Those unions which have cut their funds to the Labour Party need to think again, intoned last month s admirably Upfront Progress editorial. It will lose the party seats. It will damage dialogue between the leadership and the grassroots. With respect, come off it.
Let s begin with the argument that those who deprive the party of funds are undermining our ability to fight and win elections. My members contributed £800,000 to the Labour Party over the past twelve months. They did so despite the fact that many of their colleagues in the manufacturing sector are being thrown on the dole at a rate not seen since the darkest days of Thatcherism. They did so even though millions of them are seeing pension entitlements they have earned being axed by corporate executives who earn more in a year than they will earn in a lifetime. And they did so even when the leader of their own party attacked them as wreckers .
Trade unionists were supporting the Labour Party long before Mr Ecclestone, Mr Mittal and Mr Hinduja discovered their unlikely commitment to socialism and we will still be here long after those gentlemen have hitched themselves to a new political bandwagon.
Yes, there are problems with the party s finances. But the blame for that lies not with those who contribute the funding but with those charged with managing it. Anyone with any doubt should try asking the party s accountants who they think the real wreckers are.
Of course, trade union members are going to constantly review the level of their contributions to those organisations they support. GMB members recently reduced their contributions to bring them more in line with other major unions such as the T&G, freeing more funds for direct campaigning on issues such as PFI. But, in doing so, they are not undermining the government but simply responding to ministers demands that they go out and make the case on the issues that concern them in the same way as other interest groups. No special treatment , fairness not favours , no more beer and sandwiches ; all are fine by us. But in turn we do not expect complaints when the campaigns conducted on behalf of our members cut across delicate ministerial sensibilities.
As for the assertion that financial constraints are hindering the Labour Party s general secretary in his dynamic drive to make ordinary members authors, not just passive participants , of party policy; please. No-one is under any illusion which side of the shelf Progress occupies in the library of great Labour movement publications but even Tony Blair wouldn t argue that one of his great ambitions is to see policymaking removed from the hands of the leadership and placed in the care of grassroots party members. Ministers in Blackpool didn t even have the good grace to wait for the vote on PFI before telling every journalist in earshot that motions passed by the party would have zero influence on the government s programme.
There are serious issues that have to be confronted over the relationship between the unions and the party. One obvious area is financing, which is why the GMB has been pushing for a TUC-sponsored commission to examine in depth all aspects of the party s funding arrangements. Another is how we can use the unions success at recruitment and retention to assist the party in stemming the decline in our own membership base. We also have to see if there are ways we can harness the organisational skills of the movement to counteract the decline in voter turnout that was so evident in 2001.
All of these things, however, require a willingness on the part of those within the party to start to engage constructively and seriously with ordinary trade union members and with the issues that concern them. Speeches and articles which legitimately attempt to broaden the appeal of the party and attract new converts to our cause are all too often couched in language that appears to deliberately antagonise those who stuck with Labour during its darkest hours. Policies that will have a major and direct impact on trade unionists must be introduced carefully and with consultation, not rammed through as part of some show of strength for the CBI. And policies which will actually improve the lives of trade union members should be celebrated, not slid out of the tradesman s entrance as soon as Andrew Marr s back is turned.
Peter Mandelson, donning his well-worn guise of misguided missionary, suggested in the last issue that the government should help trade unionists to help themselves, by doing nothing for them. Had he adopted that attitude in 1997, John Major would now be celebrating his historic fourth term in office and Peter would be little more than an obscure back-bench Labour MP. Instead, the party addressed the voters concerns, showed it understood them, and explained what it would do to put some of those things right.
All trade unionists are asking for is the same treatment. Fairness, not favours. Yeah, we ll settle for that.