The unions are under threat: Labour needs a leader that will defend them

by William Brett

The Labour Party’s commitment to pluralism is not really in dispute. It is a mass-based political party that should appeal not just to union members, not just to the working classes, but also to the middle-classes and intellectual progressives, offering itself as the most effective vehicle for change towards social justice. So said the panel at the Compass post-election event; so said Michael Jacobs at the Fabian event a week later; and so say most activists, online and off.

So goes the theory.

But does it stand up in the face of the new political landscape?

There is a widespread assumption that coalitions will be the norm in the future, whether because of electoral reform, or because of a more fragmented, less partisan electorate, or, most likely, both. If so, then Labour people, particularly the middle-classes or intellectual progressives, have to think long and hard about what they want their party to be.

A lot of progressive territory is being covered by the Liberal Democrats, particularly on civil liberties and devolution. This is natural: the Lib Dems are a bourgeois liberal party with bourgeois liberal concerns. Sometimes these concerns bleed into classical (right-wing) liberalism, sometimes into egalitarian (left-wing) liberalism (Stuart White has an excellent analysis of the ambivalence of Lib Dem liberalism here). But always these concerns are about freedom of the individual, and they show a fear, rather than a celebration, of the possibilities of collective action.

The left wing of the Conservative party, represented above all by Oliver Letwin and by Cameron’s “progressive conservative” rhetoric, is covering similar territory, hence the coalition’s ability to agree on large swathes of policy from empowerment of local government to scrapping ID cards.

The question is: does Labour need to devote the best part of its energies to covering this liberal ground as well? Liberal concerns are being adequately represented by one whole party plus the left wing of another. Do these concerns really need to be at the centre of another party’s agenda?

Of course, it would be a huge wrench for many liberal-minded Labour people to find that their party had abandoned their primary concerns. So perhaps what is needed is a shifting of priorities within the party, so that liberal issues become auxiliary to the traditional ground of the Labour party – ie, labour issues.

And here we get to the meat: the coalition is unanimously anti-unions. The Tories we know about, but witness Vince Cable’s opposition to strike action. And consider the roots of the party: it is based on the liberal principle of ownership, of private property and free trade (free originally from the traditional Tory grandees, and free subsequently from the threat of the proletariat).

And witness most of all the coalition’s plans for party funding, which is aimed specifically at the unions-Labour link. Here’s what they say in the Queen’s Speech:

“We also agree to pursue a detailed agreement on limiting donations and reforming party funding in order to remove big money from politics.”

This is by far the biggest threat facing Labour now, because hatred of the Labour-union link is something that really unites the Lib Dems and Tories. Always has, always will. And make no mistake, without that link, Labour loses its identity, its raison d’etre. Whatever party emerges from such a rupture would no longer be a Labour Party – it would be something else, an egalitarian-liberal wing of the Lib Dems perhaps. The clue is in the name. Labour is, or should be, primarily about labour.

So as we go about choosing our leader, we should be thinking, above all, about their attitudes towards unions. Jon Cruddas isn’t standing, so it is up to us to demand from the candidates a full, programmatic defence of the union link and of Labour’s primary role as a vehicle for the interests, material and otherwise, of working people.

Ed Miliband said the following at the Fabian conference:

“The trade union link matters because it is our link to working people in this country and it is very important.”

That’s good, but it’s not enough on its own. We need to hear more. Let’s hear it for Labour. Let’s hear it for labour.