tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post640743804365810239..comments2024-03-29T07:14:55.029+00:00Comments on All That Is Solid ...: Corbynism and the Trade UnionsPhilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06298147857234479278noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-17007542601030344112018-10-02T14:26:27.977+01:002018-10-02T14:26:27.977+01:00A few comments from an anonymous union official .....A few comments from an anonymous union official ...<br /><br />First, obviously as a full time official of well over 10 years I'm highly biased. But I also may have some insight. Your description of the unions broadly right but misses the role we've played in the party and the reliance the party has had on it in the past. Corbynism is not guaranteed dies (if you think Corbynism is fixed and immutable you’ve not been watching how quickly politics can change) and if you weaken influence of the unions, then you’ll be lucky if what the Labour Party morphs into is something as left wing as New Labour as the safety / ballast we provide will have gone. If you think my comment about any reconstituted party not being as left wing as New Labour is rubbish, I’d remind you that Blair wanted to go further in reducing the influence of the trade unions and was foiled. Think what New Labour would have been like without the unions being at the heart of the party. Your suggestions are re-heated Blairite objectives, albeit with a different set of arguments. You say “Democratising unions, making would-be members feel a living, relevant relationship to it, of offering themselves as networks of support and training as well as organs of resistance is the pathway to rejuvenation and overcoming tensions with the party and Corbynism in particular.” I think you are plain wrong here. Unions have lots of democracy already. For example, unions elect general secretaries every five years, their national executives every year or two years (depending on the union), their national bargaining bodies, their regional councils and committees and their lay branch leaders (including workplace reps). At all of these lay meetings whether at a workplace, branch regional or national level votes are taken on decisions to do with the union and their members. I would argue on a day-to-day basis there is way more democratic activity in unions than there is in the Labour Party. It is not the lack of democracy that is the problems in unions, it is the lack of participation in that democracy. In nearly every union the GS election and the elections for the national executives (the two most powerful positions / bodies) fail to even get 10% turnout, often it can be as low as 6%. Even in branch level elections turnout is no better. And in most union branches most positions are not even contested. What we need is to change the concept of unions from insurance providers to a body that works use to build high participation action to win things themselves. If you do this then the higher engagement in the democratic structures follows naturally. <br /><br />Finally, I would argue you need the institutional voice of work in the party otherwise the Labour Party will just become a democratic socialist party that is not part of a much wider movement. And unions do some things better than the party does (say like around equality issues, and a lot of basic organising) and our influence is positive. Let's be honest here, every Labour Party Regional Director relies on the unions way more than they rely on Momentum - we are embedded as part of the party machinery. If you want that influence from the unions then you have to give them institutional power in the party. If you really want to build a movement it requires a two-way exchange between the two wings. Can the union link be improved upon and updated? For sure. Should it be weakened? I’d say be careful what you wish for, because like the leadership rule changes a few years ago there can be unintended consequences to changes in the party’s democracy. And those consequences don’t always go the way the authors of the changes expected.Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06298147857234479278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-85446004621776296902018-10-02T10:37:30.478+01:002018-10-02T10:37:30.478+01:00This from Alan Story:
Hi Phil:
You conclude: ...This from Alan Story:<br /><br />Hi Phil: <br /><br />You conclude: <br /> <br />“Like it or not, Corbynism is the future, more direct democracy is the future, becoming more swarm-like is the future. Politics is changing, the character of class is changing. We have to make sure our way of organising collectively changes too so we can use our strength most effectively. And win.”<br /><br />My question: <br /><br />Why doesn’t Corbyn intervene in the Sheffield trees dispute where a right of Blairite Labour –controlled local council has signed a £2.2 billion, 25-year PFI “deal” with a Spanish-owned multinational contractor that we in Sheffield will be paying for until 2055, has outsourced hundreds of jobs, and which, so far, has led to the felling of 5,500 mostly healthy street trees…and threatens +11,000 more trees? <br /><br />Corbyn and Labour’s NEC intervened in Haringey. Why can’t we have “Haringey North”? <br /><br />http://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/politics/labour-leader-jeremy-corbyn-and-ruling-nec-body-asks-haringey-council-to-stop-hdv-plans-1-5366785<br />A petition started in August 2017 and signed by +12,000 people asking Corbyn to intervene:<br /><br />https://www.change.org/p/jeremy-corbyn-mp-jeremy-corbyn-please-mediate-the-sheffield-trees-crisis<br /><br />Local trade unions are NOW opposed: <br />https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/sheffield-union-leaders-urge-rethink-on-tree-felling-in-u-turn-over-protest-campaign-1-9089677<br />On the wacky finances of the Sheffield PFI and how a good whack of our payments are ending up in a Guernsey tax haven (see the pdf at the bottom of this endorsement from the Sheffield Greens of a dossier produced by NO STUMP CITY: https://sheffieldgreenparty.org.uk/2018/08/17/sheffield-greens-welcome-no-stump-city-report/<br /><br />A piece by George Monbiot in The Guardian in October 2017: <br />https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/24/sheffield-state-corporate-power-subvert-democracy-pfi<br /><br />You cannot even begin to imagine the anti-Labour hate ---- and that’s not too strong a word! --- this wretched PFI deal has stirred up. The lack of democracy in this LP-controlled city takes your breath away.<br /> <br />Alan Story <br />Sheffield <br />NO STUMP CITY<br />no.stump.city@gmail.com <br />Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06298147857234479278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-73231063367624215652018-10-02T07:59:44.432+01:002018-10-02T07:59:44.432+01:00The younger "immaterial" working class m...The younger "immaterial" working class may or may not recognise themselves as thus - they are perhaps closer to the consciousness of white-collar working class Tories of the south of England. <br /><br />Union power is relative to the marketplace. The rail union is relatively powerful because it can stop the trains running. Unions representing call centre workers less so. <br /><br />Corbynism is a principally middle class movement, and by its nature global. This is what detaches it from the concerns of the unions, which are the opposite. A democratised union movement would be as likely to call for protectionism and closed shops, particularly in this globalised context. <br /><br />I get that you are excited by the spectacle of packed conferences, but the polls tell a very different story. Speedynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-21947412162074441842018-10-01T13:44:51.666+01:002018-10-01T13:44:51.666+01:00From Andy Newman off Facebook:
Some interesting t...From Andy Newman off Facebook:<br /><br />Some interesting thoughts here, but I think the conclusion puts the cart before the horse.<br /><br />In correctly recognising the sectional interest of trade unions, and their purpose of exerting leverage on employers, you nevertheless suggest the a "Corbynisation" of the unions would be about democratisation.<br /><br />But the missing part of your argument is that you don't demonstrate why such democratisation in itself would strengthen unions in fulfilling the purposes for which members are prepared to pay.<br />It strikes me that the fundamental weakness of Corbynisn as a social movement has been.its inability to use the dynamism and creativity that it has shown in elections towards workplace and trade unions activity that can deliver improvements right here and now, rather than waiting for a Labour government.Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06298147857234479278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-90588732554218431272018-10-01T13:40:13.814+01:002018-10-01T13:40:13.814+01:00This is what Skwawkbox have to say - this is prett...This is what Skwawkbox have to say - this is pretty much what I think it entails: https://skwawkbox.org/2018/10/01/the-definitive-guide-to-selecting-an-mp-under-labours-new-2018-rules/Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06298147857234479278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-1260691893241434942018-10-01T08:50:24.258+01:002018-10-01T08:50:24.258+01:00So just what has the Labour Party ended up with as...So just what has the Labour Party ended up with as far as selection goes?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-3797185995034767542018-09-30T22:56:29.838+01:002018-09-30T22:56:29.838+01:00Cheers!Cheers!Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06298147857234479278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-50880185934824526192018-09-30T22:48:49.208+01:002018-09-30T22:48:49.208+01:00Excellent article. But in paragraph 5 I think you ...Excellent article. But in paragraph 5 I think you mean "short shrift" rather than "thrift"John Edwardsnoreply@blogger.com