Striking gardeners demonstrate in central London. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

The Conservatives' attacks on trade unions are an attack on our most fundamental freedoms

In seeking to undermine the Labour Party, the Tories are putting our most fundamental freedoms at risk.

Politics is a battle of ideas and if the voters don’t agree with yours they can let you know in no uncertain terms.  We should all be thankful for that, even if as a Labour MP that message hurts right now.

However, despite this unforgiving political back-and-forth, throughout our recent history there has been an abiding commitment to the ideal of freedom that binds British people together.  That ideal shouldn’t be the subject of debate, but the very platform that allows these debates to take place, transcending the political divides of the day.

This freedom doesn’t just mean the narrow right to elect our representatives, it includes our freedom of speech, freedom from intrusion and the freedom of association, which is protected under article 11 of the Human Rights Act.  We should cherish the fact it is up to us what groups we join and that, within reason, how those groups manage their affairs is beyond interference from the state.  These are our precious rights as individuals and it falls to each generation to defend these liberties, which were hard won by our foremothers and forefathers.                                                                                                   

Yet, in the Queen’s Speech, we have seen this Tory government launch an attack on these freedoms.  Much has already been said, across the political spectrum, about the grave threat posed by proposals to scrap the Human Rights Act and distance Britain from the European convention on human rights, including by my colleague Keir Starmer.

This threat to the Human Rights Act has been coupled with draconian proposals to curb trade union freedoms, which risks taking our country down a dark path.  They are a move away from freedom and towards greater control for the state over the lives of individuals.  In short, the Tories propose to diminish freedoms that are not theirs to give away.

The government is proposing to introduce a new threshold for strike action, in a bid to prevent working people from withdrawing their labour.  This is not just an affront to civil liberties, it also reeks of hypocrisy from a government elected with 36 per cent support of the 65 per cent of people who voted in the general election.  They clearly have a mandate from the electorate and a right to form the government, yet for them to them turn around and suggest trade unions are required to pass an arbitrary 50 per cent ballot threshold is a shameless example of double standards.

Their proposals might have a little more credibility if they were accompanied by measures allowing trade unions to ballot their members in a more modern way.  Many members are reasonably asking, in a world where people do sensitive, private work online, like personal banking, why on earth can’t members cast their ballots on the internet?  It could be done easily and if the right safeguards were put in place, it would increase turn out in ballots, while minimising any potential for voting fraud.  However, the truth is the government is not interested in increasing the say of working people, they simply want to encroach on workplace democracy.

As part of the government’s package of measures, they are also trying to dictate even more forcefully the ways in which the subs of trade union members are used.  This is a bid to make it even more difficult for trade unions to set aside a proportion of their funds for political campaigning, on issues like opposing the exploitation of workers by gangmasters. 

The political funds that allow trade unions to undertake this type of campaigning are already subject, by law, to a vote every 10 years by members, asking if they want to see it continue, while all trade union members have the option to opt-out of the fund if they want.  So an onerous system is already in place to ensure union membership fees are properly used. 

This government is simply trying tie up democratically-run trade unions in red tape.  Yet ask them to take action on tackling legal loan sharks or rogue landlords and the response every time is we are anti-bureaucracy.  Well so much for the government’s ‘red tape challenge’ when it comes to the UK’s biggest democratic organisations. 

Also, let’s be absolutely clear, this is a cynical attempt by the Tories to make it even more difficult for trade unions to donate to the Labour Party.  No doubt hoping that a labour movement, bruised by defeat, will be reluctant to fight back.  In response, we must leave no doubt that the Labour Party is strengthened immeasurably by our links to working people.  The funding we receive from trade unionists comes from the donations of builders, agricultural workers, cleaners and care workers.  It’s the cleanest money in politics, openly and transparently donated by democratic organisations – we are a labour movement and proud of it.  This is a stark contrast to the Tory Party, which is bankrolled by hedge funds and oligarchs.  So if the Tories want that debate, I say bring it on.

Even before this clampdown, British workers already have among of the fewest rights in Europe. Is it right that call centre workers in Hannover or engineers in Helsinki have more rights than a waitress or bus driver in Harlow?  In fact, the restrictions on workers’ rights here in Britain means that we are already in breach of parts of the European Social Charter, which was set up to guarantee social and economic human rights. 

If we allow the Tories to succeed in their mission of further stripping hard won freedoms from the British people we will see our country’s reputation diminished on the international stage. 

With so many people in the world denied access to basic freedoms, we should be proudly acting as a beacon, celebrating and defending our civil liberties.  Instead we are at risk of setting a dangerous precedent that says it is ok to take away freedoms, if the government of the day finds them inconvenient.

There are many people right across the political spectrum who have a proud record of fighting for the rights of the individual and civil liberties.  If we don’t come together now to oppose these attacks, we risk leaving our children a less free country than the one we inherited, which is a pretty miserable legacy. 

Owen Smith is shadow secretary of state for Northern Ireland and MP for Pontypridd. 

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Michael Carrick is the “Geordie Pirlo” that England misunderstood

The Manchester United legend’s retirement announcement should leave Three Lions fans wondering what if?

That it came in the months leading up to a World Cup arguably added an exclamation point to the announcement of Michael Carrick’s impending retirement. The Manchester United midfielder, who is expected to take up a coaching role with the club afterwards, will hang up his boots at the end of the season. And United boss Jose Mourinho’s keenness to keep Carrick at Old Trafford in some capacity only serves to emphasise how highly he rates the 36-year-old.

But Carrick’s curtain call in May will be caveated by one striking anomaly on an otherwise imperious CV: his international career. Although at club level Carrick has excelled – winning every top tier honour a player based in England possibly can – he looks set to retire with just 34 caps for his country, and just one of those was earned at a major tournament.

This, in part, is down to the quality of competition he has faced. Indeed, much of the conversation around England’s midfield in the early to mid-noughties centred on finding a system that could accommodate both box-to-box dynamos Steven Gerrard and Frank Lampard.

As time went on, however, focus shifted towards trequartistas, advanced playmakers and those with more mobile, harrying playing styles. And the likes of Jack Wilshere, Ross Barkley, Jordan Henderson and Dele Alli were brought into the frame more frequently than Carrick, whose deep-lying capabilities were not utilised to their full potential. That nearly 65 per cent of Carrick’s England caps have come in friendlies shows how undervalued he was. 

In fairness, Carrick does not embody similar characteristics to many of his England midfield contemporaries, including a laudable lack of ego. He is not blessed with lung-busting pace, nor is he enough of a ball-winner to shield a back four solo. Yet his passing and distribution satisfy world-class criteria, with a range only matched, as far as England internationals go, by his former United team-mate Paul Scholes, who was also misused when playing for his country.

Rather, the player Carrick resembles most isn’t English at all; it’s Andrea Pirlo, minus the free-kicks. When comparisons between the mild-mannered Geordie and Italian football’s coolest customer first emerged, they were dismissed in some quarters as hyperbole. Yet watching Carrick confirm his retirement plans this week, perfectly bearded and reflecting on a trophy-laden 12-year spell at one of world football’s grandest institutions, the parallels have become harder to deny.

Michael Carrick at a press event ahead of Manchester United's Champions League game this week. Photo: Getty.

Where other players would have been shown the door much sooner, both Pirlo and Carrick’s efficient style of play – built on patience, possession and precision – gifted them twilights as impressive as many others’ peaks. That at 36, Carrick is still playing for a team in the top two of the top division in English football, rather than in lower-league or moneyed foreign obscurity, speaks volumes. At the same age, Pirlo started for Juventus in the Champions League final of 2015.

It is ill health, not a decline in ability, which is finally bringing Carrick’s career to a close. After saying he “felt strange” during the second-half of United’s 4-1 win over Burton Albion earlier this season, he had a cardiac ablation procedure to treat an irregular heart rhythm. He has since been limited to just three more appearances this term, of which United won two. 

And just how key to United’s success Carrick has been since his £18m signing from Tottenham in 2006 cannot be overstated. He was United’s sole signing that summer, yielding only modest excitement, and there were some Red Devils fans displeased with then manager Sir Alex Ferguson’s decision to assign Carrick the number 16 jersey previously worn by departed captain Roy Keane. Less than a year later, though, United won their first league title in four years. The following season, United won the league and Champions League double, with Carrick playing 49 times across all competitions.

Failing to regularly deploy Carrick in his favoured role – one that is nominally defensive in its position at the base of midfield, but also creative in providing through-balls to the players ahead – must be considered one of the most criminal oversights of successive England managers’ tenures. Unfortunately, Carrick’s heart condition means that current boss Gareth Southgate is unlikely to be able to make amends this summer.

By pressing space, rather than players, Carrick compensates for his lack of speed by marking passing channels and intercepting. He is forever watching the game around him and his unwillingness to commit passes prematurely and lose possession is as valuable an asset as when he does spot an opening.

Ultimately, while Carrick can have few regrets about his illustrious career, England fans and management alike can have plenty. Via West Ham, Spurs and United, the Wallsend-born émigré has earned his billing as one of the most gifted midfielders of his generation, but he’d never let on.

Rohan Banerjee is a Special Projects Writer at the New Statesman. He co-hosts the No Country For Brown Men podcast.