The unions’ grip threatens Labour election hopes

Organisations in search of a role – that’s what is posing the problem for the trade unions affiliated to the Labour Party. The undignified barracking of the Labour leader this week, a leader they insisted on electing against the wishes of ordinary Labour Party rank-and-file members, demonstrates the complete confusion of the unions as they seek effectively to oppose cuts in the public sector.

Ed Miliband was absolutely right to remind them that he had opposed the earlier one-day strikes against the Tory cuts, which achieved nothing but a hostile reaction from the public affected. But the Labour leader rather dodged the fundamental reason why more strikes are ill-advised. He fell back on the argument that negotiations should be concluded before embarking on industrial action. But it is the unions that are correct in arguing that these negotiations are a sham, in that the government has no intention of changing its stance.

The real reason for opposing industrial action is exactly that: strikes are not going to move the government. In fact, the government will secretly welcome them. All one-day token strikes will do is enrage the people whose working days are disrupted by them. That will turn them further against Labour and hamper the return of a government more sympathetic to the public sector. Maybe Less-than-Red Ed felt he had been honest enough for one day. But the same question of his support will come up again when negotiations inevitably fail. He must come up with the same answer: any strikes on this issue are counterproductive.

This argument frustrates active trade unionists. “What do you suggest we do instead?” they ask. The answer I give, which they do not like either, is: “In the short run, nothing”. But the facts are plain to see. If Labour is to win the election it needs to win seats in the south-east of England. It is in those seats around the London commuter belt that hostility to strikes and to what is seen as excessive union power is strongest, and where disruption felt is greatest. The logic is inexorable. Strikes play into the Tories’ hands. It is political insanity to persist with them.

The fear for the Labour leadership is that the voting public has not yet bought Labour’s explanation of the recession as a global phenomenon and is blaming the previous government for mismanaging the economy. Union resistance to the coalition’s efforts to reduce the deficit are seen to be part of the same economic mishandling.

Better that the unions direct their energies to increasing their membership in the private sector. Apart from the railways, the unions are powerful only in the public sector. And apart from USDAW, which is active among supermarket workers, they are making no headway within private firms. This is despite one of the many pieces of union-friendly legislation introduced by Tony Blair. If a majority of workers voting agree to have a trade union, then the unions have a right to organise there. The unions have failed to capitalise on this and to organise where they are most needed. Instead they are concentrated in the public sector, where the whole ethos and rules are much more employee-centric. It’s the easy option.

Every Labour Party member knows that the unions founded their party and that they still pay 90 per cent of the bills. It is right that the unions should continue to have a major say in party policy. But when that influence is not used benignly or responsibly and, in fact, works against the movement’s political objectives, it is up to the other, equally important parts of the party to speak up.

The unions skewed the national leadership election against David Miliband, the candidate generally thought to offer Labour the best electoral chance, in favour of Ed, who they decided would better protect their vested interests. The same electoral college system is in place to be used in the upcoming Scottish leadership election. Jim Murphy MP and Sarah Boyack MSP shirked the tackle in failing to recommend one member, one vote as their preferred system when they submitted their review on the future of the party in Scotland last week. They did so because of resistance from the unions, who are not only determined to defend the status quo north of the Border but want to ensure that no precedent is set for future UK leadership elections.

As things stand, when the party comes to elect its new Scottish leader, the trade unions will command almost one third of the votes in the electoral college. The way those votes go is determined by voting among members of affiliated trade unions who have not opted out of paying a political levy. They don’t have to be Labour Party members. They don’t even have to be Labour voters. It is a unique organisation that allows non-members to have a say in who its leader is. It’s a peculiar one that allows its opponents a vote. The democratic way is to allow one member, one vote across all those who are members of the party in Scotland. And it is a measure of the determination of the unions to hold on to their power that they will not countenance this.

Tom Harris, one of the candidates for the Scottish leadership, has proposed a middle way. He wants a one member, one vote election, with trade union members who pay the political levy being allowed to vote on exactly the same basis as full Labour Party members.

This generous suggestion could still come to pass. The Scottish Conference on 29 October will have full control as to how the election is run, and it could introduce a system to replace the electoral college if it so wished. There is not the same need for trade unions as there was when a century ago they came together to combine industrial and political action. But they are still badly needed. Without unions, workers would be confronted by hostile and unforgiving governments and employers. That is why they must quickly rediscover their way. Taking industrial action against employers for industrial purposes and leaving the political initiatives which confront the government to their political wing is the first step in their redefinition.