The link between the Trade Unions and the Labour Party is being placed under a microscope. As a result of a growing divergence between the aims and policies of the Labour Party and its affiliated trade unions, the future of the relationship is being openly questioned.
A message of discontent could be heard loud and clear during the conferences of 2001.
- TGWU sources suggested that the union would consider moves towards joint campaigns; working with the Liberal Democrats; sharing platforms and using the union logo on Lib Dem posters at its conference. Yet, it actually voted to maintain and strengthen its link with the Labour Party, and to maintain its current level of affiliation.i The union will also not support the candidates of other political parties and Bill Morris has made it very clear that the Labour Party is ‘the only show in town’. Although the eventual TGWU outcome retained the status quo, the very fact that it voiced ideas about alternative arrangements marked a distinct shift in thinking. Other unions have gone further;
- Unison voted to review its link with the Labour Party;
- the Fire Brigades Union threatened to work with other parties;
- around a third of delegates at the CWU conference voted to fund candidates opposing Labour, although the motion was eventually lost.
In a move of huge significance, the GMB is cutting its financial contribution to the Labour Party because of the ‘privatisation’ of public services. The vote by the union’s executive took place in the aftermath of the Prime Minister’s announcement that public services must ‘reform or bust’.ii The executive also voted to review its financial backing for individual constituencies which could lead to the withdrawal of funding from Labour candidates who support ‘privatisation’ policies.
These events mark a shift in the relationship between the unions and the Party – usually the Party is dominant. With the exception of the late 1970s/early 1980s, trade union leaders have supported the party leadership. During the 1980s and 1990s the trade unions recognised the electoral necessity of reducing their influence on the party, which led to a shrinking in the size of the block vote, the introduction of OMOV etc. The unions always did what was required to get the Party elected but this new situation shows they are leading the political debate and putting their requirements first.
The relationship
Affiliated trade unions are now looking for their ‘pay-off’ after all the years of support – financially, through their memberships etc. Yet what they see is a party failing to deliver for trade union members and pushing through policies, many of which unions are openly hostile to – chief among these being Public Private Partnerships. The euphoria of the Government’s early years – improved workers’ rights, trade union recognition, recognition of unions at GCHQ (hugely symbolic), and the National Minimum Wage – is giving way to disappointment.
There has never been the need for a formal statement which suggests that in exchange for trade union money, Labour Party policies would favour them. Instead, this has always been implicit in the relationship because the goals were common between the two arms of the labour movement. This is no longer always the case.
Funding
After the raft of union legislation of the 1980s/early 1990s, there has been a more stable period. Neither the Nolan Committee nor the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act found any reason to change the regulation of trade union political activity.
In this era of more open financing of political parties, if business people are accused of buying influence, i.e. Bernie Ecclestone with his £1 million donation, then it stands to reason that trade unions can, and have been, open to the same charge. Union leaders continue to enjoy a level of privileged access to the Prime Minister unavailable to others, for instance with dinners at Downing Street.
Challenges
At the heart of the current debate there is a decision to be taken about what Trade Unions want from political parties and politicians, giving rise to questions such as:
- Does the Labour Party remain the party which best represents their views?
- Can they get more for their members inside or outside the Party?
- Are they really representing the interests of members by remaining in a Party which is not reflective of its position?
If a change in the relationship is the best way forward, then do the unions consider more formal relations with the Liberal Democrats or support for bodies on a ‘case-by-case’ basis?
There are those in the Lib Dems who think that more formal relations would add firepower to their claim to be the ‘effective opposition’. Charles Kennedy has made a play for union support – ‘we will never, never, never put profit before transport safety or health or education’ he said at their party conference. The issue goes to the heart of where the Lib Dems see their role in British politics making Kennedy’s response to the trade unions one of the most significant issues facing his leadership. It would also force the party in to confronting its previous aversion towards collective action. The Lib Dems will tread just as carefully as any trade union on the form of new relations between the two.
The alternative, that of an open political ‘market place’, could see unions giving money and support to a number of bodies. Unions would become even more campaign orientated, may fund Liberal Democrat candidates (not the party as a whole), support them on particular issues, openly campaign against Labour Party candidates, withdraw support from unhelpful Labour MPs, engage with other organisations and parties on individual campaigns, and even co-operate with the Conservative Party on specific issues.
But will trade union leaders be content to battle in the market place for influence and power along with other ‘pressure groups’ or will they prefer to maintain an ‘insider’ status and take their chances?
Next Steps
Whilst there remain enough policies in common, the link is not seriously threatened. But if differences continue apace then a new relationship may well be healthy for the trade union movement – providing them with greater independence, and assisting in a re-engagement in politics and activism.
Recent elections to the leadership of the CWU and Fire Brigades Union could mean a recasting of the way in which the unions and the Party have ‘done politics’ over the past few years. This new generation of union leaders may be more willing to challenge the Party leadership.
At this time, however, the Party needs the unions more than ever. The co-operation of the unions is essential element in the Government’s plans for reform of the public service. The Party still relies massively on money from the Trade Unions. The longer the Party is into its term of office, with support naturally falling, the more it will rely on the support and money of trade unions – the Party has already lost around 30,000 members since 1997. This puts the unions in a much stronger position, to bargain for what they want.
However, once one trade union gives a Lib Dem candidate its backing or withdraws support for a Labour candidate, then it becomes ‘acceptable’ and the path is set for others to follow suit.
- i The TGWU’s position is best outlined by Margaret Prosser ‘Let’s Work Together’, Fabian Review, Volume 113 No 3, Autumn 2001
- ii A spokesman for the GMB stated that ‘A number of people were uncertain about whether we should campaign directly against the Government on this (private sector involvement in public services), but it was clear from the Prime Minister’s tone that he intends to push forward with public sector privatisation. We have no option but to oppose to these plans’. Press statement, 17 July 2001