Frances O'Grady's speech to the TUC conference: full text

The TUC general secretary says that "before he starts lecturing unions about transparency, the Prime Minister should take a long hard look in the mirror".

“Frances O'Grady, TUC, giving my first speech as General Secretary.

“And after seeing that film, ever more determined that our movement should help build a stronger, fairer Britain.

“We are now just 18 months away from a General Election. And the choice that the British people make could shape the kind of country we live in for generations.

“If we’ve learned anything since the financial crash, then it’s this: politics is too important to be left to the politicians.

“People don’t need us to tell them how tough life is for them.

“They want to hear the alternative. They want hope. And they want action.

“It was five years ago this month, Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy in New York, citing debt of over 600 billion dollars.

“A price tag on obscene greed and monumental stupidity that sent shock waves around the world.

“But the roots of the crash go deeper still – more than three decades to the election of Margaret Thatcher’s government.

“When the Right set out to break the post-war consensus.

“Once, it seemed everyone agreed that the State should provide decent public services and social security as a human shield against boom-bust capitalism.

“Everyone saw the value of a mixed economy that put the brakes on private monopolies and guaranteed a public realm.

“But no longer.

“What followed became the articles of a new economic faith.

“A fire-sale of public assets. Deregulation of the City. Weaker worker rights.

“And trade unions, once respected across the political spectrum for our role in fighting fascism and as a pillar of any free and democratic society, now treated with disdain.

“The values of a mythical middle England came to dominate, stretching the United Kingdom to breaking point.

“The City and the new kids on the block – private equity, hedge funds and share traders – increasingly called the shots.

“And they unleashed an escalation of greed and inequality that ultimately led to the financial crash.

“Creating a new Anglo-American model that was a kind of capitalism on crack cocaine.

“A legacy we’re living with today.

“But it hasn’t always been like this.

“Whatever happened to the Conservative Party that, over 100 years ago, backed Winston Churchill’s proposal for tripartite wages councils, so that every worker would be guaranteed a living wage?

“Whatever happened to the Conservative Party of John Major who at least felt obliged to promise voters a ‘Classless Society’?

“And whatever happened to the Conservative Party of Theresa May who once warned against becoming the Nasty Party.

“But who, just this summer, sent government funded vans onto the streets of multiracial London brandishing a slogan last used by the National Front?

“This Government seems intent on dividing Britain, Thatcher-style.

“Between those in work and those out of it.

“Between the tax top rate payers and everyone else.

“Between the metropolitan elite, with their country retreats in Chipping Norton, and the so-called desolate North.

“Governments may have had no choice about bailing out the banks.

“But they have got a political choice about what went wrong, and about where we go next.

“After all, the rest of continental Europe did not deliberately de-industrialise and make a fetish of financial services in the way that 1980s Britain did.

“And today, while workers in many countries have also seen their living standards fall, they have not taken the same hit we have, and trade unionism is not vilified in the same way.

“Even from the European engine room of austerity, the German Chancellor still defends co-determination.

“And her finance minister has called on business to meet union wage demands as a way to boost consumer demand.

“Here in the UK, more thoughtful Conservatives are nervous that this war on working people will lose votes.

“They admit that the Conservatives are seen as the party of the privileged.

“They worry that attacks on the unions of ordinary decent working men and women look high handed, cold-hearted and out of touch.

“To paraphrase Rex Harrison in My Fair Lady, why can’t David Cameron be more like Angela Merkel?

“But instead of listening to his moderates, and perhaps against his own better judgement, the Prime Minister is in hock to those who demand an ever more uncompromising stance.

“Plenty of ugly talk about a crackdown on migrants. But no crackdown on those bosses who use cheap labour to cut costs.

“Tough on welfare fraud for sure. But no sympathy for those unlucky enough to fall on hard times or lose their job.

“Freedom to raise prices for big business. But no pay rise for ordinary working families.

Decent families up and down the land; facing worries that the Eton educated elite, with their serial holidays, hired help and inherited millions, simply haven’t got a clue about.

“And beyond the rhetoric, what has this government actually done to recover and rebalance Britain’s economy?

“Invest for the future in greening Britain’s infrastructure? No. Leave the banks alone and slash state capital investment by £22bn.

“Back Britain’s advanced manufacturing base? No. Hand out government contracts to the cheapest bidder regardless of the cost to local business and jobs.

“Build affordable housing? No. Launch a lending scheme that risks the very same perfect storm that got us into the mess in the first place. And then slap on a cruel bedroom tax.

“The government is rehearsing the same old arguments, repeating the same old mistakes, rehashing the same old bust model of an economy built on sand.

“I know Conservatives are fond of referring to PR man Lynton Crosby as their very own Wizard of Oz. But what does that make Cameron, Osborne and Clegg?

“When it comes to any vision for a new economy, they are the Scarecrow, the Tin Man and the Cowardly Lion:

“No brain, no heart and no courage.

“In many ways it is a testimony to the enduring strength our trade union values of care, compassion and fairness that the Right has chosen to put us in the firing line.

“It explains why this week they are debating a Lobbying Bill that, far from dealing with the real dirt in politics, is designed to deny us a political voice.

“Now, debating the internal arrangements of the Labour Party and the role of its affiliated unions is not the business of Westminster, nor, indeed, of this Congress.

“And in the hall today we also have unions who are just as proud of their party political independence.

“But one thing is for sure.

“We are united in defending the basic democratic principle that ordinary people have the right to a political voice.

“That union money – the few pence freely given every week, by nurses, shop workers and truck drivers – is the cleanest cash in politics today.

“And that whether unions set up a political fund is a matter for members, not ministers.

“Because for too long, politics has been controlled by those who already have far too much money and far too much power.

“Half of the Conservative Party’s funding comes from the City.

“One third of their new intake of MPs are drawn from the banking industry alone.

“And we know what happens when the super-rich get to run the tax system.

“In contrast, unions are Britain’s biggest democratic membership movement of ordinary people.

“We are already required by law to report our membership records every year.

“We have more than ten times the membership of all of Britain’s political parties put together.

“It may even be more.

“The truth is, we simply don’t know.

“Because political parties don’t have to account for their members, in the way that we have to account for ours.

“In fact, the Conservative Party refuses point blank to say how many members it has.

“But, I’m pretty sure that David Cameron has fewer members than our very own Sally Hunt or Mike Clancy. And maybe even Bob Crow.

“So before he starts lecturing unions about transparency, the Prime Minister should take a long hard look in the mirror.

“We already publish our numbers.

“I challenge David Cameron to publish his.

“But more than all this.

“And here is the democratic bottom line.

“If unions were denied a political voice:

“We wouldn’t have had the 1944 Education Act; we wouldn’t have the NHS; we wouldn’t have equal pay for women; we wouldn’t have a minimum wage.

“And remember who first exposed the scandal of tax avoidance?

“Who first raised the alarm about falling living standards?

“And who first blew the whistle on zero-hours?

“You can see why some people want to shut us up.

“That is why we must now stand up for our rights.

“Not just union rights.

“Civil rights.

“People’s rights.

“The government has attacked the union link to Labour.

“A link that, of course, will evolve and change over time.

“But their real aim is to discredit all unions.

“And the reason is clear: we stand for popular policies to shift wealth and power from the few to the many.

“So if they can’t win the policy argument, then attack them as ‘trade union demands’.

“If they don't like what we say, call us ‘union paymasters’.

“And if all else fails, then try the old trick of smears.

“The government may be preparing for a humiliating climb down on some of the worst parts of the lobbying bill.

“But don’t be fooled into thinking the battle for civil liberties has been won.

“Unions still will be hit by cuts in funding limits.

“Many charities could still find themselves clobbered.

“And, shockingly, one thing is sure, this Bill will virtually close down Hope not Hate and Unite Against Fascism in what amounts to a free gift to the BNP.

“This government should be ashamed of themselves.

“Congress, this is an anti-democratic, dangerous bill, and it must be defeated.

“But delegates I also need to issue a challenge to the cynics within our own ranks too.

“We’ve all heard those who tell us that the next election does not matter.

“You don’t have to go far to hear people say there’s no difference between the parties, it doesn’t matter who wins, they’re all in it for themselves.

“I respect their right to an opinion but I must tell you they are wrong.

“The result of the next election does matter. It matters a lot.

“To the unemployed teenager, desperate for a decent job.

“To the young family, hoping for a decent home.

“And to the elderly, the disabled and their carers, who know there must be a better way.

“For trade unionists to argue that voting is a waste of time is a dangerous game that plays into the hands of our opponents.

“Because ever since the Chartists first lifted their banners, the democratic voice of the people has always been our best weapon against rule by the markets, the rich and the powerful.

“To deny that would be a betrayal of the millions of our members whose jobs, living standards and pay depends on it.

“I am not arguing that we should button up and keep quiet in the run up to the election.

“Nor that we should be put up with a vanilla version of austerity.

“On the contrary.

“But it does mean that we have to roll up our sleeves and help shape the choices on offer.

“We need to win public opinion to our policies.

“And we need to prove that they are election winners.

“Remember when we first campaigned for a minimum wage?

“The business lobby said it would wreck the economy and politicians trembled. Now it’s as much part of the mainstream British culture as curry and chips.

“It’s time for us to push the same kind of ambitious policies – to transform our economy, improve working lives and change the country for the better.

“A popular programme that can inspire voter confidence.

“A test of both values and valour.

“I’m going to tell you what should go on a pledge card.

“And, today, I challenge politicians from all parties to say where they stand on it.

“First, decent jobs.

“It’s time to restore that goal of full employment, and give a cast iron jobs guarantee for the young.

“Full employment is the best way to boost the economy, drive up living standards and generate the tax that we need to pay down the deficit.

“And let’s be clear, the reason why low-paid jobs are growing is because people have no choice but to take them.

“That is wrong.

“Employers should compete for staff. Not the other way around.

“Now, George Osborne will say – but how are you going to pay for it?

“Well, of course the best way to pay for it is by getting economic growth. That’s why we need to invest in an intelligent industrial strategy for the future.

“But if the Chancellor wants to talk numbers here’s a big one.

“According to the Rich List, since the crash, the 1,000 richest people in Britain increased their wealth by no less than £190b.

“That’s nearly double the entire budget for the NHS.

“So when they ask how we’ll pay for it, let’s tell them. Fair taxes – that’s how.

“One of the best ways to create jobs and apprenticeships would be to build new houses. And that’s pledge number two.

“One million new council and affordable homes.

“Our country has a desperate shortage of housing. That means landlords rake it in and the housing benefit bill rockets. It drives up the cost of a buying a home, and puts people in more debt.

“So cut the waiting lists, stop another bubble and let's build the homes young families need.

“Pledge number three: fair pay – and new wages councils to back it up.

“Of course the national minimum wage should go up and we need tough enforcement.

“But take one look at company profits and you’ll see that there are plenty of industries that could, and should, pay more.

“That’s why we need new wages councils, so unions and employers get around the table and negotiate.

“That’s the way to guarantee not just a minimum wage, not just a living wage but a fair wage, and fair shares of the wealth workers help create.

“And pledge number four could be the most popular one of all.

“Let’s pledge that the NHS will once again be a public service run for people and not for profit.

“Let’s make adult social care a community responsibility by bringing it together with the NHS.

“That would save money because good social care helps elderly people stay at home when they want to be, instead of in hospital when they don't.

“And while we’re about it, let’s have a proper system of care for our children too.

“So instead of shrinking the welfare state, let’s strengthen it.

“That’s the way to build a stronger economy too.

“And five – fair rights at work.

“No more union busting. No more blacklisting. And no more zero hours.

“Instead we need decent employment rights; strong unions with the freedom to organise, and a bit more economic democracy.

“We already work with the best employers, keeping workers healthy and safe, giving them the chance to learn new skills, guaranteeing fair pay and fair treatment.

“Through the worst of the recession, we made thousands of agreements to save jobs and keep plants open.

“And let me say this, I believe there isn’t a boardroom in Britain that wouldn’t benefit from giving ordinary workers a voice.

“Of course these aren’t the only issues on which we campaign.

“We oppose the creeping privatisation of our education system.

We want our railways returned to public ownership.

“And let’s send a strong message from this Congress – we will fight this latest senseless, sell-off of the family silver – hands off our Royal Mail.

“We’ve got sensible policies. Good policies. Popular policies.

“And their importance is that, together, they make a promise of a better future.

“They cut through the pessimism, and give people confidence.

“So I want to end not just by asking Congress to back the General Council statement that I move today.

“But more importantly: To unite. To organise. And to campaign.

“As the late, great poet Seamus Heaney, wrote:

‘Move lips, move minds and let new meanings flare’.

“For the people we saw on that film.

“For a new economy that puts the interests of working people at its heart.

“For our values of equality, solidarity and democracy.

“So that, together, we build a Britain of which we can be proud.”

Frances O'Grady made her first speech to the TUC as general secretary today in Bournemouth.
Getty
Show Hide image

The fall of Milo Yiannopoulos: Only the mainstream right has the power to stop the populist right

The lessons of the provocateur's sudden fall from grace.

Alas, poor Milo Yiannopoulos, we hardly knew ye. Well, actually, that's not true. I first encountered Yiannopolous in 2012, when he tried to slut-shame a friend of mine, sex blogger Zoe Margolis, after she criticised his tech site, the Kernel.  "We write about how tech is changing the world around us," he tweeted. "You write about how many cocks you've sucked this week. Back off."

It was a typical Milo performance. Flashy, provocative - and steeped in misogyny. 

Fast-forward five years and he had managed to parlay those qualities into a gig with Breitbart, a public speaking tour, and until yesterday, a $250,000 book deal with Simon & Schuster. But last night, that was cancelled, "after careful consideration". Yiannopolous's invitation to speak at the Conservative Political Action Conference had been cancelled hours before. Over the years, CPAC has hosted Ronald Reagan, George W Bush and all the Hall of Fame right-wing blowhards: Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity. 

What changed CPAC's mind? On 18 February, the organisation had tweeted that "free speech includes hearing Milo's important perspective".

Milo's important perspective on what was left unanswered, because it is unanswerable. Does anyone, really, think that Milo Yiannopoulos has deep and rigorously researched convictions? That his statements on feminism, on transgender people, or his criticisms of Ghostbusters actor Leslie Jones, spring from some deep well of evidence and sincerity?

Do me a favour.

Yiannopoulos was invited to CPAC to do what he does: be outrageous. To give the attendees a frisson of excitement at being in the presence of someone so notorious, someone willing to "say the unsayable". To outrage the left, and remind those watching of the gulf between them and the people waving placards outside.

Except the provocateur is finding out that some things really are unsayable. Some things - all his previous things, in fact - are extremely sayable, as long as you have the protection of the mainstream right and a media industry which craves - and monetises - attention. But a few are not.

So what did Milo Yiannopoulos actually say to prompt this outbreak of condemnation, and the withdrawal of lucrative marketing opportunities? The first thing to note is that the comments which kicked off the latest row are not new. After he appeared on Bill Maher's show improbably dressed as Like A Virgin Era Madonna (in an appearance up there with Jimmy Fallon rustling Trump's tawny locks on the Vom-O-Meter), old YouTube videos surfaced which, in the BBC's words, "showed him discussing the merits of gay relationships between adults and boys as young as 13". He said that the age of consent was "not this black and white thing" and relationships "between younger boys and older men … can be hugely positive experiences". 

He has since denied endorsing paedophilia, said that he is a survivor of child abuse himself, and added that the videos were edited to give a misleading impression.

In the tweet announcing that he had been dropped, CPAC accused him of "condoning paedophilia". But he argues that elsewhere in the video he said that the US age of consent was in the correct place.

For those on the left, the overwhelming reaction to all this has been: why now? Why these comments, not the ones about "preening poofs", or lesbians faking hate crimes, or the danger of Muslims, or the harassment campaign against Leslie Jones which got him permanently banned from Twitter? (Do you know how consistently and publicly awful you have to be to get banned from Twitter???)

There's only one answer to that, really: yesterday marked the moment when Milo Yiannopoulos ceased being an asset to the mainstream right, and became a liability.

***

On 8 February, Jan-Werner Muller wrote a fascinating piece for the FT in which he argued that the populist right was not, as the narrative would have it, an unstoppable grassroots movement sweeping the world. Instead it should be seen as an outgrowth of the mainstream right, which fed it and gave it succour. 

These colourful images are deeply misleading. Mr Farage did not bring about the Brexit vote all by himself. He needed two mainstream Conservative politicians, Boris Johnson and Michael Gove. More important still, the Leave vote was not just the result of spontaneous anti-establishment feelings by the downtrodden; Euroscepticism, once a fringe position among Conservatives, had been nourished for decades by tabloid newspapers and rebel MPs.

President Trump did not win as an outside candidate of a third-party populist movement either. Where Mr Farage had Messrs Johnson and Gove, Mr Trump could rely on the blessing of establishment Republicans such as Newt Gingrich, Chris Christie and Rudy Giuliani."  

This is unarguably true in the case of Milo Yiannopoulos: he started his career at the Telegraph, once the newspaper of choice for retired colonels eating marmalade in the shires. Iain Martin, a colleague of his there, yesterday jokingly acknowledged that he was "partly to blame".

A quick look at Nigel Farage's experience during the EU referendum is also instructive. The Vote Leave campaign worked hard to shut him out of the public discussion in the weeks before 23 June - reasoning that his overt anti-immigration broadsides would turn off swing voters. They even accused broadcasters of "joining the IN campaign" by inviting Farage to debate David Cameron. To understand Farage's bewilderment at this treatment, read his speeches from the time, or his grumpy appearance on TV the morning after the victory, where he said the £350m NHS claim was a mistake. The guy felt betrayed.

And it's not surprising. A significant number of Tory Eurosceptics in parliament had, until Cameron announced the referendum would happen, found Farage's existence extremely useful. There he was - a living, breathing, chainsmoking reminder that MPs (and voters) could move to Ukip if Britain didn't get a say on membership of the European Union. But once the campaign began, they found him an embarrassment. The "Breaking Point" poster was repellent. He was turning off moderate voters. And so he was frozen out. Boris Johnson and Michael Gove suddenly discovered that - hey, this guy says some pretty outrageous things!

A similar dynamic happened with Donald Trump. We now know he performed on 8 November about as well as a generic Republican after eight years of a Democratic president. Certainly no better - had he run as an independent, that small core of Trump-lovers would be a speck within a wider population, instead of being held up as the vanguard of a new kind of politics. Throughout the campaign, GOP grandees like Paul Ryan struggled to condemn him, reasoning that a Republican president - any Republican president, even one who didn't seem to believe in most of the alleged values of the Republican party - was better than a Democrat. Trump was boosted and bolstered by significant portions of the mainstream right, and even the centre: CNN employed his former campaign manager as a pundit. Fox, a mainstream news channel owned by a huge corporation, gave him waves of adoring coverage. 

***

What's in all this for the mainstream right? Two things. The first is that the populist right are useful generators of heat. They say outrageous things - black people are lazy! Muslims are terrorists! - putting their opponents in a bind. Do you let such assertions go, on the basis that those voicing them are a tiny fringe? Or do you wearily condemn every single instance of bigotry, making yourself look like a dull Pez dispenser of condemnation? Either way is debilitating, either for public discourse broadly, or for the left's appeal to disengaged people. 

Secondly, the populist right are useful outriders. Sheltered by the mainstream right - would anyone read Katie Hopkins if she had a blog, or Piers Morgan? nope - these "provocateurs" can push extreme versions of narratives that many on the mainstream right feel to be true, or at least to contain a kernel of truth worth discussing. If Breitbart says "black crime" is a distinct phenomenon, then it's much more acceptable for Trump to threaten to "send in the Feds" to Chicago, or to describe inner cities as wastelands in need of a strong hand. If Katie Hopkins writes about migrants drowning in the Mediterranean as "cockroaches", she dehumanises them - turning them from fathers, mothers, children into a faceless mass, not like us, and therefore not deserving of our pity. That makes it much easier for the government to stop taking child refugees. After all, didn't I read somewhere that they're all 45 and just pretending to be children, anyway?

The populist right are extremely good generators of memes - those little bits of information which move virally through society. Take the grooming gang in Rochdale. It gets invoked every time feminists try to have a conversation about male violence. Um, did you condemn Rochdale? By the time you reply, wearily, that yes you did, it's too late. The conversation has been derailed for good. What about FGM? Well, yes, of course I'm agains-- oh, too late. We've moved on. 

***

The "alt right" - the online version of the populist right - loves to talk about left-wingers being "triggered" or "snowflakes". This is clearly a rhetorical tactic to delegitimise any criticism of them. I don't write about misogyny because I'm upset by it; I write about it because it's wrong. But it's a playbook that works: look into examples of "political correctness gone mad" and you'll often find a story that has been exaggerated, twisted or straight-up invented in order to paint the left as dolorous monks intent on killing fun. But anyone with any strong beliefs, anyone who holds anything sacred, will react when some shows disrespect to something they care about. The right has just as many shibboleths it is unwilling to see violated. (If you don't believe me, try burning a poppy or the American flag.)

The strangest part of yesterday was seeing Milo Yiannopoulous's increasingly sincere Facebook posts, as the awful realisation dawned on him - as it dawned on Nigel Farage during the referendum - that the sweet shelter of the mainstream right was being withdrawn from him. When he had attacked his female peers in the London tech scene, when he attacked transgender people for being "mentally ill", when he attacked an actor for the temerity to be black, female and funny in a jumpsuit, he was given licence. He was provocative, starting a debate, exercising his free speech. But yesterday he found out that there is always a line. For the right, it's child abuse - because children, uniquely among people who might be sexually abused, are deemed to be innocent. No one is going to buy that a 13-year-old shouldn't have been out that late, or wearing that, or brought it on himself. 

I would not be surprised if this isn't the end of Milo Yiannopoulos's career, and I will watch with keen interest what strategies he will use for his rehabilitation. He's still got his outlaw cachet, and there are still plenty of outlets where the very fact that people are objecting to a speaker is assumed to mean they have something that's worth hearing. And there are plenty more ideas that some on the right would be happy to see pushed a little further into the mainstream - with plausible deniability, of course. If that's the extreme, then the mainstream shifts imperceptibly with every new provocation. Because he's not one of us, oh no. They're not, either. But you see, they must be heard. And provocateurs are useful, until they're not. But it's not the left who decides when that is. Only the mainstream right can stop the extremists on their flanks.

Helen Lewis is deputy editor of the New Statesman. She has presented BBC Radio 4’s Week in Westminster and is a regular panellist on BBC1’s Sunday Politics.