general elections as Labour leader.
        
        Now, more than ever, we need someone with the wisdom and political skill of Harold Wilson.
      - Brumanuensis
        
        Oh damn it Alan! I’ve only just seen your post. You’ve spiked my guns for goodness sake.
        
        Nevermind. It was an obvious point I suppose
      - AlanGiles
        
        I am in danger of becoming Harold’s John Rentoul, but I don’t think we can say thank you to his memory often enough for his wisdom, compassion and plain commonsense. If only Labour had a Harold Wilson now.
      - Alexwilliamz
        
        It probably does, he has just not been given the opportunity to fight for a parliamentary seat!
      - http://twitter.com/rob_marchant Rob Marchant
        
        Hurrah. Back to the Seventies, then.
      - Peter Barnard
        
        @ Rob Marchant,
        
        “Hurrah. Back to the Seventies, then.”
        
        That’s a throwaway comment that lacks substance.
        
        Take a look at the increase in general prosperity – owner-occupied housing, car ownership, real consumer expenditure, motorway construction, electrical generating capacity - in the face of a quadrupling of the price of oil. In those terms, the Seventies were not the economic disaster that has passed into popular mythology.
      - Brumanuensis
        
        It’s an interesting counter-factual to consider, what might have happened had Callaghan actually called a general election in October 1978.
      - http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray
        
        I don’t think the 70′s are any more or less relevant than 92, 97 or any other mythical year. The point is that Labour cannot be seen to be the same as the coalition and need to have points of very clear distinction. New Labour ideas really haven’t got that level of difference
      - Brumanuensis
        
        Well, 1976 was apparently the happiest year in British history: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/3519662.stm
        
        I mean, we’re both indulging in nostalgia so why limit ourselves to the 1990s? Bit of crap decade anyway, as I recall. Terrible music in particular. The Backstreet Boys alone were an excuse for nuclear war.
      - Brumanuensis
        
        Go on Marchant. Dig the ’70s and all those groovy rhythms, why don’t you?
        
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-_30HA7rec
      - http://twitter.com/rob_marchant Rob Marchant
        
        I like the jive you’re talking, dig.
        
        Well, you have chosen well – can never fault Bowie. Not 1969-1980, anyway.
      - AlanGiles
        
        At least in the seventies we didn’t have an effette Prime Minister who needed to prove how macho he was by taking the country to war at every opportunity.
        
        Perhaps if you had been an adult in the 1970s you would appreciate that.
  - Brumanuensis
    
    Agree with Alan here. Other than the oft-mentioned bankers bonuses tax, has the leadership really advocated anything distinctively left-wing since (emphasis on the ‘since’) Ed Miliband was elected? On welfare our position has gone to the right, if anything.
    
    Given how quickly Cameron has co-opted the ‘Predators and Producers’ rhetoric, I don’t think that counts either.
madasafish

I suspect Ed is between the devil and the deep blue sea..
Kernow Castellan

Surely this would be less of a problem (for left and right) if we limited donations. Parties would have to reach out to real people, not a few union barons/captains of industry. Perhaps Ed should embrace this?
- http://twitter.com/rob_marchant Rob Marchant
  
  It’s a good point, Kernow, and in fact it looks like the Electoral Commission’s current funding inquiry will recommend just that. From what I understand, I think Ed and the party’s senior figures *do* embrace it. However, it still leaves Labour with a problem, in that small donations are not necessarily very forthcoming in the current anti-politician climate, and increases in state funding (Short money) look unlikely. Basically if large donations were removed (representing 90% of all donations), we would be immediately financially crippled. There’s no easy way out of this unless all parties agree a way forward, and they’re currently at an impasse.
  - http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray
    
    I think that the issue should be the total amount spent or available to the parties rather than trying to prevent donations. There should be a cap of a far lower amount relating to both national and local politics. We need to downsize political spending
http://twitter.com/DelroyBooth Delroy Booth

The thing is this article takes an equivalent view of a trade union funding labour and a rich businessman funding the tory party. Shows how far to the right “centre” left has become.

I happen to think that unions funding a political party to advance the interests of their memebers and the working class in general a good thing. I think that rich businessmen funding the tories is a bad thing, because their interests are hostile for me and for millions of other working class people.

The Labour party is just a mechanism to advance the interests of working class people, if it no longer serves (or even pays lip-service) to that historic role then the Unions are right not to fund it.
- http://twitter.com/rob_marchant Rob Marchant
  
  Fair enough. Who said union funding was a bad thing, by the way?
  - http://twitter.com/DelroyBooth Delroy Booth
    
    By uncritically drawing a comparison between the money given to Labour by a trade union and the money given to the Tories by an individual millionaire you imply that both things are morally and politically equivalent. They are not.
    
    Trade Unions give money to Labour in order to give working class representation in parliament. This is a good thing. If it leads to the Labour party making policies that directly benefit the unions and their members than that’s an even better thing.
    
    Big businesses and individuals who give money to Tories have their own reasons and their own interests at heart, not ours. It’s in their objective self-interests to see wages lowered, social barriers erected, pensions cut and opposition curtailed. Trade Unions have historically played the counter-balance to this institutional privilge and wealth, and Labour party is the vehicle that was meant to challenge this set up in a fundamental way. It is sad indeed that it would end up being a party for conscience-stricken liberals who couldn’t care less about challenging this setup, and would rather take on the Trade Unions than the Tories.
    
    The other thing, the elephant in the room that isn’t being discussed in respects to party financing, is that none of the major parties would be in this position if they actually had mass memberships and roots in civil society, as they once did. None of these parties hav enough members to pay for their political activities through subs alone. Now this has been a process which has affected all the mainstream parties, but I’m particularly concerned with Labour.
    
    Labour once had a whole working class movement it could draw upon for support, of which Trade Unions were the central part, but this includes Clarion Clubs, Labour Clubs, local co-ops and so on. Labour was once an integral part of working-class life in this country. Sadly, decades of neglect on behalf of the part, and a change in policy that deliberately attempted to ignore the needs and wishes of the working class population so that Labour could sell itself more effectively to swing voters in marginal constituencies, have left the institutions that built the Labour party rotten.
    
    In short, the Labour party’s reliance on the unions reflects how it has failed to maintain a large, mass membership and roots in other parts of civil society. The last remaining link to this history is the Trade Unions movement, without it Labour is literally just another professional corporate-bankrolled party of the rich, who’s only purpose would be to represent their wealthy backers in parliament. Capitalism would then have 3 parties to choose from that would defend it, whereas the population at large would have no effective democratic choice.
    - Dave Postles
      
      Another eloquent comment.
    - http://twitter.com/rob_marchant Rob Marchant
      
      Delroy, while I can see why you feel Tory (individual) and Labour (union) donations are not the same, surely you can see that in the eyes of the public, the Electoral Commission and the other arbiters who might judge these issues, they are seen as *precisely* the same? That is the reality, and we can rail against it but it is unlikely to change. I’m afraid you seem to be looking at the issue through an entirely Labour prism, and the rest of the world will not.
      - http://twitter.com/DelroyBooth Delroy Booth
        
        It’s not a matter of how I see things, individual Tory donations and Labour’s union donations are objectively different. One is a donation from a rich person who wishes to use that money to maintain a monopoly of power over the political system, one is a donation based on countless thousands of working-class people chipping-in to provide a necessary counter-balance to the power and influence of the wealthy in parliament.
        
        I would love to live in a perfect democracy where everyone recieved perfect representation regardless of what social class they are from, but sadly we do not live in that world. We live a in a world which is dominated by the rich and powerful, and the only method we have of breaking the control the rich and powerful have over the democratic process is by funding our own political parties.
        
        The Labour party should be making this distinction clear in it’s campaigning. It should be shouting from the rooftops in order to defend working-class representation in parliament. If the public at large have accepted this false notion that the unions funding Labour is morally and politically no different from the Tories getting bungs off billionaires then that is because Labour has failed to make the case for it. Labour has failed to make the case that Trade Unions are a force for good within the country, and even the “left-wing” Ed Miliband ended up siding with the Tory Government rather than the Unions over the biggest industrial dispute in a generation, to his eternal shame. and faced with that kind of obstacle no wonder the Unions struggle.
        
        Sadly there are those in the Labour party who are more concerned with trying to win their own factional battles within the party than to look at the bigger picture and see where this road will lead them. They view the unions as an obstacle towards their dominance of the party, and a barrier to all the nice corporate donations they were used to under Blair and Brown, and will work alongside the Tory right and the right-wing tabloid press to undermine their influence, as we’re already seeing.
      - http://twitter.com/rob_marchant Rob Marchant
        
        Delroy, fine, as I say above, let’s fight it if we think it’s unfair that no-one agrees with us on classifying union donations differently. But in a democracy, it’s not really a battle we’re likely to win, is it?
      - UKAzeri
        
        Ahh!! Rob this is the key question. Do we allow the public to continue to percive a handful of rich individuals to be the same as millions of workers or do we tackle that? We know the difference!!! or do we (agree) ? )))
        
        The initial and subsequent economic boom brought about by the deregulation in the 80s silenced leftwing, moral and just arguments. This is how post WWII world and all it entailed switched from collectivist ethos to an individualistic one. Our silence allowed people to perceive the interests of millions to be equal to the interests of a handful.
        
        My point is that… where we are today is not natural.. It’s a perversion.
        
        If any one of us comes across a village of cannibals, we wouldn’t be expected to nibble on the buffet before seeking a herd of sheep!!!
      - http://twitter.com/rob_marchant Rob Marchant
        
        Ok. We don’t like the prevailing wisdom. So let’s fight it!
        
        But in the meantime, can we try not to do donation-policy transactions, which are electoral suicide?
      - UKAzeri
        
        I appreciate what you mean and agree that unity is perhaps just as important in the face of coalition’s policies.
        
        Perhaps some sabre rattling is part and parcel of negotiating a united front…
      - Slakah
        
        A short and effective argument, of which is not argued anywhere nearly enough to counter the “Labour in the pockets of the unions”. The Tories are funded by Lord Ashcroft and bankers (
        http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/feb/08/tory-funds-half-city-banks-financial-sector) whereas Labour are supported by Dinner Ladies, Supermarket Staff, Cleaners and many other from all walks of life through a democratic Union.
      - http://twitter.com/rob_marchant Rob Marchant
        
        It is not argued anywhere because it’s pure moral relativism, I’m afraid. Who cares what the Tories do?
      - Slakah
        
        The way David Cameron and the Tory party as a whole go on with that line it must surely have an impact on peoples view of the labour party.
  - treborc1
    
    New Labour Blair and Campbell and the Labour party, who even under Miliband told the secretary to find other revenue streams, but I think may be the Unions may help you look for money elsewhere sooner of later.
- http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZPXYLRVP4XOIGGDJWAL6HUO7U4 David
  
  Interestingly this post highlights for me the fundamental challenge at the heart of “true” socialism: namely, a trust of individual’s ability to make decisions and judgements for the good of others.
  
  For socialism to work at the most basic level you need to have a basis whereby you can trust people: achieving “to each according to need” rather than “to each according to want” is an essential keystone in the system. The latter, obviously, implies greed and suggests people taking more than is appropriate. Right-wing posters, such as GuyM and others would use emotive words like “scroungers” to deride such people, and argue that they do not trust union leaders to stop at the point of “need”, but to continue to ask for more and more (and I would admit a view that the behaviour of certain unions have not helped to dismiss this point of view).
  
  A coherent left-wing ideology must, at its heart, therefore trust that people will not, collectively, behave selfishly.
  
  But as the post also shows, you do not trust “rich businessmen” to be able to behave with the altruistic ideals you are happy to attribute to collective union members (as represented by their union leaders): despite the wealth of evidence that happy workers and successful businesses go hand in hand, I suspect you cannot let go of a sneaking suspicion that someone who is rich has done so by behaving selfishly and at the expense of others. This is a difficult generalisation to support.
  
  The natural conclusion seems to me to be a divergent view of human behaviour depending on the person’s level of success, where success is consistent with immorality. This is, I suggest, not consistent with a pro-aspiration policy (and hence at odds with voters’ desires): since anyone who aspires (and succeeds) will be considered to have fallen into the “immoral” camp. This is neither fair, nor a responsible approach to government.
  
  Until the Labour party can successfully “close the circle” on this logical disparity, we cannot hope to generate a coherent political argument: the current “flip-flopping” of left and right wing views coming out of the PLP is, I believe, a direct consequence of this.
UKAzeri

It’s like parenting.. You can explain, teach, plead but if all fails at the end of the day, there is always the allowance.

Perhaps unions ( i am not sure if the distinction between management/ members is relevant in this question, though appreciate this point is debatable) feel that the shift to the left ( which in layman’s terms means shifting support from management/ shareholders to the workforce) is somewhat limited! Is this much different to party members’ position? ( I actually don’t know and if anyone knows of a regular ‘member policy poll’ please share)….

It raises the question about policy/strategy contributions from Labour’s stakeholders or lack of them. There is been a lot of talk about how out of touch political classes are as a whole. In absence of a framework where Labour party stakeholders can effectively (that’s the important bit) affect policy, underhand tactics will be used.

Interestingly enough a number of Boris’s contributors were quite open about increasing their contributions should the ‘right’ manifesto be produced by the Tories. In other words ‘me first’, ‘my interests first!” ..me..me.. me.. Yes Mrs Thatcher … me ..me .. me ))

It shows how leftist have failed the whole country. We used to be about social justice, collective goals and well being… now it’s all about interest and focus groups, swing voters and nuanced politics. what can we expect from the Tories, Lib Dems and most importantly the electorate when we ourselves fail to see value in collectivist ideals.

How we expect the unions to act when the party they made will not publicly defend their more than reasonable demands? Especially since the main reasons for this are as follows: Thatcher’s children will get upset (i.e. swing voters) and fear of Murdoch et al ( ie the importance of special interest groups). I hope Ed is merely constrained by the above rather than something else entirely…

Galloway had the courage to stand up from the values of the working people. He abandoned affluent homeowners for the rest of us.. and WON!!! Though i would have preferred a labour candidate to say what he said its thoroughly refreshing to see such a victory when the narrative of the debate is dictated by the City of London … The people of Bradford dont fund our party, they have a far more powerful tool and they have used it!!! Lets listen to our people or in couple of years time issues of funding will be relevant for all the wrong reasons.
- Dave Postles
  
  Eloquent post.
- http://twitter.com/ariehkovler Arieh Kovler
  
  In what sense was Galloway standing up for the ‘working people’? Was he advocating higher taxes on earnings? More benefits for the poor? Or was he talking about Afghanistan and Israel and whether his opponent drinks alcohol?
  - UKAzeri
    
    Galloway talked about many things. I spend plenty of time defending Labour people, to start defending him )
    
    I will say only one thing…
    
    This kind of swing can only be achived on a broad platform of policies that appeal to many people. Numbers speak for themselves.
    - Hugh
      
      And the number in question in Bradford West is 18,341 votes, so let’s not get too excited. It’s also obviously untrue that a big swing can only be achieved on a broad platform of policies.
      
      Do you really want to argue that Respect has or would have broad national support? Even after a dire month for the Tories the polls currently have the coalition plus UKIP at over 50%. Does that sound like a hard left population just waiting for Respect to offer them a chance to vote?
      - UKAzeri
        
        If I am not mistaken 18k is the biggest by-election swing in history… in a safe seat … its unheard of!!
        
        You do have a point about wider appeal of such policies. Currently the answer would be, no, for Respect and labour alike. I have touched on the issue in other posts below. The Labour party ( and other left of centre parties, like Respect) need to seriously consider their strategy in the context of publics’ values.
        
        If Labour, appeal to neoliberal ideals in order to win seats (and continue their professional careers) then we are nothing more than a bunch of opportunists. However if we purport to stand for something greater than an individual, then we should take a risk and stand for what the party originally was created for. Campaign for these values!!
        
        Pretending to be Tories just to get a little bit more for the majority is not serious politics, its career building.
      - Hugh
        
        Well, first, no, it’s not. Second, even on its own terms it was a big swing in percentages; I’ve no idea how significant it is in terms of the numbers of voters.
        
        I do know 18,000 in a small, defined geographical area isn’t evidence at all of popular sentiment.
        
        Finally, I’m not sure who gets to define what is and isn’t “serious politics”, but building a programme of government reflecting Respect’s agenda certainly isn’t; it’s self indulgence.
      - http://twitter.com/gonzozzz dave stone
        
        “we should take a risk and stand for what the party originally was created for.”
        
        This is an extremely important point. Not that things should always remain unchanged and, of course, care must be taken when taking risks but even when circumstances are unfavourable we should hold fast to our ethos.
  - treborc1
    
    Perhaps voting Galloway was the best of the two evils, after all labour are not talking about better wages or higher benefits any more are they.
    
    the last time Miliband spoke he spoke about holding wages down and getting the sick and the disabled either into work or onto lower benefits.
- http://twitter.com/rob_marchant Rob Marchant
  
  UK Azeri
  
  An interesting point about whether union leadership reflect union members’ views or not. Well, it seems difficult to accept that unions are an example of perfect democracy. I think the reality is that sometimes they do, sometimes they don’t. Sometimes there are mad motions passed by small numbers of (usually far left) members who are not representative at all. Similarly there are sometimes pet political projects of senior officials which seem to get funding without much reference to the members.
  
  “How do we expect unions to act when the party they made will not publicly defend their more than reasonable demands?” but this is very subjective, isn’t it? Your reasonable is my unreasonable and vice versa.
  
  I’m afraid on Galloway we part company, though. Galloway is a thoroughly unpleasant person with even more unpleasant friends, including various racists, homophobes, misogynists and extremists. We should not be happy about his success against a decent Labour candidate.
  - UKAzeri
    
    Rob
    
    To be absolutely frank I am a much bigger fan of a mutual solution to labour relations. Regardless of how well the management/unions interact with each other or their various stakeholders, there is conflict at the heart of the set up. As it happens the public/users tend to be the losers when either side wins. It’s not efficient and a business structure based on mutual ownership would alleviate some of the key deficiencies, though as with all approaches it has a number of setbacks( perhaps this is whole other topic).
    
    Reasonableness is an interesting area and you rightly point out its subjectivity. Societies’ norms and values ultimately determine what’s reasonable or not. From my own extensive (albeit anecdotal) observations we as a society place higher value on a person’s right to make profits rather than on people’s right to maximise their salaries :) There are many historical and cultural reasons for this and many are very valid and logical. Naturally there is a lot of disagreement and since these are channelled through the union/management set up, progress (assuming that’s the end result) is slow and painful. However all of us need to be acutely aware that slavery then later sweatshops were once reasonable on British soil and it was in fact unreasonableness of the time that led to beneficial changes. The time has come for us to seek a better and more progressive framework for achieving peace and prosperity in the workplace. Democracy has worked really well for our politics, how about some of it on the shop floor ( partiularly relevant to your comment on internal democracy)!!
    
    As for Galloway… Again not particularly keen to defend him )) but to reiterate: the numbers he achieved and the fact that the seat was safe, can’t be simply attributed to politicking. True he keeps bad company but relative to Tony’s …
Dave Postles

… and the resolutions for the GMB summer conference, the rule book allowing the GMB to affiliate to any political party it wishes? Is that another £2m to be diverted from Labour? It may not be long before the unions sponsor their own independent electoral candidates.
Daniel Speight

Reading this along with Marchant’s recent piece on Uncut and his praise there for Hodges, you can begin to see a pattern emerging. It is one of raising the spectre of extreme left wing infiltration of the labour movement, a sort of a Revenge of the Militants.

To read Marchant the reason why Galloway won was because Labour had been too tolerant of the extreme left. I guess some of us hadn’t criticized the Occupy people enough. According to him we have had this tolerance of the extreme left since 2005.

I do wonder how he is going to eventually blame the left for the election loss in 2010. You almost know he must already have another little theory just waiting for the opportune time to be released.

What’s so annoying is that he spouts this nonsense at the time that another cover is being lifted on Blair’s dealings with the Americans over torture and rendition. We get to read reports on Straw’s intelligence agency tricking people, including a pregnant woman, who thought they were coming to Britain, but instead handing them over to for US rendition to Gaddafi’s Libya to be tortured. There is the stink of corpses around these people.

It wasn’t the left of the Labour Party that lost Bradford to Galloway and it wasn’t the left that lost the last general election. New Labour did that all by themselves.
- AlanGiles
  
  Daniel, as so often I totally agree with you. I think poor RM’s old mum must have been frightened by a “red” under the bed, he could almost be the new Senator Joe McCarthy!
- http://twitter.com/rob_marchant Rob Marchant
  
  No, the piece wasn’t about why Galloway won, it didn’t talk about that at all, in fact. It was about what Labour might do in response.
  
  But I’m delighted you spend so much of your time reading and critiquing my pieces, Daniel, even if you get the message totally wrong.
  - Daniel Speight
    
    So your piece on Uncut didn’t include your take on why Galloway won? Let’s see.
    
    The other major story, as Dan Hodges rightly identifies , is the resurgence of the far left as a political force. This matters to Labour in a way it does not to the Tories or Lib Dems. And many commentators are in shock about this second story. Indeed, until Thursday, many found it laughable the idea that the pro-Islamist, anti-American far left was on its way back into respectable politics.
    
    Well it seems you, and Hodges, are talking about Galloway winning.
    
    So let’s look a little closer: why would this comeback happen now and not, say, in the late 1990s or early 2000s? Three reasons spring to mind.
    
    I take it the comeback includes Galloway’s win in Bradford, or at least it’s a sign of your leftist comeback.
    
    Let’s add one more.
    
    And the third reason is perhaps counter-intuitive: the more you stay in
    the centre, the less people like Respect tend to bother you. From the
    mid-Nineties on, Labour’s success made the far left feel small,
    unconfident and useless. They became marginalised. Until 2005, when
    Galloway won Bethnal Green and Bow, there was arguably only one
    left-wing show in town: Labour.
    
    Which isn’t only counter-intuitive, it’s illogical. Respect feeds off the toxicity of Blair’s wars. Moving further to the right, maybe supporting an attack on Iran that I’m sure Marchant would like, isn’t going to help Labour fight off Respect. Doing the *right thing may well do that though.
    
    *right thing as in Labour’s response to the Suez War 1956.
    - http://twitter.com/rob_marchant Rob Marchant
      
      Daniel, you’re hopelessly wrong. I said one of the two stories was the return of the far left. I did not say why I thought Galloway won. I said why I thought the far left had returned. Do you see that the two are not the same? There are a bunch of other factors connected with the Galloway win, which I did not try and explain because the reasons are complex and it’s being debated to death. As I made clear in the text.
      
      Wrong, wrong, wrong.
      - Daniel Speight
        
        So the article had nothing to do with Galloway winning? That you mentioned his name five times in the article was just adding a bit of spice. I guess this is just your version of spin. It’s what many of us have come to expect from our new political class.
        
        On Iran, Straw and rendition and torture not a word. I expected that. Marchant and his mates are past their sell by dates I’m afraid.
      - http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray
        
        They have been for years, Daniel – its tiresome that they just can’t see it. As for the ‘far left’, this actually seems to refer to UNITE and party members who dare to suggest that new labour is a busted flush and overall, failed in many of its aims, the ease by which the Tories have obliterated their aims being evidence. I don’t see any evidence at all of the presence of the ‘far left’ within the party
Mike Murray

The Tories are not ashamed to be bankrolled by their interests and advance them commensurately. We should not be ashamed to be bankrolled by the unions and should advance their interests as zealously as the Tories advance the interests of big business. If Labour is suggesting that it is not there to represent the interests of millions of trade unionists but is there to gain the support of Tories in unwinnable Southern seats then it is time for me to resign from the party.
- madasafish
  
  The trouble is: the main Union is UNISON.
  
  It has over 1.3 million members out of c 7 million union membership.
  
  And they are of course public service workers.
  
  So better T&Cs for Unison = higher taxes.
  
  So much for the rubbish of “big business”..It’s all about getting the State to pay more.
  
  But of course you knew that anyway..
- http://twitter.com/rob_marchant Rob Marchant
  
  Sigh. Not all members are unionised. Some are self-employed or work in small businesses. Some (gasp) even work for non-unionised private sector employers.
  
  Do they have a say, or not? Unions’ interests are not identical to members’ interests – how could they be? They’re not the same group of people.
  - Slakah
    
    Labour has a membership of around 190k don’t kid yourself and believe labour is around to represent the views of it’s membership. At least 10% of the population is in a trade union (not all of them are affiliated though), those people certainly deserve to be listened to whether you personally agree with their views or not.
    - http://twitter.com/rob_marchant Rob Marchant
      
      Oh, I see. So the people who pay membership fees to the party have no right to their views being represented, as opposed to the majority of union members,who are not even Labour supporters, but get their views represented by Labour.
      
      I’m afraid that makes no sense whatsoever.
      - Slakah
        
        So Labour Membership and Labour Supporters are one in the same? I’m personally a Labour card holder, but if labour can only muster up less than 200k supporters then maybe I should switch to a movement with a greater following. I would also question whether your idealised view of the labour memberships opinion is correct. It certainly seems as though you believe the membership to agree with you, whereas I personally feel a large proportion sympathise with the unions than you give them credit for. It certainly does seem as though you try and isolate groups off of which don’t share your vision.
      - http://twitter.com/rob_marchant Rob Marchant
        
        No, members and supporters are not the same.
      - Brumanuensis
        
        I think what Salakh was suggesting was that Labour members are relatively impotent, in terms of their influence over the party, whilst trade union members have considerably more influence over the direction their trade union takes.
  - Mike Murray
    
    Sigh. . . You have introduced a red herring and have suggested that all non trade union members’ interests are somehow homogeneous and inimical to Trade Union interests. (By the way, if we were more supportive of our trade union brothers and sisters and more zealous in advancing their cause those non-unionised private sector employees might be unionised by now). My specific point was that we should be representing the interests of those who are bank rolling us, just as the Tories do. That’s (gasp) why millionaires have just received a tax handout at 5p in the pound. If we are not actively representing and promoting the interests of the Trade Unions and behave as though we are ashamed of them then we shouldn’t be taking their money. If Labour was not funded 90% by the Trade Unions and had to rely solely on the contributions of those members who are self employed; work in small businesses; or are non-unionised private sector employees it would quickly disappear as a political force and become as significant as the Liberal Democrat stooges. Or is that what you really want?
    - http://twitter.com/rob_marchant Rob Marchant
      
      Well, I’d hardly have given up a few years of my working life for it if I wanted the party to wither and die, would I?
http://www.facebook.com/people/Paul-Barker/1546990341 Paul Barker

On labour membership, that figure of 193,000 is from the end of 2010, the figure from december 2011 wont be released till july, it takes 7 months to count them apparently. My estimate for current membership would be around 165,000.

Latest

News
Ed Miliband statement on Woolwich murder

In a statement this evening, Ed Miliband said: “This is a truly appalling murder which will shock the entire country. “All of my thoughts are with the family and friends of the victim. “The British people will be horrified by what has happened in Woolwich. They will be united in believing that this terror on our streets cannot be allowed to stand. “The Labour Party will offer the Government our complete support in establishing the facts of what happened and [...]
Read more →
News
Equal marriage – How every Labour MP voted at every stage of the bill

By Kirstin Hay

With much jubilation, the 3rd reading of the same-sex marriage bill passed the House of Commons last night, carried through on the weight of Labour votes, but how have individual MPs voted on this bill? In the 2nd reading of the equal marriage bill, Labour MP voting totals were: 217 – for 22 – against 14 – non-voters For the third reading 192 – for 14 – against 49 – non-voters —————————————————————- 192 Labour MPs who voted yes on 3rd reading (9 didn’t [...]
Read more →
News
Ed Miliband’s Google Speech – full text

Speaking at the Google Big Tent event Ed Miliband said (please note, Miliband spoke without notes, but this is the text released by the party): It is great to be here inside the Google Big Tent. My sons Daniel and Sam think I do a very boring job, so they will be excited when I tell them I appeared along with the “Killer Robots” and the “Captain of the Moonshots” at your sessions. I’d like to start by showing you [...]
Read more →
Comment Unions
The chutzpah of Peter Mandelson – and why we need more trade unionists

By Mark Seddon

Lord Mandelson, or Baron Mandelson of Foy, as he should be referred to since he was packed off to the House of Lords by a small cabal, recently accused the Unite union of ‘manipulating selection procedures’ in the Labour Party. He went on to warn Ed Miliband that this ‘stores up danger for a future Labour government’. Irony has always been in as short supply as sheer chutzpah has been plentiful with old Mandy – but since his faithful disciple [...]
Read more →
News
Cameron says no more EU-turns – Media roundup: May 22nd, 2013

Subscribers to our morning email get the best of LabourList – including the Media and blog round up – every weekday morning. If you were a subscriber you would have already received this in your inbox. You can sign up here. Cameron says no more EU-turns “After one of his most difficult weeks since becoming prime minister, David Cameron put in a polished and assured peformance on the Today programme this morning. The most notable line came on Europe, with Cameron [...]
Read more →

← previous next →

DOWNLOAD IT NOW: One Nation Labour – Debating the future

Signup to our daily email

Proudly sponsored by

LabourList Videos

Latest Posts

Stand firm, Ed

Author:

Tags:

Share this Article

Latest

Ed Miliband statement on Woolwich murder

Equal marriage – How every Labour MP voted at every stage of the bill

Ed Miliband’s Google Speech – full text

The chutzpah of Peter Mandelson – and why we need more trade unionists

Cameron says no more EU-turns – Media roundup: May 22nd, 2013

Email*
Forename
Surname