THE LABOUR Party's links with the trade union movement - currently under consideration by a labour movement review groupare under attack as never before.
The only well-organised faction within its leadership is determined to phase, "the polifcal expression of the trade union bureaucracy and transform it into a potential coaliton partner for the Liberal Democrats.
While they face resistance from the centre and left and the majority of the historically unprecedented project is even being cal drift over the past decade.
Neil Kinnock relentlessly promoted one member, one vote* (OMOV) - a euphemism for heavily diluting union influence In the Labour Part throughout his leadership.
The idea was effectively rejected by conference in both 1984 and 1991. signticanty. & was the only major Issue on which he never got his way Nevertheless, the idea has not disdude shadow home secretary Tony Blair, shadow chancellor Gordon Brown, Kinnock himself - still on the national executire committee - and new MPs Ike Peter Mandelson and Tony Wright The rest of the party's leadership has long lost the habit of strategic thinking, giving the Kinnockites a continuing polifcal weight in excess of their numerical strength by virtue of their unity around a common project.
Although likely to proceed with extreme caution, John Smith is obviously is unlikely to be decisively resclved until the other side of the next election.
Internal labour movement tensions can be clearly seen in the review group's deliberabons. cluding GMB, Rail Maritime and Transport, the National Union of Public Employees and Manufacturing Science Finance are putting forward a secked by MPs Clare Short and John Prescott, who realise that unions offer Labour an irreplaceable mass base.
While Blair also sits on the group, his position is most ably voiced by the hard right superunion AEEU, repreits own agenda of institutionalised company unionism. Just as its TUC membership is negotiable, so are its links with for Labour.
Recommendations ndude slashing the overall union conference block vote from 90 to 70 per cent, as agreed at last year's party conference. While this should eventually reduce further to 50 per cent, there is a need to read: keep any future constituency left resurgence in control). The words are underlined in the original.
The suggestion is that MPs and MEPs, and possibly endorsed candidates and counciliors, should get a cent block vole as a third the balance of voing does not take place in isolation but must be made plications of establishing the Nafional Policy Forum."
In other words, now Labour Party conference no longer has real policy making powers, it can't hurt to make it a little bit more democratic.
Constituency and union delegates would effectively get mini-block votes propartional to the size of their local or i nons ariston respoo vely. Theoretically, this is good news for left, but the concession will now mean litte.
The real controversy is over pushing OMOV to its logical conclusion, by makng political-levy paying trade it is proposed that candidate selec