Politics is a cruel game, and there is a developing narrative from some in the Labour Party that next year’s general election campaign is in trouble. According to this sorry tale, all the money has been spent in Scotland, Ed didn’t make a good enough conference speech, and the party is either to rash or too cautious on policy depending on your preference. It is therefore worth stepping back and looking for some perspective.

First of all, while it is fashionable to nostalgically look back at the landslide of 1945, which with the benefit of hindsight was our greatest achievement, how did that election look before the event.

The 1944 conference had a particularly flat mood, as the party was pessimistic about its prospects. And the period of 1943 and 1944 had seen the party riven by factionalism. In 1943 the party had a furious row over the implementation of Beveridge that led to Ernest Bevin withdrawing entirely from party life, and effectively withdrawing the support from the biggest union, TGWU, from the party. This rift was not healed until March 1945. Bevin continued in government, but not as part of the Labour Party.

A considerable constituency in the party believed that a post-war election could not be won, and therefore the priority was to continue in coalition with Churchill to protect wartime gains. Party membership had declined from 428926 in 1938 to just 223929 by 1942. Most unions only affiliated 50% of their membership, and only 48% of union members volunteered to pay the levy: overall the number of trade union sponsored candidates in 1945 was lower than in 1935, declining from 51% to 31%. In most constituencies party organisation was attenuated or non-existent.

Furthermore, the relationship between the party and the unions was under constant attack from the left in this period. Nye Bevan argued that trade union funding was a poisoned chalice “no longer paying affiliation fees to the party” but “paying its burial expenses”.

In 1944 two separate editorials in the (at that time centre-left leaning) Economist argued that the Labour Party was finished, because the trade union base of the party tied it to “conservative sectional interests”, and what was needed was the end of the Labour Party, to be replaced by a new realignment of the left, including the Communist Party, the short lived wartime party called Common Wealth, and various progressive independents.

Nor was the future policy direction of the party uncontested. In hindsight, the achievements were massive, fulfilling the objective of full employment, so that by the end of 1946 a full 7.5 million people had been transferred from the military into civilian employment, and from then on unemployment stood at just 2%. The Trades Disputes Act, the punitive anti-union legislation introduced after the general strike, was abolished. A welfare state was established, and through selective nationalization, a mixed economy was created where the government had more levers to secure policy objectives.

At the time, the left in the party regarded the achievements as inadequate, and the centre right of the party maintained a majority on the then powerful NEC. Only with the benefit of hindsight did the 1945 government become associated with the left of the party.

The massive achievement of Major Attlee’s government was to shift the political consensus; however it is important to recognize that this was not achieved by prior agreement with the Conservatives and Liberals, but by implementing a transformative agenda which left the other parties no option other than to continue with that legacy.

The consensus endured until Margaret Thatcher’s government. And despite the considerable advances during the Blair and Brown governments, the continuing legacy of Thatcherism endures with an economic model which does not meet the needs of the majority of the population. Furthermore, there are many within the Labour Party who are still stuck back in 1997; and who think that minor policy differences with the Conservatives, spun to influence swing voters in marginal constituencies will deliver election victory. But we need more than election victory, we need a Labour government that will address the real life problems of ordinary people.

Indeed, we also have a political system that fails to articulate the interests of ordinary people. This is evidenced not only by the increasing professionalism of the political class, but by the increasing alienation of voters. It is reasonable to assume that at least some of the support for UKIP and Scottish independence reflects a deep disillusionment and cynicism that mainstream politics makes any difference to the lives of ordinary voters.

It is in this context that the left needs to approach next year’s general election. Despite the naysayers and cynics, Ed Miliband does “get it”. There is a need to change our political system and our economy to better serve the interests of ordinary people. To create a society that serves the interests not of bankers and multinational corporations, but of those who work, or who are retired, or want to work; of those who struggle to pay their bills, of those affected by the housing crisis, and of those affected by precarious employment.

If we fail, and we must not fail, to win a Labour government next year, then the Westminster based political class will see this as a signal to retreat back into managerialism, and return to the limits of the Thatcherite consensus.

GMB members employed by contractor ISS at Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Woolwich are taking part in 24 hours of strike action which started at 6am this morning.

Over 200 GMB members are employed by ISS at the hospital as cleaners, security, ward hostesses, caterers, on the switchboard and as porters. Members want the same pay rates and weekend enhancements and unsocial hours rates as the staff directly employed by the Trust.

ISS workers are paid between £7.10 and £7.32 per hour. The lowest rate for directly employed staff is £7.33 ph which moves in yearly increments to £7.51 and £7.69 under the current NHS pay progression system.

ISS staff who work unsocial hours get between 90p – £2:05per hour. As direct staff they would be entitled to time and a half, ISS staff work on Saturday get time and a quarter. As direct staff this would be time and a half. When they work Sunday or a bank holiday they get time and a half. As direct staff this would be double time. ISS also pay less than sick pay for weekend. There are a number of health and safety issues to resolve.

Members are considering calling a demonstration at Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust board meeting on the 14th October. A protest outside the offices of HCP Social Infrastructure (UK) Ltd at 6 Middle Street, London EC1A 7PH where Meridian the PFI Operator is located is also being considered.

Nadine Houghton, GMB Regional Officer, said “GMB members want an end to the two- tier workforce within the hospital. They want the same pay rates and weekend enhancements and unsocial hours rates as the staff directly employed by the Trust.

GMB does not accept that outsourcing mean that public sector employers can simply outsource the responsibility for the staff and duck their responsibilities by arguing that they are employed by someone else. For too long these staff at Queen Elizabeth Hospital have felt undervalued, bullied and exploited. This will not be accepted.

GMB members do not take strike action lightly, especially not in a hospital but members have been left with no choice but go ahead with this official strike action. GMB contacted the Lewisham and Greenwich Trust and ISS months ago and no attempts have been made to meet us to settle the dispute. The Trust should step in to force the PFI contractor for the hospital Meridian Hospitals PLC and ISS to enter into negotiations to avert this stoppage.

Local MP Teresa Pearce has written to Meridian to ask them to help settle the dispute.

Meridian Hospitals PLC paid a dividend of £2, 772, 000 last year. This money is going straight from the public purse into private pockets. A fraction of this money could be used to pay our members what they deserve.

The predecessor project to the Socialist Unity, the Socialist Unity Network website started about ten years ago, and there have been a number of political collaborations along the way. Those associated with the project at one time or another, have included Salman Shaheen and Jim Jepps, Louise Whittle, John Nicholson, and others.

One of the most lasting relationships has been with Mark Perryman of Philosophy Football, and I am delighted to see that the literally self-styled “outfitters of intellectual distinction” are celebrating their 20th anniversary. One of the distinctive traits that SU has tried to champion, is that despite sharp debate, we have never believed that any single part of the left has privileged access to the truth, and there have been a few times when Mark has sharply disagreed with articles or comments on this blog. I regard that as a good thing.

One of the great strengths of Hugh Tisdale and Mark Perryman is that they have robustly ploughed their own furrow, and demonstrated that politics is not one-size-fits-all endeavour. Not only have they produced a huge number of T-shirts that allow people to demonstrate their left wing sensibilities (including a number worn by Tommy Sheridan on Celebrity Big Brother), but they have combined this with organizing a regular series of cultural events. As Mark himself says ” The revolution is just a T-shirt away? Sadly not though by working with the TUC, Unison, Unite, GMB, FBU, RMT and others we’ve found a T-shirt is perhaps one of the best ways to wear our hearts on our sleeves, or to be strictly accurate on our chests! ”

They have also collaborated with other organizations and causes, like Hope Not Hate, and Viva Palestina, and Mark has championed both the Respect party, ( being in particular a great admirer of Selma Yaqoob) and more latterly, Left Unity. Philosophy Football has put both time and money back into the movement, and added their own mix of creative energy.

Mark says that his own proudest moment was presenting the surviving members of Robben Island’s Makana FA with the kits that Philosophy Football had made specially up for them. He added “or the Barking HQ of Hope not Hate full of canvassers against the BNP settling down for lunch under the huge banner we had designed and produced for the campaign, for free. ”

There is an exhibition celebrating their work. Camus, Clough & Counter-Culture: 20 Years of Philosophy Football. Rich Mix, 35-47 Bethnal Green Road, London E1 6LA. 3-31 October, free entry. For further exhibition details here

I was disappointed to see in the Times yesterday, that unsuccessful UNITE leadership candidate, Jerry Hicks, had persevered with his complaint to the certification officer about alleged misconduct in the UNITE general secretary election, seeking to force a rerun.

Union politics is often complicated, and some people did criticise me for previously publicizing the difficulties with UCATT’s GS elections, but in that case more than half of those eligible to vote had not been balloted in accordance with the union’s rule book. The argument for not balloting them may have been sound, but elections must be conducted within the rules, if they are not to bring the union’s democracy into question, and the difference between those entitled to vote and those who could vote was huge. In that case the Certification Office agreed, as UCATT claimed 130000 members, but only balloted 56,867. In that case, the Certification officer David Cockburn said: “In my judgement the election was so flawed as to be a nullity.”

However, in the very different case of Len McCluskey’s reelection, the disputed issue is about 158000 out of compliance electors who were sent ballot papers, of whom only 3% voted, roughly 5000 voters.

McCluskey won the election by a margin of some 60000, and there is no reason to suppose that the overall election result would have been decisively affected.

The benchmark should be whether or not an action leaves the union movement stronger or weaker. To be honest, Jerry Hicks seems to have lost the plot here, and challenging the GS result now can only be a weakening distraction, while hundreds of thousands of Unite members are struggling with precarious employment, low wages, and being squeezed by rising bills and bullying managers.

The following motion was passed two weeks ago at TUC Congress. While this is old news, I have been meaning to write something about TTIP, and simply have not had the time. Hope you find this useful:

Congress is extremely concerned about the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) free trade treaty, a wide-ranging trade deal giving unprecedented power and influence to transnational corporations that would become the benchmark for all future trade agreements, currently being negotiated between the EU and the USA and recognises the threat posed. While there may be economic benefits in reducing trade tariffs and reviewing regulation for certain industrial sectors, Congress believes that the primary purpose of TTIP is to extend corporate investor rights.

A key element of the TTIP is the introduction of the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) clause, which would act as a tribunal/arbitration. The ISDS could see millions of pounds paid out to those big private sector corporations should NHS services be brought back into the public sector in the future.

As with all trade agreements, TTIP is being negotiated mainly in secret. The current negotiations lack transparency and proper democratic oversight.

TTIP would:

a) allow corporations to sue sovereign states, elected governments and other authorities legislating in the public interest where this curtails their ability to maximise their profits, by recourse to an Investor-State Dispute Settlement mechanism;

b) threaten the future of our NHS and other key public services;

c) risk job losses, despite unsubstantiated claims to the contrary;

d) potentially undermine labour standards, pay, conditions and trade union rights as the US refuses to ratify core ILO conventions and operates anti-union “right to work” policies in half of its states;

e) reverse years of European progress on environmental standards, food safety and control of dangerous chemicals, given US refusal to accept stricter EU regulation of substances long banned in the EU; and

f) deprive EU member states of billions of pounds in lost tariff revenue.

Key concerns are:

i) the threat to our National Health Service and sections of the public sector that may be opened up to the private sector leaving a future Labour government with no legal right to take back into public ownership (including previously publicly owned transport and utilities) and that could lead to a far more widespread fragmentation of NHS services, putting them into the hands of big private sector corporations;

ii) the quasi-judicial process on the Investor-State Dispute Settlement under which multinational corporations may sue, in secret courts, nation states whose laws or actions are deemed incompatible with free trade;

iii) opening up European markets to US Frankenstein foods – hormone enriched beef, chlorinated poultry and genetically modified cereals and salmon;

iv) the mutual recognition of regulatory standards which will lead to a race to the bottom and the creation of a Transatlantic Regulatory Council which will give privileged access to multinational corporations; and

v) the impact on creators’ intellectual property rights.

Congress notes that free trade agreements rarely, if ever, benefit working people and are pushed by corporations who use them as a means to maximise profits and further their own interests.

The idea of transatlantic trade may well be supported by those that would profit from it, but for our health services based on values, principles and sustainability it could be a financial disaster, adding another nail in the NHS coffin. The TUC and a number of other organisations have been campaigning to exempt the NHS from the negotiations and Congress now calls on the General Council to keep the pressure on and raise the profile of the calamitous affects the TTIP could have on the NHS.

Congress remains unconvinced by official claims of job creation arising out of TTIP, and considers that the dangers to public services, workers’ rights and environmental standards outweigh any potential benefits. Congress remains unconvinced about the likelihood of a binding labour rights chapter based on ILO Core Conventions.

Congress has similar concerns over current negotiations for the proposed Trade in Services Agreement (TISA) and the Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement (CETA).

Congress believes that on the current path we will be presented with a fait accompli in the form of an inadequate, unacceptable agreement that we have had no chance of influencing or amending and where time will make it difficult to mobilise opposition.

Congress resolves that the TUC should:

1) oppose Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanisms and a ratchet clause;

2) call for the exclusion of all public services, including education and health, public procurement, public utilities and public transport (whether in public or private ownership) from the negotiations;

3) demand no levelling down in relation to consumer, worker or environmental protection;

4) insist on genuine consultation with civil society organisations, including trade unions;

5) work with like-minded organisations, including the ETUC, in opposing all detrimental aspects of TTIP and in campaigning for alternative EU trade and investment policies; and

6) welcome the decision of the EU Foreign Affairs Council on Trade to exclude the audio-visual sector from the initial TTIP agenda, and lobby the UK government to oppose its future inclusion, in order to preserve the European Cultural Exception and the unique national nature of arts and entertainment activity within Europe.

Congress therefore resolves that the trade union movement should now call for the TTIP negotiations to be halted and adopt a clear position of outright opposition to TTIP, and the other trade agreements currently being negotiated, whilst continuing to monitor progress and press for improvements to promote decent jobs and growth and safeguard labour, consumer, environmental and health and safety standards through lobbying, campaigning and negotiating, in alliance with the ETUC and AFLCIO.

Congress agrees that all pending and future trade agreements entered into by the EU should be subject to a vigorous and transparent regime of scrutiny and consultation, ensuring that they are of benefit and acceptable to the millions of people affected by their content, in all countries covered by the agreement.