McCluskey, Miliband and the Labour link

January 17, 2012 at 3:56 pm (Cuts, Guardian, Jack Haslam, labour party, unions, Unite the union, workers)

Len McCluskey’s article denouncing Ed Miliband in today’s Guardian merely puts into the public domain what the Unite Gen Sec has been saying for some time within the union. McCluskey and the Unite leadership are bitterly disappointed with the man they played such a big role in making Labour leader. McCluskey told a recent Executive Council (EC) meeting that if Miliband gives in to the Blairites, fails to offer a radical alternative to the Coalition and (as a result) loses the next election, Labour will be finished as a working class party and Unite will break its links with the party. He concludes his Guardian piece with a slightly toned-down version of that scenario:

“No effort was made by Labour to consult with trade unions before making the shift [ie - the statements by Balls and Miliband over the weekend, accepting the public sector pay freeze and hedging on Coalition spending cuts], notwithstanding that it impacts on millions of our members. It is hard to imagine the City being treated in such a cavalier way.

This confronts those of us who have supported Ed Miliband’s bold attempt to move on from Blairism with a challenge. His leadership has been undermined as he is being dragged back into the swamp of bond market orthodoxy. And this policy coup may not be the end of the matter. Having won on the measures, new Labour will likely come for the man sooner or later. And that way lies the destruction of the Labour party as constituted, as well as certain general election defeat in my view. It is time for those who want a real alternative centred on investment, job creation and public intervention to end the slump – and a Labour party that will articulate that to get organised in parliament and outside.”

What McCluskey says is undoubtably true and certainly reflects the views of the vast majority of Unite members. But it’s scarcely the dramatic volte face that sections of the media are trying to make out: Unite remains committed to the Labour link for the forseeable future. McCluskey, when he stood for the general secretary’s position in 2010, was outspoken in his defence of the Labour link, though he made it clear that the days when union “representatives” on Labour’s NEC regularly voted against union policy, were numbered. From now on, he told hustings audiences, Unite delegates to the Party would be expected to fight for the union’s policies, and a much more assertive and openly pro-working class stance would be adopted.

McCluskey, an honest reformist, has made some real efforts to put that approach into operation. In December of last year, for instance, the EC overwhelmingly endorsed a document (“Unite Political Strategy”) drawn up by the union’s Political Director, Steve Hart. It opens with the following:

“The aim of our political strategy is clear –

  • Winning Labour for working people
  • Winning working people for Labour
  • Building a broad alliance to defeat the Tories and their policies
  • Winning a Labour government which will govern in the interests of working people and towards a socialism for the 21st  century

“But, for too long, Unite has talked; now we intend to carry through detailed plans to take forward our strategy.

“For several years Unite has, along with others, talked of ‘reclaiming Labour’ for the values of ordinary working people and for policies which advance their interests.  This reflects the fact that the record of the last Labour government was, for the most part, a bitter disappointment for all those, including Unite’s predecessor unions, which had such high hopes in 1997.  Apart from the wider failures, ranging from the uncritical embrace of the City through to the privatisation of public services and the Iraq War, trade unions were generally treated with disdain by the government.  Moreover, trade union-supported candidates found it harder than ever to be selected for parliamentary seats, something which has led to a huge change in the social make-up of the Parliamentary Labour party.

“However, we must acknowledge that for all the talk of ‘reclaiming’ the Party, little progress was made.  This has led to great frustration within the union, the more so since the Party’s requests for financial support from our union and others have continued unabated.  So it is time for a change.

“The times are favourable for a renewed effort to reconnect Labour with the concerns of our members and the working-class more generally.  The crash of 2008 has highlighted the failure of neo-liberalism to almost everyone.  And in Ed Miliband Labour has a new leader anxious to put the ‘New Labour’ years behind us and embrace a new and more radical political approach.  There is also a growing recognition that Labour cannot win again without addressing the loss of at least four million working-class votes between 1997 and 2010. In reclaiming Labour now, we are pushing against at least a half-open door.  The crisis and the Coalition’s reactionary austerity agenda is pushing millions of people to look at politics in a new way, and the ‘Occupy’ movement has caught the public imagination.  On the other hand, forces more-or-less openly hostile to our agenda remain strong within the PLP, and are well-financed outside Parliament by groups like Progress.  The battle for Labour’s future direction is therefore undecided, and it is right that Unite, as the Party’s largest affiliate, should play the fullest possible part in the struggle for Labour’s soul.

 ”We are therefore already reinvigorating our political work at all levels after a period in which it was over-concentrated on top-level contacts at the expense of any strategy.  We have initiated the formation, with other unions, MPs and interested parties, of the Centre for Labour and Social Studies (CLaSS) as a think-tank which can develop the new ideas needed to shape a renewed socialist agenda in the 21st century.  We expect it to start producing valuable work in the course of 2012.  We have also made efforts to bring together a group of Labour MPs committed to reconnecting the Party with working-class communities – this has taken its first steps, although progress remains unsatisfactory to date.

 ”Now we must do more. Our union needs a comprehensive strategy to advance our political work, reclaiming the Labour Party as an instrument of social progress which defeats the Tory Coalition government at the next general election and then governs in the interests of working people.”

Hart’s document then goes on to outline a quite detailed and practical strategy for extending the union’s influence within the Party, including co-operation with other unions to secure the adoption of union (or “union-friendly”) candidates in winnable seats, making Labour Party work the first item on every Unite Regional Committee agenda, winning 5,000 Unite members to Labour Party membership by December 2012, a regular Party members’ newsletter, ensuring the best representaives for the National Policy Forum and “building alliances with other affiliates and with community organisations and with the CLP’s and appropriate pressure groups to win specific policies.”

The document closes with the following exhortation:
“Unite will always be very clear that winning back the 5 million lost voters, reconnecting with working class voters, ending the crisis of working class representation, winning back Labour for trade union values, are tasks that require profound organisational change by Unite and in our relationship with Labour.

“Winning a Labour government which will govern in the interests of working people and towards socialism for the 21st century is our objective – the strategy outlined here is our best shot towards that aim.”

Hart’s document remains Unite policy, but it has to be said that little has been done to impliment it since it was passed by the EC in December. This has been, in part, because of Unite’s  organisational inertia, its regional autonomy (which severely restricts the extent to which the EC can enforce policy) and – it has to be admitted – a distinct lack of enthusiasm for the Labour Party even amongst activists. As a result more effort has been put into chumming-up with various “left” (and not-so-”left”) MPs in an effort to recreate the Tribune Group circa 1959, than in organising an intervention into the Party. The situation is not helped by the baleful influence of ‘Chief of Staff’ Andrew Murray, an unreconstructed Stalinist and one-time ‘Respect’-supporter who has no alternative to the union’s intervention into the Labour Party, but has no interest in it beyond a wish to see it fail.

Meanwhile, informal negotiations have begun between Unite and the PCS, the non-affiliated civil service union. The prospect of bringing the PCS into Unite (presumably as a distinct Industrial Sector) may also be a factor militating against a more vigorous Labour Party orientation.

What McCluskey has said and written about Miliband and Labour is all true, and needs to have been said. But the truth is, the union has no coherent alternative to a serious orientation to Labour, as outlined in Hart’s document. There is no other realistic prospect for re-establishing working class political representation in the forseeable future. The strategy needs to be implemented as a matter of urgency.

PS: now Kenny of the GMB is threatening disaffiliation.

Advertisement

7 Comments

  1. representingthemambo said,

    Good article.

    Talk of disaffiliation is playing directly into the Blairites hands.
    McCluskey’s intervention is a fine one but now has to be backed up with some action inside the party to hold Miliband and Balls to account for their decision.

    Disaffiliation on the other hand is a complete cop-out and will leave the field free for the leadership to move as far to the right as they so please, further disenfranchising the labour movement. There isn’t any viable alternative to Labour, so the unions need to stay in and fight.

  2. Why disaffiliation would be a massive mistake « Representing the Mambo said,

    [...] by the unions to the leadership and they have often fallen over themselves to capitulate. As this excellent article in Shiraz Socialist highlights, Labour Party democracy is much weaker now than ever before, but even so there are [...]

  3. Faster Pussycat Miaow Miaow Miaow! said,

    The Labour Party should be done under the Trade Descriptions Act – they are long past being a party of labour and are reduced to competing with the Nasty Party to see who can be the most cravenly unprincipled rightwing scum. Rank and file members should demand that their leaderships stop propping up neoliberal anti-worker policies and disaffiliate now.

  4. dave said,

    The move to accept the pay freeze and the cuts has happened because
    the unions and the left failed to put sustained pressure on Miliband
    whereas the blairites have. Its a bit rich of McClusky and Kenny to
    now bother kicking off, still its good they have. Rather then backing
    disaffilation, which in the GMBs case can only stregnthen
    depolitisation of a pretty right wing union, we should be arguing for
    a offensive against the leadership and Blairites. Motions of censure
    of Miliband passed by unions and CLPs, for unions and branches to put
    forward a policy platform against the cuts and do everything they can
    to force this through including causing disruption and bringing down
    Miliband. If we ever want to cause a split based on the grassroots and
    unions to refound labour as a workers party now is the time.

  5. Jim Denham said,

    I see that Jerry Hicks has a letter in today’s Grauniad http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/jan/17/labour-shape-up-ship-out

    which confirms my view that he’s either on congenital liar or simply incapable of understanding clear statements written in plain language.

    He writes that “McCluskey (in his Graun article) never mentions that he supported Ed Miliband’s leadership bid”.

    McClusky wrote: “This confronts those of us who have supported Ed Miliband’s bold attempt to move on from Blairism with a challenge.”

    Hicks then writes “my position is clear and consistent. Unite should only fund the Labour Party when it supports our union’s policies.”

    Clear and consistent? When did he actually state such a position during his Gen Sec camapaign? Not here:
    http://socialistresistance.org/993/what-i-stand-for-jerry-hicks-campaign-to-be-unite-general-secretary

  6. jackhaslam said,

    Good piece Jim. Wish i’d written it.

  7. charliethechulo said,

    Shit! Cover blown! Now write something yourself, Jack.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 67 other followers