21.03.2002
Voice for workers
Matt Wrack Whose money is it anyway? - the case for democratising the trade union political funds London 2002, £1, pp18
Matt Wrack is to be congratulated for producing this well written and concise pamphlet. Available for the first time at the Socialist Alliance's important March 16 conference on the trade union political fund, it deserves to be widely read and circulated. In the pamphlet, you will find no wild calls for the unions to instantly disaffiliate from the Labour Party - nor any arrogant demands that this or that union should immediately align itself with the SA, or indeed any other small left organisation. Instead, we are presented with a calm and measured analysis of the current situation facing trade unionists. The maim aim of comrade Wrack, a Fire Brigades Union militant and Socialist Party member, is to initiate discussion and debate. In the words of the comrade: "This pamphlet is about that debate. It argues that there is an alternative - that the political funds of the unions, like the unions themselves, can and should be democratised" (p3) - a viewpoint seconded by the Socialist Workers Party, which argues that, "The debate is not about disaffiliating from the Labour Party, but about union members democratically deciding where their money should be spent" (Socialist Worker March 16). Whose money is it anyway? supplies us with the general background to the great 'fund' debate. Significantly, there was last year's FBU conference which passed a resolution calling for its political fund to be used only to back candidates and organisations which support union policies - whether they be Labour or anti-Labour. This was closely followed by a Unison conference resolution which called for a "review" of how its political fund is used. There have been similar discussions in the CWU, RMT, etc. Early this year, we had Stephen Byers' now notorious speech at Labour's Cardiff conference, in which he denounced the "vested interests" of the "wreckers", who stood in the way of public sector "reform". Then there was Blair's supplementary speech, where he attacked the "unholy alliance" of those attempting to sabotage his 'sensible', 'third way' strategy: "We have always had attacks to the right of us and attacks to the far left of us" (yes, the "far left" included John Edmonds, if you remember). Subsequently of course we have experienced an orgy of red-baiting in the media - with comrades like Bob Crow and Greg Tucker being particularly targeted and the name of the Socialist Alliance attached to both. With such a political atmosphere it is hardly surprising that there is a distinct whiff of rebellion in the ranks. For Matt Wrack it is "no wonder" that trade union members are increasingly questioning the use to which their political funds are put. This has seen debates open up in many unions about what the alternatives may be and whether the union funds can or should be democratised to reflect properly the demands and interests of ordinary trade unionists. In his pamphlet, comrade Wrack reminds us that before 1900, "such workers as were allowed to vote were largely faced with a choice between Tory tweedledee and Liberal tweedledum" (p4). This led to the phenomenon of "Lib-Lab MPs" - ie, union members/officials who received the support of the union, but stood as Liberal candidates (on the grounds that there was no fundamental conflict of interests between workers and their employees). By 1900 there were 11 such Lib-Lab MPs. However, Lib-Labism started to unravel. The late 1880s saw an explosion of working class struggle and the ushering in of the period of "new unionism". The idea of independent political representation for the workers was in the air. This militant sentiment found reflection in the famous statement issued in 1900 by the Labour Representation Committee: "That this conference is in favour of working class opinion being represented in the House of Commons by men sympathetic with the aims and demands of the labour movement, and whose candidature are promoted by one or other of the organised movements represented at this conference" (my emphasis, quoted on p5). That is to say, the LRC thought that only those organisations and individuals who were broadly "sympathetic" to the labour movement were deserving of support (however much we may disagree with this or that policy or tactic). As comrade Wrack puts it, "Ignoring, for the moment, the view of politics as being restricted to parliamentary activity (and to men!) this statement nevertheless represented a move towards an independent political voice for working people." He adds: "This idea is a world away from Tony Blair's view of the Labour Party as the 'party of business'. Does Stephen Byers qualify as someone 'sympathetic with the aims and demands of the labour movement'? Under Blair, the idea of Labour as a party representing the working class has been gradually but systematically dismantled" (p5). However, the above comment points to a not unimportant nuance. Observing that for New Labour "the idea" of it representing pro-working class interests has been "gradually" "dismantled" is not the same as categorically asserting that these 'links' have been destroyed - ie, that Labour is now an outright bourgeois party, no different in essence to the Tories or the Liberal Democrats. This of course is now the view of Matt Wrack's fellow comrades in the SP, which maintain that "Labour's degeneration into a capitalist party is now complete. A new mass workers' party to represent the needs of ordinary people is needed. It follows therefore that the trade unions should stop funding Labour" (The Socialist March 15). Rather, as comrade Wrack argues, it is the case that socialists want to end Labour's monopoly over the trade union political fund, however you define the exact political composition and physiognomy of New Labour today (in the view of the CPGB it remains a bourgeois workers' party, although the bourgeois pole is clearly very much in the ascendancy). Naturally, the proto-Labour Party could not rely on rich supporters and backers - it was forced to run campaigns and survive on the funds provided by ordinary workers. The hardly pro-union Daily Mail assessed it in the following way: "These working men by the simple device of collecting one penny per month per man from their trade unions, had placed themselves on so firm a financial basis that they are able to meet the representatives of capital on even grounds at the polls "¦ their present success will be found to prove the beginning of a movement that will require much watching by capitalists of all conditions" (quoted on pp5-6). For comrade Wrack the political significance of this new "simple device" of collecting funds is obvious - "whichever direction Labour Party politics actually took, its formation had demonstrated that working people were capable of creating their own political organisation" (p6 - my emphasis). In other words, the future development of the party was open-ended and hinged on the tempo of the class struggle. On the other hand, the 'Blair project', as comrade Wrack writes, "can be viewed as an attempt to reverse the decision of 1900, that working people needed a separate political organisation to represent their interests. Indeed, Tony Blair has stated that he regrets that the split between Labour and the Liberals took place. The Blair revolution is the process not of modernising the Labour Party but of taking it back a hundred years" (p7). New Labour is not quite so new after all. Usefully, in this section, comrade Wrack refers back to the Trade Union Act of 1913. Overturning a 1900 House of Lord ruling, it allowed political campaigning for unions so long as separate political funds were established following a ballot of members and provided individuals retained the right to 'contract out' of paying into the fund. Those unions who wished to continue their involvement in politics established separate political funds. This is essentially the legal basis for the way the political funds operate to this day. Comrade Wrack reminds us that not all trade unions have established political funds or are affiliated to the Labour Party. As he says, there has always been a trend in trade unionism which wants to steer clear of 'politics' - keep your head down, be pragmatic, look sensible "¦ and perhaps the bosses and the government might be nice to you. Think again. This 'non-politicism' has historically been a source of weakness, not strength. Comrade Wrack easily counters the 'bread and butter' approach taken by some trade unionists over the years. Surely, he says, "even to be effective just on workplace issues, union members will benefit if their unions have a perspective that goes beyond the boundaries of the office or factory". Crucially, the comrade highlights the fact that "workers are not just employees. Working people as a whole share common interests and concerns, whether they are over education, the NHS, privatisation or civil liberties" (p15). The trade unions - like the left in general - need high politics. Obviously, the old set-up cannot continue - something has to change. Why should trade unionists fund those attacking them? Come the general election, we do not want to "face the ridiculous prospect of trade unionists spending money to campaign against the government's privatisation plans whilst at the same time handing over millions of pounds to re-elect the privatisers! "¦ It really is like fighting with one hand tied behind us!" (p10-11). Whose money is it anyway? wants to untie our hands. Look at the union representatives on the Labour NEC - who are "some of the most loyal Blairites going" (p11). Comrade Wrack asks - what is the point of them? What is so desperately needed is rank and file control of the unions - an almost complete contrast to the situation now, where union members "have little or no say in how the political funds are used" (p11). Why should union members pay to sponsor an MP who ignores union policy in every vote? In the correct opinion of comrade Wrack, the unions should draw up a set of criteria, based on the policies of each union, in order to decide who to support. Candidates for election should only receive support if they meet these criteria. MPs - left Labourites included - who support anti-working class policies "should receive no support whatsoever" (p11). Who could disagree with this? Comrade Wrack is keen to emphasis that democratising the unions' political fund would mark the "beginning" of a "genuine debate" among the trade unionists about the political way forward. How can privatisation be stopped? What sort of political organisation do workers need? Is politics just about elections? And so on. For the comrade, "such a debate could only be of benefit to the trade union movement" (p13) - no wonder Tony Blair and many union big-wigs are appalled by the very idea of it ever happening. There should be no real reason for any confusion as to what comrade Wrack is saying or proposing in this short pamphlet. Democratisation of the union political fund means, after all, exactly what it says - that is, allowing the members to decide how their funds are used. If members of a particular union decide eventually to continue supporting Labour - so be it: that is and should be their democratic right. But that does not amount to a political blank cheque. Thus, ventures comrade Wrack, "If union members want their funds to finance Labour then that is what should happen, but we must demand that the union's policies are fought for in exchange for receiving our money" (p16). Nor is it the case, as some critics have alluded, that we assume that union members will automatically support the SA - or, for that matter, any other organisation which asks for union support. However, unlike New Labour, the SA supports union members having the right to decide for themselves how to spend their money. Organisations like the SA, Scottish Socialist Party, Socialist Party, etc should have the right to argue their case in front of union members. Let us see in an open and free debate who wins the argument. "Anyone who has any respect for the intelligence of trade union members should be able to support such a process" (p14) - as comrade Wrack so reasonably believes. Finally, the comrade reassures his readers that the proposals outlined in the pamphlet would in no way allow union money to go to either the Tories or the Liberals - which are the traditional parties of the employers and should have no claim on our funds. Ditto for the Green Party, the UK Independence Party or charities. The SWP is right to be optimistic and 'upbeat' about the potential lead the SA can give to the unions, when it declares: "Some argue that if the unions withdraw funds New Labour will become even worse. But a positive campaign over the political fund could be part of rejuvenating the unions, making them more effective campaigning organisations" (my emphasis Socialist Worker March 16). We must make this happen. Whose money is it anyway? has made an excellent contribution to this vital and on-going debate - we look forward to reading all the replies and responses it generates. I would add that there is also a useful summary of the main issues debated in the pamphlet: * Fight for union policies within the Labour Party. * Support only those candidates who meet criteria set by the union and who support union policies. * No support for any candidates who vote for privatisation; break Labour's monopoly over our political funds. * Democratise the funds. * Use the funds to finance a political and industrial campaign against Labour's privatisation plans and other attacks on the working class. * Build an independent working class political voice. Danny Hammill Democratising the funds If you would like to invite a speaker from the Socialist Alliance to address your trade union branch or wish to order copies of the pamphlet , please contact the SA at: Socialist Alliance, Wickham House, 10 Cleveland Way, London E1 4TR * www.socialistalliance.net * office@socialistalliance.net
Worker