The Union Relationship

One of the central talking points of the current leadership election has been the influence wielded by the affiliated trade unions over internal Labour affairs, with Unite coming under heavy scrutiny in particular. The partisan press along with the BBC seem to have put a lot of focus on "red Len" and his power within the party, presumably because until the oppurtunity to talk about "red Andy" comes along in September there needs to be a contingeny strategy in order to fill the void of anti left-wing sentiment left behind follwing Miliband's resignation. Nevertheless despite unwelcome infighting which has undoubtedly helped promote the media's agenda on the issue, I've been rather surprised by the intensity of it all, particularly in the context of the recent electoral rule changes. Watching question time on Thursday - aside from a brief mention of the rule changes by Stella Creasy and Owen Jones, you could quite easily be lead to believe that the Labour leader is decided in a back room by the general secretaries of the affiliated unions.

There also exists a strange degree of cynicism behind all media coverage of the union link, which at worst overlooks the fact that under both old and new systems it was individual union members who voted, not just union leaderships, and at best moves the goalposts after being confronted with this knowledge by pointing out that the union often sends a leaflet to each voting member detailing who the leadership believes would make the best candidate. Union members are represented as so easily swayed that this interjection instantly voids the whole process' democrati legitimacy. At this juncture I feel it's also worth highlighting that despite their "baron" status union leaders are indeed themselves democratically elected by their union members, which makes the latter of the two arguments even more tenuous to make convincingly without practically accusing union members of being incapable of rational thought. More people elected McCluskey as head of Unite than elected David Cameron as leader of the Conservative Party. As comedian David Schneider first observed on Twitter, why in a political culture which thinks nothing of newspaper party endorsements and which readily dismissed Chomskian dominant ideology theories of media are the beliefs of democratically elected union leaders seen as authoritatively binding upon ordinary union members?

What's also often sadly left out of the discussion is the fact that unions are almost universally popular within the Labour party. In fact based upon the opinions of members I've met so far in my limited experience of Labour Party politics, I'd go as far as saying that most rank and file members more often than not agree with the gist of what McCluskey and other likeminded union leaders have said regarding the party's core beliefs. I've listened to many people express discomfort at the business sources from which Progress receives its funding (Progress is a generally pro-third way pressure), while I've yet to meet a member who is uncomfortable with the existing union relationship.

Despite my previous defences however, as far as figures within the party go Len McCluskey is undoubtedly an important one. In an ideal world I'd like to see all parties funded centrally in order to reduce any possibility of financial coercion. In this ideal world the Labour party could then voluntarily enhance its union links in order to keep the unions where they should be as arguably the most important part of the Labour movement, although whether the Labour party would do so in the event of fiscal freedom is another matter... However I suspect that what really damages the unions is also what makes union funding the cleanest in politics, which is that McCluskey, like many other union leaders makes his positions clear on what he wants to see delivered by the Labour party in the future. This outspoken quality, like most other aspects of the union relationship is transparent to both party members and the general public alike. Regrettably however this also makes the unions easy targets for media accusations of coercion and bribery. The Conservatives on the other hand manage to silently dwarf Labour’s total sum of party funding through a largely surreptitious and clandestine network of powerful donors and sympathetic businesses. The media will to scrutinise this relationship seems to be lacking, and even if the desire to do so spontaneously arose, a private donor dinner with Cameron costs £50 000, which is awfully expensive when considering that revealing an equivalent union opinion requires only a weekend's camping at Tolpuddle. Which unlike David Cameron's dinners is reasonably priced at £40, and in most cases would be much more enjoyable for any investigative journalist involved…

Unions, like all organisations which contain a degree of internal and external power have their intrinsic faults. However fundamentally it should be a source of pride that the Labour Party is funded by Britain’s largest democratic movement, a movement which seeks to represent and empower millions of ordinary working people throughout their working and retired lives. The alternative model of funding, which sadly remains largely unscathed by the investigations of mainstream news media strikes me as far more undesirable.

The Labour Party Leadership Contest

The dust is starting to settle following May 7th's resounding general election defeat, and as such the Labour Party leadership contest seems to be gaining a higher degree of clarity. Shadow Health Secretary Andy Burnham is attempting to adopt a catch-all strategy in relation to Miliband's previous leadership by indicating that he seeks to carry on representing each and every section of British society, rather than just concentrating on the appeasement of small groups. This - due to to the timing of its release was an evident response to calls from neo-Blairites/neo-modernisers* (*delete where appropriate) for Labour to rediscover its ability to win over "aspirational" voters, which in the context of criticising Miliband presumably includes anyone who earns over £150,000, owns a mansion and doesn’t use the NHS/state school system/flood defences etc. Burnham appears to have successfully won the support from the Labour left, most likely as he's the only candidate who hasn't to some degree repudiated the sensibilities behind making political issues out of 0-hour contracts and low pay. However as far as long term left wing positioning goes Burnham isn’t particularly held as the candidate to make progress, more as the candidate to try and hold on to as many of the very minimal gains made under Miliband as possible.

Standing diametrically opposed to Burnham is Liz Kendall, or at least to the extent to which diametric opposition is possible in the context of what's ostensibly acceptable for the Labour Party to talk about in public. Kendall supports "modernising" the party in order to make it more electable, which is clearly in line with comments made by the likes of Mandelson immediately post-election. Kendall has also made it clear that Labour need to get more in line with the Conservatives in relation to public spending, sadly doing so by expediently capitalising on the half truth of past "Labour profligacy" which served the Conservatives so well in the electon campaign. Kendall also appears reticent to cut tuition fees and has publicly backed the free school programme, these positions were they to be enacted would almost certainly place Labour to the right of the Lib-Dems, particularly if they elect Tim Farron as their next leader.

Placed in between the two candidates is Yvette Cooper, who as far as I can tell has opted to play the motherhood and apple pie role of arguing that Labour needs to be "pro-business" without clarifying whether her "pro-business" approach would implicitly necessitate the abandonment of policies and positions designed to alleviate the struggles of society's most vunerable, both in and out of work. While this is a position I couldn't find myself aligning with, in order to save time while writing this post I will instead opt to focus more on Kendall's campaign and the arguments by those of the "moderniser" persuasion in relation to the party's future.

Since the election two weeks ago a considerable amount of column inches on left wing media has been taken up by individuals arguing for an approach more remniscent of the Blair years. However the thing I find strange about this approach, particularly when it's defined by those most closely linked to Blairism as a philosophy such as Mandelson and Kendall, is that it tends to be entirely disjointed from the realities of Blair's 1997 campaign. The first Blair government introduced the minimum wage, sought to eradicate pensioner/child poverty, introduced the Human Rights Act and brought into being a windfall tax on the privatised utilities. Whilst accepting that the political landscape is currently different due to a weak post-recession economy, the 2015 manifesto launched under supposedly "red Ed" was far more cautious than Blair's 1997 manifesto. 1 million people are currently using foodbanks, a sizeable proportion of whom are children. Yet in the wake of the election Miliband's mildly anti-poverty policy package, which aimed to "reduce" foodbank use (not even eliminate it) was written off as damaging to the aspirations of a large chunk of the British population. This is despite the fact that central to the "third way" ideology promoted by Blair is the concept of providing an equal start for all, something which is extremely unlikely to be the case for those children whose parents can't afford to feed them adequately. As Ian Lavery has said, This isn't 1997, and the "moderniser" approach towards tuition fees, poverty and working conditions is entirely different from anything enacted by the Labour government in 1997. As far as winning future elections goes we will be in untested waters whichever way the party moves, as such it’s probably sensible to think about what’s right and what we can convincingly argue for rather than reverting back into some sort of 1997 safety mode. The public are growing increasingly tired of platitudinous politics, as exemplified by the rise of minor parties and falling voter turnouts. If the Labour Party decides to pursue a morally disingenuous strategy in the pursuit of "electability" it will only be ensuring its own long term decline.

There's are also other risks of pursuing such an amoral strategy. During the lead up to the election I often found the use of “they’re all the same” by certain minor parties rather cynical, as in my opinion it knowingly overstated the power of the right within the party, painting internal Labour politics as a lost cause not worth engaging with for anyone of a leftish persuasion as well as glossing over what were still large and often life changing spending differences between us and the Conservatives. Although that's not to say that there wasn't a lot of room to do more and inspire hope more than we ultimately managed to. However with the background of our declining heartlands confronted with the dual threat of a UKIP surge and the often shockingly neglected rates of uninspired and unrepresented non-voters, I’m rather concerned about the possibility of a right wing victory in this leadership contest for the health of the party. I will wait to fully judge the next Labour leader based upon policies, but so far I’ve rather worryingly got the impression that there could be a genuine possibility in the event of a Kendall victory of adopting the rhetorical stance of the Conservatives but with the scant consolation of an added emphasis on education spending. For the millions of people suffering due to archaic welfare policies, and for those who would like to see inequality become a central political issue for the 21^st century this shouldn't be allowed to happen.