Trade unions pushing a particular political party
- This topic has 14 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Should trade unions be pushing a particular political party?
Compass comment
Quote:Falkirk: the end of the fix? To discuss this statement on our website click here
To watch and discuss our series of 'Open Tribe' themed videos click here
The Falkirk affair matters because it is a symptom of a much deeper political malaise – for Labour obviously but for a very old and tired looking party politics in general. Because what is true for Labour is certainly true for the Tories and Liberal Democrats as none of the traditional, mainstream political parties are thriving today.
Labour is in the firing line at the moment but the underlying problem is that an essentially Edwardian institution, the party, is falling apart at the seams. We still need political parties to coordinate and consolidate a programme in and out of government but they need to be radically reinvented whilst they continue to play this role. Real reform will be tough but can’t and mustn’t be impossible. Falkirk displays all the symptoms of what’s going wrong but the causes are structural and deeply cultural.
Political parties have hollowed out in part because there is less they can achieve in a world where power, in the form of corporations and finance, went global and they stayed avowedly national. As their external influence waned they looked to make up the loss through tighter internal control. The economic convergence of parties, who more or less all signed up to a neo-liberal agenda, meant they had to drill their members to accept this new and narrow world and to demonstrate their fitness to govern through their internal discipline. The Green Party and the Party of Wales may be more radical and democratic exceptions but have failed, at least yet, to make an electoral impact that helps break this suffocating mold.
Power for all the mainstream parties has increasingly been located around the leader and their office. The parties have become more and more a machine for the election of an elite to deliver from the top down – a story as true for Labour as the Tories and the Liberal Democrats. In place of the former mass membership parties, politics became an activity for a select, professional elite. And since what mattered was control of the party and therefore the state machine, this became the age of the political fix. Ends justified means. Democracy was just a route to power, never an end in itself.
This command and control model is increasingly out of kilter with the modern world. The end of deference and the rise of new technology that enables instant exchange of information cannot be contained within the arid structures and cultures of parties that have no room and no need for anyone’s voice. The parties impose an identity and expect rigid conformity. Outside in the real world people are busy voting with their feet on the high streets and joining myriad campaigns online. Bottom up political successes like the Living Wage and UK Uncut speak to a politics that is empowering, impactful and often fun.
Labour promises more inquiries and other parties hope the spotlight won’t fall on them but inquiries simply suggest this is all just another technical fault to be fixed by yet more bureaucrats. Whilst an inquiry may tell us if anyone broke the rules it cannot tell us whether a whole political culture is now redundant.
The complexity of the problem demands carefully thought through answers. In future the political parties we need to represent and push for a good society will be light years from the clunky antiquated model we now have. They must be homes for or have strong links to every social class, especially the poorest, while promoting and reflecting gender and race equality. It is going to take time and exploration in order to harness strong values in organisations that are open to new thinking and yes, other parties.
The new culture has to be more open, tolerant, respectful and pluralistic. No single party or organisation has all the answers. Influence and power will come to people and parties who want to reach out, create unlikely alliances and to find answers through negotiation and not imposition.
For all political parties this process is going to demand radical internal democratisation combined with openness to the outside world. State funding would help as, beyond doubt, would voting reform. The days of big strong single party government are over. Our first past the post electoral system failed to deliver single party government in 2010 and will go on failing to do so. After the next election voting reform will move quickly back onto the political agenda. Even the party whipping system must now be scrutinized as a method of control that extinguishes freedom of thought and action.
The nature of political leadership must also be transformed. The idea that a single person can in effect control a party, let alone a nation must now be quietly dropped. There’s an emerging federal system of government emerging in the UK and Westminster needs to catch up with the devolved assemblies and parliaments, in which proportional representation has forced parties to explore a different way of doing politics. Strength today comes from knowing when it is appropriate to lead and when it is necessary to ‘let go,’ trusting others and empowering them to take control of their lives, communities and workplaces. As Aneurin Bevan said ‘The purpose of getting power is to be able to give it away.’
Compass has been working its way through these issues, seen most notably through the move to open our membership out to anyone who shares our good society values of much greater equality, democracy and sustainability. Recently we have championed the notion of the ‘open tribe’ – in recognition that people may root themselves in a party or a single issue but to be successful they now have to learn to work beyond their tribe with others.
Compass always said a transformed Labour Party was a necessary but insufficient vehicle for a good society. Other countervailing forces beyond a UK parliamentary majority, like the trade unions, grassroots movements and the capacity to work with other parties would also be needed. But the transformation of Labour cannot now come soon enough. Labour has to show in opposition how it would govern in office. It must help show that democracy is not a means to an end but is an end in itself. It must show that democracy is not just something to fight for but fight with. As other people sharpen this fight for democracy in Turkey, Brazil and Egypt – where are Labour’s squares of protest and how can the party transform itself, to help transform the political culture of a nation?
Incedible! Ed Miliband is proposing to do something we've been demanding for over 100 years — stop the automatic contracting-in of trade union members to pay a political levy to the Labour Party.When in the early 20th century some unions started giving money from their funds to the Labour Party this was challenged by a member of the Liberal Party called Osborne. He won and we've refused to support the resulting campaign to reverse the "Osborne Judgement":http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1910s/1910/no-75-november-1910/osborne-judgment-why-socialists-do-not-demand-its-The then Liberal government, to retain the parliamentary votes of Labour MPs, did reverse it and unions wsre authorised to set up a political fund, separate from their other funds, from which money could be paid to the Labour Party. Those who objected to contributing to this fund could opt out of paying; otherwise you paid it.To punish the trade unions after the 1926 General Strike the Tory government reversed this in 1927, requiring those who wanted to contribute to the fund to contract in. This lasted till the 1945 Labour government restored the original position, which survives to this day and which Miliband is now proposing should revert to what was introduced in 1927.This is something we can only welcome as we've always criticised workers being in effect tricked into contributing money to the anti-working class Labour Party. Naturally, our members opt out of paying it. If Miliband's proposals go through then we will no longer need to do this.
Great, a victory for the SPGB! On an academic note, its pretty obvious the way groups within Labour line upAgainst TUProgressFor TUSocialist Campaign Group/Labour Representation Committee/Labour BriefingFabian SocietyI can't tell whether Compass "Direction for the Democratic Left" support or oppose trade unions pushing a political party. It's pretty obvious Progress oppose trade unions.
Mind you, at a later stage of development I don't think we would have any objection to the unions giving money to the socialist movement. We just don't want them giving money to pro-capitalist parties.
The point I was trying to make was that as more and more workers became socialists so would those in trade unions, so that these would come to support socialism too, financially and politically. And of course workplace organisations will have a role to play in the establishment of socialism.
Actually, according to Luke Akehurst :
Quote:We are basically asking other unions to follow UNISON’s model of an opt-in affiliated political fund (APF) and a separate general political fund, which seems to work well. It has the advantage of us being able to tell the assorted Trot and Stalinist political parties that like to infiltrate some unions that they are not allowed anywhere near the affiliated political fund or its policies.Now, what happens in practice is that the unaffiliated fund becomes a back-door 'support Labour style policies' fund (believe me, I've tried to opt out of paying my political levy, and it isn't easy). So, this begins to look more and more like a canny move. I'd bet a lot of the Affiliated Fund payers are just there by default, rather than an active choice (someone often helps fill in the form).
Hasn't this got something to do with the fact that UNISON was an amalgamation between NUPE (which was affiliated to the Labour Party) and NALGO (which wasn't)? It would be interesting to know which fund new members pay into unless they contract out and if this depends on where they work, eg ex-NUPE grades into the Labour one and ex-NALGO into the so-called general one? Or do they have a choice of which fund to pay into unless they opt out? Anyway, how many and what percentage of the membership pay to the Labour Party?
I see that the leader of the GMB union estimstes that only 10% of his union members would opt in to paying a levy towards the Labour Party. That sounds about right, but Miliband and his entourage must be really desperate for power if they are prepared to make this huge financial sacrifice to get it. The Tories must be pleased that he is proposing to do what they have never dared to.If the GMB does organise a ballot on affiliation to Labour, maybe we should consider bringing out a leaflet arguing for a No vote. We must have some GMB members. Actually if I was still in my old union (APEX) I'd be one as this was later absorbed by the GMB. i.e you don't have to be a gasworker or a boilermaker.
Remove the large union contributions to Labour Party then the previous but failed proposals to limit financial contributions and instead provide state funding of political parties become more of a possibility. There may be consequences for the likes of ourselves if it happens.
Here's Bob Crow of RMT's take on this. The trouble is he only wants to create a Labour Party Mark 2, but why try to recreate a political form that's failed?
Socialists in the RMT too need to contract out of the political levy, otherwise they will be paying to subside not the Labour Party but the Trotskyists in TUSC (not sure which is worse):http://www.tusc.org.uk/16803/06-07-2013/rmt-conference-re-affirms-union-support-for-tuscInteresting to see that there is still some residual support for Labour in the RMT.
Form of Exemption Notice4. The form of exemption notice shall be as follows:National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers Political Fund (Exemption Notice)I hereby give notice that I object to contribute to the Political Fund of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, and am in consequence exempt, in the manner provided by the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (as amended), from contributing to that Fund.Signature…………………………………………………………………………………..Name of Branch…………………………………………………………………………….Address………………………………………………………………………………………….Date……………………..day of…………………………… 20……………………………5. Any member may obtain exemption by sending such notice to the Secretary of the Branch to which the member belongs and, on receiving it, the Secretary shall send an acknowledgement of its receipt to the member at the address upon the notice, and shall inform the General Secretary of the name and address of the member.5A. Upon the adoption of a political resolution, notice shall be given to members of the union in Great Britain informing them that (a) each member has a right to be exempted from contributing to the union’s political fund; and (b) a form of exemption notice can be obtained by or on behalf of a member either by application at or by post from (i) the head office or any branch office of the union; or (ii) the office of the Certification Officer. Such notice will be given by means of publication in the union’s journal. This rule does not apply to members who are “overseas members” for the purpose of Section 94(3) of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. http://www.rmt.org.uk/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeId=929336. On giving such notice, a member shall be exempt, so long as the notice is not withdrawn, from contributing to the Political Fund as from the first day of January next after the notice is given, or, in the case of a notice given within one month after the date on which a new member admitted to the Union is supplied with a copy of these Rules under Clause 26 hereof, as from the date on which the member's notice is given.
Have you got one for a comrade in the CWU who's desperate to contract out since he's learned that some of his union dues are going to finance the Labour Party? Looks, though, as if he might have to continue contributing for the rest of the year.
Its almost identical. When Blair was still the leader of the opposition he distanced the Labour Party from the surge in strikes within the post office hence these forms were circulated around most of the offices. I would lik to have found out the actual drop in those paying it. Political Fund Exemption NoticeI hereby give notice that I object to contributing to the Political Fund of the Union and am in consequence exempt, in the manner provided by Chapter VI of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, from contributing to that fund. Signature: …………………………………………………… Membership no: ……………………………………………. Address: ..……………………………………………………Date: …………….….…………………..……………………CWU Branch: ………………..……….……………………. 6. Any member may obtain exemption by sending such notice to the Secretary of the Branch to which the member belongs and, on receiving it, the Secretary shall send an acknowledgement of its receipt to the member at the address in the notice, and shall inform the General Secretary of the name and address of that member. 7. 1. On giving such notice a member shall be exempt, so long as his/her notice is not withdrawn, from contributing to the Political Fund of the Union as from either: a) the first day of January next after notice by the member is given, or, b) in the case of a notice given within one month after the notice given to members under Rule 12.3 or after the date on which a new member admitted to the Union is supplied with a copy of these Rules under Rule 12.18, as from the date on which the member’s notice is given.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.