The vote by a like toe minimum wage, comspecial penlive tendering, rumours that they are going soft on the conference of internal market in the NHS, UNISON's and the fact that Tony Blair Affiliated has sent his kid to an opted-out Political Fund to school.
All of this had a special reject Tony resonance with low-paid Blair's new UNISON members working Clause Four in those very public services, threw top Labour who want to see something a bit more than that. and UNISON bureaucrats into SO: These policies won't apoplectic rage, come as a complete surand opened a prise to many UNISON real possibility members up against that Blair might right wing Labour counloso. cils, will they? Socialist Outlook GM: That's right. We've spoke to GEOFF already seen in London MARTIN, Chair of boroughs which have gone UNISON's London beyond the constraints of Region APF, who compulsory competitive tendering imposed on them has been a by the Tories, and have volloading untarily tendered out servcampalgnier in ices they did not need to. defence of There is a feeling amongst Clause Four. activists in London that we could see the same thing from a Labour government. We are SO: Why did UNISOR saying that we want this issue delegates stand firm dealt with before we get a genFeral election, before we get a against Blair's text?
Labour government, rather GM: The key sticking point than wait till afterwards. was the reference in the new clause to private enter- SO: What are the arguprise, the market and com- ments put up by people petition. trying to defend the Blair How could a public sector union which has been hammered over sixteen years on GM: The argument as far as the basis of that very philoso- I can understand it has been phy suddenly sign up to it, just that we can't be seen to opbecause it has come from the pose the leader, rather than Labour leader's office? any attempt to address the The new clause also comes nuts and bolts of what the FOUR in the wider context of con- cer that Labour is dumping clause does or doesn't say.
This is more or less an expolicy commitments on issues ercise in giving a blank cheque to the Labour leadership, and there's no way we can do that. There's too much at stake; there are already rumours about a Labour government going in hard against the public sector in terms of fi"Blair's clause reads like an NHS all its references to the rigours of market and all the rest of it. It is just completely alien." nance. That means going in hard on public sector pay.
There have been all sorts of rumour and speculation on what might happen to UNISON if we weren't seen to support the new clause. But in Prescott's speech failed to win over UNISON delegates: so did blackmail from Labour and UNISON bureaucrats the event a lot of the delegates at the special conference reacted against that.
People don't like to be blackmailed, and they don't like the impression that their views are being ignored and that they have just to sign up to something without having a proper debate.
It's quite interesting that Tony Blair was the person who said he wanted an open and honest debate on Clause Four.
But those of us who have engaged in it have had to run the gauntlet of unattributed slaggings-off from Labour front-benchers under the cloak of anonymity. If that's an open and honest debate, then forget it, really, it's just nonsense. He only wants an honest debate if everyone agrees with him. cials of UNISON have left It up to you as a lay view democratically deconsultation process in the structures at branch and regional level which culminated in the national political forum.
I don't believe it's right to have one member one vote on every individual issue. We have representative democracy: that's what the House of Commons is about.
We haven't had a postal ballot like some of the CLPs who have been asking questions along the lines of Do you live in the modern world or are you some unreconstructed dinosaur still harking back to the nineteenth century?' SO: Of course much of the balloting of CLPs took place before the wording of the clause was published, meaning that some bought a pig GM: That's right. And another question is whether some of the Labour frontbenchers who say we would have been prepared SON funds spent on camwhen we already have strucSO: Now that UNISON is opposing Blair, the Sperun thing. What do you GM: Certainly the Special Conference is not the end of the matter, whichever way it goes.
The real battle will still be to get some real commitments into the manifesto for the next general election which reflect the wishes and aspirations of trade union members and other ordinary working class people.
Take the minimum wage for example. I just can't understand this argument that says we can't put a figure on the minimum wage until we see the Treasury's books. That's the line that I've been given by front-bench spokesman Kevin Barron.
I think that's rubbish. What they really mean is that we can't campaign for a minimum wage because we might upset some crap employers who pay people shit wages.
The problem we've got in the Labour Party at the mo ment is that there is no policy on almost anything: we've got this huge great vacuum.
So you get speculation, people saying 'this is going to be Labour's policy': the most recent example in the NHS has been this business about stopping funds for fertility treatment. Then you hear a ringing denunciation from Labour, saying 'that is not our policy'.
There has been a lot of speculation that Labour is looking to accept some elements of the NHS internal market.
The problem is that the revised clause four would give them room to do that. Blair's clause reads like an NHS opt-out Trust application, with all its references to the 'rigours of competition', 'enterprise', the market and all the rest of it. It is just completely alien.
We don't want to see the same drift in health that we've already seen on education. What are we going to have next? Tony Blair sending his kids to a private hospital?
competition', 'enterprise', the