Unions and politics
Why feed the hand that bites you?
At last year’s UNISON conference, a resolution was clearly adopted on a card vote committing the NEC to consult the union at levels on the future of political funds and to report on proposals at the 2002 Conference.
The NEC pulled all the stops to denigrate the resolution "The Labour government – What do we get for our money?" However delegates realised that it was time to "stop feeding the hand that bites us".
The political funds have been controversial since UNISON’s formation seven years ago. The union has two funds: the General Political Fund (GPF) and the Affiliated Political Fund (APF) reflecting the origins of the constituent unions but they are both controversial as neither fund is accountable to UNISON conference.
The GPF is used for general campaigning, while it is through the APF that the union maintains its links with the Labour Party. Union relations with, and representatives to the Labour Party are determined by the APF Committee. While all members may pay into the APF, only Labour Party members may participate in the APF structure.
There has been for a while dissatisfaction about the lack of democracy of both funds and in particular with the APF. However, matters came to a head last year after Labour’s re-election to government.
After 5 years of continuing privatisation and lack of investment in public services, UNISON members are fed up. They jeered Stephen Byers when he addressed conference, and went on to vote for a review of the union’s political funds.
However despite this decision there has so far been no consultation about the future of the funds. Instead there has been a sustained exercise to promote the APF. Literature is now being sent regularly to stewards about the work of the APF and its successes in influencing the Labour government!
A consultation document and questionnaire about the APF has been sent out to all branches, but union officials claim that it is unrelated with the general consultation that the NEC has been instructed to carry out.
In January, UNISON’s NEC at last announced the commencement of the consultation for this year, which will be carried out in two stages. The dragging out of the consultation exercise is clearly designed to allow the APF to promote itself in order to avoid any changes to its functioning.
However, as the government is continuing with its privatisation programme through hospital and housing PFI schemes, stock transfers of estates, attacks on working conditions and poor pay rises, UNISON members are increasingly exasperated with the lack of action by the union’s leadership in defense of public services and jobs. They also do not understand why we should finance MPs and a party that is attacking us.
While advertisements in the newspapers and the cinemas are welcome, they are no substitute for a national campaign including industrial action against privatisation – or at the very least a demonstration on a Saturday in London. Such a demonstration had been agreed at last year’s conference, but has been dropped.
UNISON’s political funds clearly need to be changed. The United Left, a campaign of left activists in UNISON, has decided that the political funds should be placed under the democratic control of the whole membership, and that they should be opened up to allow the financing of candidates from other than just from the Labour Party, provided that they support UNISON policy.
The small but significant successes of the Socialist Alliance, Scottish Socialist Party and independents such as the anti-PFI candidates in local and parliamentary elections in Kidderminster, now put this matter on the agenda.
This initial position of the United Left needs to be developed. UNISON should have one political fund, used for general campaigning, the affiliation to the Labour Party or other parties, and the sponsoring of election candidates.
For the time being, we should reject any moves to disaffiliate from the Labour Party, as in the absence of a sufficiently credible national alternative on the left, it could be seen as shift to the right.
A debate has occurred in the United Left about the possibility of a "third political fund".
This position is promoted by the Socialist Party, who argue that this is the only rule change that could be allowed onto the agenda of conference.
However, such a fund would easily be dismissed as a "trot fund", and even if successful would only attract a handful of subscribers from union members, and would thus be doomed to being an irrelevant diversion.
The United Left clearly rejected this position, but it is feared that Socialist Party members will continue campaigning for this position in the union.
The debate on the future of the political funds is the opening of a debate if the future of the political representation of union members.
With all democratic channels in the Labour Party closed down and a government that is a bunch of "privatisation fundamentalists", the debate on the need for a new workers party is opening up.