Some Fixers are Better than Others: Ed and the Unions



I was feeling a lot more positive about Ed Miliband’s proposed Labour Party reforms before yesterday’s speech than afterwards.

Intervening to change Labour’s relationship with the major trades unions is a bold (and necessary) move, but the devil will be in the detail of ensuing discussions between the party and the unions. That is where Miliband will really need to show his mettle.

It is too early to tell where this will lead, but I am not seeing a genuine attempt to reform the way the Labour Party works.

In public, Ed is using conciliatory language towards the major unions, rather than telling them the truth, which is that they are declining institutions, attached to a likewise declining Labour Party. This is understandable and perhaps necessary politically, but it puts him on the back foot.

The unions depend on Labour to do what they want when in power – the more the better (there is plenty of good common ground in looking out for ordinary working people, but this is only a part). In turn Labour depends on those same unions for funding.

Labour and those unions (not all – the shopworkers’ union USDAW is a noticeable exception) have been engaging in an increasingly drunken embrace, dragging each other down by concentrating on the relationship of power at a central level. Both struggle (if they even bother) to engage with most ordinary people in the unions or outside.

It is a diseased relationship and desperately needs reform.

Ed has made it clear that things need to change in Labour, but are the union bosses prepared to face up to their own failures and the poor state of the institutions they run? Are they prepared to open up and reform themselves to be more outward-looking and relevant to the ‘ordinary working people’ they claim to represent, or are they so weak that there is no spirit for renewal within them?

Specifically on Ed’s proposals, I am also concerned about the absence of genuine attempts to address Labour’s fixing culture. As the proposals stand, there will be a code of conduct for selection candidates, but nothing for party officials – so all the mechanisms of fixing by organised factions and others, including the unions, will remain in place. 

Labour’s paraphernalia of favouritism, which is a crucial component of the fixing apparatus (and of which the most visible manifestation is the All Women Shortlist for candidate selections) will also remain firmly in place. Open primaries may only take place where the local Labour Party is almost dead.

This is the new and improved version of Labour Party democracy.

At first sight, considering the proposals and listening to the mood music, the potential new compact doesn’t look much better than the previous version, and that is before the negotiations with the major unions begin. Barons like Len McCluskey will not give up their power without a fight.

It is also interesting in the fixing debate to look at the role of Labour’s ‘women’'s lobby, and in particular the Labour Women’s Network (LWN).

For me, the LWN seems to be doing what Unite and the other major unions have been trying to do, but a hell of a lot better: having a huge influence on the way the party goes about its business while remaining almost completely under the political radar.

Ed could not deliver a speech on party reform without proclaiming his support for the LWN’s agenda of female preference. If he did, he would be in serious trouble with a highly organised and mobilised interest group.

Whatever happens with Ed’s party reforms, institutionalised fixing will surely remain a core part of Labour’s internal machinery. It is partly a matter of some fixers being better than others.

In this context, Ed’s ideas are a step in the right direction, but we have a long way to go if we are to achieve a truly democratic and representative Labour party.

Comments

Post a Comment

All comments, however critical, will be accepted as long as they are not personal and/or abusive.

Popular posts from this blog

Schopenhauer on Hegel: "A flat-headed, insipid, nauseating, illiterate charlatan."

There's nothing like a good insult or two, and if you're looking for insults in philosophy, you need look no further than Arthur Schopenhauer's comments on his German contemporary, the much more popular and successful Friedrich Hegel.  Schopenhauer suggested as a motto of Hegel’s philosophy some words of Shakespeare: ‘s uch stuff as madmen tongue and brain not’. He added : " Hegel, installed from above, by the powers that be, as the certified Great Philosopher, was a flat-headed, insipid, nauseating, illiterate charlatan, who reached the pinnacle of audacity in scribbling together and dishing up the craziest mystifying nonsense. This nonsense has been noisily proclaimed as immortal wisdom by mercenary followers and readily accepted as such by all fools, who thus joined into as perfect a chorus of admiration as had ever been heard before. The extensive field of spiritual influence with which Hegel was furnished by those in power has enabled him to ac...
Read more

Why Islamists and feminists avoid confronting each other

Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of our system of diversity is the way feminists and Islamists avoid directly confronting each other. Their ideologies are utterly opposed to each other, but within the system they are allies, so maintain distance and attack others. We can see this in how feminists resolutely avoid picking up on specifically Islamic-related instances of actual misogyny and discrimination in action. They nearly always stick to generalities and abstractions about the world or society as a whole, as Fawcett Society chief executive Sam Smethers does in telling Owen Jones that , “We have a very misogynistic culture in the UK.” In this version of reality, there is a single culture – or at least all the cultures we have come from the same root - and it is ‘very misogynistic’. This is the ‘patriarchy’ theory that is remarkably popular in the upper echelons of the liberal-left, just as it is among young feminists coming out of their Gender Studies courses at universit...
Read more

Immigration: our public debate misses the main point

Our public debate on immigration in Britain almost always focuses entirely on money and thereby misses the main point, a point that our political-media class finds difficult to deal with and that many regard as almost illegitimate. This is how people feel . It is emblematic of the state of democracy in Britain that any sort of negative opinions about immigration routinely get shouted down and lambasted as ‘wrong’ by the siren voices of people and institutions, most of which are on the supposedly ‘liberal-left’ side of politics. It is particularly disturbing the way that anyone who talks about negative effects of immigration is routinely attacked (often by hordes of lefty people on Twitter) as ‘racist’. These voices have a huge and in my view poisonous impact on the debate, forcing anyone who wants to make some nuanced points about immigration and identity into defending themselves against charges of racism, which is well established as one of the the worst offences one...
Read more