Socialists knew it: now the opinion polls have proved it: most trade union members think their unions should remain linked to the Labour Party.
Of course this evidence will not niacate John Smith and the right wing Labour 'modernis. ers', or the hard right of the trade union bureaucracy. Immediately after the poll was published. engineers and electricians' union AEEU announced it would continue paying £l million a year to Labour, Post-Thatcher Britain is a AEEU chief Bill Jordan despite campaigning for unions to have no say on how such money is spent.
With John Smith singling out the issue for his speeches to union conferences this summer, it is clear that the Labour-union link will be the most hotlyfought issue at this year's Party conference.
Of course, for many labour movement activists it all soems like an argument between bureaucrats - far less important than the question of how to organise a fight-back against the ongoing Tory attacks.
But the two are different aspects of the capitulation of the bureaucracy to the Tory onslaught.
Labour's right wing find the sent the working class embarrassing.
After the left gains of the late 1970s and carly 1980s. the right were determined not only to reverse those gains, but to ensure they couldn't happen again.
Fearful
The union bureaucracy, fearme the extension of the demand for democracy into their own ranks, and moving to the right in i vain altempt to dellect Thatcher's attacks, were willing - comprices in dercals wie ict consutuency parties on deocracy and on Labour policy.
But to consolidate their counter-revolution, Labour's right want to ensure that when the unions move left again there will not be a rental perorn anco. To do this they have to weaken, and if possible scrap, union input into decision-making and internal elections.
Having moved policy so far to the right that it is virtually indistinguishable from the Lib eral-Democrats, they want to sever tie ink wash alterentates the two. The Labour Party came about as a result of a fight in the unions to break with LibLabism' (Trade Union leaders elected as Liberal MPs) and form an independent party.
For many union leaders, of course, the issue has never ocen of retaining the colloctive input of their members into the la. bour Party's policy-making, but of preserving their personal inПиспос.
Others believe that with Labour leaders publicly distancing themselves from the unions, there is ittle point in lunging a link is important, and how it should be made democratic.
Defence of the link needs to a combined with demands for Labour to get off the fence and give full support to those resisting the Tories.
Because of the union leaders' self-interest, the link will not simply be scrapped this autumn. But this does not mean that there is no danger. Most of the 'compromises being floated would scriously weaken it and act as stalking horses for its abolition in the future.
All the 'intermediate" senems, such as a terister o party supporters or a topping up of the political levy abolish unons traditional collective deciston-making in favour of individual participation well as having serious flaws in their implementation The idea of unions having to construct a register of party supporters constituency by constituency is an administrative nightmare. while the lower "trade union rate' for membership has been a flop, like all of the national membership scheme.
The risk is that such proposals would be scrapped in a few of simple individual party membership.
In the situation, the left has no option but to defend the current union paracipation against all attempts to wcakea them.