Blair has made it clear for some time that the trade unions can expect 'no favours' from a Labour government. Now a serious attack on the unions' involvement in Party policy-making is planned.
Looking back at the defcat of the 1979 Labour government, their concern is not the pay restraints and ticular the unions, revolted against these policics Their priority is to remove this ability.
Measures taken up until now have merely laid the basis for this major assault. The ditching of Clause IV was partly to prepare the ideological ground.
The extension of 'One Member One Vote' ballots to policy issues like the draft manifesto encourages party members to see themselves as individuals, not part of a collectivity. Conference has been downgraded, with more time for Cabinet members and less to discussion of motions.
Regional and women's conference have been sidelined, and the toothless policy forum has been lauded as the real place where disBut this is tinkering around the problem. Blair wants to see the cho of the ability of the unions (and constituency members) to affect party policy. o do this there has to be fundamental and, if possible, irre. versible, change.
Simple
A straightforward proposal to scrap ine rarty-union mak, walle having the merit of simplicity, would be problematic. While union leaders are reluctant to say the least) to fight with Blair, a proposal remove any input into the Party whatsoever would probably proYUKC 0880 This constitutional change would need to be ratitied by conference. The unions still have re or te voles it would onsy neca a small proportion of constituencies to join virtually the all unions to come endar State funding of political parties would circumvent the current itnancial reliance of the Party on the Still 'modernising' away: Blair unions (which still provide 50% of funding, despite the large donations from some businessmen), but there is no certainty that such a proposal would get passed.
Crucially it is in Blair's interest to keep the unions attached to the party, even with no say in policy, in loyalty of the union leaders.
An alternative line of attack has developed, now said to have the support of Blair and his clique. The Labour Co-ordinating Committee has often been influential in the 'retorm of Party procedures, heir proposals amount to keeping the link but gutting it of any real content.
Conference would be made up of a mixture of Plenary sessions and seminar groups. The plenary sessions would allow the top table to present their policy themes and Committees would be ana Tepacc Dy a smai steering committee to co-ordinate the running of the constituency party.
The local branch would become the primary means of organisation - running clections, socials, fund raising and recruitment. The Naicy-making body, "policy would be ine prescric of individual memocts [via OMOV] and Labour's Parliamentary Committee the Cabinet or Shadow cabinet]". The NEC's role would be a purely organisational one.
No one other than the leadership would have any input in policy making -beyond purely passive OMOV ballots.
The unions would remain attached to the party - positions on the NEC for instance -but there would be no votes on policy for them to affect. Affiliation to local parties would be meaningless and conference sidelined.
'Modernising'
These proposals will be 'sold" as modernising the Party, giving the membership greater rights as against the trade union barons and avoiding confrontation at confer.
They need to be recognised for what they are - a destruction of democracy in any meaningful sense and in particular of any union inpur. Far from increasing anyone's participation in policy making other than the front bench, they make party members into rubber stamps and election canvassers Does it matter? Hasn't Blair removed any semblance of socialist policy and reduced party democracy to a sham anyway? These proposals are qualitatively different.
While the current structures exist it would be possible to reverse some of the changes which have taken place over party functioning These proposals would destroy that ability.
They would mark an important change in the nature of the Labour Party. The Party has never been a socialist party since its formation, Voice The particular nature of its struc ing class to raise its voice - and Someone can be ho Such new structures would turn the Labour Party into something like the European continental model of a social democratic party, linked to the party, there is no mechanism for them to influence policy.
They are primarily treated as a transmission belt for the Party's the link is used as an excuse by union bureaucrats to demand the loyalty of their members to 'their' party.
Blair will probably attempt to introduce these proposals - or some water this ycar while still basking in the glory of an election victory and before any serious conflict develops with the unions. That is why socialists are organising now against these plans.
While most union leaders have dilution of the union-Party link and will fight any proposals to scrap it, they cannot be relied on.
At last ycar s Labour Party conference none of them were prepared to have a confrontation with Blair Stephen Byers' comments at the TUC. These proposals could also give them the excuse to argue that they are not about the link but about the rights of individual party members.
The 'Keep The Link' campaign has been collecting signatures in defence of the link and trying to get the issue on the agenda of every affiliated union Conferences. Local Coal is nave act to some arcas and a broadsheet is being producca acmoushing the beds pro posals. unionists as well as Labour Party members. Resolutions should be put wherever possible opposing these plans and winning affiliation to the campaign. Delegates to con ferences must be mandated to support reication or ine mink in as current form • The Keep The Link campaign can be contacted at 138 Crampton St London SE17 3AE for copies of the broadopen meeting of the campaign is on Sunday, Znd February 1la.m.-1p.m. at the Lucas Grays Inn Rd (Near Kings Cross).
ATTEND UNION MEETINGS!
WEAK
A Socialist Outlook pamphlet Trade Unions in the 1990s DON'T
UNIONS ARE EASIER TO SCREW!" from PO Box 1109 London N4 2UU