New Statesman & Society, 4 May 1995
Will Tony Blair do anything significant to change his
party’s relationship with the trade unions before the next general election?
Paul Anderson has his doubts
“Change and modernisation doesn't stop at four o'clock this
afternoon," declared Tony Blair at last Saturday's conference to change
Clause Four of the Labour constitution. "It goes on – in the development
of the party, in the development of policy."
His remarks were widely interpreted as indicating an
intention to transform Labour's relations with the trade unions – and at first
sight it's not difficult to see why. Nine out often individual Labour Party
members who had been given the chance to vote had opted for the new Clause
Four, and the only union to ballot, the Communications Workers Union, had voted
for change by a similar margin. But two of the largest unions, the TGWU and
Unison, had stuck to decisions to oppose the new Clause Four made after
consultations with activists.
Blair was obviously disappointed that these unions had not
changed their minds at the last minute – and it only took a little
off-the-record briefing from sources generally believed to be close to the
Labour leader to convince many commentators that a radical shake-up of
Labour-union relations is on the way.
It might be, of course – but it's far more likely that Blair
will decide not to launch himself into forcing through significant
modifications of the party constitution this side of a general election. The
one change that is almost certain, particularly now that it has the backing of
deputy leader John Prescott, is a reduction of the union vote at party
conference from the current 70 per cent to 50 per cent – but Labour conference
in 1993 more-or-less agreed to make this reduction when individual party
membership reached 300,000 (see below).
Although there is undoubtedly some scope for unions to argue
that Blair is moving too fast on this, the indications are that he will get his
way in time for the 1996 conference. GMB general secretary John Edmonds told
NSS this week that he has no problem with the reduction, and his thinking is
echoed elsewhere in the upper echelons of the unions.
Although symbolically important, reducing the union vote
will not make a lot of difference to the way that the conference operates: the
big unions will continue to get their way on the overwhelming majority of
conference business. Ironically, the more prescient of them believe that the
reduction will increase the legitimacy of their participation.
Beyond this, there are two possibilities being given an
airing. The first is that Blair will push for a change in the composition of
Labour's National Executive Committee: he told the Guardian this week that he
would "like to see a broader NEC, with local government members, and a
greater role for the way in which ordinary members of the party are involved in
policy-making through policy forums". But even this is far from certain:
he said in the same interview that he did not have a blueprint for NEC reform
and went out of his way to deny that he wanted to reduce union representation on
the NEC. There is obviously quite a lot of drafting work to be done if the
composition of the NEC is to be changed at this year's party conference, practically
the last chance for it before the election.
The second possibility is some rule change to ensure that
unions ballot members on certain Labour Party matters – a simple enough idea
in theory, but likely to meet serious union resistance if the leadership tries
to push it through. One reason is that the unions resent the criticism of their
representative democratic structures implied by the argument that only ballots
can give them a legitimate voice in Labour affairs, a point made forcefully
last weekend by Rodney Bickerstaffe of Unison. Almost as important is the cost
to a union of balloting all members (£500,000 for the TGWU). If Blair proposes
the introduction of ballots for anything other than fundamental changes to the
party constitution, he will find it extremely difficult to get through
conference.
Other reforms to the Labour-union link are even more
unlikely – and in any case, Blair has more important tasks in the next six
months than messing with the party constitution. An economic policy is due to
be presented to Labour's National Policy Forum in June, and there's a serious
argument to be had over what it should contain, with the unions pressing hard
for commitments on reducing unemployment and on the level at which a Labour
government would set a national minimum wage. It is more than possible that the
leadership will get its way on economic policy – but its chances will be
reduced if it tries to force through constitutional change against the unions'
will at the same time.
Then there's the small problem of money – in particular the
war chest for the next election (see box). Unless Blair is a reckless gambler,
he'll put off trying to change anything significant about the Labour-union link
until well after the next election – and by then, the unions hope, he should
have more important things on his mind.
THE SMALL PROBLEM OF MONEY
One reason Labour is unlikely to break its links with the
trade unions is its reliance on them for cash.
Trade union donations comprise more than half the party's
income nationally in a non-election year (£4.7 million out of a total of £8.8
million income in 1993, the last year for which figures are available, came from
affiliated organisations) and the unions have pledged large sums for the party's
general election war-chest. The unions also contribute generously to local Labour
parties and towards MPs' research and administration costs.
Although Labour's membership has increased in the past year,
many of the new members are paying subscriptions at reduced rates(some of them so
low that it costs more to service them than they pay in subs).The party's
income from corporate donors is minuscule.
So, despite the success that the
party had in securing donations from individuals in the run-up to the 1992
general election (more than £2 million came in, mostly in small donations,
during the election campaign), no one in the party believes that it could fight
the next general election campaign without union support – although afterwards,
if it wins the election, it could reduce its reliance on the unions by
introducing state funding of political parties. The problem here, however, is that
a subsequent Tory government could abandon state funding – and if Labour had by
then alienated the unions, it could find itself in a financial crisis worse than
anything it has seen in the past 15 years.
REFORMING THE UNION LINK: THE OPTIONS
All but one of the elements of the Labour-union relationship
would be difficult to change
The role of the trade unions in Labour's constitution has
changed in recent years – but it remains crucial to the operation of the party
at every level. There are four key areas where the unions play critical
constitutional roles: the annual party conference, the National Executive
Committee, constituency Labour parties and leadership elections.
Party conference The union role at Labour's annual conference was modified by
rule changes in 1993.The unions now have 70 per cent of the vote at party
conference (as against 30 per cent for CLPs) and each union may, if it wishes,
split its share of votes instead of wielding it as a block(although few do).
According to the rules laid down in 1993: "The balance of voting between
the two sections shall be reviewed by the National Executive Committee and annual
conference once individual membership exceeds 300,000, with a view to changing
the balance in favour of constituency parties provided that such adjustment does
not reduce the proportion of the total vote cast by affiliated organisations to
less than 50 per cent."
Tony Blair seemed to interpret this as meaning that, now
that membership has reached the 300,000 threshold, the union share of the vote
at this year's conference could be reduced to 50 per cent by a meeting of the
NEC in the next couple of months: most others reckon that the rule implies that
conference needs to approve the change before it happens (which would mean it
could not take effect until the 1996 conference). Still others argue that the
NEC should recommend not an immediate reduction to 50 per cent, but a phased
reduction. How vigorous the argument about the interpretation of the rules will
be is difficult to judge, but few believe that either the left or the trade
unions will put up much of a fight if Blair insists on a rapid reduction to 50
per cent. No other reforms of the union role at conference have so far been
suggested.
National Executive Committee Probably the most important role that unions have in
Labour's organisation is in the National Executive Committee (NEC), the body,
25-strong apart from the leader and deputy leader, that is responsible for the
day-to-day running of the party and supervision of its policy-making. Through
their membership of the NEC, trade unions are represented on all the party's
policy-making bodies: the domestic and international policy committee, the six
NEC-shadow cabinet joint policy commissions and the National Policy Forum.
Twelve NEC seats are reserved for the trade unions: they are
chosen by union votes at party conference (invariably after a little behind-the-scenes
fixing). The unions also effectively determine who sits in the five-member
women's section of the NEC through their votes at conference. The unions have
no influence over the election of the seven members chosen by constituency
Labour parties or the single member chosen by affiliated socialist societies.
Proposals for changing the composition of the NEC have been
recurrent, and have come from many different directions. In recent years,
feminists and the left have argued that the women's section should be elected
by the Labour women's conference, while Labour councillors have made the case
for their own section of the NEC.
The problem with NEC reform for the
leadership is simple: the massive union representation and the role of the
unions in electing the women's section act as a counterbalance to the
constituency section whenever the latter shifts to the left (as it did from the
mid-1970s until the mid- 1980s), and a simple reduction in the union role now
could exacerbate tensions between party and government if the next Labour
government loses popularity among ordinary party members. This problem might be
overcome if reduction in the union presence on the NEC were compensated for by
the introduction of a section for councillors and perhaps one for MPs and MEPs
– but reform along these lines might create an unmanageably large committee or
massive resentment among the unions or both.
Constituency Labour parties At the local level, trade unions affiliate to constituency
Labour parties(CLPs), which allows their members to join at a reduced rate,
gives them representation (up to a maximum of five delegates) on the
constituency party's general committee (GC), and allows them the right to
nominate candidates in parliamentary selections. The GC handles everyday
management of the CLP, can submit resolutions to annual conference, elects a
CLP's officers (including delegates to annual conference) and draws up
shortlists in parliamentary selections. Before the introduction of one member,
one vote for parliamentary selections and leadership elections, the GC also
decided the CLP's choice of putative MP and leader.
There have been no firm proposals from the Labour leadership
for radical changes in the union role at CLP level-not least because, despite
the recent increase in Labour Party membership, many local parties are too
small to function without the participation of union delegates on the GC. There
is some pressure for the extension of OMOV to the election of delegates to
party conference, and there have always been complaints that the union delegate
system is abused by political factions of left and right: the criterion for a
union to have the right to representation on a CLP's GC is merely that it has
members registered in a particular constituency. How exactly such abuse could
be stopped is difficult to workout unless union representation on GCs were to
be removed entirely.
Leadership elections The role of the unions in Labour leadership elections was
drastically reduced after uproar over the way that big union leaders announced
their support for John Smith as leader after the 1992 general election. Under
the system introduced by rule changes in 1993, Labour's leader and deputy
leader are elected by a three-section electoral college(comprising Labour MPs
and MEPs, individual party members and affiliated unions and other
organisations), with each section apportioned a third of the total vote and
each section voting on a one person, one vote basis. It is extremely unlikely
that any proposals for changing this system will emerge in the foreseeable
future – not least because the Labour Party constitution forbids returning to
constitutional changes for three years after they are approved except in
emergencies.