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.