And One Nation is about governing for the whole country.
To do this we are going have to build a new kind of Labour Party.
A new relationship with individual trade union members.
Some people ask: what’s wrong with the current system?
Let me tell them: we have three million working men and women affiliated to our party.
But the vast majority play no role in our party.
They are affiliated in name only.
That wasn’t the vision of the founders of our party.
I don’t think it’s your vision either.
And it’s certainly not my vision.
That’s why I want to make each and every affiliated trade union member a real part of their local party.
Making a real choice to be a part of our party.
So they can have a real voice in it.
And why is that such an exciting idea?
Because it means we could become a Labour party not of 200,000 people, but 500,000 or many more.
A party rooted every kind of workplace in the country.
A party rooted in every community in the country.
A genuine living, breathing movement.
Of course, it is a massive challenge.
It will be a massive challenge for the Labour Party to reach out to your members in a way that we have not done for many years and persuade them to be part of what we do.
And like anything that is hard it is a risk.
But the bigger risk is just saying let’s do it as we have always done it.
It is you who have been telling me year after year about a politics that is detached from the lives of working people.
That’s why we have to have the courage to change.
I respect those who worry about change.
I understand.
But I disagree.
It is the right thing to do.
We can change.
We must change.
And I am absolutely determined this change will happen.
It is the only way we can build a One Nation party.
So we can build a One Nation country.
It is a bit short of detail, which may be a blessing.
What strikes me as remarkable is the total acquiescence by the Liberal Democrats, who see themselves as the custodians of the tradition of John Stuart Mill, in an illiberal restriction of democracy.
True democracy is not just about elections, but also in the interchange of competing ideas, not just from political parties, but also from think tanks, academics, interested individuals, trade unions, corporations, charities, newspapers, trade associations, churches and religious groups, residents associations, blogs and chatrooms, and the whole interconnected wonder of modern civil society.
The resulting discussion and debate, the scrutiny, and the competing poles of rival consensus that derive from this process are the very blood of democracy. Indeed, these are more essential to a functioning democratic society than the formality of electoral process.
A legitimate aim of legislation to restrict lobbying would be to restrict those who are already rich and powerful, and who already enjoy privileged access and influence, from crowding out other voices in pursuit of narrow self interest. But the professional lobbyists will be left largely unscathed by the government’s proposed bill.
Ed Miliband’s speech tomorrow at the TUC may well define the rest of his political career.
One of the most useful contributions to the debate about Ed Miliband’s proposed changes to the Labour Party has come from Luke Akehurst, who I am sure would not mind being referred to as representative of the traditional centre-right in the party. In a letter to the Guardian, Luke writes:
I read with deep concern about the GMB’s decision to cut its affiliation to and funding of the Labour Party. Labour First, the network of Labour moderates committed to the trade union link, argued in our submission to Ray Collins’s review of the link that trade unionists should not just have individual voices in the Labour party but that Ed Miliband’s reforms should be pursued in a way that is compatible with maintaining what the GMB describes as “collective engagement of trade unions in the party they helped to form”.
This is an expression of Labour’s collectivist rather than individualist values as a party. This is not an issue about left and right in the Labour party – the unions along with local government have historically been the pillars of the moderate Labour tradition. Luke Akehurst Secretary, Labour First
The bizarre aspect of the current row is that Ed MIliband is doing a good job as leader of opposition, and he has shown he has the skill to set the policy agenda from the opposition benches: over Syria, over executive pay and over Levenson.
While millions of British people worry about the security of their jobs and over increases in food prices; while tens of thousands – including many in work – have been forced to use food banks; while essential services are being cut; this is the time Ed MIliband has chosen to tilt at windmills.
Usually Ed has a good head for looking beyond the froth and speculation of Portcullis House, and the “Thick of It” rumblings of the Westminster chatterers, and has chosen instead to talk about the real issues, that affect real people. But on this occasion he has mucked up, and picked a fight he doesn’t need to have.
The decision of GMB to reduce its funding of course does not affect that union’s crucial voting strength in 2014, when a special rules revision conference, and the annual conference preceding the general election will take place. However, it does give Ed MIliband a cold insight from the ghost of Christmas Future of what his proposals would mean, not only in terms of hard cash, but also of lost goodwill and moral authority within the wider labour movement. Miliband should not forget that trade unions are more trusted by both their members and the general public than politicians; and his job is to oppose the Conservative led government, not force a divisive row within his own party.
“This United Left urges UNITE Executive Council to defend the Labour/Trade Union link when considering the Union’s response to Ed Miliband’s proposals. Whilst we support the encouragement of more active participation by union members in the life of the Party, we cannot accept that the collective representative role of the Trade Unions is abandoned or any reduction in voting strength or representation. This would be a victory for the Blairites and the right wing generally as without the Trade Unions as a collective force in the Labour Party, the Party will swing further to the right and the voice of progressive politics inside Labour will be lost”
And Len himself is now speaking much more in tune with the other union leaders, he recently said:
“The relationship that we have with the Labour Party is on a collective basis. That’s what trade unions operate on – collectivism – and its important that people don’t try to [change] collectivism to individualism”
What is at stake is the relationship between the Labour Party and the trade unions as collective and democratic organisations in their own right. 15 unions, with some 3 million members, have democratically decided, though their own representative structures and conferences that the best interests of their members are served by seeking a Labour government, and pursuing their own policy objectives through the Labour Party.
Many trade union activists, and members, broadly support this approach in wanting a Labour government, and of course voting Labour, without feeling sufficiently engaged with the party to want to be members, let alone active members. It is entirely sensible for unions to articulate within the Labour Party not only the support of the most keen, but also the more lukewarm support for Labour from their members. It is a challenge for the party to inspire and solidify that support, and engagement with the unions as collective organisations is a help not a hindrance.
After all had the last Labour government listened to the unions more over issues like Iraq, housing, employment rights and private contractors in the NHS, Labour would be in a stronger position now.
Miliband’s backed himself into a corner and desperately needs a way out.
Promising to outlaw zero-hours contracts which equal zero pay some weeks, or axing the malicious Bedroom Tax, are policy answers.
Union leaders furious with Miliband still want a Labour Government.
Common values should unite, not divide. Miliband could do worse than to remember the words of the great union leader Jack Jones on fractious Labourunion links: “Murder yes, divorce never.”
What Miliband desperately needs to understand is that for next year’s proposed special conference, then he may not have the votes either from the CLPs or the unions. He has simply failed to persuade either the membership in the constituencies or the unions.
It would be high stakes indeed for him to make this a question of personal confidence in him as leader, with a demand to “back him or sack him”, as it might well backfire. With goodwill and professionalism a compromise can be found that will leave the fundamental nature of the party unchanged, but still meet Ed’s objective of greater engagement with individual union members – let us hope that common sense prevails.
Speaker: Richard Gott
Introduction by: Ken Livingstone
Chair: Kate Hudson CND Gen Sec
Venue: Khalili Lecture Theatre, School of Oriental & African Studies
University of London, Thornhaugh Street, Russell Square, London WC1H 0XG
Nearest tube station: Russell Square
Richard Gott is a journalist and historian, whose works include ‘Guerrilla movements in Latin America’ (1970), ’In the Shadow of the Liberator: The Impact of Hugo Chávez on Venezuela and Latin America’ (2001), ‘Cuba: A New History’ (2004) and ‘Hugo Chávez and the Bolivarian Revolution’ (2005)
Redmond O’Neill Memorial Lecture
Places can be reserved by email to redmondoneillmemoriallecture@gmail.com
Further details here:
GMB statement following CEC meeting yesterday Tuesday 3rd September 2013
“The GMB Central Executive Council (CEC) has voted to reduce its current levels of affiliation to the Labour Party from 420,000 to 50,000 from 2014.
This will reduce the union’s basic affiliation fee to the Labour Party by £1.1m per year.
It is expected that there will be further reductions in spending on Labour Party campaigns and initiatives.
GMB CEC expressed considerable regret about the apparent lack of understanding that the proposal mooted by Ed Miliband will have on the collective nature of trade union engagement with the Labour Party.
A further source of considerable regret to the CEC is that the party that had been formed to represent the interest of working people in this country intends to end collective engagement of trade unions in the party they helped to form.
The CEC also decided to scale down by one third the level of it’s national political fund.”
The legendary manager of Liverpool, Bill Shankly, was born in the Ayrshire mining village of Glenbuck 100 years ago today.
A lifelong socialist, the first song he learned as a child was the Red Flag. He brought his socialist principles to the game he loved, when it was still the ‘people’s game’, successfully forging Liverpool from its lowly status as a Second Division club to the force it would become in British, European and world football.
Shankly quotes:
‘Football is a simple game based on the giving and taking of passes, of controlling the ball and of making yourself available to receive a pass. It is terribly simple’.
‘Aim for the sky and you’ll reach the ceiling. Aim for the ceiling and you’ll stay on the floor’.
‘I’m a people’s man – only the people matter’.
‘The trouble with referees is that they know the rules, but they do not know the game’.
‘Chairman Mao has never seen a greater show of red strength’.
Shankly to the Brussels hotel clerk who queried his signing ‘Anfield’ as his address on the hotel register – ‘But that’s where I live’.
On awaiting Everton’s arrival for a derby game at Anfield, Shankly gave a box of toilet rolls to the doorman and said – ‘Give them these when they arrive – they’ll need them’!
‘The socialism I believe in is everybody working for the same goal and everybody having a share in the rewards. That’s how I see football, that’s how I see life’.
The dictum that a week is a long time in politics has never been more accurate when we consider the proposed military action against Syria and how what began as the unfolding of the same old script, dictating Britain’s eager participation in joint military action with the US, ended in a momentous defeat for the principal of interventionism.
At the beginning of the week a US-led military strike against Syria, beginning this weekend, seemed assured. Statements emanating from Washington, London, and Paris conformed to the same bellicose and Churchillian rhetoric we’ve become used to over the past decade of western military interventions and adventures. The ships and aircraft had been deployed to the region and the focus of the commentariat, political analysts, and military experts had shifted from ‘if’ to ‘when’ the attack was going to take place, with the only thing left to ponder how big, probable targets, and outcomes.
No one could have predicted that the British parliament would not only refuse to endorse David Cameron’s motion for support in principle for Britain’s participation in the military operation, but that it would also vote against Ed Miliband’s amendment supporting military action once the UN inspectors had reported back to the UN.
It shouldn’t be forgotten that both Cameron’s and Miliband’s justification for military action – i.e. humanitarian intervention bypassing the UN – would have constituted a breach of international law. No such provision exists within international law for one state or any constellation of states to take aggressive military action by themselves on this basis.
The credit for not only the British government’s defeat in the Commons, but now also the Obama administration’s U-turn with its decision to seek Congressional approval before they themselves embark on military action, lies with the British public. Opinion poll after opinion poll in the days leading up to the parliamentary debate revealed a clear consensus against military action. If the reply I received from my own constituency MP to my letter demanding a No vote is anything to go by, MPs were deluged with messages and phone calls from members of the public on the issue.
The result not only rocked the British Establishment, it has clearly rocked Washington, giving succour and momentum to a rising tide of antiwar sentiment in the US.
The shadow of Iraq undoubtedly loomed large of events this week, but so did an understanding of what the specific dynamic of the Syrian conflict involves, brilliantly argued by George Galloway in his speech during the debate. If Britain had voted to join the US and France in a combined action against Syria this week, it would have effectively meant all three countries entering a military alliance with Al Qaeda. The Nusra Front – an Al Qaeda affiliate – is the largest, best armed and funded of the opposition forces currently fighting the Syrian government, and would have been the main beneficiaries of any such military strike, lending them a morale boost at a time when the Syrian army and its allies are on the offensive.
Just pause to consider this for a moment. The British government would have been joining forces with the same ideology that was behind the atrocities of 9/11, 7/7, the Madrid bomb, and most recently and horrifically the murder of Lee Rigby in Woolwich.
So, yes, the British public certainly takes the credit for the remarkable turnaround that we’ve seen this week when it comes to British foreign policy and its relationship with Washington. Hopefully it marks the beginning of the end of the so-called special relationship, wherein Britain has consistently filled the role of obedient and eager satrap in service to US power and hegemony around the world.
At this juncture a few words need to be said about the antiwar movement.
I used to be active with the Stop the War Coalition and I still support the work they do, even if I disagree with their analysis on certain issues. The fact they’ve remained in existence this long is a laudable achievement and those involved deserve credit for remaining staunch for so long, particularly through the lean years.
Where I strongly disagree is with the assertions being made by some within Stop the War that the defeat suffered by Cameron and other pro interventionists in Syria this past week was down to them. This is false.
The bulk of the credit for this week’s vote belongs to those who’ve resisted the West’s decade long assault in the region with their lives. The Afghan and Iraqi people ensured that Britain’s military presence in their respective countries has come at a heavy price, too heavy to make anything other than a slam dunk – ala Libya – worth the risk of getting embroiled in another quagmire. By any objective measure it has been the extent of resistance to the US-led occupations of their respective countries that has truly shaped British public opinion when it comes to the concept of interventionism.
Though the bulk of the political class would never dare acknowledge it, the truth is that Britain’s military involvement in both Afghanistan and Iraq ended in military defeat. British forces were more or less chased out of Basra and lost on the ground in Helmand. In both cases they had to be bailed out by the US.
The antiwar movement’s role as a political pole of resistance has undoubtedly been a significant factor in ensuring the British public never forgets Blair’s execrable role and the lies he concocted to take the country into the war in Iraq. But if Iraq had gone according to plan – i.e. it had been pacified at none too great a cost – there is little doubt Britain’s appetite for similar ‘humanitarian interventions’ and military adventures would have continued unabated.
The role of the Iraqi and Afghan people in diminishing the British Establishment’s and a large section of British society’s addiction to war against the people of the Global South should never be forgotten.
That’s your lot for August/September. If you know of any new blogs that haven’t featured before then drop me a line via the comments, email or Twitter. Please note I’m looking for blogs that have started within the last 12 months. The new blog round up appears on the first Sunday of every month, and is also cross-posted to A Very Public Sociologist.
