Saturday, July 14, 2007

Murder not Divorce? – Labour Party and Trade Unions


It was good to see Tony Woodley (T&G Unite Joint General Secretary) take a well deserved swipe at George Monbiot (photo left - as in extreme) in yesterday’s Guardian. Monbiot, otherwise known as “Moonbat”, is the Stowe public school educated son of a deputy Chair of the Tory Party, who had the cheek in an article on Tuesday, to lecture trade unions on “Class” and affiliation to the Labour Party.

He called trade unions “Turkeys led by chickens, they will never stop voting for Christmas”. He also offensively claims that the unions would still support the Labour Party even if it turned itself into a neo-fascist party!

The “evidence” he presents for this accusation appears to be the appointment of Digby Jones by Brown as a minister promoting trade. I think that this is a wrong decision, however, hardly grounds to disaffiliate.

He confusingly accepts that “some important victories have been won since 1997” e.g. minimum wage, better pension protection etc. But he then dismisses them as unimportant because the so-called “list of defeats” is much longer.

I think that the distain that Monbiot has for such an issue as the living wage is important and gives you an understanding of where he is coming from. If you are brought up in a wealthy middle class family then obviously the issue of low pay is not something that you can relate to in any meaningful way. Unlike trade unionists, who do not usually come from privileged backgrounds. They often have first hand experience of how vitally important the minimum wage is for real families and workers, struggling to keep themselves out of poverty. It is interesting that he also completely ignores tax and pension credits. The huge amount of money that Labour has poured into the pockets of poor people in this way means nothing to him. Obviously more needs to be done, but Monbiot is not concerned about these key working class issues.

Equally the incredible financial stability and relatively high employment rates under Labour is also not apparently of any importance. Neither does he mention the huge resources that a Labour government has pumped into the NHS, schools and children’s services. I have been attacked by some over bringing up this real “class” issue. The argument is that you should only debate the policies not the background of the person. I am sorry but I just cannot agree with this proposition. Attacking the personality of a person is usually wrong but I think politics are personal; they are shaped by your family and your background. I am not saying that middle or upper class people cannot comment on trade union issues. Everyone is entitled to their views, however I would recommend that they stick to what they know – which in Monbiot’ s case would appear to be climate change not trade unions.

Tony Woodley also attacked Monbiot for not proposing any alternative to Labour and ducking the question of whether or not a Tory government was a good thing or not. The RMT and the FBU may have been expelled or left the Party. However, at many Labour Party events I have attended during the last few years there has usually been a “lobby” outside by RMT members leafleting or protesting about various things and asking us to bring up this motion or that. What is the point of them being out of the Party but still turning up to Party events asking for things to be done? As Tony put it “you do not win arguments from the outside”.

It is also a fact that within the Labour Party there is a (small?) body of opinion that would love to end the link between the Party and the unions. They would prefer state funding of parties without any pesky trade unionists making problems.

Now, it is not always sweetness and light in the relationship between trade unions and the Labour party, nor should it be. There are major differences over privatisation, trade union and employment rights etc. When you compare these differences to that between the Tories and trade unions then you realise these differences are small. Trade unions recognise the abyss of Tory rule and also I think many would agree with me that, rightly or wrongly, if the Labour Party is seen to be the “creature” of the trade unions then the Party will never be elected or form another government.

Finally, as Jack Jones, the great leader of the Transport and General Workers' Union said in 1971 when asked to sum up the relationship between unions and the Labour party: He replied that he could imagine "Murder yes, divorce never."

4 comments:

ian said...

Good article John.

But I have to add that the Labour Party will have to do much more for Trade Unions than talk to them and take their money.
Policies are needed that directly benefit all workers. Not policies that are held in 'balance ' with employer needs, which has been a strong feature of the Blair years.

While we may celebrate the minimum wage, many other employee friendly policies appear watered down to the point that many employees , especially those in non unionised work places, would never know they are supposed to have rights.

Unions in turn have to be more direct and forceful with the Labour Party leadership and the Government ( two seperate beasts, I have to add)to force through the changes to satisfy the millions of workers who dont have the benefit of Union organisation in their workplaces.

We have paid the money but what do we get in return?

John Gray said...

Thanks Ian
Yes, but …. Yes, the Unions need to be more “influential” over the Labour Party government. But I’m not sure that necessarily being more “direct or forceful” will work nowadays. Putting a negotiating hat on I don’t think that our bargaining position is that strong. Yes, we largely fund the Party, but I think that there is such a huge difference for trade unions from having a Labour government to a Tory one (despite what some may argue) that there really isn’t an alternative to Labour (warts and all). There is of course the threat from some within the Party who would want the unions to disaffiliate and move towards an American style “Democratic Party” with loose links with the unions.

We are also a “minority” interest (abet substantial). 6.5 million out of a total workforce of 28.8 (2006). There are now generations of workers who have no knowledge or experience of trade unions. This is not just Thatcher’s fault (although she certainly helped) but also a reflection of the decline of manufacturing industry and the rise of services and self-employment. I am not being defeatist and I honestly think that we should be able to reach Scandinavian levels of membership (90% odd) with the right polices and the right structures. Why do all local government

Being positive I think that we must try to encourage our activists to join and participate in the Party. Don’t just write cheques. Prove that Union friendly government policies are not only good for the trade unions but also for the wider social economy. Government policies which are anti-union will prevent us from mobilising votes for the party. What is good for modern, forward thinking and really representative unions is also good for the Party.

We are not always going to get what we want. As trade unionists we are use to that. By definition, all agreements are the result of compromises by both sides. Where we draw the line is of course a matter of judgement (and will always be argued over).

Finally, we pay our money to keep people such as Cameron, John Redwood and David Davies out of government – that’s good enough for me.

John Gray said...

(end of 2nd paragraph missed out stuff after) "Why do all local government"….(insert) trade unions have to waste time and precious energy fighting the GMB and Unite over recruitment – why can’t we have single sector unions?

grim rupert said...

Just a few words in support of George Monbiot. He couldn't help being sent to a public school because he would have had little choice in his parents' desire to buy into an 'educational dream' for their son. I can well understand, therefore, why he is 'rebelling' against his background. Wouldn't you?