To save Labour’s link with the unions we need an honest examination of the relationship, writes Peter Watt

Marriage is a wonderful institution – I should know, I have had two. And the thing about any successful marriage or long-term relationship is that you have to work at it. Of course, it starts full of love, hope and optimism; but it soon settles into comfortable and familiar routines. If you are lucky enough to have a ‘good’ relationship then you enjoy the good times and somehow get through the bad times together. But if you realise that the relationship is in trouble and you both still think that it is worth making an effort then there is an option: relationship counselling. The independence of the counsellor helps you both work through the issues. But it can only ever work if you both want it to.

Labour and the affiliated trade unions have been in a long-term relationship for over 100 years. It is a remarkable and enduring relationship that has survived through good times and bad. But if we are honest, the relationship is in trouble.

For starters, honesty is vital to any successful relationship, but we are simply not being honest with each other. For instance, we pretend that, through the unions, the Labour party has direct links with millions of workplaces across the country. But it is the emperor’s new clothes and in our hearts we know it. The relationship is, in fact, a relationship between a tiny group of union officials and activists and a tiny group of party officials and activists. Delegated ‘democracy’, with tiny turnouts in party and union electoral processes, puts power in the hands of the few. It is not honest to pretend otherwise and the dishonesty is bad for our relationship.

And then there are the numbers of trade union members that we pretend are also members of the Labour party. We talk in proud and awed terms about the reach that having millions of affiliated members gives us as a movement. I remember the press briefings that we prepared in advance of the deputy leadership contest in 2007 when I was general secretary of the party. ‘Look at us,’ we said. ‘The most democratic and inclusive election of a deputy leader.’ But it was a myth. We certainly sent out millions of ballot papers, but they went to millions of people who did not even know that they were members of the Labour party in the first place, affiliated or otherwise. And if you are in any doubt about this then just look at the 2010 leadership contest where turnout among constituency Labour party members was 72 per cent while turnout among trade union members was less than nine per cent. The fact is that if you join most affiliated unions then you automatically pay into the affiliated political fund probably without realising it. And you keep paying unless you know that you do not have to and then specifically say that you do not want to.

There are of course some honourable exceptions. Unison, for instance, operates affiliated and non-affiliated political funds. You are explicitly given a choice as to which you pay into when you join. Who knows, perhaps Unite and the non-affiliated PCS may choose to operate the Unison model after their merger? And then there is Community, whose Labour Campaign Network allows people to join the union for £8 per month with half of this being union fees and the other half explicitly going into the affiliated political fund. Uniquely, this is also aimed at those in small workplaces where most people are not unionised. Members are offered legal and advice services from a call centre that does not rely on the usual union branch structure.

So a more honest approach to affiliated membership really is possible, but most of the unions choose opacity. This not just dishonest, it is also pretty short-sighted as there is every chance that the government will legislate to enforce greater transparency. But the fundamental dishonesty of claiming millions of affiliated ‘members’ is bad for our relationship.

Then there is the fact that the unions simply are not what they were. A century ago millions of working people were in a trade union, spread right across a wide range of sectors so that they really did represent the working classes. But now only 26 per cent of those employed are in a union; only 14 per cent of workers in the private sector are unionised, and the overall numbers are falling. People are voting with their feet and choosing to stay away. So a relationship that was built on maximising political representation for most working people is based on one that, in reality, now represents a minority. Unless most unions can see that they have changed and do something about it then they will continue to decline and our relationship will continue to be harmed.

And what about those familiar routines? I am not sure that they are as comfortable as we pretend. Take conference as one example: the numbers attending are falling and the interest in them beyond the security fence is negligible. So we know conference needs to change, but familiarity means we cannot change what we know is damaging us. Throw in the increasingly bullying behaviour by some of the big unions and, all in all, that historic relationship is in trouble. The question is: are we both able to recognise this before it is too late?

Now I know that when it comes to the blame game I clearly blame the unions for most of the relationship troubles. But I am also honest enough to know that it is not really all their fault and that the party is not blameless. But apportioning blame will not actually help. So I think that we have a choice. We can pretend that our relationship is strong, we can say it often and keep the familiar routines going, papering over the cracks as we go. If we do that then our relationship will continue to slowly die, damaging us both in the process. Or we can be brave and honest; we can admit that there are problems and that because it is a relationship that we both think is worth it we will get some help.

So Ed Miliband should be brave and admit that we have a problem, but that because the Labour-union link is so important he is determined to work our problems through. And he should say that we need help to put it right and is therefore establishing an independent commission that looks at the relationship, warts and all. The outcome should be a route-plan for how we move forward together. Establishing it and agreeing its membership and terms of reference will be incredibly politically difficult. And it will only work if we both want it to and if we both see the underlying strength of the bond between us.

But that is the thing with relationships – you have to work at them.

—————————————————————————————

Peter Watt is a former general secretary of the Labour party and a contributing editor to Progress. He is a member of the GMB and former member of Unison and NUPE