Better the devil you know

Elaine Smith MSP

Has time run out for the Trade Union/Labour Alliance? Or has the time come for the Trade Unions to reassess their relationship with the Labour party? The situation with the RMT, the obvious disgruntlement of the FBU, and current moves to consider state funding of elections certainly indicate that the time has come to take a critical look at the trade union relationship with the people's party to see if the long-established links are worth holding on to. In the face of the attacks on trade union & labour values the question must be why should the unions continue to feed the beast that's effectively biting them?

The obvious argument for maintaining the traditional Trade Union/ Labour party link of 'Better the devil you know...' has been an all too familiar tactic employed by New Labour over the years; where trade unions and party members have been threatened with the spectre of the Tories to ensure their acquiescence with otherwise unpalatable policies. Indeed, Tony Blair spent most of his speech in Inverness doing just that.

In Scotland, however, this argument has become increasingly tenuous. The new politics born of devolution has seen an undeniable growth in the number of left of centre parties; undoubtedly providing possible alternatives for trade unions. Where the issue becomes less clear, however, is on the matter of whether these parties actually provide a realistic alternative for Trade Union political activity? In Scotland, the parties such as the SSP and SNP look set to remain on the periphery of politics for some time to come whilst in England the Socialist Alliance has no electoral presence. The new Unity coalition might make some inroads but that remains to be seen.

It is of course up to the unions who they care to support and fund but they must ask the question what will they get for their members and for the movement? They should also consider what they have done to support anti- New Labour pro-party Democracy, Devolution candidates and why they have continued to support those who positively embrace the New Labour project and do nothing to promote Democracy, Devolution within the party.

At the CfS fringe in Inverness it was reported that UNISON in Scotland are now considering withdrawing support from elected members who embrace anti-Trade Union policy. Also a word of caution to the RMT - a delegate from Highland reported that some RMT branches are considering supporting the SNP and Liberals as well as the much-publicised SSP link. The mind boggles at the implications of this.

It might seem easy to run to a party who seem more in tune with socialism than New Labour but we won't achieve a challenge to capitalism with the SSP, despite Colin Fox MSP's boast that the SSP "have united 95% of the left in Scotland"

The SSP appears at times to reject the parliamentary road to socialism and yet it strives for the election of representatives to Parliament. They have 6 members of the Scottish Parliament, they have put up candidates for Westminster and they are fielding candidates for the European Parliament. This rather seems to belie Colin Fox's words that; " When you find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, then you'll probably find the parliamentary road to socialism",

Why are they not then concentrating their time and energy on being a protest group fuelling dissent from mainstream politics? I would suggest because their leaders know that there will be no glorious revolution. The only way to effect social change is via Parliament in a Democracy, Devolution. The trade unions recognised that fact when they founded the Labour party over 100 years ago.

Indeed, George Galloway, who has more reasons than most to despise New Labour, would appear nevertheless, convinced of the centrality of the Labour Party to politics and political change in Britain:

"The Labour Party has millions of voters. It is known in every household in the land. It has hundreds of MPs, thousands of councillors. Even now - though we note the haemorrhaging in its ranks - it still has a couple of hundred thousand members. This is a behemoth compared to other left groups, even the most successful of them" (Weekly Worker December 4 2003). There seems little point in arguing at this time for a new party to represent the workers when we already have one, originally established in conjunction with the Trade Unions. Instead, I believe that Trade Unions working with grassroots Labour members can reclaim the party back to more traditional labour values and policies.

In Scotland we have been able to use trade union influence to make progress. A protocol has been introduced to address two-tier terms and conditions in PFI/PPP schemes; compulsory competitive tendering of public services has ceased; three year funding settlements for local authorities have been introduced; funding has been provided for trade union learning and education projects; and a memorandum of understanding between the unions and the Scottish executive has been implemented guaranteeing that trade unions will be consulted on policy proposals.

Even the fire fighters strike, despite the tensions it caused, also served to show the relative ease of access that the unions have to the Scottish Parliamentary Labour Party. On several occasions, representatives of the FBU met with the Labour Trade Union Group and, whilst some of these meetings were fractious, as you would expect, points were made and debated. Some, though admittedly not enough, Labour MSP's also joined fire fighters on the picket lines. The strength of this relationship was also shown when the Executive were defeated trying to repeal Section 19 of the Fire Services Act in the form of an amendment to the Local Government Bill. Without the support of Labour backbenchers that piece of legislative change would have been enacted. Likewise, the Nursery nurses' dispute has had support from Labour backbenchers and they will continue to push for a review of the service and a return to national bargaining. The political posturing of the SSP cannot hope to achieve what committed Labour backbenchers can.

We all, Trade Unions included, have to take some responsibility for the rise of New Labour. Our naivety, or perhaps simple misguided optimism, during the initial years of 'the project' has left us undoubtedly complicit in the face of an increasingly right wing and neo-liberal agenda.

There is no doubt that a return to more traditional Labour values is necessary and the trade unions are uniquely placed to put the Labour Party back on course. In Scotland, Labour's Campaign for Socialism is growing in numbers and has formed an alliance with several key Trade Unions to change the way the party operates in Scotland. This can be strengthened by trade union members attending local branch and CLP meetings to help reinvigorate the party at grassroots level and to push for more radical programmes. On the wider British scene, "Save the Labour Party", which any member can join, is forming alliances to make the party more democratic.

It is of course understandable that many trade unionists feel that maintaining the link with the Labour Party is becoming increasingly untenable. However, to sever the link with the Labour Party would be to concede defeat to the New Labour project and would consign the unions to the political periphery. Instead, I would urge all trade unionists to use their power to help reinvigorate the party at grassroots level and to work with others to reclaim the Labour Party to more traditional values. After all, if the New Labour project can radically change the Labour Party in such a short space of time, then surely Trade Unions and grassroots members, the majority of the Labour party, can claim it back?