Registered user login:

Bright'sBlog

Bright's Blog

Politics uncovered by Martin Bright, New Statesman political editor

Bright's Blog Homepage

The dinosaurs, right all along

  • Posted by Martin Bright
  • 13 September 2007

The Inside Track with Martin Bright at the TUC plus Tara Hamilton-Miller, Chris Huhne, Peter Wilby and Kevin Maguire

It's easy to sneer at the trade unions. Towards the end of his time in office, Tony Blair made an annual ritual of it, with his speeches to the gathered tribes of the TUC becoming ever more snide. The national press, relieved that it no longer has to take the unions seriously, now confines its reports to the latest excesses of the dinosaurs of organised labour (threats of industrial action, sit-down or stand-up protests during ministers' speeches). Sometimes editors send down their parliamentary sketch-writer to mock some more.

After spending a train journey down to Brighton with a carriage full of bullet-headed, corpulent, hard-man delegates, I was tempted to join in. Why is it that so many male trade unionists still play up to those old macho stereotypes?

Then there is the quaintly old-fashioned rhetoric. I sat through a transport debate where the talk was all of fat-cat profits, the evils of rail privatisation and "monsters like Branson trying to get his grubby hands on the maintenance side". I call it a debate, but everybody agrees on these things and, when you are involved in the serious work of "driving back the neoliberal agenda", the votes are unanimous. However, after clearing away a fog of metropolitan cynicism, I had a moment of clarity. Weren't these speakers right, after all? The language may have been crude, but the unions have been correct about rail sell-off all along. The privatised British rail network is a disgrace. When you examine Transport Motion 41, for example, it is entirely reasonable. "Congress rejects the failed free-market approach to public transport and calls for the General Council to campaign for the benefits of a fully integrated public transport policy."

I began to look at the conference through new eyes. What's wrong with heckling the Work and Pensions Secretary, Peter Hain, over the proposed closure of 43 Remploy factories, which provide work for the disabled? Nothing, particularly when the intervention led the minister to reverse, on the spot, a decision by managers to issue redundancy notices to Remploy workers.

And what has ever been wrong with campaigning for a minimum wage, flexible working hours and a fair deal for black, gay and disabled workers? These are all areas where the unions were the pioneers and the Labour government followed. So convincingly did the unions win the argument, that these ideas are now Conservative Party policy, too.

If truth be told, even Blair acknowledged the positive contribution of the trade union movement until he became so bitter that any opposition to his reform agenda was taken as a personal slight. I have kept his speech from the 2001 con ference, the one he never gave because it coincided with the 11 September terror attacks in America. I read it again this past week. The first three pages were a gushing encomium to the unions and the work they had done in helping Labour to a second election victory earlier in the year.

Cold war

In the six years since that undelivered speech, an industrial cold war has been fought. It has not developed into an all-out cataclysmic conflict, but it has always had the potential to do so. Gordon Brown was determined to put an end to this stand-off. For this reason he was bitterly disappointed with his reception at the TUC and angry that a personal message from Nelson Mandela was treated with apparent indifference.

So why did it go so badly wrong? Brown's determination to stop unions and constituency parties proposing motions at the Labour conference, "contemporary resolutions" that have the potential to challenge the leadership on policy, is deeply unpopular. But no one really believes this is a red-line issue when the conference is already all but neutered.

Matters were not helped by comments to GMTV by the Business Secretary, John Hutton, on the weekend before the TUC gathering, in which he said Labour politicians would no longer be "going into little huddles and smoke-filled rooms" to cut deals with union leaders. I understand Brown and his advisers spent much of their time in Brighton furiously distancing themselves from Hutton's comments. Although there are no longer any smoke-filled rooms, there were plenty of huddles and if the Prime Minister could have cut a deal, he would have been delighted.

But still this does not get to the heart of Brown's problem. Looking back at Blair's six-year-old speech, one phrase stands out: "Public sector wages are rising faster than private sector salaries for the first time in years." While this was the case, it was always easier for the unions to swallow the more unpalatable aspects of new Labour reform. Now things are different. With the new Prime Minister committed to keeping public sector pay pinned to 2 per cent, even previously loyal union leaders are talking about strike action. I know Brown spent several hours in Brighton in discussion with Paul Kenny, the general secretary of the GMB, who, in the words of one insider, was seen as "a paid-up Brownite helped into the job by Brownite influence". The talks came to nothing.

These are dark times for Brown, who knows that co-ordinated industrial action by the public sector unions over the winter would cause him considerable political damage. TUC backing for a referendum on the new EU treaty has caused him further frustration.

But if there is something positive to have come out of the past few days it is this: unlike his predecessor, Brown does not see conflict with the unions as an affirmation of his vision. His disappointment is genuine, and despite what Hutton says, the huddles will continue. The time for sneering is over.

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • NowPublic
  • Reddit

5 comments from readers

Mikush
14 September 2007 at 18:34

" I had a moment of clarity. Weren't these speakers right, after all? The language may have been crude, but the unions have been correct about rail sell-off all along. "

I happened to listen in to this same debate on BBC Parliament. I dont think the language used was crude at all - the facts spoke for themselves.

The state is paying 5 times more to privatised companies than it did when it was British Rail.

I wanted to go to Liverpool from London the other day - train fare was £220. The trains in Britain are a joke - so overpriced its boggles the mind.

To suggest that the way delegates spoke was crude can only be class snobbery - I just found it honest and passionate in the face of outrageous circumstance.

If crude means to tell the truth than let there be more crudenous in political life.

David Kennedy
15 September 2007 at 09:18

Martin Bright has it wrong. The trade unions have been dinosaurs all along. As the Labour Party has marched far to the right, the trade unions have meekly followed, scarcely without protest.

Where does the Labour Party get its 'assured' funds? OK, we know they court big business, but they still rely on the good old dinosaurs. This is a contradiction to the rule: the man who pays the piper calls the tune. The Labour government snub the unions and follow the dictates of Murdoch and the business leaders.

And what about this undelivered speech of Blair's? Can anyone really believe that he admires or supports trade unions? Not at all! Blair is too enamoured of the American model of politics: the two-party system in which both parties give uncritical support to capitalism - unfettered free enterprise. New Labour may claim the issue is one of the government ‘managing capitalism’, but the truth is nearer to capitalism managing the government.

Brown is no different to Blair in this respect. His meeting with Mrs Thatcher at Downing Street is truly symbolic of his (and Blair's) economic and social beliefs.

Because the so-called 'new' Labour Party has introduced American style politics into Britain, the trade unions have been completely wrong-footed and have simply stumbled along behind (apart from some of its 'fat-cat' leaders who have marched proudly alongside New Labour).

As far as transport is concerned, Britain failed to develop an integrated transport policy in which the public sector was central. Because of the influence of the 'oil lobby', private transport has dominated the scene and road-building has become a dominant feature. Although this led to handsome profits for 'big business’ - and is in keeping with the American model - it has not solved traffic congestion and so still more 'public money’ will have to be spent. Far from being a success, this lack of policy, led by big business, has contributed massively to global warming.

Is there not an enormous irony in the Conservative Party supposedly adopting ideas of the trade unions on “a minimum wage, flexible working hours and a fair deal for black, gay and disabled workers”? And what does this say about a New Labour government that represses the low pay of public sector workers (other than Parliamentarians!) while applauding the huget salaries and bonuses 'earned' by City fat-cats?

We live in a crazy, mixed-up world and there is a crying need for a leader with the clarity of Thatcher to lead the Left and bring a little sanity and humanity back into British politics.

Pencils
17 September 2007 at 10:32

I noticed that this his only attracted 2 comments as I write, and I felt guilty because I respect Bob Crow. If the awkward squad proved to be more awkward then the trade unions might attract more than a yawn; every time I hear that workers like the civil servants, postal workers, rail workers are striking I just assume (and I suspect that everyone else does) that their leaders will sell them out and they'll just take it lying down. The idea of the trade unions as a 'labour movement' has unfortunately become laughable.

I agree with the 2 previous posters 100%, especially Mikush's observation's on his quotes from Crow's article. I suspect most people who would read this will be familiar with Marx and Lenin's notion of ' the labour aristocracy' so I won't restate it here but just question whether the following remarks are indicative that Bob Crow is being seduced into the perspective of the bourgeosie:

" After spending a train journey down to Brighton with a carriage full of bullet-headed, corpulent, hard-man delegates, I was tempted to join in. Why is it that so many male trade unionists still play up to those old macho stereotypes?..then there is the quaintly old-fashioned rhetoric...after clearing away a fog of metropolitan cynicism..the language may have been crude..."

KevinBoatang
17 September 2007 at 18:19

The unions are dinosaurs because they simply don't represent anyone anymore, simple as that. They are still carrying on like strike action does anthing other than damage the country and the people within it, it doesn't change a thing. All Crow wants is more and more money until the employers can't take it anymore and have no choice but to say no. Then he will start his little revolution which be utterly crushed and it will be his members that pay.

It isn't a case of giving up principles, just being a bit more pragmatic in a century thaat isn't anything like the last one, let alone the one when all these principles were laid out.

gnuneo
19 September 2007 at 03:59

the unions are purely a response to feudal capitalism, (a stage where people own their own labour capital, and sell it to others to profit from their labour, that will lead onto true capitalism, where people own their own capital, and combine it with others to receive the benefits of their labour fully), and when true capitalism is achieved, industry by industry, the unions will become redundant.

this is the irony, that under capitalism 'fat cats' and their equivalents in the unions will both disappear, yet we have been sold the lie that 'capitalism' refers to a feudal system. And many union leaders also seem aware that such an evolution will also spell the end for their own upholstered lifestyles, and are not working towards a citizens economy.

social revolution is inevitable when the feudal lords become too rich (is the top 1% owning over 50% of Britain's wealth "too rich"? Apparently not yet), and despite elite beliefs the 'plebs' are too stupid, there will always be many with a social conscience and a belief in social justice, that the plebs will organise in defiance of their overexploitation.

gosh, i just have to wonder if, just as the wealth gap continues and accelerates, that is why the RFID card is being introduced?

coincidence, naturally.

i look forward to a time where there are no 'fat cats', no inherited aristocracy, where every person owns their own company, where everyone creates their own success through hard work, where economic democracy is the norm, and where there are no unions because there is no need for them.

Capitalism - HO!!!!

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before your comment is displayed on the website

We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.

About the writer

Martin Bright began his journalistic career writing in very simple English for a magazine aimed at French school children. This experience has informed his style ever since. He worked for the BBC World Service, and The Guardian before joining the Observer as Education Correspondent. He went on to become Home Affairs Editor before becoming the New Statesman's political editor in 2005.

Recent Posts

Sunday comment round-up -- 16 November 2008

  • By Martin Bright
  • 16 November 2008

Recession blues

  • By Martin Bright
  • 13 November 2008

Two elections a world apart

  • By Martin Bright
  • 08 November 2008

Leaders-in-waiting

  • By Martin Bright
  • 06 November 2008

Why I'm on the outside

  • By Martin Bright
  • 30 October 2008

George and Mandy Go Wild on Corfu

  • By Martin Bright
  • 23 October 2008

Here we go again

  • By Martin Bright
  • 22 October 2008