Topic: The Labour Party (*)

[classycarra]

Hahaha thanks for proving my point perfectly you bitter little labour hater. Another one raging at how good tonight went for Jezza!

Been out tonight mate, not caught 'Jezza' debating yet

[The Gulleysucker]

Not sure where to put this but since there is a Labour party connection, I'll stick it in here.

The decline in Trade Union membership..  http://resolutiontrust.org/trade-union-membership-has-fallen-further-than-ever-before

This morning the government published the latest estimates for trade union membership in the UK, they make for grim – but important – reading for anyone in favour of a healthy union movement. Here are 5 key points to take away from the statistics.

Membership levels have fallen by a quarter of a million in just one year

There are now just 6.5 million people who are members of trade unions in the UK. This is down from 7 million at the start of this decade, and from a peak of 13 million in 1979.

The fall in membership over the course of 2016 is the biggest annual decline since comparable records began in 1995. With membership among employees falling by 275,000, overall membership was down by slightly less (around 250,000) because of a slight up-tick in the number of self-employed people in trade union membership. Although this growth is, in part, a product of the surge in self-employment we saw over the course of 2016.

.....

I knew membership had fallen, though not by quite so much so I think it might be worth a read as looking to the future, there are obviously some implications for the Labour movement in general.

[the 92A]

Rather than ideological reasons I'd say far more likely structural decline due to cuts in public sector which has high union density and increase in part time zero hour contracts and agency work. In my own industry which is public sector and has very high union density, we have seen a decline on Merseyside  from 1500 of us to 700 of us through cuts. The union density has remained the same  but in stark terms we have lost over 50% of our workforce and therefore it follows the union has lost over 50% of our members.

[Alan_X]

These are really telling graphs from that blog:





The unions aren't representatives of low-paid manual workers any more. They're more likely to represent well paid, public sector workers. And from here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/trade-union-statistics-2016

More than half of union members are in Senior Management, Professional Occupations or Associate Professional Occupations, whereas traditional working class membership (Process, Plant and Machine Operators or Elementary Occupations) is only 39% of the total membership.

I can't help feeling that this might have influenced the Manifesto. It would certainly explain the high start level of proposed tax increases and why it's so middle-class friendly.

[Alan_X]

Rather than ideological reasons I'd say far more likely structural decline due to cuts in public sector which has high union density and increase in part time zero hour contracts and agency work. In my own industry which is public sector and has very high union density, we have seen a decline on Merseyside  from 1500 of us to 700 of us through cuts. The union density has remained the same  but in stark terms we have lost over 50% of our workforce and therefore it follows the union has lost over 50% of our members.

That's bound to have an impact Albie, and we know that it was a deliberate act by Thatcher to decimate heavy industry to kill off the unions. Do you think that the unions are entrenching with the base they have?

[The Gulleysucker]

Rather than ideological reasons I'd say far more likely structural decline due to cuts in public sector which has high union density and increase in part time zero hour contracts and agency work. In my own industry which is public sector and has very high union density, we have seen a decline on Merseyside  from 1500 of us to 700 of us through cuts. The union density has remained the same  but in stark terms we have lost over 50% of our workforce and therefore it follows the union has lost over 50% of our members.

I too doubt it's anything to do with ideological reasons, but it's that bit about the demographic of membership now being largely older people that's possibly a bit of a time bomb as far as future funding is concerned. What happens when they retire, where are all the young people to replace them?
Perhaps this is where a Momentum type organisation could fill a gap, not that I'm at all keen on the opacity of Momentum, but as a concept it does seem to have harnessed some enthusiasm amongst the young, perhaps misplaced/misguided, but enthusiasm never the less?
 

[Lush is the best medicine...]

These are really telling graphs from that blog:





The unions aren't representatives of low-paid manual workers any more. They're more likely to represent well paid, public sector workers. And from here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/trade-union-statistics-2016

More than half of union members are in Senior Management, Professional Occupations or Associate Professional Occupations, whereas traditional working class membership (Process, Plant and Machine Operators or Elementary Occupations) is only 39% of the total membership.

I can't help feeling that this might have influenced the Manifesto. It would certainly explain the high start level of proposed tax increases and why it's so middle-class friendly.

unite made a multi million pound donation so of course they'd have undue amounts of influence on it, had some company given that much to the tories and there were significant parts of the manifesto that benefitted them people on here would be screaming bloody murder

[SamAteTheRedAcid]

unite made a multi million pound donation so of course they'd have undue amounts of influence on it, had some company given that much to the tories and there were significant parts of the manifesto that benefitted them people on here would be screaming bloody murder

Unite have always made huge contributions to Labour party funds.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/feb/19/labour-catching-tories-donations-election

[The Gulleysucker]

unite made a multi million pound donation so of course they'd have undue amounts of influence on it, had some company given that much to the tories and there were significant parts of the manifesto that benefitted them people on here would be screaming bloody murder

But that is the historical purpose of most Unions, to support their members and also the Labour movement in general.
They were heavily involved in the establishment of the Labour party.

[west_london_red]

That's bound to have an impact Albie, and we know that it was a deliberate act by Thatcher to decimate heavy industry to kill off the unions. Do you think that the unions are entrenching with the base they have?

Similar experience where I am as 92A. We have had a round of so far mostly voluntary redundancies, for those for who the offer is worth accepting tend to be the old timers who have been here 15-20+ years but they are also the ones who tended to be the most unionised. As the older colleagues go, the ones who replace them tend to be younger and less unionised and so the strength of the unions is being weakened. 

As to your question, I would certainly agree. Unions need to make more of an effort to gain membership with younger workers and those outside the public sector, they cant keep relying on what has been over the last few years a shrinking pie to stay relevant.

[west_london_red]

unite made a multi million pound donation so of course they'd have undue amounts of influence on it, had some company given that much to the tories and there were significant parts of the manifesto that benefitted them people on here would be screaming bloody murder

Its not a secret is it? Its why the party was formed in the first place.

[Lush is the best medicine...]

Its not a secret is it? Its why the party was formed in the first place.

seems to give the unions more than what previous labour manifestos?

[Yorkykopite]

That's bound to have an impact Albie, and we know that it was a deliberate act by Thatcher to decimate heavy industry to kill off the unions. Do you think that the unions are entrenching with the base they have?

There's been a profound and largely silent revolution in the labour movement. Up until the mid-1980s the TUC was really a creature of the skilled blue-collar unions. They founded it, they provided the most money and the most members, they staffed the General Council, they infused the PLP and were often heavily represented in the Labour cabinets. They also provided many of the activists at grass-roots level for the Labour party.

Now, those once mighty unions (NUM, AEU, TGWU, NUR, ISTC) have either disappeared or been marginalised into insignificance and it's the white-collar public-sector unions who make the running and make policy. It's another factor in the Labour party's perceived alienation from the traditional working class.

It's also allowed the Labour party to swing to the left. At local level blue-collar trade union reps on GCs and ECs tended to be on the right or centre-right of the party. They were almost certainly socialists, but had nothing of the poly-trot about them and were recognisably like the millions of ordinary working-class folks who automatically voted Labour up and down the land. My own dad was like that. The same was broadly true on the national executives of TUC and the Labour party. Think of Ernie Bevin or George Brown, Gavin Laird or Sid Weighell. There's no way those fellas would let the extremists take over "their" party.

That ballast has gone now. And that connection with the working class. This explains a lot I think.

[stewil007]

Just on the unions, maybe a reason for falling numbers is simply down to cost.  There is enough pressure on your paypacket without a bit more being taken.

[west_london_red]

Just on the unions, maybe a reason for falling numbers is simply down to cost.  There is enough pressure on your paypacket without a bit more being taken.

Its not cheap I'll give you that, but in the long term I would say the cost is outweighed by the benefit in terms of collective bargaining in many cases. The problem right now is if your under a public sector pay cap like a nurse and your getting a 1% pay rise theres not a lot your union can do for you.

[west_london_red]

seems to give the unions more than what previous labour manifestos?

Not sure about that. Under Blair there was the minimum wage and huge investment in the public sector so that kept the unions happy so they didn't need to demand a lot. But also more recently I think for the bulk of union members (mostly in the public sector) times have never been worse, either little or no pay increases for 7 years, expected to do the same work with less people and the problems are only getting more acute hence the need for the unions via Labour to try and address this.

[the 92A]

Having looked at the report it seems changes in the education sector are distorting the figures but there's no mistaking overlying trends of structural decline in the highly organised workforces and little uptake in new sectors

Historically big structural change has always brought challenges to the trade unions, the matchgirls were a precursor to the trade union movement organising amongst the unskilled, who were thought to be unorganisable then, in the 50 and 60's it was thought that tv's and foreign holidays would prevent places like the carplants from being organised.  Ford Halewood was an attempt to set up a carplant with a green workforce. Halewood would only accept 'green' recruits unsullied by a background in trade unionism and there was little tradition of unionised factory work on Merseyside compared to other regions. 

But what we are seeing at the moment is unprecedented in terms of structural decline in the well unionised indusrtries alonside a massive attack on workers living standards under austerity, where real wages actually declining, I think we have to go back to the thirties to see such a decline in real wages. The attacks of benefits are working, forcing people into lowpaid, casual work with little stability. It will take a high level of confidence and struggle to Unionise places like the Amazon distribution depots, yet we are seeing a decline alongside very low levels of fightback and confidence. I've lost over 20% of my real wages since 2008 and lost hundreds of workmates, I'm in whats seen as one of the most militant unions in one of the strongest areas,  but in these circumstances, you don't think I feel industrially confident, angry yes but we don't feel  confident. In Europe out of the 27 counties there are only 2 other countries that have seen a decline in real wages and one of them is Greece without a level of fightback at some point why would you join a union? But not all is lost there are massive levels of discontent and anger in workplaces, objectively places like the Amazon distribution centres are ripe for organisation and will give the enormous power to the unions organised but will we see those sort of battles, at the moment it seems unlikley but things are volitile and it's not beyond comprehension in the future.

In many areas of the uk, the public sector has been one of the most important employers and the people sitting in the offices in Bootle may have office jobs but their fathers worked on the docks or went to sea, It's not just structural changes in the workplace that have changed the Labour parties relationship with the working class but the whole Blair/mandelson project was one of taking the core vote for granted as they'd elect a dog and concentrating on the concerns of the floating voters who win us elections. Where I grew up we went from having Eric Heffer literally doing meetings at the bottom of our street with a megaphone to feeling what's the point, the activists and the people in every workplace who were organically part of the Labour Party, weren't stupid they knew they weren't important anymore and were an embarrassment and drifted away

[classycarra]

I don't have the same experience, or historical understanding as others in here, but I can anecdotally attest to friends of mine being put off by bellends like Len McCluskey.

There's obviously little engagement with union members, and little faith in their leaders, hence the appallingly low turnout that allows clowns like McCluskey to cling to the reigns - and although this leads to a self fulfilling prophecy that union members could break out of (and new members could help with) I do think there is something in it. The last Unite election was tin-pot to say the least. Why would anyone trust political despots like that to act in their interests

[Yorkykopite]

In many areas of the uk, the public sector has been one of the most important employers and the people sitting in the offices in Bootle may have office jobs but their fathers worked on the docks or went to sea, It's not just structural changes in the workplace that have changed the Labour parties relationship with the working class but the whole Blair/mandelson project was one of taking the core vote for granted as they'd elect a dog and concentrating on the concerns of the floating voters who win us elections. Where I grew up we went from having Eric Heffer literally doing meetings at the bottom of our street with a megaphone to feeling what's the point, the activists and the people in every workplace who were organically part of the Labour Party, weren't stupid they knew they weren't important anymore and were an embarrassment and drifted away

You make a fair point about the Blair-Mandelson project. Who would deny that New labour took its core voters for granted. The parachuting of favoured sons and daughters into heartland seats was only the most obvious sign of this complacency. But perhaps you underestimate the quality of community activism that has come from a new generation of - often- female Labour MPs. Stella Creasy in Walthamstow has pioneered a lot of this. Jess Phillips in Brum is another excellent example. They reach parts of the community - especially women - that old Eric would never have reached. And they do it in suitably modern ways that far out-perform the megaphone.

[the 92A]

No ones slagging old Eric off . My first two 'political memories, were being taken to a dockers strike meeting on my dad's shoulders so i could see the man talking and Eric coming around and doing street meetings where many of his audience were mums and kids. I'm not denying there are decent MPs who still get the message out very well but the difference was that layer of organic activists that where in every pub and street that had fought For The NHS and the Welfare state and were an organic communal memory.

[west_london_red]

I don't have the same experience, or historical understanding as others in here, but I can anecdotally attest to friends of mine being put off by bellends like Len McCluskey.

There's obviously little engagement with union members, and little faith in their leaders, hence the appallingly low turnout that allows clowns like McCluskey to cling to the reigns - and although this leads to a self fulfilling prophecy that union members could break out of (and new members could help with) I do think there is something in it. The last Unite election was tin-pot to say the least. Why would anyone trust political despots like that to act in their interests

Low turnout isn't specific to Unite, in my union (the TSSA) our leadership contest drew a similar low turnout recently. Most members don't care, they want their pay and conditions protected and that's about all. The other thing worth remembering is that if your at the sharp end of job losses and you lose your job, most people will leave the union, so those who the union isn't able to help and might be disgruntled about its leadership the most dont usually vote in the election of its leadership

As for Len McCluskey, if people are put off by him there is a simple solution - join another union. The RMT is the biggest transport union but they are a bit too militant for my liking (and they are not affiliated to the Labour Party) so I joined the TSSA instead.

[oldfordie]

If Labour win this election then they would have done it despite having Corbyn as leader not because they have Corbyn as leader. the same applys to the Torys and May.
The lead up to this election has now taken an unexpected turn, the Torys arrognace has brought this about. the old trust us soundbites result in laughter, long may it continue, they gone far too long plahing the Trus us card while ripping the country apart.

[classycarra]

Low turnout isn't specific to Unite, in my union (the TSSA) our leadership contest drew a similar low turnout recently. Most members don't care, they want their pay and conditions protected and that's about all. The other thing worth remembering is that if your at the sharp end of job losses and you lose your job, most people will leave the union, so those who the union isn't able to help and might be disgruntled about its leadership the most dont usually vote in the election of its leadership

As for Len McCluskey, if people are put off by him there is a simple solution - join another union. The RMT is the biggest transport union but they are a bit too militant for my liking (and they are not affiliated to the Labour Party) so I joined the TSSA instead.

Good point about the most disgruntled being unlikely to remain to fight against senior leadership.

I didn't mean to suggest it was only Unite affected, but McCluskey was the most prominent example I could think of (with my limited knowledge of these things). Cheers for the insight into your Union too.

[B0151?]

Moving to this thread

Yes and no. Whatever happens the Party needs to review where it is and how it moves forward. If Labour do well it's largely because May and the Tories completely fucked this up, not a vindication of his leadership and his team.

Corbyn's done better than expected but that was from a low bar. His popularity and confidence in his ability to run the country is still below May's. The bottom line is that Labour need to win elections, not just reduce the Tories majority. There are already things to take from the campaign but we need an in-depth review of all areas of the party.

I mean there's no guarantee there will even be a reduced majority is there? Even in Labour's best poll they are 3% behind which is still in the margin of error lines of 2015 result. And that's ignoring the polls that are much less kind. Of course there's still time to further improve that, but there are some already taking for granted that Corbyn will do better than Miliband.

It seems like there will be an increase in the percentage of vote share but that certainly shouldn't be used for Corbyn to stay on if it doesn't translate into any extra seats. With the boundary changes for next election then the imperative of winning Tory seats is only bigger.

Once the election started being about policies then Labour started catching up. Corbyn was the reason they had to play such a big catch up. It seems like the public have responded well to the populist left manifesto, so that should definitely be taken into account (although, you'd have to look at did the public respond well to the manifesto in the seats that Labour need to win?). As should Corbyn's ability to increase the turnout of people who didn't vote in the last election, if that's what happens. He may well have moved Labour to the left. It's him and his baggage that have gotten in the way. Labour should never have been so far behind in the first place.

[Billy Elliot]

Moving to this thread

I mean there's no guarantee there will even be a reduced majority is there? Even in Labour's best poll they are 3% behind which is still in the margin of error lines of 2015 result. And that's ignoring the polls that are much less kind. Of course there's still time to further improve that, but there are some already taking for granted that Corbyn will do better than Miliband.

It seems like there will be an increase in the percentage of vote share but that certainly shouldn't be used for Corbyn to stay on if it doesn't translate into any extra seats. With the boundary changes for next election then the imperative of winning Tory seats is only bigger.

Once the election started being about policies then Labour started catching up. Corbyn was the reason they had to play such a big catch up. It seems like the public have responded well to the populist left manifesto, so that should definitely be taken into account (although, you'd have to look at did the public respond well to the manifesto in the seats that Labour need to win?). As should Corbyn's ability to increase the turnout of people who didn't vote in the last election, if that's what happens. He may well have moved Labour to the left. It's him and his baggage that have gotten in the way. Labour should never have been so far behind in the first place.

I agree, but if Corbyn wants to stand again and gets enough nominations there shouldn't be any fannying around this time.  Although his communication is quite poor, if none of the other candidates give the left a voice he'll still get my vote.

[youll never walk alone it]

If anyone thinks labour can get most seats they are 10/1 ish for that, it was about 30/1  about 6-8 weeks ago.

[Libertine]

@georgeeaton
Former Tory aide: "Whoever's done Corbyn's media training has done a fucking good job."

[Lush is the best medicine...]

@georgeeaton
Former Tory aide: "Whoever's done Corbyn's media training has done a fucking good job."

as good as he's been, why has there been this improvement now? Can remember mcdonnell said at the conference they were planning for a summer election this year so why not start all this then?

[Libertine]

as good as he's been, why has there been this improvement now? Can remember mcdonnell said at the conference they were planning for a summer election this year so why not start all this then?

As someone else mentioned, campaigning like this does play to his strengths - it's the tough day to day job of opposition (or god forbid government) where he struggles.

[Lush is the best medicine...]

As someone else mentioned, campaigning like this does play to his strengths - it's the tough day to day job of opposition (or god forbid government) where he struggles.

true but surely he'd love year round campaigning, think of the lieu days he would earn!

[Zeb]

Angela Rayner's been doing some good interviews to the Guardian (and Owen Jones). Importance of Sure Start to her as a teen mum and how giving that help and additional chances to people changes lives. Sure Start was always one of those things which was the right thing to do even if the immediate evidence of benefit was difficult to measure. If we're looking at holistic approaches to social problems and even physical and mental ill health then it begins with things like Sure Start to help parents and kids. It's the sort of thing only a Labour government is capable of delivering.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/01/labour-shadow-education-secretary-sure-start

Under the last Labour government, Sure Start changed my life, the lives of my children, and the lives of countless children and families across Britain. And a vote for Labour on 8 June will mean that the next Labour government can continue to do the same.

Interview with Owen Jones, and Guardian comment on her article:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/01/angela-rayner-labour-will-boost-sure-start-services-that-changed-my-life?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

[ShakaHislop]

Fresh bid to oust Unite union boss Len McCluskey

A bid to oust Len McCluskey as the leader of the Unite union is to be launched later.

The trade union regulator will be asked to rule that Unite's recent general secretary election - which Mr McCluskey won by 5,500 votes - was invalid.

The defeated candidate in the contest, Gerard Coyne, says his supporters suffered bullying and intimidation.

A spokeswoman for Unite said its members would be deeply disappointed by the timing of the announcement.

Mr Coyne's complaint is a challenge to one of Labour's most important power brokers days before the general election.

Mr Coyne says he was the victim of repeated harassment and interference by union employees loyal to Mr McCluskey.

Unite employees repeatedly breached guidelines that meant they should have been neutral in the contest to be general secretary, he said.

He told the Today Programme on BBC Radio 4: "The full weight of the union machine was used against me and as this is not North Korea, we are a democratic country and it's a democratic organisation, then I have the opportunity to call out that activity and the use of that machine to an independent arbiter."

The timing of the challenge was dictated by legal requirements, not the general election, he said.

But a Unite spokesman said: "Unite members will be deeply disappointed that Mr Coyne has chosen this critical moment in the fortunes of the labour movement to launch an unnecessary attack on his own union, something which can only help the floundering Tories."

Informing the media first was deplorable, the spokesman added, and Unite was confident the complaint had no merit and the union had conformed with the law.

Mr McCluskey previously said Mr Coyne's campaign amounted to a proxy war against Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn run by a cabal of hostile MPs.

He was re-elected to his position with a reduced majority in April.

Coyne was suspended as a regional officer shortly after voting closed in the general secretary election.

He is to lodge a formal complaint with the certification officer, who oversees trade unions. The officer has the power to order elections should be re-run.

Unite is hugely influential within the Labour party, as a major donor with places on the party's National Executive Committee and a key voice in policy making.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40122571

[Alan_X]

Locked for a clear up. It's fine to disagree and disagree strongly with others. No need for abuse.

Unlocked. Play nice boys and girls.

[JohnnoWhite]

unite made a multi million pound donation so of course they'd have undue amounts of influence on it, had some company given that much to the tories and there were significant parts of the manifesto that benefitted them people on here would be screaming bloody murder

£2.4 million from Unite.  That's our historical working class links - what's all the bloody fuss about? Working people whose affiliated unions support in cash and in kind their traditional political party. We are intrinsically and historically linked since political (as distinct from industrial) organisation was established in 1899/1900 via the LRC. 

Seems to have taken some people by surprise at this particular GE .  .  .  .  surprisingly.

Check out what the Tories get https://www.theguardian.com/politics/partyfunding.

If we're talking who stands to benefit from manifesto pledges etc, take a look at Maggie May's hubby's company Capital Group. Now then , there might be something to be considered very tangibly advantageous to certain analysts in the city when one particular senior executive has such privileged access to the make-up of the Tory manifesto.

[redmark]

Rewatching the Corbyn interview on Peston from this morning. Even after two years of doing televised interviews, he seems totally uncomfortable in these situations. He isn't an inarticulate man as we know from his speeches at rallies - the moment he's actually challenged, though, he slows and you can tell he doesn't want to be there.

 But that's always been the case. As much as I despise the man, McDonnell interviews much better.

(Very late response).

His entire career is built on speaking, uninterrupted, at rallies and meetings. It's why his technique is rather slow and full of context and asides building up to his point - and hates being interrupted. He's improved during the campaign on shortening the context and meanderings, but still doesn't cope well with interruptions - particularly (you can see it on his face) ones he thinks are simplistic.

[Trada]

I was wondering why her T-shirt was blurred out when watching the concert last night.

[Fiasco]

I was wondering why her T-shirt was blurred out when watching the concert last night.

Will be something to do with impartiality and advertising, I would assume. I have watched things on the BBC in the past where clothing logos have been blurred out. That said, other brands were visible. It will be about political impartiality.

[Trada]

Will be something to do with impartiality and advertising, I would assume. I have watched things on the BBC in the past where clothing logos have been blurred out. That said, other brands were visible. It will be about political impartiality.

Yes I agree.

At first I thought maybe her T-shirt was a bit see through but that tells you more about how my mind works.

[SP]

Plus I doubt Nike approved the use of their trademark. It puts the Beeb on dodgy ground so they played it safe.

[killer-heels]

As the other threads are locked the new Ashcroft poll has Tories seats projection to 355, down from 396 last week.