Alan Johnson calls for radical reform of Labour-union link

[TrueBlueTerrier]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... union-link" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;?

Labour must reform its leadership election rules and reduce the size of the union vote at its upcoming party conference or else look "as if it is prepared to tackle everybody else's problems except our own", the former cabinet minister and union leader Alan Johnson has said.

Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, is mulling his precise package of reforms to the union-party relationship, and Johnson urges him to opt for radical change. Writing in Progress magazine, Johnson warns: "A perception that Labour is in the pocket of the unions is damaging to the party and to the trade union movement. The precious link between Labour and the unions becomes a liability rather than an advantage when it is allowed to look like a transaction."

He praises Miliband for raising reform, but clearly would like the package to extend to the party conference, leadership election rules and composition of the party national executive.

Miliband is believed to be focusing on requiring union levy payers to be asked to sign up to an associate party membership. He also wants to reform the leadership electoral college so that only party members and new associate members can vote on a one-member-one-vote basis.

The Labour national executive is due to look at detailed plans on 4 February before a special conference on 1 March. Johnson, a former general secretary of the Communication Workers Union, says that in reality the present Labour system is "OMMV (one member, multiple votes) and NMOV (non-member, one vote).

"It is very kind of us to offer political opponents a vote in electing our leader but I doubt if our generosity will be reciprocated. And asking voters to tick a box to say they support our objectives is not exactly a failsafe way to prevent outside interference," he writes.

"Levy payers have been the ghosts in our machine for too long. It is time to admit that auto-enrolment is right for a pension scheme but wrong for a political party – particularly a party whose leader wants to forge a new kind of politics based on transparency, openness and integrity".

Johnson adds: "There is no earthly reason why affiliated unions should have 50% of the vote at conference. The input of trade unions is invaluable at conference, the national policy forum and the national executive committee (where the presence of members and local councillors need to be increased). But it should not be exercised through disproportionate, antiquated voting procedures".

Johnson denies that the reforms would jeopardise the party's finances, saying: "If we agree the basic principles of one member, one vote and individuals joining the party through a conscious decision, everything else – including finance – will fall into place. It is the principles that need to be the starting point, not the finances."

Miliband has also been warned that the rules for electing the Labour party leader must be changed or his other wider party-union reforms will leave individual trade unionists with twice as much voting power as mainstream Labour party members. Without reform to the electoral college for the leadership, a union member's vote could be worth as much as 40 times more per pound contributed to the party than that of a party member.

Labour leaders are elected through an electoral college in which union political levy payers have a third of the vote, Labour MPs and MEPs a third and party members a third. But in a broader reform, Miliband plans to require union political levy payers to make a positive decision to become associate members of the party, rather than being affiliated to the party by union headquarters. Miliband wants this new breed of associate union members to be given an equal vote in the Labour leadership on a one-member-one-vote basis alongside party members.

The concern among some constituency members is that if Miliband does not force through these reforms and the existing electoral college is left unchanged, the value of an associate union member's vote will balloon compared with that of an ordinary party member. An associate union member will pay £3 a year while the average party member pays more than £50 a year.

Mark Wickham-Jones, a professor of politics at Bristol University, said it was widely accepted that a shift to requiring union levy payers to make a positive decision to become an associate party member would reduce the number of affiliated union members dramatically, possibly to well below a tenth of the 2.3 million political levy payers currently affiliated to the party. Turnout in the union section in 2010 was 7.7% of the 2.7m ballot papers sent to union affiliates.

Wickham-Jones said: "At present Labour claims 180,000 full members, and the number of associate members might fall to below that figure. In the 1994 Labour leadership election, won by Tony Blair, nearly 800,000 union affiliates and 170,000 party members voted.

"In 2010, the election won by Ed Miliband, it was 211,000 and 127,000 respectively. As a result, the ratio of union to party members has fallen from 5:1 to 2:1." He argues that with contracting in, the ratio is likely to be closer to 1:2.

He says "So an individual trade union vote will be worth more than an individual members - clearly an anomalous and indefensible position. Contracting in makes the whole thing unworkable in anything like its present form. Each trade unionist or society affiliate would end up with more say than an individual member. Put simply the electoral college has to go and be replaced by a more workable, fair and realistic structure."

[pinstripe]

" It is the principles that need to be the starting point"

Well, the Labour Party had better find some.

[bustedflush]

Am I the only one who agrees that with the convergence of the 3 main parties (LiLaC) and effectively a one-party state, that the unions should deal with whichever party holds power, as opposed to the historical tie to a party that used to be for the workers??

[pinstripe]

Am I the only one who agrees that with the convergence of the 3 main parties (LiLaC) and effectively a one-party state, that the unions should deal with whichever party holds power, as opposed to the historical tie to a party that used to be for the workers??

I doubt it. None of the three main parties are for the working classes anymore. It's a sad day now that the Labour Party is seen as the enemy.

[redneck]

Pointless being associated with Labour any more. They have gone for the middle ground like the other big two. We have the most restrictive industrial practices in Western Europe thanks to all three. Labour when last in power were woeful in regard to changing anything in favour of worker organisation independent of company staff associations etc.

There needs to be a gelling of unions around another party entirely, the Labour link has failed to produce any real benefits in recent years even when the opportunity was there so no loss.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Am I the only one who agrees that with the convergence of the 3 main parties (LiLaC) and effectively a one-party state, that the unions should deal with whichever party holds power, as opposed to the historical tie to a party that used to be for the workers??

You are not alone

[fishtank]

There needs to be a gelling of unions around another party entirely.

Why gel it around a party?, that's what happened with the Labour Party and that eventually took us to where we are now..

Why not position ourselves as completely apolitical, mobilise and organise the working man/woman ourselves and let the parties come begging to us for votes, that way you set up a policy auction and sell your influence to the highest bidder before an election rather than waste time begging for changes after a party is in power and basically doesn't give a s**t about what you want.

[hans solo]

f**k labour they got us into todays mess with medlessum
im voting scottish independence
and f**k london cwu at same time wooohoooo

[bustedflush]

There needs to be a gelling of unions around another party entirely.

Why gel it around a party?, that's what happened with the Labour Party and that eventually took us to where we are now..

Why not position ourselves as completely apolitical, mobilise and organise the working man/woman ourselves and let the parties come begging to us for votes, that way you set up a policy auction and sell your influence to the highest bidder before an election rather than waste time begging for changes after a party is in power and basically doesn't give a s**t about what you want.

I agree. I am sick of unions like Unite spouting their neo-Marxist PC diatribes which have even put off the Labourites, and acting without unity and seemingly more concerned with the political dogma of their leaders. I remember the Power Workers actually dealt with the Tories back in the 1980's and never went on strike after. Scargill was right about some things but his 'bring down the Tory government' outbursts alienated people, who quite rightly said it was their job to elect/kick out governments.
What I am saying here is that by not making those mistakes again, and having a common purpose for ALL workers running alongside the trades represented by the individual union, there would be (as fishtank suggests) a massive block of support to be traded with ANY elected government.
Yes, LiLaC will all raise the IT thresholds, raise the MW etc. similarly but which one of the 3 could be cajoled into legislating regarding the zero-hour contracts, extra rights for temporaries etc?

Another thought - if the sweaties vote for their 'independence' from London and enslavement to Brussels later this year, you'll be unlikely to get any Labour governments with a working majority in future, as the main Tory vote is English. Bear that in mind....

[Ahebban]

Don't forget that the current government is a non-elected coalition, during whose term of office, will have done more damage in its tenure than many before it in respect to trade unions, health and safety at the workplace, the working class and those less fortunate. Labour would happily ditch its working-class and trade union roots in order to have the opportunity to govern within a coalition failing an outright majority.

Whilst times have changed the Conservative and Lib-Dem political dogma has not, as they both still see trade unions and the working class as the 'enemy'. Labour has shifted its political stance over the years and has alienated itself from its trade union, working class roots and values on which the party was founded. The only chance that Labour will have in returning to Westminster too govern is because of the backlash against the current coalition rather than producing a manifesto that includes the aims and aspirations of the working class and general trade union movement as well.

Johnson may call for 'one man, one vote' to be the democractic principle on which policy is decided at Conference and I don't have a problem with that. But when the Labour leadership pours scorn on its own Conference and rejects calls for the re-nationalisation of Royal Mail to be part of the next manifesto, then what is the purpose of Conference at all, whatever the voting system? What is the point of giving people the opportunity to vote only to have their vote overturned at the whim of the parliamentary group of MPs?

The Labour Party did nothing to support the aims and aspirations of the trade union movement during its tenure last time despite repeated calls for it to do so. Unfortunately, there is no co-ordinated opposition available as various factions struggle to fill the void, but are intolerant of each other rather than grasping the opportunity of having a truly representative voice for the working class and trade union movement.

[Godric]

f**k labour they got us into todays mess with medlessum
im voting scottish independence
and f**k london cwu at same time wooohoooo

does it not tell you something that the Snp and the Scottish Greens are the most left (socialist) of centre parties in the UK .... Labour have lost their way and since the 1970s their main goal has been Westminster and f*ck that daft cants that voted for them