Saturday 1st March saw the Labour Party Special Conference, venue for the vote on the Collins Report, the proposed changes regarding the trade union and Labour Party link. Steve Brown, delegate to the Special Conference, reports on the discussion and the meaning behind the changes, which were voted through.
There was undoubtedly a mood amongst the delegates, to the Labour Party’s Special Conference on Saturday 1st March, that the Collins Report and the conference itself was an unfortunate distraction, and that all those present would have been more sympathetic to the idea of discussing policies and practical suggestions of how to get rid of the Tories at the next election. However, the Labour leadership had forced the issue and were determined to try and push through this series of reforms to the rule book which will, without any shadow of doubt, undermine the link between the trades unions and the Labour Party.
The whole process was undemocratic from the start and did not give the correct opportunity to absorb what was being proposed. The document, for instance, had not been made available to all members of the Party and was only available online. The actual official pamphlet was only sent out to the delegates in the post 4-5 days prior to the conference, which gave no time to pour over its contents. Many people were left with only filtered and vague accounts from the press to lend any explanation into the proposals within its pages. In the end the vote went massively in favour of accepting the changes with a vote of 86% to 14%.
Democracy and participation
This lack of democracy surrounding the Collins Report is a reflection of how these party reforms will weaken the link. For example, one of the main ideas is the creation a larger layer of “registered” party supporters who will not have full membership rights via their TU affiliation, but who will be able to vote in leadership elections. Such supporters, who are likely not to be actively involved in the internal debates and discussions within the Party, will mostly pick up relevant information on leadership candidates via the TV and the press, who will almost always favour pro-establishment candidates.
The move away from collective TU representation toward one member one vote (OMOV), although a democratically progressive sounding view, is an illusion which allows for the media to play more of a role in shaping the views of those eligible to vote. The introduction of OMOV is a conscious move away from the already weak state of Party and trades union branch meetings where real debate and discussion should be taking place on all issues, including the selection of candidates. This is what lies behind these reforms, and, by reducing the amount of money the unions will inevitable donate to Labour, is part of an attempt by the right wing to remove the unions from the decision making process altogether.
However – and despite the general sycophancy and leader worship, the blue union jack which adorned the backdrop of the stage, and the stage management and glitz of the whole affair – there were some interesting aspects to the conference which, as Marxists, we cannot ignore. What was evident from the start, and even contained within Ed Miliband’s speech, was the general left wing rhetoric that was being expressed, especially regarding the impact and attacks on working people and the rolling back of benefits and the increase in poverty experienced by working class people.
Nearly all the delegates expressed revulsion and horror at the living conditions of our youth and the elderly, the unemployed and the low paid, and all wanted a Labour government to truly tackle “inequality and social injustice” after the next election. All the anger and general calls to defeat the Tories, to defend the “The British people” against the evils of Cameron were sent out, but there was no mention of the policies or political ideas which could inspire people to vote for the party to achieve these ends, other than the scrapping of the bedroom tax.
What this tells of overall, once we peel away the rhetoric of the careerists and opportunists, is a deep seated desire to see real change in society, a change which many still see being carried out by a Labour government.
Trade union involvement
All three general secretaries of the biggest trade unions – Len McCluskey, Dave Prentis, and Paul Kenny – came to the platform giving tepid support for the rule changes, but stressed that they would be making an even greater and concerted effort to get their members involved as full party members, to take the trades unions’ policies into the party even more and to push for TU candidates to take up parliamentary seats. Len McCluskey in particular defended the UNITE convenor from Grangemouth, who was also in Falkirk CLP, and the integrity of the actions of the union in the MP selection process in Falkirk, which acted as the catalyst to the Collins Report, and condemned the leadership’s decision to involve the police. This received a standing ovation.
Many delegates bemoaned the low involvement by members in the day-to-day life of the party and have accepted the Collins Report as a means of stimulating more activity and increasing the numbers. But, as we have always stated, you cannot solve political problems through organisational rule changes alone.
Throughout the labour movement as a whole there is a deficit of ideas and a lack of policies that can truly change society and provide a lead to working class people. Workers want to see the Labour Party fight on their behalf and want to see the leadership truly take on the Tories with policies that can really transform their lives. Instead, what we get is still the old “Tory Lite” politics as peddled by Blair and co.
It is within this atmosphere and after the next election that the rule changes will kick in and we can therefore not expect many workers to tick the affiliated member box on their union application forms. One further example of this was when the GMB sent out 20,000 free LP membership forms to their members in a recent campaign to increase trade union representation in the party and received only 12 returned forms.
Need for socialist policies
The balance of the debate was also questionable, with only five speakers being called who argued against the report as opposed to 25 who spoke in favour. Of those who spoke against, four of them mainly dealt with the negative organisational impact of the new rules, and quite correctly alluded to the overall weakening of the link. Only one person brought up the real issues at the heart of the whole affair – and that is lack of socialist policies and political debate.
The first indication of how retrograde these changes are was seen the following morning in the national press, with the arch traitor David Owen, who supports the rule changes on the grounds that this forms a deeper attack on the TU link, making a £7,500 donation to the party. This creature betrayed the entire movement in the 1980’s when he and four other right-wing Labour MP’s broke from the party and established the SDP, an organisation which eventually merged to form the current Lib-Dems.
The struggle for the soul of the party, however, is far from over. These rule changes will bring some difficulties and indeed might create a financial crisis for the party but, what the leadership do not understand is the basic socialist aspirations of the working class. There is no political alternative for workers. For this reason, the crisis of capitalism will be reflected in the ranks of the movement.
For Miliband, the real pressure will come to bare after the next election. He will have some severe choices to make. He can either continue to attack the working class, as the Coalition have done, or begin to truly represent their interests. Given that Miliband and the other Labour leaders have stated that they are for defending capitalism, we are certain to see a continuation of austerity after the 2015 General Election. But this will bring Miliband and co. into direct conflict with the unions and the working class as a whole.
As a Socialist Appeal supporter said from the platform, “What is needed in the movement are socialist policies!” This received a large round of applause. The call also came from the platform in the same speech for the nationalisation of the energy industry and transport, and for the nationalisation of the commanding heights of the economy, repeating Ralph Miliband’s call in 1955. All of these calls were met with a large applause. It is with such policies – with a socialist programme, rather than organisational changes – that Labour and the trade unions must fight against the Tory-led coalition and provide a real alternative to austerity for working people.
